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.

 

Former Abortion Clinic Owner: We Pushed Sex Ed on Kids to Create a Market for Abortion

page: 16
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Here is a website that discusses the fact that there are various pro-life views on the subject of the pill.

christianrenewal.wordpress.com...


ETA: On the other side of the aisle .. a group that believes condoms should not be used.
studentsforlife.org...


You can think all pro-lifers have the exact same beliefs all you want, you are wrong.
edit on 8-6-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




That doesn't say only those born; it says all living within the jurisdiction of the law. That includes the unborn.


No it doesn't. You're only deceiving yourself now. There is no constitutional protection for the unborn, at least not yet. "Fetal Personhood" is a proposed constitutional amendment that can't gain support even in the most pro-life of states.





Somewhat incorrect. Some states have laws such that if a pregnant woman is attacked it's two counts of the crime. The implication is that the unborn child does have rights.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you deny that the official pro-choice position is that life begins at conception? That means fertilization right? That means that the pro-life position is that a fertilized egg is a person that should have equal human rights.

Do you deny this?

If something prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, like say an IUD or the PILL, then, according to the official pro-life position, that is the same as an abortion.

Do you disagree?


edit on 8-6-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Somewhat incorrect. Some states have laws such that if a pregnant woman is attacked it's two counts of the crime. The implication is that the unborn child does have rights.


No. The implication is that a criminal is more seriously prosecuted. The "ACT" in no way protects the unborn from anything.
edit on 8-6-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you deny that the official pro-choice position is that life begins at conception? That means fertilization right? That means that the pro-life position is that a fertilized egg is a person that should have equal human rights.

Do you deny this?

If something prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, like say an IUD or the PILL, then, according to the official pro-life position, that is the same as an abortion.

Do you disagree?


Yes, there is no official pro-life position. That is as stupid as saying the official belief of Americans on immigration. There are many different beliefs. There is no official stance.

If you want to say the official stance of the Catholic church, then you are correct. Not all pro-life people are Catholic. I just sent you a link which proves many pro-life people have no problem with the pill.

And as for your next post ... false. They are charged with 2 counts. Why is it two counts if there is only 1 person with protection/rights?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Yes, there is no official pro-life position. That is as stupid as saying the official belief of Americans on immigration. There are many different beliefs. There is no official stance.

If you want to say the official stance of the Catholic church, then you are correct. Not all pro-life people are Catholic. I just sent you a link which proves many pro-life people have no problem with the pill.


No. The link that you posted confirmed that Christians can be pro-life or pro-choice. Your link also proves that Christians can't agree on the definition of "conception".



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Yes, there is no official pro-life position. That is as stupid as saying the official belief of Americans on immigration. There are many different beliefs. There is no official stance.

If you want to say the official stance of the Catholic church, then you are correct. Not all pro-life people are Catholic. I just sent you a link which proves many pro-life people have no problem with the pill.


No. The link that you posted confirmed that Christians can be pro-life or pro-choice. Your link also proves that Christians can't agree on the definition of "conception".





It specifically states what is pro-life .. and then goes on to say some Christians think the pill is wrong, and others think it is not. Some pro-life people consider condoms wrong and believe condom usage makes a person pro-choice. Nowhere does it state the pill is pro-choice. You are wrong, proven wrong, and simply can't admit it.

I will concur that any method with a PRIMARY goal of preventing implantation with no prevention for fertilization at all should be avoided unless necessary. The primary function of the pill is to prevent fertilization though. It also allows for the "Hand" of God to intervene, pregnancy is possible.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The pro-life stance is Life Begins at Conception. That's a fact.

The pro-life stance is that conception happens at fertilization. That's a fact.

Your link, written by a medical doctor, states that conception (= pregnancy) begins at implantation. That's the medical definition and also a pro-choice stance.

Your article proves that a Christian can be pro-choice.

Unfortunately, because if brainwashing, most Christians don't even know that they're pro-choice.




edit on 8-6-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




And as for your next post ... false. They are charged with 2 counts. Why is it two counts if there is only 1 person with protection/rights?


A person can be charged with a crime for vandalism for painting graffiti on a garage door, does that mean that the garage door has rights? A person can be charged with two crimes in any number of situations involving only one victim.

The "ACT" never says a fetus is protected from an intentional abortion that a women demands.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The pro-life stance is Life Begins at Conception. That's a fact.

The pro-life stance is that conception happens at fertilization. That's a fact.

Your link, written by a medical doctor, states that conception (= pregnancy) begins at implantation. That's the medical definition and also a pro-choice stance.

Your article proves that a Christian can be pro-choice.

Unfortunately, because if brainwashing, most Christians don't even know that they're pro-choice.




You don't get to decide what someone's stance is. Sorry. Try again.
Is the main method employed by the pill to prevent conception or implantation?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




And as for your next post ... false. They are charged with 2 counts. Why is it two counts if there is only 1 person with protection/rights?


A person can be charged with a crime for vandalism for painting graffiti on a garage door, does that mean that the garage door has rights? A person can be charged with two crimes in any number of situations involving only one victim.

The "ACT" never says a fetus is protected from an intentional abortion that a women demands.


What does that have to do with the crime in question? Nothing. Awesome red herring though.

Wrong on all accounts ... keep playing .. keep losing. There are many laws in many states where an unborn fetus is defined as a person and afforded protections. You are seriously incredibly ignorant and if you refuse to listen then you are welcome to stay ignorant and wrong.


Alabama* Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.


www.ncsl.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



What does that have to do with the crime in question?

What crime?
Is this thread about illegal abortions now?

Nothing in Article 1 or Article 2 shall permit the prosecution of (1) any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for which consent is implied by law or (2) any woman with respect to her unborn child.


edit on 6/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



What does that have to do with the crime in question?

What crime?
Is this thread about illegal abortions now?

Nothing in Article 1 or Article 2 shall permit the prosecution of (1) any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for which consent is implied by law or (2) any woman with respect to her unborn child.


No, you will have to go back and look at the posts.

He stated that a person must be born to be afforded any protection. I replied that is somewhat incorrect as there are states that have laws protecting the unborn, for instance if a pregnant woman is attacked it can be two counts of assault (one for the mother one for the unborn baby).

He then replied it was the same as vandalism, and vandalizing a garage does not give the garage rights, which is a red herring and quite a stupid reply.

So the string of posts in question has nothing to do with abortion, it is pointing out his error in stating there are no protections given to any child until it has been born. He refuses to accept this.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I understand thread drift but I don't see your citation assigning any protections to unborn. It's more about being able to prosecute those who, through malicious intent, cause harm to a fetus.

Nothing in this section shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal. Nothing in this section shall be construed to make an abortion legal which is not otherwise authorized by law.

edit on 6/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I understand thread drift but I don't see your citation assigning any protections to unborn. It's more about being able to prosecute those who, through malicious intent, cause harm to a fetus.


If you look at the exact law I quoted an unborn fetus is considered a "person" for criminal acts. They are protected from criminal acts. The law sees them as separate from the mother, their own being.

It has no bearing on abortion, but it's quite clear unborn children ARE afforded protection. It is only when the unborn child is put at risk do these laws kick in, they clearly have the right to not be harmed, separate from their mother's right.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



It is only when the unborn child is put at risk do these laws kick in, they clearly have the right to not be harmed, separate from their mother's right.

That doesn't make sense. A born child has the right to life no matter who's other rights are involved. A mother cannot decide to kill a born child. No one has that right.

edit on 6/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



It is only when the unborn child is put at risk do these laws kick in, they clearly have the right to not be harmed, separate from their mother's right.

That doesn't make sense. A born child has the right to life no matter who's other rights are involved. A mother cannot decide to kill a born child. No one has that right.


Sure it does. If you wish to argue whether it's logical or not I see no point, whether you find it illogical it's still the law.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
As I said, the law assigns no particular protections to the fetus, any more that larceny laws assign particular protections to jewelry.
The act is criminal not because of protection to the subject of the act.

edit on 6/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
As I said, the law assigns no particular protections to the fetus, any more that larceny laws assign particular protections to jewelry.
The act is criminal not because of protection to the subject of the act.


If you can show me a larceny law that defines jewelry as a person I will agree. Until you can do so it's a disingenuous argument.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


PERSON. The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

Case specific and no assignation of any rights or status as a result of that specific definition. The letter and intent of the law is clear. It confers no legal standing on the fetus and does not imply such is the case. The law does not define a fetus as a person in the case of legal abortion.
law.onecle.com...



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join