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.

 

Yikes! The Uterus Police!

page: 11
88
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


I totally agree because you are supposed to be innocent till PROVEN guilty




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dalloway
 


That's actually not a bad idea. Some kind of rudimental artificial utero already exists, if I remember correctly. We'll get there eventually.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Are you kidding me?

lets say this Bill is passed by congess the bill itself is a violation of your human rights

your right to privacy ,

your right to have an abortion or a miscarriage

Uterus police???? get real people ...

are these so called Uterus cops also obgyns? will they insist on looking in your uterus at any given time anywere.?

will they use this bill as an crappy exucse for rape on a mass scale?

good god ..



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
*shakes head* theyve all gone mad over there... Its time they stopped dictating to everyone how to live, what to do, what to think.. Westerners are becoming slaves of the state.. It goes beyond too far when they want to do what those bills propose.. It shows the "leaders" think of the public as nothing more than property.. Too many things that can - and sometimes do go wrong during pregnancies or just after birth and parents lose the child even with the best medical treatment in the world it happens. Worst thing in the world is for a parent to lose a child .. Last thing they need at such a time is some braindead government minion giving them hassle over it.. Old Roman Saying : having no laws is better than having bad laws.. Hope havent sidetrack your thread good thread as always S&F
edit on 23-2-2011 by Expat888 because: Dancing Gremlins...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


The problem is, either he is arrested and socially conditioned or he is allowed to express himself and then grows in to a killing machine at school in his later days. The authorites cannot win, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. ATS is an unfair playground sometimes.

I say throw the book at him and put him a rehibilitation centre for 'disturbed' children. When I was his age I was drawing a big sun in the top right of the paper and a little house below with a pond. Not, I repeat not holding a gun threatening to kill teachers!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
I had always pondered what it would like to be on a squad called the Uterus Police, but babies and fetuses wasn't exactly what I had in mind. It was more like.......(starting up the record player with some smooth seventies music) I would be a cop and the girl would like in some distress, yeah, she would have a uterus that was in distress........... [:>/ .....
well, let's just say that I don't want to be one anymore. Gross, babies that haven't been cooked all the way.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Weeeel, I just heard a news update that said that some babies are being born with tremors or other withdrawal symptoms they think are from the preggie mom taking anti-psychotic meds. Soooo, let's start with making these docs who prescribe meds like this to preggie women responsible, as they are supposed to know the indications.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JewelFlip
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


The problem with this line of thought, and understand that I said before I find the behavior repugnant, is that there are a number of other substances with teratogenic effects. Should there be laws against women eating undercooked meat, deli meats, smoked fish, fish of any kind, Raw shellfish, soft cheese, pate, and unwashed vegetables? What about caffeine? Once you open that can of worms, there are so many things that come out at you. Medication, food and beverage choices, lifestyle choices, the list is endless. It is up to the woman, and her partner if she has one to choose to create the best environment for the developing fetus.

The idea that you're putting forward makes the woman who looses the child responsible for something she may have no control over, sometimes you're exposed without knowing it too. Maybe women should be sent to breeding centers so that environment can be controlled? I think personal responsibility is key when it comes to pregnancy, but if something goes wrong you could end up persecuting a woman who had no control over the factors that caused the problem.
edit on 22-2-2011 by JewelFlip because:

edit on 22-2-2011 by JewelFlip because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I know I won't be very popular for saying this, but I do believer that any one claiming rape, should be considered a "rape-accuser" as opposed to a "victim", at least until their accusations can be proven. With that being said, a label is a label is a label and it shouldn't matter what label someone issues to you. Instead, it's how one is treated.

If someone claims rape, they should be treated as anyone else who claims that a crime has been committed against them or their property. Thus, someone claiming rape should be consider a rape accuser, as opposed to a rape victim until and unless their accusations have been proven.

We should never forget that in this country and any other country that pretends to champion liberty and justice, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. By automatically considering anyone yelling rape as a victim, you are instead, at least in most cases, stripping the presumption of innocence for the accused.

In fact, many people accusing rape aren't victims at all and instead it turns out they are criminals (though very rarely are they ever held accountable for their crimes), as some very sick and vindictive individuals use such an accusation as a weapon.

We need not forget that the burden of proof is on the accuser and that is exactly how it should be. By automatically inducting a rape accuser in the "victim" category, you are shifting the burden of proof on the accused, which is wrong on almost every level and it makes it nearly impossible for the accused to mount a successful defense, as s/he is already deemed guilty in most cases by deeming the accuser a victim.

Far too many times, rape allegations have been leveled for one nefarious purpose or another and I shouldn't have to explain how it absolutely ruins the life of the accused, innocent or not. The sad reality is that all too often women accuse men of rape for either some vindictive or financial gain and I think we are all wise enough to know that when someone is accused of rape, they are automatically found guilty in the minds of everyone until and only if they are able to prove their innocence.

This is at least in part due to the classification of rape-accusers as rape-victims. All in all, because the burden of proof should be on the accuser, I personally consider anyone accusing rape as a rape-accuser, as opposed to a rape victim until the rape has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, which also doesn't happen that often. The bar for the burden of proof for such a crime seems be lowered substantially, which in turns equates to a lot of ruined lives for people who are otherwise innocent of the crime for which they are being accused.

It's pretty simple. If you are accusing someone of a crime, regardless of the crime, there should be a presumption of innocence and the accuser should be considered just that, an accuser. At least until proven otherwise.


--airspoon



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikappa
reply to post by Vicky32
 


You don't seem to understand how the male body works, at all. Educate yourself.

Of course I know how the male body works! I have been married and I have 3 sons.
Your point is?
Vicky



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Patriarchy has several faces. It's joke is just saying hello. Dominance over the creation process all over this one dares to conquer this concept.

Prepare for war unborn child if you get a chance to come in this shot.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


POLICE STATE?

Corect me if I'm wrong...

en.wikipedia.org...
" The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[3] "

Better off in woods...
Chukchi people


edit on 23-2-2011 by leaualorin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


Oh yes, it does. Actual scientific studies show it. Your third child would be even more intelligent if you did not smoke during pregnancy. Anecdotal evidence is inferior compared to scientific studies. Irresponsible mothers like you are shining example of why laws against smoking and drinking while pregnant are needed.


en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 22/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


If my mother smoked during pregnancy, I would be seriously pissed.
edit on 22/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

So, by you, my mother's five children would all be geniuses if she hadn't smoked?
Almost everyone in my generation here (New Zealand) was born to parents who smoked. It seems it's Gen Z, born by and large to non-smokers (who, on the other hand, drink a lot!) who are just not terribly clever..
'V.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32
A man who doesn't want sex can't get an erection.
Fact.
Vicky


LOL you're kidding right?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwise
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


What the blank is your problem? You sound like you plan on taking down every woman in America yourself. Did you have an x miscarry because of drugs or alcohol? You sound like you have a grudge. Personally my uterus is none of your f-ing business!!!! If the government steps in wanting a death certificate because I have a miscarriage, I might as well shoot myself in the head! Because you know that means, ALL IS LOST IN AMERICA! You sound like a damn communist/christian nazi right wing f-ing nutjob! Same with the proposed bill. What the heck is this world coming too???? HELLO WE CANT EVEN BALANCE A BUDGET! OH MY GAWD!!!!! I cant even believe this discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I sound like the nutjob... ?

No I have no grudge I just think if you engage in behavior that can lead someone else to suffer with brain damage, deformities etc. etc. etc. for the rest of their life that their should probably be some legal consequence for you.

Real extreme, I know... but getting arrested for slapping someone makes perfect sense...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




First, I didn't say there was a right to damage a child.


Legal system works such that what is not forbidden is allowed (is a right). I agree that education is the key, but when its not enough, you say a mother has to have a right to damage the child (whether she uses this right or not is another matter entirely). I say she should not.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Vicky32
A man who doesn't want sex can't get an erection.
Fact.
Vicky


LOL you're kidding right?

Are you trying to tell me a man can get an erection when he doesn't want sex, and that then, some evil woman can use that against him?

Sorry, I do believe a man can randomly get an erection, but that then a woman then threaten, cajole and make him use it, and that's rape?
No, that doesn't make sense.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I'm ashamed to be in the same genus as this fool.

I don't know how you Americans stand all the bible stuff being spouted by so many people. I probably would have blown my head off by now.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Vicky32
A man who doesn't want sex can't get an erection.
Fact.
Vicky


LOL you're kidding right?

Are you trying to tell me a man can get an erection when he doesn't want sex, and that then, some evil woman can use that against him?

Sorry, I do believe a man can randomly get an erection, but that then a woman then threaten, cajole and make him use it, and that's rape?
No, that doesn't make sense.


I just wanted to point out that men can get erections when they don't want sex, but it mainly happens when they're in their teens. Actually I was still getting unwanted erections in my early 20's. And they ALWAYS happen 1 minute before you have to stand up. like before the end of class or when you have to get off the bus.

I don't know what you two are debating, but I just wanted to point that out.

I'm on no-ones side, I didn't catch the beginning of your debate.

Have fun, later!
edit on 23-2-2011 by BoneMosaic because: forrmat




top topics



 
88
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join