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: Gryphon66
If life begins at conception, in the case of spontaneous abortion (which occurs in about 50% of fertilized ova), is the mother to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter then?
If not, why not?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
If life begins at conception, in the case of spontaneous abortion (which occurs in about 50% of fertilized ova), is the mother to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter then?
If not, why not?
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen
LOL
Are you trying to insinuate that when a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus, naturally, which is about 50% of the time, it's akin to heart attack or a stroke?
Fate of a Fertilized Egg: Why Some Embryos Don't Implant
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Oh come on, this isn't a binary solution. Abortions happen at various times - many during the early stages, when the foetus isn't very developed at all and therefore can't de described as viable, let alone as human. Late term abortions are rarer but are sadly necessary when the life of the mother is at risk or in other circumstances. People who want to ban abortions drive me nuts as they seem to think that conception results in a tiny human being appearing in the womb. It doesn't - it's a collection of cells that might develop into a baby.
All of which is besides the point if you're a man - we have no idea what a woman goes through in pregnancy so we are utterly unqualified to comment. Oh and if I see one more congressional hearing about abortion or contraception in which a bunch of old men and priests whitter on about the morality of it all I'll explode. They are totally and utterly unqualified to comment. Unless it's on the latest prostate cancer medication. Bunch of hypocritical assholes.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Physiologically and logically, a baby in the womb is no different than a baby outside the womb one hour later.
Pro-abortionists don't want to consider personhood outside the arbitrary passage through six inches of birth canal because they don't even want to consider any sort of restriction and it is much easier to kill what one keeps dehumanized.
I find some valid points but also some blind refusal to think on both sides of this issue.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Physiologically and logically, a baby in the womb is no different than a baby outside the womb one hour later.
Except that it's not WITHIN another person's body. That IS the difference.
Pro-abortionists don't want to consider personhood outside the arbitrary passage through six inches of birth canal because they don't even want to consider any sort of restriction and it is much easier to kill what one keeps dehumanized.
That's where you're failing. NO ONE is "pro-abortion". We are Pro-choice. I would not have an abortion, but I am pro-choice. I refuse to make that choice for someone else. You're not getting it because you're not willing to. It's really NONE of your business what ANY woman does with her body, yet you stick your nose in like some authoritarian man who knows better than the woman, herself. It's really disgusting.
I find some valid points but also some blind refusal to think on both sides of this issue.
WTF are you talking about? I think life begins at conception. I am against abortion. But I make that determination for myself and no one else. If that's not thinking on both sides of the issue, I don't know what is!
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Physiologically and logically, a baby in the womb is no different than a baby outside the womb one hour later.
Except that it's not WITHIN another person's body. That IS the difference.
Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment
Please point out a single post where I dictated anything to anyone
Inside another, outside another, independent, not dependent are not things that make someone a person or not. It's really a simplistic way of looking at a very complex issue.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Are you suggesting that, since I am not a woman, I cannot dislike rape? That is a silly premise.
It's a silly premise to suggest only women can be raped to begin with.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
Please point out a single post where I dictated anything to anyone
You've dictated all kinds of things to people that don't agree with you. You've dictated that self proclaimed progressives are really Marxist; that pro-choicer individuals are merely pro-abortionists who are irrational and have been blinded by their own dogma. According to you, they haven't employed critical thinking skill to the issue, which is why they need you to assist them into thinking "deeply" on a subject that you have dictated that they clearly don't understand.
Inside another, outside another, independent, not dependent are not things that make someone a person or not. It's really a simplistic way of looking at a very complex issue.
Bullox! When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying something is totally dependent on her, whether she's in her first trimester or in labor. Until that baby is BORN, it is still a part of her body, attached by an umbilical cord and a placenta. It relies on her blood, breath, heart, et al.
A child is an autonomous individual once it's born. Even if it's a preemie on respirator, it is living outside the womb. Viability is what's key here.
One does not have to be a woman nor be a rape victim in order to understand that rape is wrong and to be against it, yes?
originally posted by: NavyDoc
I think that you, however, get the point. One does not have to be a woman nor be a rape victim in order to understand that rape is wrong and to be against it, yes?