Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Yikes! The Uterus Police!

page: 6
88
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JewelFlip
P.S. Sorry for the lengthy post, I just wanted to make sure the information leading up to my questions were available here, and I'm having trouble with external quotes on the iPad. I'm not sure if those quotes violated any rules, if so I'm sorry again.


Like I said several times... only the most obvious cases of neglect/abuse could ever be punished... it's not that I dismiss the idea that males drinking can cause issues etc. etc. it just seems like it would be a much more difficult case to make, than say... a pregnant mother who got drunk everyday. I think you'd punish the reckless behavior rather than the result in any case (ie. getting drunk when pregnant would be illegal, even if you get lucky and the baby is fine).




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 

He is living proof of partial birth abortion failures. Either that or he's an frequent sperm donor that nobody uses. I mean, look at the guy, ugh!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


In regards to this bill though, if the cause of the miscarriage could not be determined then there will be an investigation into the death. If it is limited to females and their part in the spontaneous fetus death alone, it would be scientifically incomplete.

As an example, what if during the investigation it becomes evident that this type of miscarriage is generally related to the effects of alcohol in the early stages of development? She says she never drank during the pregnancy. However, the father of the child was drunk as a sailor during the week leading up to conception. She will be charged with harmful neglect despite having done nothing wrong, but he will walk away scott-free.

I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational, I just want to show that while you say that you're not dismissing "the idea that males drinking can cause issues etc. etc. it just seems like it would be a much more difficult case to make", in a situation like this it is one you have to stand up and make. It takes two people to make a baby, two different sets of DNA, but in this case only one who could be found guilty. It means that the woman would be persecuted because the government is only interested in the uterus, not the scrotum.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
First, there are NO reliable stats on false rape allegations...it has not been seriously studied. I can present you studies that claim anywhere from 3% to 40+%.

I think it is fair, and safe, to assume that the same ratio of 'false allegations' is pretty steady accross the board for all criminal issues.

Second, this is an unforceable law, so why even bother.

Although, I do agree with it to a certain extent (my wife used to work at an OB/GYN clinic, the amount of self inflicted abuse amongst young mothers, in my area, is very high, most from lack of knowledge) that there needs to be some form of legislation, but my reasons differ.

My reasons for wanting some form of legislation are in the name of equality.

If I get into an accident with a pregnant woman, at my fault, I can and will be charged for multiple deaths...not a singular. Yet, if the mother knowingly damages the baby...nothing. This to me creates an inconsistancy in law, and inconsistency leads to loop holes, etc.

So the law needs to pick a side, either the baby does not matter until birth, or it matters (and is applied equally) from conception.

Side thought, if you think finding the exact cause of a misscariage would be hard testing the mother, it would be even harder testing the father. I took great pains to cleanse my system prior to baby making, as did my wife...for her it was a 4 month process, for me 5 days...thank you new batch daily!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JewelFlip
It takes two people to make a baby, two different sets of DNA, but in this case only one who could be found guilty.


I understand what you're saying but it's pretty obvious that when a miscarraige occurs it makes sense to look at the Mother first if willful parental neglect is suspected. It isn't clear to me that you could really define chomosomal damage to a man's sperm as "willful parental neglect." Chomosomal damage can occur to a woman's eggs also that will ultimately effect the child, but that isn't really the kind of blatant neglect and abuse that I'm referring to.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
First, there are NO reliable stats on false rape allegations...it has not been seriously studied. I can present you studies that claim anywhere from 3% to 40+%.


So lets use 3% - there are about 90,000 rapes reported in the U.S. each year - if only 3% are false allegations that's 2700 every year.


Originally posted by peck420
If I get into an accident with a pregnant woman, at my fault, I can and will be charged for multiple deaths...not a singular. Yet, if the mother knowingly damages the baby...nothing. This to me creates an inconsistancy in law, and inconsistency leads to loop holes, etc.

So the law needs to pick a side, either the baby does not matter until birth, or it matters (and is applied equally) from conception.


I agree.


Originally posted by peck420
Side thought, if you think finding the exact cause of a misscariage would be hard testing the mother, it would be even harder testing the father. I took great pains to cleanse my system prior to baby making, as did my wife...for her it was a 4 month process, for me 5 days...thank you new batch daily!


: )

Well, like I said I think you'd have to punish the reckless behavior itself (ie. getting drunk when pregnant would be illegal, regardless of the outcome for the baby).



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


While I see where you're coming from, and agree with it on a "feasibility" level, this bill could have serious ramifications for women who have done nothing wrong but show evidence of the very thing that we are both against (mainly women treating their body badly while incubating a teacup human). However, if they just drop it at "alcohol-related parental neglect resulting in spontaneous infant death" and then charge the mother with it, there is something inherently wrong with this law and any law that invokes this kind of thought.

Further investigation would be required, but if say they found out that it was due to male abuse of his half of the DNA and charges were ultimately dropped because they occurred prior to conception then that woman is safe from being persecuted for something she had no control over.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent. Of the number of women who miscarry, 20 percent will suffer recurring miscarriages.


Source

So. Not only are these women going to suffer the heartbreak of a miscarriage, but they are going to be possibly interrogated and investigated as well?

What about the recurrent miscarriage sufferer's? My mother had 9 miscarriages and I am the result of the only successful pregnancy she had. My husband's Aunt had 7 miscarriages with no successful pregnancies. I know several others that have had at least 3.

I had a miscarriage in 2008. I also got pregnant with twins and miscarried one of them. What do they do in that case? Do you know how many pregnancies start out as twins? Will the same rules apply to those situations?

This is so wrong on so many levels.

The logistics of this proposed regulations are almost impossible. There are so many pregnancies that end before the woman is even aware she is pregnant that there is just no way to police it.

Sometimes a pregnancy ends spontaneously for no apparent reason. When I had my first miscarriage, they even did a karyotype and still found no apparent reason, chromosomally (We will pretend that's a word) speaking the fetus was fine. I was only 26, was not overweight and was reasonably healthy. I took no medications, had no health problems other than a slight case of scoliosis. I had a successful pregnancy prior to the miscarriage as well.

Out of all the women I know that have children, almost all of them have had a miscarriage.

The reality is that a positive pregnancy does not always equal a baby and this is the case way more often than most people realize.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


It really doesn't make sense, sorry. It isn't only you, but I get the sense that some people (men?) are under the impression that a lot of women would rather abort their children than have them. The fact of the matter is miscarriages very common, they just happen. If he were interested in genetic research and wanting to determine the cause (if there is a cause one can control) to prevent it from happening I would support him.

Unfortunately, that is not his purpose. He is under some sort of ill gotten impression that women just "do it on purpose" and I emphatically disagree. What about still births? What about babies that have as they say a "failure to thrive"? And while I do not support women who do things that are known to harm their children, the way preggos act today is far more healthy (or at least what we are told is healthy) and rest far more than previous generations and we still experience these tragedies.

I am a religious person, and I don't know why God would do this but it happens and while more painful than a person who hasn't experienced it can imagine it is I guess a growth experience. There are also women who are simply unable to either conceive or they conceive and are unable to carry the child. There are also women who can and do carry the child but are completely unable to produce breast milk to feed that child at other points in time that child may have starved to death if the family could not get a wet nurse.

As I said, I would support research into identifying IF there is something that we can change to lower the instances of it, but I very much doubt that we will ever understand it enough to completely stop it.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JewelFlip
Further investigation would be required, but if say they found out that it was due to male abuse of his half of the DNA and charges were ultimately dropped because they occurred prior to conception then that woman is safe from being persecuted for something she had no control over.


I guess I'm not being clear... it is the irresponsible behavior itself that I would punish (ie. getting drunk while pregnant for example). If you want to put some male behavior into that category maybe you can make a case for that, but like I said, damaged sperm etc. etc. isn't really the kind of willful negligence that I had in mind.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I'll hold off judgment over whether this is a good idea or not...

...But it makes you think of what might be next. Here are some possibilities:

-The vajayjay police, keeping high school/college kids from hooking up since 2011 (if that happens, i'm screwed, no pun intended).
-Real life chastity belts for teenage girls (again, I'd be screwed)
-Misdemeanor for not wearing a condom like in Sweden
-Misdemeanor for checking out females
-Requirement to write down every time you make whoopie, otherwise face sexual assault charges
-Grinding dancing made illegal (oh please)

Some of those, i wouldn't be surprised to see, our society has become a comedy.
edit on 22-2-2011 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The bottom line, at least for me is this.

I understand that the law has difficulty keeping up with technology and science, however we can not allow the law to make natural occurrences illegal and supercede science, especially in something that is considered a natural process (we simply do not understand genetics enough).

Here's a question to the gallery.

I have a negative blood type, if I do not get the rhogram shot I can and probably would miscarry a rh positive baby. What if I do not want the shot, for whatever reason (health, religion, etc), and I miscarry. Could my refusal to receive a medication or vaccine be used against me? From what I read about him, he proclaims his uber religiousness often. Perhaps it was God's plan to have rh positive women only have one child, or only children who are negative.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
This is just more authoritarianism.

Trash this legislation now.

And trash these politicians with it.

For crying out loud, putting regulations on human bodily functions is freaking retarded.

Wanna create a black market abortion racket? I don't.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
Perhaps it was God's plan to have rh positive women only have one child, or only children who are negative.


"God" is testing us.

"God" puts massive idiots into office to test our wits.

Yes, that's it. It's a test.

And if we take their crap, we go to hell.

The only way to heaven is to oppose these Devils.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I'm an atheist, but I would totally vote for this guy if I didn't live some thousands miles away, in another continent. It's about time people start waking up to the madness that plagues this feminized society. The message needs to be clear and loud, that unborn children are not a property of their mothers, who can do away with them as they please. I'm not for treating a woman who had a miscarriage as a criminal a priori, of course, but I'm not against investigating the case either. Also, the thing about "rape victims" being changed to "accusers" is just common sense. Do we, or do we not believe in the principle of presumption of innocence? To automatically afford someone the status of victim is the same as saying that the accused is assumed guilty before he even has a chance to defend himself in court, so logically the burden of proof is shifted to him (unfortunately that's what seems to be happening in courts). This would be outrageous whatever the case, but even more so if we're talking about a crime such as rape, where the number of false accusations is so high. It takes a lot of courage to speak publicly against that nonsense, so kudos to this guy.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, that bit was a little tongue in cheek


The fact remains we do not understand genetics well enough to even potentially prosecute women for miscarriages.
edit on 22-2-2011 by searching4truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pikappa
 

Have you even read any other comments in this thread? I think you might be discussing a different topic?

I'm not sure why you're telling me you're an atheist, other than to say that it's not solely a Christian viewpoint? I can buy that. Feminized society? Interesting. What specifically do you mean by this?

This guy is insane and a control-freak misogynist. To be honest I'm a bit tired and cranky, so maybe I better reserve the rest of my comments for now.

reply to post by searching4truth
 

That's a tough one. Without medical intervention, you could not carry to term if the baby was rH? At what point would you have to have the shot? Prior to conception? After?

I wouldn't be surprised in today's climate if someone found out you opted out, they wouldn't tangle with you. Do we know of any incidents of this nature?

edit on 2/22/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


You get the shot after you give birth to the first baby, and after each subsequent baby. It prevents you from developing the antibodies to rh positive. Without it, my body sees an rh positive fetus as a virus or foreign and destroys it. The shot prevents that.

edit: I don't know of its occurrence in other species but I'm not too certain of studies in animal blood typing either.
edit on 22-2-2011 by searching4truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
[color=deepskyblue]Here are my questions:

[color=deepskyblue]
  • What would they do in the case of a multiple pregnancy where only one fetus is miscarried?

  • What would they do in cases where the mother was not yet aware of the pregnancy?

  • What would they do in cases where miscarriages are recurrent (as in 3 or more)?

  • What do they do in cases where there is no apparent cause?

I believe that the whole idea is flawed. Are they seriously going to investigate every single miscarriage when they are so extremely common? I do not dispute that in cases where the actions of the mother clearly result in miscarriage, that something should be done. But I don't think that every woman should suffer through these proposed investigations when they have just suffered what can already be a traumatic experience in and of itself.

Having a miscarriage is not fun. Its not the same for everyone but it was a huge blow for me. My body had failed at its most natural biological process. I had to "un-tell" everyone since we had already shared the news with friends and family and deal with all of the well meaning questions and statements about how it "just wasn't meant to be" .I don't know what I would have felt like if on top of all of that, they would have started asking questions to try to see if it was my fault or if it had been intentional.

I really hope this proposal isn't made a reality.
edit on 22-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 

If you are punishing irresponsible behavior, then it is because there is a proven link between the behavior and a probable result (i.e. alcohol and fetal alcohol syndrome). While you may not have had willful mistreatment of a man's body in mind, I have already shown you that there is evidence supporting the negative implications of toxins on fetal development for males as well. Not only could that behavior put the developing fetus at risk, but it could put the mother's fertility and (although uncommon) life at risk as well.

When bills like this come up, and a woman's body and her choices about it become public domain, it becomes necessary to at least demonstrate that it would be logical to restrict choices for both men and women. You mentioned punishing “the reckless behavior rather than the result in any case” but limited it to the woman and her choices during pregnancy. Why is it so impossible to consider a man's use of toxic substances while sexually active without the use of contraceptive or disclosure reckless endangerment?

As soon that becomes criminal, I will stop arguing against laws that make it a felony to miscarry based only on the mother and her level of responsibility.





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join