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: Dfairlite
Obviously that's a case by case basis. But whether the man is concerned or not, is not relevant. Just as it wouldn't be relevant after the baby is born. Just cause dad didn't care doesn't mean mom can kill her kids
The man is also punished, he is liable for child support at the very least. But again, mom doesn't have to keep the baby. She just has to not kill her kid. She can put it up for adoption and the baby will be adopted rather quickly 95% of the time.
originally posted by: BigDaddy38
So a woman has the right to kill her unborn child because its her choice???
originally posted by: eletheia
Just to make it clear I am not in the US however while reading this thread
in the background there is a discussion programme going on on the TV and
this subject is being discussed......
It has just been said the politicians concerned (and pictures shown] are all
men and white?...... Now as pregnancy and abortion all happen to
women only, WHY is there no representation of at least 50% of women on
that panel
WHY are 100% men making decisions that concern 100% women, WHERE IS
EQUALITY
originally posted by: Raggedyman
My taxes pay for unmarried mothers and their children, I am a white male.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dfairlite
That baby wasn't given due process, was it?
The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that the unborn are not recognized as "persons" in the US Constitution. So, they aren't entitled to "Due Process" and in fact are not guaranteed a "right to life".
They ruled that, on several occasions, because of what it says in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"Don't pretend you don't understand this." LOL
You should be the one to stop pretending... First of all in the Declaration of Independence it is argued that there is a right to life. It doesn't say ANYTHING about abortion being a right... Despite leftists claiming it does... The U.S. Constitution also does not state that "abortion is a right."
Even Roe vs Wade argued that on the third trimester life is viable and as such the state can rule to protect the life of the unborn...
originally posted by: eletheia
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienView
I think, what is most disturbing, is your attempt to justify killing unborn human life.
*Your attempt to justify killingunborn'potential' human life?*
A bit double standards there? The male party gets away without blame......
Allowed not to care ....Just pile all the blame on the female party?
*The man is also punished, he is liable for child support at the very least.*
Not all adopted babies go to good homes or have good lives......pedophiles wet dreams
I already framed the underlying reasons for my ethical concern - in that it all hinges on sentience.
What are you basing yours on exactly?
The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that the unborn are not recognized as "persons" in the US Constitution.
"Don't pretend you don't understand this." LOL
It's funny that you would use this as an argument after just telling me that the supreme court doesn't have to decide something. They just have to decide if it's constitutional. So why did they rule that the unborn aren't persons?
“Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment—and that book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.
A fetus is not a person under New York law or under the State and Federal Constitutions. (United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397; Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309; Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144; Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741; Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners
……….
A fetus is not a "person" pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which provide that no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process. (People v. Fein, 292 N. Y. 10; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Woods v. Lancet, 303 N. Y. 349; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Matter of Peabody, 5 N Y 2d 541; People v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 954, 397 U.S. 915; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
……...
Whether a fetus is a "human being" and a "person" to be afforded a constitutional protection is a question of law and not fact, and no court, as a matter of law, has declared the fetus a person under the Constitution. (Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217; United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62
………….
The occasions of State intervention extending benefit or protection to the fetus provide no support for the contention that the fetus has any constitutional rights. (People v. McGonegal, 136 N. Y. 62; Evans v. People, 49 N. Y. 86; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535; Matter of Sampson, 29 N Y 2d 900; Application of President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 331 F. 2d 1000, 377 U.S. 978; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542
The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that a fetus is not a "person", and therefore, it has no "right to life", not me.
Secondly, The Supreme Court ruled that "viability" is the threshold for abortion. Medical science decides when viability occurs, not the Supreme Court.
They ruled based on what the US Constitution says.
the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment
Oh, the insidious nature (from the left pov) of the alabama bill is that it will require the supreme court to define when life begins.
So you're saying the Supreme Court made the law about abortions and cannot be questioned, right?