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.

 

Kansas governor signs abortion law

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dollukka

Abortion and infanticide are two different topics. Please learn the distinction.



Considering your criteria was "must be able to order a cake," I'd say that the comment was valid. Of course we just know it was hyperbole.


This is a bit of a difficult issue. On one hand, one does not want government involved in personal decisions. On the other hand, one legitimate role of government is to stop people from killing each other without just cause.

I guess it all boils down to what is a "person." I don't believe in souls and even if I did, I can't prove the existence of them, so that is really a dead end.

OTOH, logically, one does not magically become a human being when they pass through the birth canal--human development is a continuum. We have "not person" at conception and we have "person" after birth. The change comes somewhere in between. It seems to me that an objective and repeatable test for "personhood" would be an EEG--after all, that is what we use to determine someone is alive or dead for various purposes in the hospital setting.

I don't think either side would like that solution as one side believes in life from conception and the other side believes in abortion at any time and neither will budge.

Definitely a quandary for the libertarian minded though.




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Considering your criteria was "must be able to order a cake," I'd say that the comment was valid. Of course we just know it was hyperbole.


This is a misrepresentation of my reasoning. The challenge posed was comparing the rights of the unborn to born groups being denied service based on another individual's, so called, religious freedom. Apples and helicopters!



OTOH, logically, one does not magically become a human being when they pass through the birth canal--human development is a continuum. We have "not person" at conception and we have "person" after birth.


Nope! Nothing magical about transitioning from "fetus" to "baby". First breath and disconnection from the umbilical cord, and voila, you have an autonomous human person, capable of life without it's host. Before that, mother and fetus are intrinsically one.


edit on 9-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I think thats a pretty evil way to think, that as long as a child is inside the mother its expendable, so 39 weeks, due in a few days but if the mother wants to kill it she can.
I dont agree with that, and i think even a lot of people who agree with abortion wouldnt agree with you.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

Gays didn't/don't have the same rights, yet you advocate for them.

Blacks/minorities didn't have the same rights, yet you advocated for them.

The unborn children, however? They shouldn't have the same rights as a child that has been "born"?





This is standard MO for people obsessed with all things below their waste.

At the root is a demand that all sexual conduct, proclivities, urges, actions et al be accepted / approved / celebrated without objection and consequence.

It is ultimately a celebration of selfishness and inward thinking that is diametrically opposed to Life - in every possible way - in the creation of Life, in the respect for Life, in the dignity of Life, and at the end of Life.

Is there any real wonder at how depraved ALL of this is?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: WilsonWilson




I think thats a pretty evil way to think, that as long as a child is inside the mother its expendable, so 39 weeks, due in a few days but if the mother wants to kill it she can.


That's not what I said, nor is killing a 39 week old fetus, for the heck of it, legal. However, if there is a question over the life of the mother or the fetus, in late term pregnancies, the choice should be the mother's to make, not the fetuses! Don't you agree?

Here's an example for you to consider.


When Dana Weinstein talks about her second child, she refers to her "angel baby." In the summer of 2009, with a 2 1/2-year-old son and a daughter on the way, the Weinsteins were looking forward to completing their family. Then tragedy struck. After a sonogram 29 weeks into her pregnancy, Weinstein learned her daughter's brain hadn't formed properly and that the baby would face severe health and mental problems, if it survived at all. Several weeks later, she made the painful decision to end the pregnancy before "Baby W" was born. Now Weinstein fears that if Republican legislators around the country succeed in banning abortions after 20 weeks, many women in similar situations will no longer have the option that she did.
www.motherjones.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




Considering your criteria was "must be able to order a cake," I'd say that the comment was valid. Of course we just know it was hyperbole.


This is a misrepresentation of my reasoning. The challenge posed was comparing the rights of the unborn to born groups being denied service based on another individual's, so called, religious freedom. Apples and helicopters!



OTOH, logically, one does not magically become a human being when they pass through the birth canal--human development is a continuum. We have "not person" at conception and we have "person" after birth.


Nope! Nothing magical about transitioning from "fetus" to "baby". First breath and disconnection from the umbilical cord, and voila, you have an autonomous human person, capable of life without it's host. Before that, mother and fetus are intrinsically one.



That is not logical. By that logic, one is not a person when on a ventilator. "Personhood" is much more than dependence on someone or something else to survive



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

Gays didn't/don't have the same rights, yet you advocate for them.

Blacks/minorities didn't have the same rights, yet you advocated for them.

The unborn children, however? They shouldn't have the same rights as a child that has been "born"?





This is standard MO for people obsessed with all things below their waste.

At the root is a demand that all sexual conduct, proclivities, urges, actions et al be accepted / approved / celebrated without objection and consequence.

It is ultimately a celebration of selfishness and inward thinking that is diametrically opposed to Life - in every possible way - in the creation of Life, in the respect for Life, in the dignity of Life, and at the end of Life.

Is there any real wonder at how depraved ALL of this is?


Yes, because life is having SOOO much trouble propagating due to all the people having abortions or using contraceptives... /sarcasm
edit on 9-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




That is not logical. By that logic, one is not a person when on a ventilator.


What logic?


"Personhood" is much more than dependence on someone or something else to survive


"A person" on a ventilator HAS already been born. They are using their own lungs to process air. Further, if the person (on the ventilator) is unconscious, they aren't making any choices of their own. Someone else is calling the life or death shots while they're being artificially kept alive.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




That is not logical. By that logic, one is not a person when on a ventilator.


What logic?


"Personhood" is much more than dependence on someone or something else to survive


"A person" on a ventilator HAS already been born. They are using their own lungs to process air. Further, if the person (on the ventilator) is unconscious, they aren't making any choices of their own. Someone else is calling the life or death shots while they're being artificially kept alive.



I know, "what logic" exactly.

Science has progressed beyond the "fog a mirror" stage.

Yes, someone on a vent is very much dependent on other people--does that make them "not human?"



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
How many weeks is it?...sorry I dog bone tired to read every post.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
How many weeks is it?...sorry I dog bone tired to read every post.


You won't convince anyone to change their mind.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




I know, "what logic" exactly.


Are you still trying to link the rights of an individual person to deny service to LGBT people in general, based on their religious prejudices, to the (non existent) rights of an embryo or a fetus?
edit on 9-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
How many weeks is it?...sorry I dog bone tired to read every post.


12-13 weeks.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




I know, "what logic" exactly.


Are you stilling to link the rights of a individual person to deny service to LGBT people in general, based on their religious prejudices, to the (non existent) rights of an embryo or a fetus?



What?

I'm just saying that defining a "human" is a lot more than how dependent one is on others. Science has evolved beyond the "fogging a mirror" definition of what is life--that's a fact. Not a convenient fact, apparently, but still a fact.

As for the rest, WTF? That's not even in this thread at all. That desperate to avoid to have to think?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

My position is that Iam all for the right to choose to abort a fetus seeing we have so many unwanted kids already.
But I was a premmie baby 26 weeks under 2 pound and anything around this time for an abortion does make me feel queasy.
But at the end of the day I do think that If a woman wants an abortion law or not she will get one which can be in a back alley or a homemade one.
But as a man have I as a man got any right to have a say in it anyway? I can never empathise really in the emotions in being pregnant.
Maybe fellas these types of laws should be sorted out by the ladies.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am all for the rights to terminate pregnancies, but if a woman waits to her second trimester to decide that she doesn't want her unborn child, that is just way too late to make a decision.

I have mix feelings about waiting that long.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



As for the rest, WTF? That's not even in this thread at all. That desperate to avoid to have to think?



originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

Gays didn't/don't have the same rights, yet you advocate for them.

Blacks/minorities didn't have the same rights, yet you advocated for them.

The unborn children, however? They shouldn't have the same rights as a child that has been "born"?

Your argument against the rights of the unborn children echo's similar arguments against affording equal rights to gays, blacks, minorities, etc.



originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

When a fetus walks into a bakery and requests a cake, or wants to order lunch at a lunch counter, I'll consider their rights.




I'm just saying that defining a "human" is a lot more than how dependent one is on others.


I'm not trying to define "human". However, the law of the land defines a "person" as being a born human individual.


edit on 9-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Women who wait that long don't do it just because they are lazy though. Many times they are spending time trying to raise funds or maybe they are searching for a place to perform the abortion. Also, keep in mind that only 11% of the total abortions are performed that late. That tells me, that there must be some extenuating circumstances behind most of those cases.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The solution to this is quite simple, if you think abortions are the equivalent of murder then don't have one and don't put yourself in the position to have one. But don't force your morality down someone else's throat.

A fetus is not a person, personhood begins when the fetus becomes viable or able to survive out of the womb. You don't become a person until after you're born.

If you were to decide between saving the life of a living and breathing baby that had been already been born, or a fetus..which would you pick?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am all for the rights to terminate pregnancies, but if a woman waits to her second trimester to decide that she doesn't want her unborn child, that is just way too late to make a decision.

I have mix feelings about waiting that long.



Not everyone has an extra $500 or more readily available.

IMO -- if government had free abortion clinics availsble --- there would be very few late term abortions, if any.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join