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: 15
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerpetualSeeker
Well, I guess if that happened and one wanted to press charges. They would be harming the mother first which in turn causes harm to the unborn child.


Ok just so we're clear...

If a mother causes her child to be born with severe brain damage through gross negligence/irresponsibility she should or shouldn't be punished? If someone else causes it they should or shouldn't be punished (for the harm caused to the child)?

It isn't always necessary for someone to "press charges."

In any case, my position is that the negligence itself should be punished (even if the baby turns out to be fine).


Originally posted by PerpetualSeeker
My point was about the death certificates. Again, in my case my pregnancy was never ever going to be a child no matter what I did. It was just a defect in the process and the process continued with the miscarriage.


Were you asking me if I think death certificates should be issued for miscarraiges? No.
edit on 23-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

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




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by Cuervo

I challenge anybody to find a direct reference to abortion in the bible. I think the Christian/abortion connection is an intentional one meant to further polarize the public. If people with faith are charged with a greater respect for life, does the opposite hold true on pro-choice people?

That label (not respecting life) sounds bad to the pro-choice folks so instead the pro-life folks are simply accused of being unthinking zealots... and then people like this Bobby Franklin guy comes along and happily plays the role of the "self-righteous christian" everybody loves to hate.

Unless you are talking about a mandated respect for creation, Christianity has nothing to do with abortion issues. To make that connection is just begging for straw-man type arguments.



The Bible does tell us that we should take personal responsibility and endure the consequences of our actions. That means that if we have sex and get pregnant, we follow suit. That is respect for life in itself.
I don't care about labels. Was I labeling?
"Unless..." That's the point. The Bible makes the point to take personal responsibility. Personal responsibility can be applied to all happenings in life, including the topic of abortion. So how can you claim Christianity has nothing to do with abortion issues then? Life is life. Life has to do with life.

I am not begging for ...any kind of logical argument. I made a statement. I said no thing either against or for any human being except to imply that the representative in question is manipulating for his personal gain.

And the only step to take to prevent this stuff from happening is for people to take personal responsibility by making better choices for themselves instead of relying on manipulators to earn a platform and then legislate your life.

Now that I have said what I already said... in a different way... am I okay now?


Wow, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to direct that to you; it's just that you mentioned it so I went off on what I did. What I was referring to was the label that both parties put on each other and that they both do so in order to avoid the question of whether or not:Pro-choice = disrespect for life or Pro-life = disrespect for rights. Neither of those equations are unwaveringly true.

Again, I wasn't accusing you of any of that. Go back and read my confusing drivel and you might see what I meant.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
I am done discussing this with you since you are failing to realize the point that this proposal infringes on the rights of pregnant (or formerly pregnant as the case may be) that are not doing anything to cause a miscarriage based on the fact that only some women are willfully participating in undesirable behaviors that endanger their unborn children. These women are the exception, not the rule. Flip that around and maybe I could see how the legislation would be beneficial.


I support punishing willful negligence and abuse inflicted upon the unborn that can lead to brain damage and other horrific health problems.

The fact that most women don't do this is completely irrelevent. Most people don't rape, kill, steal etc. etc. but those things are still severely punished.


Originally posted by daryllyn
I still want to see a source for the "many negligent women" you are talking about. So, please locate one and post it.


Like I said, change the word many to some if it makes you feel better. There are no reliable statistics on how common it is because... no one really cares right now because it's perfectly legal.

If it's incredibly rare that's wonderful, but just because something is rare doesn't mean that it shouldn't be punished (most really horrific crimes are relatively rare).



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Oh good grief, I never asked you specifically a question in the first place. I just put my post out to thread in general. You replied to me not even addressing the question I put out there.

I thought the purpose of this thread was about the proposed law to investigate all miscarriages in order to find the cause of death...to issue a death certificate. Not about brain damaged children caused by the abuse of the mother or someone else.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

Do you think It's partly our fault for not paying enough attention to these "smaller" elections? We see the signs go up a few weeks before the elections, and we go and vote and then act surprised at how many unopposed candidates there are, but then do we do anything? No. And we should. Grrr...I'm a bit miffed at myself at the moment for all of that.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerpetualSeeker
I thought the purpose of this thread was about the proposed law to investigate all miscarriages in order to find the cause of death...to issue a death certificate. Not about brain damaged children caused by the abuse of the mother or someone else.


My question is very much related because it deals with the issue of whether or not Mother's should be punished for willful negligence toward their unborn offspring. To me it makes very litte sense to hold everyone else to a higher standard than the Mother.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Wow, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to direct that to you; it's just that you mentioned it so I went off on what I did. What I was referring to was the label that both parties put on each other and that they both do so in order to avoid the question of whether or not:Pro-choice = disrespect for life or Pro-life = disrespect for rights. Neither of those equations are unwaveringly true.

Again, I wasn't accusing you of any of that. Go back and read my confusing drivel and you might see what I meant.


You know... I did the same thing in a thread with Benevolent Heretic and had to reinforce that I was only expanding on BH's opinion with my own empassioned rhetoric..........

So I know how it feels! My apologies!



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


That and the fact that churches are a huge political influence in the South, yet they are tax exempt.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


That and the fact that churches are a huge political influence in the South, yet they are tax exempt.


Everytime I hear of spiritual appointees getting involved with politics, I think, "Oops. They're useless now."



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 

I believe we covered very early on that there are already laws in many states that cover the kind of neglect and even feticide you may be talking about (which most here seem to agree is relatively rare in the vast majority of miscarriages)—at least by the sane standards in place today. A law like this, aside from being logistically prohibitive, could also push these existing laws to the insane and open the door to far, far worse. That's the actual point here.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 

If a women has a brain damaged child due to alcohol or drug abuse then she should have consequences.

But every women should not be put through the process of being treated like a potential criminal by having every miscarriage investigated.

Should every parent be investigated because some abuse their children?
Should every man be investigated because some abuse their wives?
Should every women be investigated because some abuse their husbands?
Should every adult be investigated because some are child sex offenders?

That is what this law to me is saying....since some miscarriages are caused by abuse/neglect than all should be investigated.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

Yes, that tax exemption and influencing politics is one that needs to be scrutinized. Thing is, they have the right to run as individuals and their "campaign" funding isn't always traceable back to the "church," though the ideology might be Seems like it's an end-run around the existing laws in a few ways. They're also smart in taking total advantage of voting in a block and count on us not noticing.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Ran across this tangentially related article. Can you imagine this scenario even worse? Miscarrying, being denied treatment already, and being questioned about your potential roll by the miscarriage "accusers" on top of it all?
Denied Treatment for Pregnancy Complications: Could This Happen To You

Take action: www.nwlc.org... In November 2010, a woman in southern Arizona who was fifteen weeks pregnant with twins miscarried one at home. She went to the only hospital available, a Catholic-affiliated hospital, for treatment, only to be told that the miscarriage could not be completed because the remaining fetus still had a heartbeat. According to her treating doctor, nothing could be done to save the fetus, and without treatment the woman was at risk of hemorrhaging or developing a life threatening infection. Yet she was sent eighty miles away for treatment, because hospital administrators considered completing an inevitable miscarriage to be an abortion.


reply to post by TarzanBeta
 

Ha. Empathy here too. Must be the way our brains work...I've agreed with you so now let me agree harder.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I believe we covered very early on that there are already laws in many states that cover the kind of neglect and even feticide


Really? Can you cite some?

Is it illegal for a pregnant woman to get drunk every day? I think it should be.
edit on 23-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
This is terrible!



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PerpetualSeeker
But every women should not be put through the process of being treated like a potential criminal by having every miscarriage investigated.


I agree.


Originally posted by PerpetualSeeker
Should every parent be investigated because some abuse their children?
Should every man be investigated because some abuse their wives?
Should every women be investigated because some abuse their husbands?
Should every adult be investigated because some are child sex offenders?


Of course not but those questions aren't really analagous.

It's much more analgous to ask "Should every death be investigated?" or "Should every fire be investigated?" or "Should every accident be investigated?" The "event" has occured, you aren't just randomly investigating people.

In the case of misacarraiges it obviously isn't practical.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans


In the case of misacarraiges it obviously isn't practical.


Hey it only took you fifteen pages to actually get to the point of the thread after you derailed it with the Pregnant Women Should Have Their Behavior Regulated According To My Concept Of Morality and Rape Victims Aren't Really Victims Usually... Sometimes... Maybe spiels. Congratulations for finally getting back on task though.

Now, the disclaimer...

The following is just my opinion:

I have never said this in a discussion before (online or not) ever, and this is the last thing I will say to you because you aren't worth more cyber space, but you are an idiot. An honest to goodness, plain-as-day Moron. I mean jaw-dropping, outstanding, mean spirited, emotionally constipated, stupid.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

[color=deepskyblue]
How can they be so sure that the remaining twin would have been miscarried?

My youngest son started out with a twin. I miscarried the twin and was given a poor prognosis for the remaining twin (they called it a "threatened abortion"), given progesterone supplements, and put on bed rest. They gave me only a 25% chance of continuing the pregnancy and told me that I was at risk for the duration for premature labor and premature rupture of membranes. The loss of the twin caused a subchorionic hematoma that had affected my remaining baby's placenta. I had eleven ultrasounds by the 20 week mark, when normally you would have two at that point.

I gave birth to an 8lb baby boy at 37.5 weeks. 100% percent healthy. We actually had to stay an extra day because his umbilical cord was so big that it didn't dry out enough to remove the clamp. For those that don't know, a big (diameter wise) cord means that there was good exchange between mother and child and is considered to be very healthy, a skinny cord is not optimal.

The chances of her carrying the other baby were slim, but not unheard of. I know that because I have been there.

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



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 




In the case of misacarraiges it obviously isn't practical.


Finally.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhorse
Hey it only took you fifteen pages to actually get to the point of the thread after you derailed it with the Pregnant Women Should Have Their Behavior Regulated According To My Concept Of Morality


I believe it's the negligent behavior itself that should be punished (getting drunk while pregnant etc. etc. regardless of any effect on the unborn). I don't believe every miscarraige should be investigated.

This is what I've said all along and it's a perfectly relevant response to the thread.

Yes, everyone's behavior is regulated that's the point of laws. To protect one person from causing harm to another. When a pregnant women gets drunk every day for example, she is acting in a reckless, irresponsible manner that should be punished by the law to protect others from injury.

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



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join