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.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm
None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.
Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.
If its not OK with you, don't do it.
Just stay out of my way.
You sound like Trump. Bravo.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth
The only way to have a proper debate on the subject, in my view, is to list out all the scenarios that one should consider and have clarity in the law - enough that you cover 95% of cases - and then treat the unique cases on a case by case basis. You just can't get a full policy position from an interview sound bite and actually, I don't think Trump has a full policy position yet.
So, you think the policy outlined by SCOTUS in Roe V Wade needs to be debated? You want to take the choice to terminate a pregnancy away for 95% of women seeking one, and only deal with abortion on a case by case emergency situation?
This is a problem for me, and why I'll never vote Republican, ever!
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm
None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.
Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.
If its not OK with you, don't do it.
Just stay out of my way.
You sound like Trump. Bravo.
Actually, the don's is more like "If I don't agree with it, I will stand in your way".
Abortion is legal now because it was deemed to be necessary in saving women's lives (in many varying scenarios) To revert back to the 50's (and earlier) mentality (religion-based?) regarding abortion would be disastrous for women's health.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth
How would you make a law like that? The woman would have to name the father? Then the law would have to state the man has the right to take away her constitutional right?
originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: UKTruth
Almost everything the don is promising is reverting back to the days when America was great...was it really?
originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: UKTruth
I wonder if the medical/scientific community could research if removing the embryo from the womb of a woman and having it complete its gestation period either in a test tube or a human surrogate, for people (biological father? grandparents? potential adoptive parents?) wanting to take on the responsibility?
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm
None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.
Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.
If its not OK with you, don't do it.
Just stay out of my way.
You sound like Trump. Bravo.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: UKTruth
I wonder if the medical/scientific community could research if removing the embryo from the womb of a woman and having it complete its gestation period either in a test tube or a human surrogate, for people (biological father? grandparents? potential adoptive parents?) wanting to take on the responsibility?
Sounds like a promising development.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth
Yeah. It was just in the sixties that blacks could not use same facilities as whites, began ending. Women could not vote until 1908, long after slavery ended. 54,000 killed in Korea, 56,000 killed in Nam, count has not ended for 15 year war so far. Fighting to "spread democracy" when our country is not a democracy. The last time we were great was when we fought in unity for the American Revolution.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: UKTruth
I wonder if the medical/scientific community could research if removing the embryo from the womb of a woman and having it complete its gestation period either in a test tube or a human surrogate, for people (biological father? grandparents? potential adoptive parents?) wanting to take on the responsibility?
Sounds like a promising development.
There are enough unwanted, unloved, uncared for LIVING CHILDREN in this world.
We don't need to grow more.
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm
None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.
Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.
If its not OK with you, don't do it.
Just stay out of my way.
You sound like Trump. Bravo.
Actually, the don's is more like "If I don't agree with it, I will stand in your way".
Abortion is legal now because it was deemed to be necessary in saving women's lives (in many varying scenarios) To revert back to the 50's (and earlier) mentality (religion-based?) regarding abortion would be disastrous for women's health.