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.

 

Why Alabama's Abortion Law May Withstand a SCOTUS Review

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Make birth control a law for unmarried and abortion illegal for married with no health problems and the problem is fixed.


It hardly costs anything just to get married. Being married doesn't mean you have awesome genes or the financial/intellectual wherewithal to raise a kid right. Hell, it doesn't even mean you're good looking or have all your teeth, necessarily. I've seen the dumbest people alive get married and have multiple kids and then everyone wondered why the result was such a train wreck.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Apples and oranges, and that's my entire point there, thanks for missing it. Roe v Wade was not the wild west but it did not apply at all to licensed providers. It applied to women and their right to choose. This Alabama law applies to licensed providers, which is already within the court ruled authority of the state,

No court ruling has mandated that every city must have a gun and ammo shop for the convenience of those wishing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights nor have they, to my knowledge, ever heard a case involving such a scenario. When such happens, then we can compare and contrast.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think it is tenuous to say high abortion rates equal less homelessness. I'm not seeing many infants and children on the streets... it's mostly adults who have effed themselves up so badly they'd be better served seeking some of that physician assisted suicide the aforementioned SCOTUS ruled on earlier.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think sex works the way you think it does. There is 7.5 billion people on the planet for a reason. I think when people have sex for whatever reason many times it is NOT because they are thinking straight. The consequences regarding child support usually do not come up in the heat of all of it!

btw, Congress and the President at any time can pass a law banning abortion. We have 3 branches of government. One branch is not stronger than the other two.

Campus vending machines offer emergency contraception

It's just as easy to abort as getting a candy bar!!!



It does work that way. I don't have a "baby mama" for a reason and I got plenty of tail when I was single. I just always wore a condom. It is called personal responsibility something far too many people seem to be lacking these days.

I am not a prude and I don't believe in "waiting to get married", etc. However, I do believe you are responsible for your own actions and birth control is readily available. It is not a secret what happens when you get busy in a burger king bathroom... so you have to take precautions or deal with the consequences.

Knowing a few people that had kids in high school, I was readily aware that 30 minutes of fun could lead to a 18 years of child support. This sh*t ain't rocket science.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think it is tenuous to say high abortion rates equal less homelessness.


You can think what you want about it. I don't care. You can't tell me those homeless people would still be there if they had been aborted.

The point is simple. Some people shouldn't reproduce. And when they do, it usually does not go well for their offspring. That is about the most obvious thing ever. Homelessness is but one example of that. You can also visit a prison and just about everyone you see there should have probably been aborted.


edit on 15-5-2019 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2019 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think it is tenuous to say high abortion rates equal less homelessness.


You can think what you want about it. I don't care. You can't tell me those homeless people would still be there if they had been aborted.

The point is simple. Some people shouldn't reproduce. And when they do, it usually does not go well for their offspring. That is about the most obvious thing ever.


Wow... The Eugenics fueled backstory of abortions and Planned Parenthood rears it ugly head in an ATS thread 100 years after Margaret Sanger opened her first serial killer day spa. Nice. What other folks in this country does your crystal ball tell you would have been better off aborted, great Swami?

The vast majority of homeless in Anchorage are Native Alaskans. www.uaa.alaska.edu... and minorities comprise the lion's share of homeless in the overall USA... tell me more about how they shouldn't have reproduced and things would be better had they been aborted, Dr Sanger.
edit on 15-5-2019 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The vast majority of homeless in Anchorage are Native Alaskans.


Hence, they exist. And therefore, they were born. Thusly, they're homeless because there are more of them than the world wants. You really cannot wiggle your way out of common sense.
edit on 15-5-2019 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
These arguments all become completely irrelevant by the year 2150.

This stuff is garbage for the mind, focus on real issues. Fix what is possible. Petroleum reconstitution takes precedence. After that, everything else is about recovery, reconstruction, and relocation.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Eventually we will reach the day when viability will begin at day 1 with medical advances. I think many championing viability will jump ship then.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

If they are better off not living let us kill them then. That seems to be your suggestion.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Eventually we will reach the day when viability will begin at day 1 with medical advances. I think many championing viability will jump ship then.


What do you mean "championing" viability? Viability means the ability to survive outside the womb. If people can reproduce outside of the uterus, why would pro-choice people be against it?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Liberal news outlets and pundits are in sheer panic over this today.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We have too much BIG government getting involved in every facet of people's lives!



Let me guess... you're for socialized medicine.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because if you can not have an abortion after viability then they would not be able to have one once day 1 became viable.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The vast majority of homeless in Anchorage are Native Alaskans.


Hence, they exist. And therefore, they were born. Thusly, they're homeless because there are more of them than the world wants. You really cannot wiggle your way out of common sense.


That seems to be a very short step from that sentiment to outright defense of genocide.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I am not sure you even need to step. I think you are there.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Having paid attention to this, I am going to disagree with the conclusion that the OP has put out.

This is not a law to celebrate but to fear. When the ACA was being debated, and I did not like that law, the one argument that was made, was that the government would be able to intervene in a persons medical decision, that a medical panel would sit and make decisions and even override a persons decision on medical procedures. The cries of government overreaching was loud and boisterous and people thought it was a bad law for that.

By the passing of this law, it does just that, it puts government overreach and decisions there and does one other thing, it sets up for the loss of something more in the state of Alabama.

The op was only half right about the assessment of Roe V. Wade. While one of the issues was the right for the medical procedure. There was a second issue that was at the heart of that case and that was with the right of Privacy. That privacy between a doctor and a patient, for them to choose and discuss and it go no where else.

What this law did, was in short, remove that privacy in the state, putting all of the population of that state at risk. Right now it is abortion, and the only real way to prevent such would be to have all medical records reviewed, those who are pregnant will have no privacy at all, as now the state will be able to go in and check, and if a woman loses that child, now is a criminal and will be held accountable by the law. Medical science states that 50% of all pregnancies will end in a miscarriage. And that 25% will miscarry later on in the pregnancy. So that means all of the women in the state of Alabama could be placed under arrest for the murder of an unborn child.

So if it stands, it will also create a situation where it is now abused and other groups could be now attacked, and or possibly abused, even to the point of violating a few persons civil rights. I can think of a few groups that could be subject to this, like those with communicable diseases that will alter a persons life.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because if you can not have an abortion after viability then they would not be able to have one once day 1 became viable.


They wouldn't need an abortion. If the embryo is "viable", by definition, it wouldn't need the mother's womb to survive. There would be some procedure either to conceive outside of the uterus, or to remove and transplant the embryo out of the uterus.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I believe the privacy was that of the bedroom, not of that with the physician. If your assessment was true then physician assisted suicide would be legal as well.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

How many single mothers have you seen? Bet there are millions and millions more than you think. How many married women vs unmarried get abortions. I bet it's way less than you think.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join