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.

 

Alabama Senate passes nation’s most restrictive abortion ban

page: 19
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

So now you're OK with the restriction, just not the sentence length?

TheRedneck




posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Just pointing out the insanity of the law.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No need; I am quite familiar with legal insanity. It usually starts with someone trying to turn a privilege into a right, or demote a right to a privilege.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I wonder how many of those who voted for this billare trying to find the legal justification to restrict women's travel out of a state. I mean it seems all they would have to do is say well we have reason to believe she intends on getting an abortion so we are not letting her go. We have to protect the baby afterall!!



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dawnstar


Just like you are acting like dead preteen girls is a worthy price to pay because someone hurt your little tender feelings.

Keep sensationalizing and trying to demean your opponents. You're making more of them more determined by the word.

Like I said, when the smoke clears... maybe...

TheRedneck


Sensationalizing. What a comical accusation to make after multiple paragraphs of pompous, self-aggrandizing commentary on what a terrific protector of children you see in yourself.

At least you provided a pretty good example of why pro-choice people aren’t interested in hearing you explain your sense of entitlement to dictate what others do with themselves I guess?



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No one has mentioned anything restricting travel. You went from sensationalizing to fantasizing.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Terrific? No, I only wish. Dedicated? Yes. And like it or not, this time I and those who agree with me WILL be heard. Loudly and clearly.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
I wonder how many of those who voted for this billare trying to find the legal justification to restrict women's travel out of a state. I mean it seems all they would have to do is say well we have reason to believe she intends on getting an abortion so we are not letting her go. We have to protect the baby afterall!!


How can one run off on this imaginary scare tactic of a tangent when Alabama bill has nothing in it that sanctions women who receive an abortion.

DRAMA sans factual evidence.

The bill addresses providers only.

So long as abortion is used primarily as a casual method of birth control and providers selling body parts for who knows what nefarious reasons I'll support the sanctions on providers - buy a case of condoms for heavens sake!


edit on 16-5-2019 by Phoenix because: add comment



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

How can two entities in a symbiotic relationship have equal rights though?
The women has the right to life, she had the right to free movement, she had the right to be healthy or least not be forced by outside forces into an unhealthy lifestyle. And she has responsibilities that she had a feel moral conviction that she must fullfill like earning the money that is being used to provide the kids needs. Chasing after that two year old for the fifth time in a row so he doesn't hurt himself by running into the road or teaching that sharp knife and cutting himself. Or doing the shopping and carrying it into the house. Whatever.
Pregnancies can affect her ability to do Even the most basic of these things.
And the baby has the right not only to life but also a healthy beginning in life. Something which is heavily dependent on the mothers behavior. Do we have the right to monitor her diet? Prevent her from working if we feel its harmful for the baby? Tell her she can't carry her own groceries into the house when there's no one to do it for her? If her pregnancy becomes complicated and requires an extended stay in the hospital lest she miscarry should we force her into the hospital when there's no child care option available outside of the foster care system? Should those who are dependent on this women also have their rights acknowledged?
Is this law coming even close to addressing any of these conflict of rights or is it just placing the rights of the fetus above all others,



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No...........

The law as it were addresses only providers - how do you not get the distinction.

Its making your reasoning appear as gobbledy gook with no intellectual engagement, rather emotive instead.

The Alabama bill clearly addresses and sanctions only providers and hate to say but SC already has set precedent on a states right to do so.

Gotta credit those dumb hicks in Alabama as they've check mated the "pro" infanticide movement quite adroitly.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


The women has the right to life

I didn't know pregnancy was considered a terminal disease? Besides, risk to the mother is one of the exceptions.

And you keep trying to say this makes receiving an abortion illegal. Read Phoenix's post above. It doesn't. All it means is that abortion providers are not allowed to kill babies for convenience. Do you even know what you are arguing for?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


Gotta credit those dumb hicks in Alabama as they've check mated the "pro" infanticide movement quite adroitly.

I think that's what's got everyone in an uproar. We're supposed to be unsophisticated morons down here, and looky, looky what we did to the sophisticated geniuses!

I think right about now people who are so pro-abortion are beginning to realize they just lost to us "hicks" and they don't know what to do. So they do what they always do... make things worse. It's almost too easy...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Not really judges have restrcted the free movement by throwing women in a jail cell just to make sure that they would up and go into labor at a different hospital using a different doctor because after the doctor told them she just has to have a c-section she didn't want to have.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Care to cite those cases?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

I haven't actually read the Bill have you? And I am reading different things in the reports. But one did include what I tool as the actual wording and the wording was anyone who provides or assists in an abortion. A mother who is buying abortion drugs online for her daughter or driving her to another state where it is legal is assisting that minor in getting an abortion isn't she?



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

Not really judges have restrcted the free movement by throwing women in a jail cell just to make sure that they would up and go into labor at a different hospital using a different doctor because after the doctor told them she just has to have a c-section she didn't want to have.


But....but.....did they throw the doctor in jail? that'd be relevant to the subject, now if I were a member of a medical association I'd be clamoring for case to be heard at SC level as I'd actually have standing. However, one must also realize if SC were to ignore its own precedent then chaos may ensue.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Care to cite in the NY state law where just anyone can get an abortion moments after birth,



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

That's another thing that I an reading different things on. Some say it allows only when the women life is threatened others are saying it allows for when the pregnancy is posing a serious health danger to the mother.
In either case though I think with a 90 year prison sentence hanging over the doctor he's liable to prefer to risk a malpractice suit



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Phoenix

I haven't actually read the Bill have you? And I am reading different things in the reports. But one did include what I tool as the actual wording and the wording was anyone who provides or assists in an abortion. A mother who is buying abortion drugs online for her daughter or driving her to another state where it is legal is assisting that minor in getting an abortion isn't she?


See now talking sense, unintended consequences and such that'll stand some chance of litigation.

I can't see someone doing something extraterritorial thats legal in one jurisdiction getting charged for it in another jurisdiction where illegal.

If this were done then a video showing someone doing mushrooms in Denver or smoking marijuana would get charged and convicted in Alabama.

I don't thing jumping jurisdictions is a practical nor legal move in majority of situations, might be a few exceptions where federal law prevails but not in this matter at all.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


I haven't actually read the Bill have you?

Ask and ye shall receive:

Full text of The Alabama Human Life Protection Act of 2019 from AL.com

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join