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: 9
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
It appears some people have not been reading the statistics and arguments. Most miscarriages happen before a women knows she is even pregnant while in the embryo or zygote stage......I am a nurse and guess what, where I work, the causes of miscarriages are chromosomal damage with miscarriages between the 3-8th week......it usually has absolutely nothing to do with cigarettes or alcohol or drugs because the placenta isnt nourishing the embryo yet. So it is not the mothers fault. Yes a child can be born with FAS, but we are talking a major drinker here. The rates of FAS at my hospital is less than 1% a year. If a woman drinks that much, she needs to worry about death to herself more than to her unborn. What ever happened to the welfare of the mother?

Another thing, if people are so worried about women drinking or smoking while pregnant, shouldn't the cause of the problem be eliminated??? Why not bring back the prohibition and outlaw tobacco.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
When SEVENTY PERCENT of fertilized eggs do not implant, that makes just about EVERY single set of people who have had sex for the purposes of having children under investigation.

That's pretty much EVERY fertile human being in your state, nation, planet.

But it doesn't occur to a couple people here that making EVERY fertile human being the subject of criminal investigation might be a serious infringement on the rights of women AND MEN. Most of them married or in common-in-law relationships.

Not seventy percent of people. 70% of fertilized eggs. There is a 30% chance of fertilization in any 3 month period of unprotected sex. The average length of time for a couple to get pregnant is 1 year. That makes EVERY couple trying to have a baby likely of committing an act worthy of criminal investigation about three times in one year.

Any man who is too dumb to understand how this effects HIM PERSONALLY and not just those "stupid femi-nazis" is a flaming idiot.

Literally hating women to the point of hurting yourself. "Cut off your nose to spite your face."
edit on 2011/2/22 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I had a 4 month spontaneous miscarriage - - I had 2 normal pregnancies resulting in 2 daughters - - i had an abortion.

How the hell is any of that - - - some Frakin politicians business. Or anyone else for that matter.

This is insane.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikappa

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
reply to post by pikappa
 


So are you telling me, that you are going set your rules on my body? If my body decides it is going to reject a pregnancy, and miscarries, it is my business, and none of yours! Sounds like you are a Muslim waiting to push Sharia Law on me as well.
The male seed is five cents a quart, and all to easy to get. You guys think nothing of yanking on your joint and plastering your spasmodic emanation all over a printed photo, so life to you is cheap! Don't try to dictate to me.

My womb is mine. It isn't yours. Keep your paws and opinions off! This PRINCESS isn't going to take your crap!


Wow. Huge reading comprehension fail on your part. If you're not even going to go through the minimal effort required to read and understand my posts, why do you even bother replying? Anyway, you sound upset. I'm sorry your prince was mean to you. Oh, who am I kidding, I couldn't care less. Sounds like you deserved it anyway.




Originally posted by daryllyn
You had better watch that you don't fall off of your pedestal, Sir. You might bump your head on your way down.

[color=deepskyblue]Typical modern female thinking? Really? Not all all women are that way. I can't say that I know anyone personally that fits your description.

And my children are not things.

edit on 22-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)


Pedestal? The only pedestal I see here is the one with the words "my body my choice" in big bold letters carved on it. I've seen people in this thread refer to unborn babies as "parasites" and complain because some guy insists on telling them the death of a baby is not a merely private matter. That's some arrogance right there.

Also, I didn't say all women are "that way". I said the average woman is that way. I would suggest that you stop putting the wrong words in my mouth. Disagree with my points all you want, but don't try to distort them, okay? It's called a "strawman argument" and is a logical fallacy.



I knowtice you dont mention a specific instance she mis-read. Broad statements that something is wrong but not being specific is a pretty commen case when the person doesnt have a very sound argument. And retreating to trying to be mean by saying "I'm sorry your prince was mean to you. Oh, who am I kidding, I couldn't care less. Sounds like you deserved it anyway." Is both childish and a further proof of your arguments lack of logical soundness.

Seems to me like you're attempting to resolve some other agressive tendencies in your life as instead of really being this angery over the topic at hand. But on the grounds of lack prior experiance or a degree of anykind its just an educated observation.



And when you say average women it allows you the inportant distinction of "most" and in specific cases that makes a change in logical fluency. Therefore if you say average your logical argument will be invalid and useless. So u cant.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


It doesn't affect men that much, depending on the man of course. Still the law is a stupid one and i would say it is deeply insensitive, unkind and simply disgusting. Misscarriage is painful enough as it is, i've only witnessed two people go through it and i wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

I could post a nice long rant about the moron who wants this law passed but i think it would get me banned so i'll leave it there.
edit on 22-2-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikappa

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
reply to post by pikappa
 





Originally posted by daryllyn


Pedestal? The only pedestal I see here is the one with the words "my body my choice" in big bold letters carved on it. I've seen people in this thread refer to unborn babies as "parasites" and complain because some guy insists on telling them the death of a baby is not a merely private matter. That's some arrogance right there.

Also, I didn't say all women are "that way". I said the average woman is that way. I would suggest that you stop putting the wrong words in my mouth. Disagree with my points all you want, but don't try to distort them, okay? It's called a "strawman argument" and is a logical fallacy.


[color=deepskyblue]But you said "typical" which suggests to me that you feel that most women fit that description, otherwise you might have chosen a different word.

Typical


1. Exhibiting the qualities, traits, or characteristics that identify a kind, class, group, or category


I am not saying its right to ingest harmful substances whilst pregnant. I am saying that it isn't right to punish the many for the actions of the few. Just because some women cause a miscarriage as a direct result of something harmful they ingested, doesn't mean that every woman should be questioned about the nature of her spontaneous loss of a pregnancy.

I didn't need to put words in your mouth, you put them there yourself. I merely stated my opposition to my interpretation of your words, which by the above definition, wasn't all that far off.

edit on 22-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Aeons
 


It doesn't affect men that much, depending on the man of course. Still the law is a stupid one and i would say it is deeply insensitive, unkind and simply disgusting. Misscarriage is painful enough as it is, i've only witnessed two people go through it and i wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

I could post a nice long rant about the moron who wants this law passed but i think it would get me banned so i'll leave it there.
edit on 22-2-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)


If a man impregnates a woman whom he knows is chronically miscarrying/aborting, is a heavy drinker or smoker, and choose to have sex with her, this law would end up being applied to him. He would have participated in an act he should have reasonably known would lead to a "fetal death."

Hence, he could also be charged.

Did you know that several of the anomalies that cause multiple spontaneous miscarriages are due to the the male contribution to the fetus? This could then be interpreted that if you have had several miscarriages due to anomalies, that the MALE is criminally responsible. Particularly if he knows and does not inform the woman beforehand.

This law would set a measuring stick that would by its very nature be applicable to all fertile men. Because women don't have babies on their own. None yet spontaneously get themselves pregnant in the absence of a male contributor.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
If a man impregnates a woman whom he knows is chronically miscarrying/aborting, is a heavy drinker or smoker, and choose to have sex with her, this law would end up being applied to him. He would have participated in an act he should have reasonably known would lead to a "fetal death."


Sorry but no, this is comparable to a person knowing someone is drunk and not taking their car keys off of them. In the end it is the person who commits the act that is in trouble. If a woman pours alcohol down her throat or pops a ciggy in her mouth while pregnant then it is her fault alone, no one elses.



Originally posted by Aeons
Did you know that several of the anomalies that cause multiple spontaneous miscarriages are due to the the male contribution to the fetus? This could then be interpreted that if you have had several miscarriages due to anomalies, that the MALE is criminally responsible. Particularly if he knows and does not inform the woman beforehand.


This law would set a measuring stick that would by its very nature be applicable to all fertile men. Because women don't have babies on their own. None yet spontaneously get themselves pregnant in the absence of a male contributor.

A ridiculous argument because again the woman can remove herself from whatever negative stimuli surround her. That would be like me complaining that my hearing damage is the fault of the night clubs i dance in (i don't have hearing damage i'm just making the comparison). If you're talking genetic contributions then you can't blame someone for their genes and that's a whole other issue that neither parent is responsible for.

Oh and just to be clear, i don't support this law, i can't understand the thinking behind it.
edit on 22-2-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I feel sorry for those womens in GA. IS this guy relative of the Sheriff ARPAIO in Arizona??



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Maslo
 

Yes, thanks. I'm still not clear on if you mean it needs to change through legislation or not.


Yes, through legislation, too. Altough this law is targeted more against abortions, and I am pro-choice, so not this kind of legislation, but legislation against pregnant women drinking etc. So it is a bit off-topic in this thread.


Soooo, you want the right to terminate your unborn baby if you feel like it, but you want to control what other pregnant women do while they are pregnant. Very interesting study in humanist relativity.
edit on 22-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Ah, but you see many people have many miscarriages. And they are tied to genes or immunity reactions.

If you can charge someone for making themselves into an "bad host" for a fetus, then you can also charge someone for knowing that they are bad host for non-lifestyle reasons.

For courting killing fetuses. As a male accessory who is knowingly impregnating a woman when he knows that he is contributing a factor which courts "fetal death" could become a suable or even a criminal act. Assault.

Being a woman whom knows that she has fallopian tube damage or structural anomalies which are contributors to "fetal death" could be consider a criminal act. Once is an accident, but that couple who has TEN miscarriages to fulfill their "need" for a child is killing fetuses knowingly and consistently, sometimes many more than someone who smoked and had one miscarriage.

Oh, this type of law is absolutely applicable.

Every Catholic should be horrified at what this could mean for those of them who struggle with infertility. Every male with a wife or girlfriend he has had a baby with, or intends to have a baby with should be concerned about being considered an accessory.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by swolleneyeball
 


As I said, in a loose sense, we're all parasites to this planet. Even strictly speaking though, it doesn't make sense to think of a fetus as a parasite, it's more correct to say it's the parasitic stage of human life. It doesn't mean we can degrade it to "less than human". That's a completely arbitrary assumption made by people like you because it's tremendously convenient. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Also, re: "all men aren't the enemy but the enemy is a man". That sounds a lot like "not all men are rapists but all rapists are men" (which isn't true by the way). Brainwashed much? You seem to be missing the point entirely. That man is not the enemy, not to women anyway.


reply to post by Aeons
 


The choice of partner is obviously my responsibility, why would I be upset over this? I'm not afraid to take responsibility for my actions and choices, unlike women like you. Also, "stomping on women"? What? Are you out of your mind? Possibly on drugs? Probably just very desperate.


reply to post by swolleneyeball
 


"I knowtice you dont mention a specific instance she mis-read."
All of it. Literally. It's like she read a different post.
"Bla bla bla."
Okay.
"And when you say average women it allows you the inportant distinction of "most" and in specific cases that makes a change in logical fluency. Therefore if you say average your logical argument will be invalid and useless."
There's no distinction to speak of in this contest. Completely different arguments. It's very clear, unless you want to play dumb, and that's a fallacy in itself.

Kids these days.


reply to post by daryllyn
 


Exactly, most women, ie the average woman.

"Just because some women cause a miscarriage as a direct result of something harmful they ingested, doesn't mean that every woman should be questioned about the nature of her spontaneous loss of a pregnancy."

So, just because some children have bruises and broken bones as a direct result of being beaten by their fathers, doesn't mean that every child who exhibits those injuries should be questioned about the nature of his relationship with his father? What an asinine, malicious, dangerous logic.

"I didn't need to put words in your mouth, you put them there yourself. I merely stated my opposition to my interpretation of your words, which by the above definition, wasn't all that far off."

Ahahah, what a joke! So I can say black people are not all wannabe gangsters, and to your objection that that wasn't your argument at all, I can safely reply "I merely stated my opposition to my interpretation of your words". Ahahah, fantastic! I'm laughing my *** off. You people are funny.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Ah, but you see many people have many miscarriages. And they are tied to genes or immunity reactions.

If you can charge someone for making themselves into an "bad host" for a fetus, then you can also charge someone for knowing that they are bad host for non-lifestyle reasons.


Nope you can't and the law doesn't allow for genetic discrimination in that way. Most people are completely unaware they have genetic problems, futhermore genetic problems can arise simply from mistakes during mitosis.

In contrast the mother knows she will harm her child by drinking and/or smoking, this is a voluntary behavior post pregnancy, so i'm afraid you are comparing apples and oranges. We are also getting way off topic btw.


Originally posted by Aeons
For courting killing fetuses. As a male accessory who is knowingly impregnating a woman when he knows that he is contributing a factor which courts "fetal death" could become a suable or even a criminal act. Assault.


You cannot punish a person for the actions of another. This would be similar to imprisoning the person who sold someone a knife if that person went and stabbed someone. I can't help but feel you are arguing for arguments sake.


Originally posted by Aeons
Being a woman whom knows that she has fallopian tube damage or structural anomalies which are contributors to "fetal death" could be consider a criminal act. Once is an accident, but that couple who has TEN miscarriages to fulfill their "need" for a child is killing fetuses knowingly and consistently, sometimes many more than someone who smoked and had one miscarriage.

Oh, this type of law is absolutely applicable.

Every Catholic should be horrified at what this could mean for those of them who struggle with infertility. Every male with a wife or girlfriend he has had a baby with, or intends to have a baby with should be concerned about being considered an accessory.


As stated i don't agree with the law, but i somehow doubt a man would ever actually be held to account over such a thing, and it would be easy enough to get out of if you claimed you had been using condoms and they obviously just failed. You would need to make sex itself illegal and good luck with that one



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 





Smoking while pregnant does not cause brain damage to the unborn child! My mother smoked while pregnant and had five healthy, intelligent children. I did an inadvertent study - I smoked while pregnant with my 3rd child, but not my first two. The 3rd child is head and shoulders above his brothers in terms of intelligence - he makes the other two look almost stupid! (So, if anything, it's the other way around.) You're almost certainly male and you're talking complete rubbish. Vicky


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)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
Considering the health insurance police, the food police, the sexuality police, the religion police, etc- it's getting kind of hard, sometimes, to get worked up over this anymore.
But besides the academics. This is an incredibly cruel proposal. To add implication, let alone accusation to the pain of a woman who has lost a child by miscarriage...there has to be a really special place in hell for anyone involved in doing that.



It's an outrageous proposal on the face of it, although I suspect it is really targeting women who use the drug RU-486 to produce spontaneous abortion. But innocent women who did nothing wrong and just had miscarriage anyway will suffer. I don't support this any more than I would support that ridiculous suggestion of declaring smoking people unfit to be parents. Or for that matter, Muchelle's attack on Happy Meals while she eats ribs and ice cream.
edit on 22-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: sp



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




Soooo, you want the right to terminate your unborn baby if you feel like it, but you want to control what other pregnant women do while they are pregnant. Very interesting study in humanist relativity.


Yes, either terminate the pregnancy, or if you really wanna bring a child into this world, then make sure it would not be damaged. I have explained my position here. And I dont think there is anything relative about that. If our humanist goal is to reduce suffering of conscious creatures (both of women and babies), its the most optimal stance one can take, because both the rights of women to have an abortion and the rights of children to not be damaged are protected.


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

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



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thanks, I was waiting for someone to refute that claim. It's important that claims like that don't go unchallenged.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




Soooo, you want the right to terminate your unborn baby if you feel like it, but you want to control what other pregnant women do while they are pregnant. Very interesting study in humanist relativity.


Yes, either terminate the pregnancy, or if you really wanna bring a child into this world, then make sure it would not be damaged. I have explained my position here. And I dont think there is anything relative about that. If our humanist goal is to reduce suffering of conscious creatures (both of women and babies), its the most optimal stance one can take, because both the rights of women to have an abortion and the rights of children to not be damaged are protected.


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

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


Obviously you didn't get the point that termination of a pregnancy is to kill an unborn, so you want that right, but you want to control whether a woman smokes during pregnancy. Your argument is a vain attempt at rationalizing. Oh wait, I see by your previous post that you do know that terminating an unborn baby is killing it, and you still think that is reasonable but that you have a right to dictate to other women what they ingest.
edit on 22-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Personally, I didn't drink or smoke during pregnancy, in fact I had carrot juice and whole grain cereals, and other healthy foods. So I do advocate a healthy lifestyle. We seem to be going down a road where we feel we must legislate all things to all people according to how we see the world. How long can we maintain that? I advocate education, but what is our educational system teaching? Be honest in your assessment.
edit on 22-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


a complete idiot and I'm surprised even one single person voted for him



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikappa
reply to post by daryllyn
 


Exactly, most women, ie the average woman.

"Just because some women cause a miscarriage as a direct result of something harmful they ingested, doesn't mean that every woman should be questioned about the nature of her spontaneous loss of a pregnancy."

So, just because some children have bruises and broken bones as a direct result of being beaten by their fathers, doesn't mean that every child who exhibits those injuries should be questioned about the nature of his relationship with his father? What an asinine, malicious, dangerous logic.

"I didn't need to put words in your mouth, you put them there yourself. I merely stated my opposition to my interpretation of your words, which by the above definition, wasn't all that far off."

Ahahah, what a joke! So I can say black people are not all wannabe gangsters, and to your objection that that wasn't your argument at all, I can safely reply "I merely stated my opposition to my interpretation of your words". Ahahah, fantastic! I'm laughing my *** off. You people are funny.


[color=deepskyblue]
You are missing something extremely important here. Miscarriages are most of the time, a natural occurrence. Your argument about an abused child is completely illogical because those injuries are not natural occurrences, they are always caused by outside forces/actions and miscarriages are not (most of the time).


Why do miscarriages occur? The reason for miscarriage is varied, and most often the cause cannot be identified. During the first trimester, the most common cause of miscarriage is chromosomal abnormality - meaning that something is not correct with the baby's chromosomes. Most chromosomal abnormalities are the cause of a faulty egg or sperm cell, or are due to a problem at the time that the zygote went through the division process.


source



edit on 22-2-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join