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: 19
88
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Annee
My daughter did not know she was pregnant until 5 months. She chose to keep her baby - - almost lost him - - had to have an emergency cervical cerclage. He came at 7 months - - he weighted 3 pounds.

We tease her about her 2 month pregnancy.


She sounds very irresponsible. I hope the baby is healthy.


NO - - she is not irresponsible. Your judgement of people is disgusting.

She got her first job at 13 years old doing telemarketing for an insurance company - - and has worked steady ever since - - often working two jobs.

She had a medical condition. She only had a period about twice a year. She was told by two doctors she could never get pregnant.

She met her boyfriend at a Baptist church camp when she was 17. They were together for 6 years - exclusively. She did not use birth control because she was told it was impossible for her to conceive.

She broke up with her boyfriend because she did not think he was maturing as he should. They got back together just one time - - when this miracle pregnancy happened.

She did not drink or use drugs. She was a little overweight and had only mild morning sickness during a time when her co-workers were suffering from the flu.

My miracle grandson is now 17 - - and amazing!




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
NO - - she is not irresponsible. Your judgement of people is disgusting.

She got her first job at 13 years old doing telemarketing for an insurance company - - and has worked steady ever since - - often working two jobs.

She had a medical condition. She only had a period about twice a year. She was told by two doctors she could never get pregnant.

She met her boyfriend at a Baptist church camp when she was 17. They were together for 6 years - exclusively. She did not use birth control because she was told it was impossible for her to conceive.

She broke up with her boyfriend because she did not think he was maturing as he should. They got back together just one time - - when this miracle pregnancy happened.

She did not drink or use drugs. She was a little overweight and had only mild morning sickness during a time when her co-workers were suffering from the flu.

My miracle grandson is now 17 - - and amazing!


I'm very glad to hear that he's healthy. If she had been on some kind of medication she could have really messed him up.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
Being that the rate of FAS is about .2 to 1.5 in 1000 births I seriously doubt that there are as many pregnant woman walking around trashed, as you have been implying.


It's irrelevent how common it is.


Originally posted by searching4truth
It is also not realistic to make all sexual active post puberty women to take a pregnancy test every month before taking herself off of bed rest, you know in case she may be pregnant.


Why would they have to do that?

If you might be pregnant don't get drunk. "If you're pregnant or may become pregnant don't take XX prescription."

If you really want to get drunk or take that prescription that can injure the unborn... and you might be pregnant, than yes... obviously a responsible person would take a pregnancy test before getting drunk or taking the medication.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Annee
NO - - she is not irresponsible. Your judgement of people is disgusting.

She got her first job at 13 years old doing telemarketing for an insurance company - - and has worked steady ever since - - often working two jobs.

She had a medical condition. She only had a period about twice a year. She was told by two doctors she could never get pregnant.

She met her boyfriend at a Baptist church camp when she was 17. They were together for 6 years - exclusively. She did not use birth control because she was told it was impossible for her to conceive.

She broke up with her boyfriend because she did not think he was maturing as he should. They got back together just one time - - when this miracle pregnancy happened.

She did not drink or use drugs. She was a little overweight and had only mild morning sickness during a time when her co-workers were suffering from the flu.

My miracle grandson is now 17 - - and amazing!


I'm very glad to hear that he's healthy. If she had been on some kind of medication she could have really messed him up.


She was not on any kind of medication.

Its only recently that she found out what her medical condition is. And the treatment for it is birth control pills.

My grandson is truly a miracle. But - I am still Pro Choice.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Oh - so the accuser is guilty until proven innocent.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Oh - so the accuser is guilty until proven innocent.


You can't have a judge repeatedly calling someone a victim of rape in front of a jury, when it isn't even established fact that she was actually raped. Get it? It's prejudicial, not a hard concept.

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 



What about it? Derisively calling something a "little gem" isn't much of an argument. It's true that only the unilateral choice of a woman can create a child (according to law), thats how you want it isn't it? Don't get irritated with me for pointing out the obvious.

[color=deepskyblue]
You are so incredibly closed minded.

And, no, that's not how I wanted it. I didn't choose it, I didn't get the opportunity to vote on it, there isn't a damn thing I could do to change it. Abortion never has been and never will be an option for me. I have never advocated abortion. I think that there are always other options. I also do not believe that the decision should be up to anyone but the woman. The pregnancy resides inside of her body, the procedure is performed on her, the risks of either decision affect her for the rest of her life, so its up to her.

Do I still think men should have to pay child support? Yes. They have to have regulations in place because there are too many men out there that wouldn't do pay it if they didn't have to. Anyone at any time, can get their case reviewed and changes can be made to the agreement. Where I live, there is no additional charge for this service. If someone doesn't think its fair, thats too bad. Its the law. They could just as easily have decided not to have sex with the woman in the first place. Prevention is an option for both parties and pregnancy is a known consequence. Why you cannot admit that the man has financial obligations to the child, I will never understand.

So your statement that only "the unilateral decision of a woman creates a child", means nothing to me. They aren't choices, they are children. Unilateral decisions don't create children, conception does.

(End off topic rant)

Sorry, OP.

(Begin on topic rant)


I would only punish pregnant people for that kind of negligence, not accidental genetic issues etc. etc. etc


Well this proposal, which is the original point to this discussion, is invasive and offensive. Why should every single miscarriage be scrutinized because a very small percentage of women are negligent? Why punish the many for the mistakes of the few? Maybe we should start interrogating every single person we see on the street because a small percentage might "up to no good". The costs and logistics of this undertaking are unimaginable. Who gets to decide? What makes them qualified to make these decisions?

The whole thing is absolute crap.

Let's just let the government encroach even further into our personal lives. We can totally stand to lose a few more rights.
[color=deeppink]

Disclaimer: I do not mean to offend anyone that has had an abortion. I have nothing to do with the decisions anyone else makes. I may not like it, but I will not berate anyone for it. I saw earlier that someone mentioned that they had an abortion, so I thought I had better clear that up so no one's feelings get hurt.




edit on 24-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
The pregnancy resides inside of her body, the procedure is performed on her, the risks of either decision affect her for the rest of her life, so its up to her.


Fine, but if that's the case you do want the creation of a child to depend upon the unilateral choice of a woman.


Originally posted by daryllyn
Do I still think men should have to pay child support? Yes. They have to have regulations in place because there are too many men out there that wouldn't do pay it if they didn't have to.


Why should any man have to pay for the results of a woman's unilateral choices? Have you ever been forced to pay for the results of a man's unilateral choices under threat of jail?


Originally posted by daryllyn
Anyone at any time, can get their case reviewed and changes can be made to the agreement. Where I live, there is no additional charge for this service. If someone doesn't think its fair, thats too bad. Its the law. They could just as easily have decided not to have sex with the woman in the first place. Prevention is an option for both parties and pregnancy is a known consequence. Why you cannot admit that the man has financial obligations to the child, I will never understand.


Do you still not understand the difference between a pregnancy and a child that requires support?

A pregnancy has to do with her body, and she can do anything that she wants with it (including throwing the fetus in the garbage for absolutely any reason). I am not responsible for her unilateral choice to throw the fetus into the garbage. I am not responsible for her opposite (and equally unilateral choice) to create a child that requires support.


Originally posted by daryllyn
So your statement that only "the unilateral decision of a woman creates a child", means nothing to me. They aren't choices, they are children. Unilateral decisions don't create children, conception does.


Clearly, facts mean nothing to you.
edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
Let's just let the government encroach even further into our personal lives. We can totally stand to lose a few more rights.


Hear hear!

God forbid pregnant women lose the right to get drunk every day.

Never know... maybe she's always wanted a brain damaged baby. Who am I to judge (?).

Personally I'm against it but I'd hate to impose my personal morality or judge anyone... it should definately be up to her (afterall it is HER body). Plus I'm a male, which obviously disqualifies me from commenting at all!

LOL.

Thanks everyone, great thread.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


[color=deeppink]I never said that pregnant women should (or do) have the right to drink everyday. I am saying this infringes on the rights of the majority of women that do not. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though.

What suddenly got into you?

I have never seen an LOL out of you.
edit on 24-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
I never said that pregnant women should (or do) have the right to drink everyday. I am saying this infringes on the rights of the majority of women that do not. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though.


Huh?

I think it should be illegal to get drunk every day when you're pregnant, do you agree or disagree?

Speak plainly... yes or no and why.

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


[color=mediumorchid]Maybe I misunderstood you and thought that comment was something else? Nevermind..

I would agree that women should not drink while they are pregnant. I don't know anyone that wouldn't agree. Everyone knows why.

I would rather see you 'LOL' than see some of the close minded opinions that you are harboring.

No offense.

Are we done now?
edit on 24-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


The law being proposed, and your initial argument was that you supported the investigation and prosecution of miscarriages. Granted a small percentage may be due to the behaviors of the mother, but the fact is the vast majority are random acts of nature with no known cause. When the fetus is large enough to have an autopsy (usually after 20 wks) many hospitals already voluntarily perform them and determine the cause.

In terms of the law, it is up to state if they wish to press charges, as I said the most common route is put the user into some sort of rehab as opposed to jail. The law varies state to state, and is completely at their discretion. For example, if a pregnant woman is killed some states charge the murderer with two murders, however again that varies not only by state, but how far along the pregnancy was.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
I would agree that women should not drink while they are pregnant. I don't know anyone that wouldn't agree. Everyone knows why.


I didn't ask if you thought they should, I asked if you thought it should be against the law.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by searching4truth
Being that the rate of FAS is about .2 to 1.5 in 1000 births I seriously doubt that there are as many pregnant woman walking around trashed, as you have been implying.


It's irrelevent how common it is.


Originally posted by searching4truth
It is also not realistic to make all sexual active post puberty women to take a pregnancy test every month before taking herself off of bed rest, you know in case she may be pregnant.


Why would they have to do that?

If you might be pregnant don't get drunk. "If you're pregnant or may become pregnant don't take XX prescription."

If you really want to get drunk or take that prescription that can injure the unborn... and you might be pregnant, than yes... obviously a responsible person would take a pregnancy test before getting drunk or taking the medication.


The statistics are relevant because it speaks to the infrequency of it. But we have already established that a woman is pregnant before a test will show she is pregnant by about a month, under normal circumstances. Most find out well into two months if not a little later. Once a woman finds out she is pregnant there are many activities, foods, etc that also cause birth defects or miscarriage. My point remains then that for a woman who "might be pregnant" to safely ensure proper behavior she would never leave her bed. Unless of course she is to remain celibate, because any time she gets down she might be pregnant.

Most people I know weren't planning when their children were conceived and I'd say 80% of the kids I know were conceived courtesy of condoms or birth control pills. There are very few people I knew were actually trying to conceive when they did.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


[color=deepskyblue]I do not want to agree with you.

Maybe in cases where the child is born with FAS, which is undeniably caused by drinking, there should be a consequence.

I am not fully agreeing with you though, just so we are clear.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
The law being proposed, and your initial argument was that you supported the investigation and prosecution of miscarriages.


Incorrect that was never my position.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
I do not want to agree with you.


Why? Why shouldn't a pregnant woman who insists on getting drunk all the time be placed in a minimum security facility until she gives birth so that responsible people can prevent further abuse and neglect of the unborn/soon to be born?

It seems you value her "right" to get wasted more than you value the well-being of the soon to be born child (who will probably suffer horribly because of the Mother's irresponsible behavior).

What if you had health problems and the pregnant drunk was a surrogate, carrying your child? No way to stop her from getting drunk and leaving you with a brain-damaged baby. How would you feel about that? Men face this situation when their wives or girlfriends behave this way, nothing much they can do (sure you can say "should have chosen better" but that isn't very realistic, people can change very quickly).


Originally posted by daryllyn
Maybe in cases where the child is born with FAS, which is undeniably caused by drinking, there should be a consequence.


That's akin to only punishing drunk drivers when they hurt someone (and you can prove with 100% certainty that their drunkeness is what caused the crash).

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
My point remains then that for a woman who "might be pregnant" to safely ensure proper behavior she would never leave her bed.


Once again "leaving her bed" or eating a tuna fish sandwich is not the kind of willfully irresponsible and reckless behavior that I'm talking about.

Your attempts to misrepresent my position are getting tiresome.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Oh - so the accuser is guilty until proven innocent.



No i didn't say that, neither party is guilty until the trial is over and a jury has made a decision, that is how the law works. Are you saying the validity of a witness should never be questioned? In that case it would be all to easy to make any allegation i like at anyone if I as the witness am always to be trusted.
edit on 24-2-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join