It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Georgia Abortion Bill

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I also noticed a clause in there that declared unborn babies as persons for the purpose of representation in some instances... not 100% sure what that's about, but considering the rest of the bill, I doubt it's good news.

TheRedneck




posted on May, 8 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm

You know I could actually support a law like this IF, every Georgia politician follows it. That means, no abortions
for their mistresses, for their daughters or wives. I wonder how many abortions our presidents have paid for.



They can always go to another state....Hell just go to NY and kill it as it comes out. You bring up a good point that these things are always good unless it actually affects the person agreeing with it.

Just like Liberals who want some green socialized system, well until they need to pay for it too. Reminds me of the group that went to Berkeley asking people if they want to redistribute wealth and they were all for it until they were asked would they be willing to also redistribute their grades of A to people with Fs so ALL could have Cs...and they were like AH HELL NO!!!


edit on 8-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




What are you doing Georgia?

Looking to overturn Roe v Wade in what they seem to think is a friendly SCOTUS, obviously.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Looking to overturn Roe v Wade in what they seem to think is a friendly SCOTUS, obviously.


Do you think that is even a possibility, I don't. The one grey area that keeps coming up over and over is when is it too far in the pregnancy to choose abortion. I think the fact is that abortions are here to stay and is a dead horse the Left loves to kick ever four years, but what people feel are reasonable limits runs the full spectrum from morning after pill to abortion and birthday being the same.


edit on 8-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Do you think that is even a possibility, I don't.
Some do.

Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what’s going to be — that will happen and that will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.

www.yahoo.com...



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero




Do you think that is even a possibility, I don't.
Some do.

Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what’s going to be — that will happen and that will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.

www.yahoo.com...



I asked do you? Some people believe anything about everything too... I'm more interested in what you think on this. To ignore the mountain of rulings, votes, opinions, decisions, papers, and so on that have all help set 40 years of legal precedent in establishing an extremely rock solid principle that Roe vs Wade will never be over ruled is something that even Roberts said would be basically impossible to over come.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think the SCOTUS is capable of making bad decisions, yes. I think Roe v Wade could be overturned or modified to severely affect its original intent.

I think this law is an obvious attempt to bring this about since it clearly goes directly against the Roe v Wade decision and is thus aimed directly at the Court. I hope it is futile attempt. I hope the law is shot down.

edit on 5/8/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't think they presently have the numbers thanks to John Robert's susceptibility to whatever dirt they dragged up on him and held over his head like the Sword of Damocles to sway his Obamacare vote. He's not reliable in my opinion... if Ginsberg or Breyer bounce, however... Interestingly enough, and nearly unthinkable these days, the two dissentions in Roe V Wade were Byron White and William Rehnquist. White was a politically liberal SCOTUS justice appointed by Kennedy and Rehnquist was a Conservative Justice appointed by Nixon. 5 of the 7 justices who supported that abortion of justice were Republican nominees (albeit 3 of them were Nixon appointees and his politics look decidedly liberal in hindsight) while the other 2 were William Douglas (FDR) and the RIDICULOUSLY liberal Thurgood Marshall (LBJ).

In my relatively short life I've witnessed the country go from the ability and exercise of bipartisanship and the ability to accept losing a Congressional vote that falls beneath the "filibuster" threshold to zero bipartisanship and now it seems even simple bills require 60% support or some idiotic asshole in DC filibusters and obstructs. In addition, even the courts seem less and less able to display any degree of bipartisanship (except where granting extraconstitionally mandated new authorities to the federal government are concerned, and then all justices involved fall all over themselves to kiss Uncle Sam's stank ass.) It's a bit saddening. That said, it's what we have to work with so I honestly would like to see an additional pro-life justice or two seated before this goes before them again.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think the SCOTUS is capable of making bad decisions, yes.


You of course realize the opposite side you're talking to agrees with this, only we feel Roe v Wade was an example of the SCOTUS making a bad decision, yes?



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

I think this law is an obvious attempt to bring this about since it clearly goes directly against the Roe v Wade decision and is thus aimed directly at the Court. I hope it is futile attempt. I hope the law is shot down.


I don't agree in the severity of one state deciding to put a more restrictive limit as we have a state like NY that goes the other way. Now if 35 states all went extremely restrictive then I would say the social norms of America are changing and so we could see a change...not happening though and it looks like things are going the other way with social norms having less and less religious influences that tend to go against abortions.


edit on 8-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think the SCOTUS is capable of making bad decisions, yes.


You of course realize the opposite side you're talking to agrees with this, only we feel Roe v Wade was an example of the SCOTUS making a bad decision, yes?

You have a fine way of stating the obvious.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I think the SCOTUS is capable of making bad decisions, yes. I think Roe v Wade could be overturned or modified to severely affect its original intent.

I don't think the original intent of Roe vs. Wade is in effect any more anyway. It's one thing to say women should have a reasonable opportunity to abort unwanted pregnancies... it is quite another thing, in my opinion, to extend that to partial birth abortion (homicide) being some sort of right, allowing non-licensed practitioners to perform medical procedures without hospital residency, and promote an organization with tax money that literally preys on women (Planned Parenthood) regardless of anything they do.

Some clarification of Roe vs. Wade is sorely needed to restore some semblance of reason and balance to the issue.


I think this law is an obvious attempt to bring this about since it clearly goes directly against the Roe v Wade decision and is thus aimed directly at the Court. I hope it is futile attempt. I hope the law is shot down.

I'm sure this one will be. But perhaps it will also bring back a little of the balance I spoke of. While it is obviously true that one side will do literally anything to criminalize all abortions, it is also true that the other will do anything to push the limits on what can and cannot be considered reasonable.

Roe vs. Wade can be better than it is now... much better. We should try to make it better, not scream and yell insults at people who we think don't agree with everything we say like Soochiechacha. That does nothing but divide and lead to the kind of ridiculousness we saw in New York and Virginia.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

I also noticed a clause in there that declared unborn babies as persons for the purpose of representation in some instances... not 100% sure what that's about, but considering the rest of the bill, I doubt it's good news.

TheRedneck


Apparently, not only are unborn fetuses considered citizens, but that it also requires child support to be paid by the father while they are in the womb.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

Apparently, not only are unborn fetuses considered citizens, but that it also requires child support to be paid by the father while they are in the womb.



It is interesting the same unborn can be both a baby and a lump of cells all at the same time depending on what the mother feels like to call it with full legal ramification or not either way she goes.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


Good thing we're not like those silly Iranian's with their Mullah's and religious law and that there is no way right wingers would ever support deliberately circumventing the constitution to create a special class of people who have less rights, eh?



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Ya know, I did my duty and had 2 kids, called it done & had a tubal ligation. And I'm tired of arguing nice about my ability to choose an abortion if my tubal ever fails.

Screw off.
All of you anti-abortionists, screw. off.

I did THE MOST IRON-CLAD BIRTH CONTROL SHORT OF A HYSTERECTOMY. And it has a risk of failure. If it fails, I do not want a third kid. Period, end of discussion, and I don't want another birth to "help" somebody else have a family, either. That's not a contract job, you're not paying me for that. Even if it was, I'm not keen on pregnancy. It wasn't bad, but not worth a third time, either.

Once again, I'm done having kids. I'm not having more just because some my-way-or-the-highway braindead Helen Lovejoy-wannabe thinks I should put up with the end result of a tubal failure. Screw off. This is not up to you, and never should be.
edit on 5/8/2019 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Point of order on Roe vs. Wade:

This case does not give women the right to an abortion. It had two parts:

1) In RvW the majority of SCOTUS said that states could not summarily prohibit women from seeking out valid medical procedures that would save their life, even if such a procedure could terminate a pregnancy, and that abortions could not be summarily restricted by States. The SCOTUS went on to advise that (in their opinion) a fetus was not viable until 24 weeks(?) and therefore based on medical science of the time an abortion at 24 weeks or earlier should not be prohibited.

2) At the same time, the SCOTUS recognized that States have a compelling interest in protecting the lives of children who cannot protect themselves, therefore they should maintain the right to regulate the abortion procedure.

So the State of Georgia is attempting to regulate the abortion procedure within its jurisdiction. Civil rights advocates are pushing back. We'll see what happens.

But the soundbite 'Right to an abortion' is just that, a soundbite. It's not a truth nor enshrined in the Constitution.
edit on 8-5-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Ya know, I did my duty and had 2 kids, called it done & had a tubal ligation. And I'm tired of arguing nice about my ability to choose an abortion if my tubal ever fails.

Screw off.
All of you anti-abortionists, screw. off.

I did THE MOST IRON-CLAD BIRTH CONTROL SHORT OF A HYSTERECTOMY. And it has a risk of failure. If it fails, I do not want a third kid. Period, end of discussion, and I don't want another birth to "help" somebody else have a family, either. That's not a contract job, you're not paying me for that. Even if it was, I'm not keen on pregnancy. It wasn't bad, but not worth a third time, either.

Once again, I'm done having kids. I'm not having more just because some my-way-or-the-highway braindead Helen Lovejoy-wannabe thinks I should put up with the end result of a tubal failure. Screw off. This is not up to you, and never should be.


I hope your kids never learn they won the biology lottery or that you called them a 'duty', that's pretty harsh. As an adoptee born in 1972 from a 16-year old girl abandoned by the father, I'm grateful she chose life instead of her own convenience. So is my wife and child.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Nyiah
Ya know, I did my duty and had 2 kids, called it done & had a tubal ligation. And I'm tired of arguing nice about my ability to choose an abortion if my tubal ever fails.

Screw off.
All of you anti-abortionists, screw. off.

I did THE MOST IRON-CLAD BIRTH CONTROL SHORT OF A HYSTERECTOMY. And it has a risk of failure. If it fails, I do not want a third kid. Period, end of discussion, and I don't want another birth to "help" somebody else have a family, either. That's not a contract job, you're not paying me for that. Even if it was, I'm not keen on pregnancy. It wasn't bad, but not worth a third time, either.

Once again, I'm done having kids. I'm not having more just because some my-way-or-the-highway braindead Helen Lovejoy-wannabe thinks I should put up with the end result of a tubal failure. Screw off. This is not up to you, and never should be.


I hope your kids never learn they won the biology lottery or that you called them a 'duty', that's pretty harsh. As an adoptee born in 1972 from a 16-year old girl abandoned by the father, I'm grateful she chose life instead of her own convenience. So is my wife and child.


Seriously? Are you really that much of a snowflake? Choosing parenthood and following through is a duty, a definite obligation to commit. Whether or not someone succeeds massively, or fails miserably is beside the point. Dropping a baby off at the foster home/orphanage/etc isn't much of one, it's scraping bottom. There is a major difference between choosing to be a willing parent, and not. Forcing other 16 year olds -- hell, people of any age -- to exist as brood mares despite protest would not be doing anyone any favors, would it? That's not a duty, not an obligation. That's making them breeding property to live by your whim.

Yeah, I did my duty as a parent, still doing it in fact (10 and 11) So are you. And the word is accurate.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Nyiah
Ya know, I did my duty and had 2 kids, called it done & had a tubal ligation. And I'm tired of arguing nice about my ability to choose an abortion if my tubal ever fails.

Screw off.
All of you anti-abortionists, screw. off.

I did THE MOST IRON-CLAD BIRTH CONTROL SHORT OF A HYSTERECTOMY. And it has a risk of failure. If it fails, I do not want a third kid. Period, end of discussion, and I don't want another birth to "help" somebody else have a family, either. That's not a contract job, you're not paying me for that. Even if it was, I'm not keen on pregnancy. It wasn't bad, but not worth a third time, either.

Once again, I'm done having kids. I'm not having more just because some my-way-or-the-highway braindead Helen Lovejoy-wannabe thinks I should put up with the end result of a tubal failure. Screw off. This is not up to you, and never should be.


I hope your kids never learn they won the biology lottery or that you called them a 'duty', that's pretty harsh. As an adoptee born in 1972 from a 16-year old girl abandoned by the father, I'm grateful she chose life instead of her own convenience. So is my wife and child.


Seriously? Are you really that much of a snowflake? Choosing parenthood and following through is a duty, a definite obligation to commit. Whether or not someone succeeds massively, or fails miserably is beside the point. Dropping a baby off at the foster home/orphanage/etc isn't much of one, it's scraping bottom. There is a major difference between choosing to be a willing parent, and not. Forcing other 16 year olds -- hell, people of any age -- to exist as brood mares despite protest would not be doing anyone any favors, would it? That's not a duty, not an obligation. That's making them breeding property to live by your whim.

Yeah, I did my duty as a parent, still doing it in fact (10 and 11) So are you. And the word is accurate.


Children are not a duty. Children are a blessing and responsibility.

I stand by my statements. If you think casually throwing around 'snowflake' makes your rebuttal stronger, that's on you.

...'brood mares'... oy vey.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join