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: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword


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



The "law of the land" stated that gays cannot marry, yet you object to that on moral grounds.

Then you support abortions based on "law of the land" and disregard the moral equivilency.




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Can you point me to any other society in history, or in the present day, that counted the unborn in their populations or decreed that a fetus had equal rights to their born citizens?

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



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
In the opinion of the Supreme Court of the land, it was opined, and thus enacted as the law of the land, that abortion is a fundamental right that is constitutionally protected.

Not only that, but abortion has been practiced since the dawn of humanity. The right to autonomy of ones own body is an inalienable right. But, you are right, our inalienable rights are not issued through legislation or given to us by governments. They are protected by governments.


You do understand that an opine is an opinion, right? It neither creates an amendment to the Constitution nor does is write a new law. Show me in the Constitution where SCOTUS' ruling is backed by the language contained within. I'll wait...

But in the meantime, murder and war and pillaging and theft has been practiced since the dawn of humanity. At some point, we need to strive to not compare ourselves to uncivilized peoples and strive to be better.



Embryos and fetuses don't have rights. Rights are bestowed on individuals who are born. An embryo or a fetus has no concept of, or right to, the pursue happiness or liberty, and it's life is totally dependent on every heartbeat and breath of the its host, an autonomous, breathing, thinking person with inalienable rights.


For the hard of learning, let's bring up the whole quote, shall we?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Emphasis mine.

Note that it doesn't say that we're all born equal, or are equal at a certain point of our lives. Men (which includes women in this instance) are created when an egg is fertilized. It's basic biology.



...Also, DNA is a molecule, not a person. Human DNA is blue print, or a recipe, for a person.

An acorn is not an oak tree.


Right, and I didn't say that DNA is a human, I said that even a zygote has unique DNA, making it its own individual human being from the start. But this law isn't discussing zygotes, so we're going off on a tangent that doesn't need discussed for this thread. But the point still stands that even a miscarriage (which my wife has had at least two) is a loss of a human being--maybe not fully developed, but a human being nonetheless. Science wouldn't find the aborted human and mistake it for an aardvark.

Comparing fauna to flora is just silly and serves to real purpose.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




You do understand that an opine is an opinion, right? It neither creates an amendment to the Constitution nor does is write a new law. Show me in the Constitution where SCOTUS' ruling is backed by the language contained within. I'll wait...


The judges of the Supreme Court issued their opinions, citing the US Constitution, ruling that abortion is a protected right "under the constitution". Go argue Roe V wade with someone else.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


An embryo isn't sentient and therefore has no wants. It has no desires of happiness or liberty to fulfill or deny. An embryo isn't a "man" or a "woman", which implies maturity far beyond birth. The rights that are declared to be inalienable human rights, in the Bill of Rights, apply to people who have achieved their birthrights to through birth.







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



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer
Can you point me to any other society in history, or in the present day, that counted the unborn in their populations or decreed that a fetus had equal rights to their born citizens?


Other than the fact that you skirted the question, why does it matter if other countries have laws protecting the unborn? Do you know what it means to lead when it comes to doing the right thing? And, of course, while 'the right thing' is subjective, you'll notice that you are on the wrong side of the majority when Americans are asked specific questions on abortion. When society is so lopsided to one side, shouldn't that be considered when making laws...even if the SCOTUS opines a decision on the legality of abortion?

Or should we just keep taking your (and others of the same mindset) word for it that, "Hey, don't worry, it's not a human that you're killing! It's fine!"

Not to mention the physical and psychological damage that can occur to the mother because of the procedure as well.

But, it's cool...it's been happening since the dawn of mankind, and no other countries afford rights to fetuses.

What a crock.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Granting human rights to the unborn is exactly the WRONG thing to do. Women are not incubator's that belong to men or "the state". Their rights and their choices regarding their own bodies exist above those of a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo or a fetus.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

nevermind. You answered in the above.

*shakes head*
edit on 9-4-2015 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
The judges of the Supreme Court issued their opinions, citing the US Constitution, ruling that abortion is a protected right "under the constitution". Go argue Roe V wade with someone else.


Nah, not interested in even arguing it with you...and you still can't cite where in the Constitution that it specifically provides for abortion to be a right, can you?

Didn't think so, even though I doubt you care. SCOTUS has approved a lot of things that are questionable and...well, just plain wrong for our country. With Roe v. Wade, they hid behind the 'right to privacy.' But keep in mind that the ruling specifically discusses viability--even if viability means help from a hospital to keep it alive. That generally accepted limit of viability is 24 weeks with our current technology, but even younger fetuses have survived outside of the womb.

So, with our technology, even a 20-week-old fetus can survive outside of the womb (albeit very rarely). So we'll stick with 24 weeks as the viability point...so, anything 24-weeks developed we'll just go ahead and call an un-abortable human by Roe v. Wade standards. Sound good? I mean, you're the one that brings up the decision, so let's use that as the benchmark, then.

Unless, of course, if goes against your ideology and subjective opinion. Then you'll probably not want to debate the ruling. Oh, wait, you already took that easy way out.


An embryo isn't sentient and therefore has no wants. It has no desires of happiness or liberty to fulfill or deny. An embryo isn't a "man" or a "woman", which implies maturity far beyond birth. The rights that are declared to be inalienable human rights, in the Bill of Rights, apply to people who have achieved their birthrights to through birth.


Ummm...a human's gender is determined at conception. The rest of your above quote is just subjective ramblings in hopes of proving your point.

My conclusion is that you don't understand biology very well, if at all, and possibly understand our legal and legistlative system even less. I think discussing this with you is time-wasting and has come to its end.

Best Regards.

ETA:


originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Their rights and their choices regarding their own bodies exist above those of a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo or a fetus.


Not according to your beloved Roe v. Wade ruling. You might want to go re-read that ruling instead of relying on the uninformed pro-choice activists to educate you.
edit on 9-4-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Small government for corporations and rich folk
Big government for the rest



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
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.



Certainly. The law of the land also once defined a "person" as being white only. I think we can point out various places where people were declared less than human to justify anything done, from Germany to the ol' south. We all recognize what the law says but some disagree with the idea that something is moral or just "just because it's the law." The law and the right thing are quite often at odds.

The law has caught up with the 20th century technology where the end of life is concerned but I still find it curious that it's stuck in the 18th century where the beginning of life is concerned.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer
Can you point me to any other society in history, or in the present day, that counted the unborn in their populations or decreed that a fetus had equal rights to their born citizens?


Other than the fact that you skirted the question, why does it matter if other countries have laws protecting the unborn? Do you know what it means to lead when it comes to doing the right thing? And, of course, while 'the right thing' is subjective, you'll notice that you are on the wrong side of the majority when Americans are asked specific questions on abortion. When society is so lopsided to one side, shouldn't that be considered when making laws...even if the SCOTUS opines a decision on the legality of abortion?

Or should we just keep taking your (and others of the same mindset) word for it that, "Hey, don't worry, it's not a human that you're killing! It's fine!"

Not to mention the physical and psychological damage that can occur to the mother because of the procedure as well.

But, it's cool...it's been happening since the dawn of mankind, and no other countries afford rights to fetuses.

What a crock.


What he misses to realize is that the rules on abortion in most of Europe are actually more restrictive than ours.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: windword


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



The "law of the land" stated that gays cannot marry, yet you object to that on moral grounds.

Then you support abortions based on "law of the land" and disregard the moral equivilency.



Because "the law" is only respected if he agrees with it. It's freedom of choice and no governmental interference in abortion only--all other issues, it's no freedom of choice and government dictates for all.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

That's why I'm bowing out.

No sense in beating my head against a brick wall.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




Nah, not interested in even arguing it with you...and you still can't cite where in the Constitution that it specifically provides for abortion to be a right, can you?


There are plenty of places in Constitution that can be cited to protect a woman's right to autonomy over her body.



So, with our technology, even a 20-week-old fetus can survive outside of the womb (albeit very rarely). So we'll stick with 24 weeks as the viability point...so, anything 24-weeks developed we'll just go ahead and call an un-abortable human by Roe v. Wade standards. Sound good? I mean, you're the one that brings up the decision, so let's use that as the benchmark, then.


Late term abortions, that is abortions after 20 or so weeks, are almost always done because the fetus is "incompatible with life" for one reason or another, or the woman's life is endangered. So, viability isn't really the issue here.



Ummm...a human's gender is determined at conception.


A fetus is neither a man nor a woman.

Children don't have the same rights as adults, They can't vote, drink, drive, engage in contracts or serve in the military ..... until they mature to a certain age. And, you know what, you can't find anything about that (underage minor's rights) in the constitution either.



Not according to your beloved Roe v. Wade ruling.


As I stated earlier, governments don't issue rights, they protect them, or not.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'll ask you the same question, can you point me to a society that ever counted the unborn in their populations or decreed rights to the unborn that were also granted to their born citizens. How can one have a "birthright" without having been born?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword









A fetus is neither a man nor a woman.


The gender is determined at fertiliztion, at two months all internal organs are functioning. "Heartfelt isn't it"
Should we have any "emotions" in that region.



Children don't have the same rights as adults, They can't vote, drink, drive, engage in contracts or serve in the military ..... until they mature to a certain age. And, you know what, you can't find anything about that (underage minor's rights) in the constitution either.


Let us engage in this concept.
The person with ALS, MS, Parkinsons, Allzheimers, Dementia, any mentally or physically impaired "being" is not covered by our law "The Persuit of Happiness", is that what you are saying? How do you know?
These people can not meet your requirement.
We are walking on a very thin line of reasoning here. We (and I say WE because as a member of ATS I must resume responsibility),
MUST protect the most vulnurable in all aspects of what we call LIFE.
WIS



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: WalkInSilence




The person with ALS, MS, Parkinsons, Allzheimers, Dementia, any mentally or physically impaired "being" is not covered by our law "The Persuit of Happiness",


What are you talking about? All those people have been born! They have rights.



The gender is determined at fertiliztion, at two months all internal organs are functioning.


No they aren't. An 8 week old fetus can't breath, suck, digest food, see, hear, or generally survive outside the womb.



"Heartfelt isn't it"
Should we have any "emotions" in that region.



Why should our emotions trump the emotions of the woman carrying the pregnancy?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, definitely, that many women just do not have the funds to take care of an abortion right away, but what is the percentage of those that just have a change of hart after knowing they are pregnant, is many circumstances behind that.

Back when I was a teen in the seventies I remember that late term abortions were a common practice and before doing the abortion the fetus was killed in the womb, it was barbaric.

Like I say I am all for the rights of women to terminate pregnancies, and I hate the government taking littler by littler the right for woman to do just that, but somewhere it has to be a limit on how late in pregnancy.


edit on 10-4-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043

Back when I was a teen in the seventies I remember that late term abortions were a common practice and before doing the abortion the fetus was killed in the womb, it was barbaric.



Where was that?

I've never heard of anything like that.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




I remember that late term abortions were a common practice and before doing the abortion the fetus was killed in the womb, it was barbaric.


In late term abortions the fetus is always killed in the womb. That's why Dr. Kermit Gosnel got into trouble. He was killing the babies that survived the drugs meant to kill them in the womb, as they were delivered. He was probably to too cheap to get effective drugs or to give his patients the proper dosages.

Only 1% of all abortions performed are late term, after 24 weeks, and almost all of them occur because the fetus is "incompatible with life", or the life of the mother is at risk. In those cases, where the mother's life is at stake, all efforts are made to save the "wanted" life of the fetus/baby.


edit on 10-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)







 
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join