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