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.
Originally posted by Ahabstar
Originally posted by asmeone2
Other than that, it is not their body. I cringe at the idea that would give a man that kind of rights over a woman's body--especially since, to my knolwedge, there is no safe way to DNA test a fetus before it was born. Think ofa ll the ways that law could be mis-used.
[edit on 19-2-2009 by asmeone2]
Would it be worse than the ways laws are manipulated today? Some women have been known to go the tic-tac route to get men to marry them. Or change their minds and force child support on an unsuspecting father. Or the ever popular 10-15 years later the doorbell rings... surprise!
Sadly there are many ways to make laws created in the spirit of equality and fairness and use the legal system to make a race to the bottom.
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by tezzajw
What would the young girls do, though? Go fool around with guys who have their tubes tied? Become lesbians? Kind of doesn't seem fair.
Originally posted by tezzajw
North Dakota has a bunch of dumb people who have voted on something that they have absolutely no authority over to even justify casting a vote!
Lawmakers in the North Dakota lower house voted 51 to 41 on Tuesday to pass the Personhood of Children Act, which confers the same basic rights on "all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born."
Originally posted by marg6043
Originally posted by tezzajw
North Dakota has a bunch of dumb people who have voted on something that they have absolutely no authority over to even justify casting a vote!
The people were not the ones voting,
Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by spinkyboo
First we have to have a law to decide what is a personal choice.
Originally posted by spinkyboo
Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by spinkyboo
First we have to have a law to decide what is a personal choice.
Yes - I knew that was coming. : )
Originally posted by asmeone2
Originally posted by spinkyboo
Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by spinkyboo
First we have to have a law to decide what is a personal choice.
Yes - I knew that was coming. : )
I don't mean it literally. I just think it's bad logic, even though you meant it sincerely--it would be easy for the PL crowd to put "The fetus is a person therefore it isn't a personal choice" into law.
That's essentially what this bill does, although it's framed around a slightly different technicality.
Originally posted by Amaterasu
Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Amaterasu
Hmmmm.... And how would I narrow these facts down, when they are from studies that looked into the childhood of sociopaths and psychopaths, and found in virtually all of the cases a severe dysfunction in childhood...?
Do you want me to describe every famous 'path's history? Is that the specific you are looking for?
And I believe that you are trying to deny the facts, create misdirection, and throw in a veiled ad hominem... Given that all studies show the truth of my statements, I have to conclude that you have more an agenda than have I.
Not every single non-aborted child is going to grow up in an unloving situation, nor will it be a sociopath or a nutjob.
True. Just 85-90% will receive some neglect and/or abuse. And sociopathic behavior is likely in 60-70%. With some small percentage fitting into the psychopath category. So if we can expect a large number of disfunctional individuals, and a handful of OK individuals, clinging to the hope that one will save the world somehow... How aweful an approach is that? "Let's bring huge numbers into the world to suffer and create a base of twisted people, because we have a one in 50 billion of having a savior born from these we would force to first breath..."
Sounds good to me. Not.
Awesome! I'm so glad that little one is one of the few who are receiving love. But just because you can find an example of a case where all is ok, you cannot generalize (as you accused me of doing!) to all cases.
This isn't always the case, but it's not always the case that the child will be subjected to a life of pain and suffering.
Um... No. Because all studies say so. I might presume you are either dim or baiting me.
And your point? I never said a huge number, or a lot, or any such. I said that "many" are born dead. Granted, percentagewise, that's not a large number, but if you had a pile of all the stillbirths for a year in front of you, you would say "many."
Look at you! You're justifying the damning of many unwanted children to a life of hell, with nothing to suggest that something not viable on its own has any human spirit.
veral factors can account for this. Dr. Philip Ney points out that pregnancy, like sleep, is a biorhythm. If you are awakened in the middle of the night, your body says, "Go back to sleep." Many who abort, therefore, feel the urge to get pregnant again. A biorhythm has been interrupted. Many want a "replacement" or "atonement" baby. Yet once pregnant again, they realize (or someone else makes them realize) that the same circumstances that led to the first abortion are still in place. Hence, another abortion follows. Source
Ahhh. So it's "life" that is important! You careful not to kill any bacteria when brushing your teeth?
Seriously, just because it is life is not enough of a reason to protect it. Else we all would eat nothing.
I see. So just because YOU think a mother should treasure and nurture that makes all mothers behave as you feel they should? You would continue on forcing fetuses to first breath and because YOU think they should be loved and cherished, they will be?
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by asmeone2
Yes they did and so the voters in Colorado, still in Colorado the bill die as the voters didn't support the bill during the elections.
The lawmakers are just that people that make laws, but is up to the senate in the state to aprove the bill before going to the voters in a referendum as that is the only way that they could have the supreme court decision revoke, not by senate vote alone, it has to have the entire support of the voters of the state or at least the majority.
Originally posted by marg6043
Now this part many prolifters will not even dare to argue about, because that is not the agenda the agenda is to control every aspect of women reproduction parts, including their genitals and the womb.