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.

 

3rd Shock Video Catches Planned Parenthood V.P. Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies

page: 28
54
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

Knock it off with HUMAN thing. OF course a human woman has human eggs, and human men have human sperm, together they make a human embryo that will grow into a human person, if all conditions are right.

Embryo is to "person" as acorn is to "Oak tree".

It's simple SAT test type logic!




posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

This is good, we're making progress, you're finally admitting that it's human. Just an embryo, but it is a human.

Now, what has been said earlier? What is the word we use to describe the act of killing an innocent human?

Come on now, this is easy peasy!


edit on 8-8-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian
self defense if it's endangering the mother in any way....
what do you call it when we proceed to bomb innocent women and children in the middle east?



edit on 8-8-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

Look, I've never once made the argument that a fertilized egg, an embryo or a fetus isn't human.

But, a twelve week old fetus ins't a person, it's a potential person. Yes, abortion expels and/or kills something living, but not something that is self aware, cognoscente or autonomous. When it comes to the woman who is pregnant, it's her body, her choice, whether of not she wants to carry that fetus to term, nobody else's.

If she doesn't want a potential person living inside her, taking nutrients and affecting her health and well being, she doesn't have to.


edit on 8-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Interesting that this thread is now about the morality of abortion (a right granted by the Supreme Court, mind) and not about the duplicitous, indefensible manipulated video in the OP anymore. I wonder why that is?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Our rights are not granted by any Supreme Court. Maybe take a look at The Declaration of Independence again?

Do you know what an unalienable right is?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I wonder if you even realize how ridiculous your definition of what is human, actually sounds.

Is a person in a coma..."self aware, 'cognoscente' (?), or autonomous"?

Is a newborn infant?

It basically comes down to what windword decides is human, and when. Never mind the facts. It's how he feeeels. Windword, and the pro-death crowd have come up with a myriad of rationalizations to justify murder. I understand why though, I mean, they need to sleep at night too. Irrational, illogical, unreasonable explanations, will eventually get you to sleep.

Rust, and your conscience....never sleeps.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian




Is a person in a coma..."self aware, 'cognoscente' (?), or autonomous"?


I don't understand why the concept of birth is so hard for you to grasp. Obviously, the person "in a coma" has been born.
edit on 9-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian




Our rights are not granted by any Supreme Court.


So, you think it's up to you, instead, to dictate what, exactly, are and aren't a woman's rights?

Abortion is one of those inalienable rights.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

What you fail to grasp is that our position is that a baby in that mother's womb has rights also, unalienable rights, specifically, the right to life.

I don't understand why this basic concept is so hard for you to grasp.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian
because the mother has the same rights as every other human in the country....
particularly the right to defend oneself, their family, their material possessions.

she has the right to medicate herself if her health requires it, she has the right to earn income.
these rights don't fly out the window upon conception.
sometimes the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother clash, and when they do, well how do you propose both of their rights are preserved?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Well, that's a good question. And I have a very easy answer, that is ethical, logical, moral, reasonable and consistent.

What is YOUR answer to that very good question?




edit on 9-8-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

my answer is you can't, not fully.
to me it's a question of how much of a burden is too much, which is something that really would be very difficult to legislate.
to me, you can't expect a mother to throw her whole family into turmoil,
for instance. if preserving the fetus requires the mother to be hospitalized for months and the only replacement for the childcare that she is providing her children is foster care, then that is really too much.
same with income, if she is earning a significant portion of it and won't be able to for most of the nine months she is carrying the child, and other members of the family will suffer hardship because of the loss of that income, then it is too much to expect.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian




What you fail to grasp is that our position is that a baby in that mother's womb has rights also, unalienable rights, specifically, the right to life.


That egg belongs to the woman, as part of her body, whether it's fertilized or not. Her rights are unquestionable. An egg has no rights, fertilized or not. She is the keeper of the gateway! That is HER inalienable right, endowed to her by her creator.

After all, the good lord gave us plants that cause abortions for a reason, eh?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Interesting you'd use the wording "the good lord".

Definition time again, what is a "lord"? And what is a good one? What is a bad one?

Why do Christians refer to Jesus as a lord? Do you know why?

If my position is that life begins at conception, then that fertilized egg indeed has rights. A new human being has been co-created.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: windword

Interesting you'd use the wording "the good lord".

Definition time again, what is a "lord"? And what is a good one? What is a bad one?

Why do Christians refer to Jesus as a lord? Do you know why?

If my position is that life begins at conception, then that fertilized egg indeed has rights. A new human being has been co-created.


You do know that even children don't have the same rights as adults right? Now we can't just kill a child because we may think it is inconvenient, but don't pretend like just because its human that it automatically has all the rights as a fully grown adult.
edit on 10-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: windword

Interesting you'd use the wording "the good lord".


It's a figure of speech.


Definition time again, what is a "lord"? And what is a good one? What is a bad one?


I don't believe in the Christian God.


Why do Christians refer to Jesus as a lord? Do you know why?


What has that got to do with anything Would Jesus approve of abortion? You betcha!


Matthew 24
"But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!


Not to mention that the "LORD" of the Old Testament condoned abortions.



If my position is that life begins at conception, then that fertilized egg indeed has rights. A new human being has been co-created.


Life doesn't begin at conception! The woman's egg IS alive, the man's sperm IS alive. When and if they meet, they create a chemical reaction, not life. Chemical reactions aren't sacred. Every sperm is NOT sacred nor is every egg.

What is sacred is a woman's right to choose.



edit on 10-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

A human child has a right to life, just like you did.

The right to life, and the right to vote, or the right to drive a car, are worlds apart. The right to life is an unalienable right. The right to vote is not.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

A human child has a right to life, just like you did.

The right to life, and the right to vote, or the right to drive a car, are worlds apart. The right to life is an unalienable right. The right to vote is not.


At the end of the day, they are still rights that are enumerated in the laws of our country. There is no natural right to life in the world, and like I said even children don't have full rights like adults. Naturally, an unborn clump of cells attached to the inside of a woman's body is going to have even less.




top topics



 
54
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join