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: DBCowboy
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Laws have replaced common sense. Laws have replaced wisdom and intelligence and compassion and caring. We don't define ourselves by our selves, we define ourselves by our "laws".
First off thanks for discussing the topic.
Actually these laws had to be implemented because wisdom, common sense and compassion were lacking for a segment of society. And you're right. Laws DO define a society. America is becoming more accepting AS A WHOLE. These laws prove that.
Laws can never replace wisdom, caring, compassion. They just enforce rules that (to some) mimic caring, compassion, wisdom.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Talorc
She is clearly a very selfish woman for choosing to have children.
So are women who choose careers, apparently.
Well, the point still stands that even in the case of unwanted pregnancies, many parents go through with it out of principle.
How many is many? What principle, guilt? Duty?
Not for any selfish reasons.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think you come from some airy fairy new agey place where "Love is all you need"! Lalalala..
Women who choose careers are just women who choose careers. Nothing wrong with that.
The principle itself is reverence for life and human potential.
I always though I was as far from "New Age" as it gets.
A fertilized egg is not more worthy of life because it managed to implant in the uterus instead of being flushed out with the monthly cycle, especially when it's unwanted
And infant can't survive independent of its mother or caretaker.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Talorc
And infant can't survive independent of its mother or caretaker.
"[b[Caretake" being the key word there. ANYBODY can take care of a newborn, given the tools. As soon as you find someone that can carry a fetus to term, besides the unwilling woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, then I'll buy into your argument.
Again, an acorn isn't an oak tree.
originally posted by: intrepid
Please. Don't let the rest of us that want to discuss the SCOTUS get in the way of your ongoing off topic BS. Another jacked thread. This is about the SCOTUS. Not your petty, individual, OVERDONE opinions.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee
actually, five justices voted to strike the law down, two disagreed because they thought that more information was needed...
www.nbcnews.com...
which probably would have never been given in time to be used in the decision.
and one thought the law was constitutional...