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.

 

BREAKING: Court Rules Against StemExpress On Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
a reply to: ketsuko



If it's in a state to be useful, absolutely. Same reason I believe that organ donation shouldn't be an opt-in thing. Quite simply, if a dead body can be put to use to help a living human, not doing so is completely unjustifiable.


...but under the current system of laws, opting out is legal. Let's be consistant, those opt-outs are legal-eagle and within their rights.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




The same respect is certainly not granted to these unborn humans, who not only have no say about not being killed, but also have no say over what happens to them after death.


That would be the same for any young child that dies, as well. They would have no say over their birth, their care or their death, or what happens to their little bodies after they die.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6








The same respect is certainly not granted to these unborn humans, who not only have no say about not being killed, but also have no say over what happens to them after death.





That would be the same for any young child that dies, as well. They would have no say over their birth, their care or their death, or what happens to their little bodies after they die.


Significant difference: their "mom" can't decide to have them killed because they inconvenience her.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Are we arguing about fetal donations or abortions?

Your point, it seems to me, was that the fetus didn't get a say as to what happens to its body after death. Neither would any young child, Them's the breaks!


edit on 13-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6




The same respect is certainly not granted to these unborn humans, who not only have no say about not being killed, but also have no say over what happens to them after death.


That would be the same for any young child that dies, as well. They would have no say over their birth, their care or their death, or what happens to their little bodies after they die.


But if you stuck hemostats in that child's brain to kill it then dismembered that child with forceps and sold the parts you would be charged with murder.
edit on 8 13 2015 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

But abortion isn't murder. Aren't we getting off topic here.


edit on 13-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Are we arguing about fetal donations or abortions?

Your point, it seems to me, was that the fetus didn't get a say as to what happens to its body after death. Neither would any young child, Them's the breaks!



Them's the breaks?

Stone cold huh?

Now if it was a puppy..........



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: stosh64

Aren't we getting off topic here.



Thank you for the reminder.

I was getting caught up in another one of these after I promised myself I wouldn't.

I'm out.
edit on 8 13 2015 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Have you ever had a very young child in your family die? Did they have a say in their treatment or their funeral plans?

To get all up in arms about the consent of an embryo or a fetus is pure hyperbole and has nothing to do with letting these attack video circulate.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: stosh64



But abortion isn't murder. Aren't we getting off topic here.





No, it's topical. It is the heart of this discussion.

If you view a fetus as simply a mass of cells and tissue, I can understand why this PP policy doesn't ruffle your feathers.
If someone views a fetus as a life, a human life, are you capable of relating to why this PP policy DOES ruffle feathers?

The #1 problem, as I've stated numerous times, is that we have a legal system that is Bi-Polar. On one hand we have legalized abortion, declaring the fetus is just a mass of cells and tissue at the convenience of the owner of the uterus. On the other hand, we have laws like the Violence Against the Unborn Act which grants full American citizen protections against a fetus SO LONG AS IT ISN'T THE "MOTHER" OR HER CHOSEN ABORTION PROVIDER aiming to do violence against them. Tell me that isn't like walking out of a diet clinic with plain rice cakes in one hand and a tub of lard based frosting in the other.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: stosh64



But abortion isn't murder. Aren't we getting off topic here.





Tell me that isn't like walking out of a diet clinic with plain rice cakes in one hand and a tub of lard based frosting in the other.


Only if you're force fed.
edit on 13-8-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
The parts are NOT being sold, this court ruling has NO bearing on that aspect anyway. Note Introvert's first post in the thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Abortion is legal, and it's a woman's right to decide when and if she wants a family. A woman's choice is sacred. No one can force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy and no one can force her to abort.

Now, I don't agree with the law you've cited, that was passed by the pro-life Bush administration, but abortion isn't murder. However, the G.W. Bush admin and their pro-life cronies want you to know that if your force a woman to have an abortion, you'll be charged with murder. It's not a bi-polar law, it protects a woman's choice.


edit on 13-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
No, it's topical. It is the heart of this discussion.

If you view a fetus as simply a mass of cells and tissue, I can understand why this PP policy doesn't ruffle your feathers.
If someone views a fetus as a life, a human life, are you capable of relating to why this PP policy DOES ruffle feathers?

The #1 problem, as I've stated numerous times, is that we have a legal system that is Bi-Polar. On one hand we have legalized abortion, declaring the fetus is just a mass of cells and tissue at the convenience of the owner of the uterus. On the other hand, we have laws like the Violence Against the Unborn Act which grants full American citizen protections against a fetus SO LONG AS IT ISN'T THE "MOTHER" OR HER CHOSEN ABORTION PROVIDER aiming to do violence against them. Tell me that isn't like walking out of a diet clinic with plain rice cakes in one hand and a tub of lard based frosting in the other.


I think that even if you've decided that abortion is murder it's a separate issue from that of tissue donation. Would you as a person who sees it as murder prefer the death of an infant, or would you prefer if that death can be used to save another person?

No one is going around performing abortions for the purpose of harvesting tissue, the tissue is being harvested in abortions that were already going to happen.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
The parts are NOT being sold, this court ruling has NO bearing on that aspect anyway. Note Introvert's first post in the thread.


So they claim.

Cash kickbacks are king.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Kuroodo
Well if the body parts are from dead babies, and the "parents" don't want anything for the dead baby/fetus, then I don't see what is wrong about selling them as long as it go's to a research organization for actual research and experiments, or medicine.

But as to the actual topic, finally the court does what is right.


Would you say the same for a dead relative? Or some random dead person? If we find a dead homeless person, should we just sell their body because no one cares what happens to it?


If you said a live relative I would 100% side with you. What if that random dead person was HIV immune with live blood still? That blood could be used for curing aids.

Using parts of a fetus or a dead person for positive medical research shouldn't be frowned upon, it could literally save a loved one. Selling it for profit is where the line should be drawn.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

I think that even if you've decided that abortion is murder it's a separate issue from that of tissue donation. Would you as a person who sees it as murder prefer the death of an infant, or would you prefer if that death can be used to save another person?


From where I stand, that's in the same ballpark as asking someone "When did you stop beating your wife?" If you are opposed to abortion and view it as a morally derelict act, then it is pretty much impossible to answer the question of what you should do with the baby after the abortion. I'd obviously rather see a society in which a cop shooting an attacking 18 year old dead doesn't receive hundreds of times the outrage and demands for political change as the 3,000+ abortions that happen in America every day. But no, we'll be hammered to death by shock and outrage when a rich dentist shoots a goddamned African lion, but are demanded to not only accept, but support the ethical system which forgives a million American murders per year. Some cracked shell mofo strung out of antidepressants and sleeping pills takes daddy's firearm into a school and horrifically shoots a dozen children and this generates demands for gun control, mental health spending, and social initiative. 3,000+ moral midgets go to a clinic everyday to kill the defenseless life inside them and crickets chirp.

The amazing thing here is I don't even need to shout out to the Bible or my faith on this issue. It's just common sense and classic respect for life, ESPECIALLY the life of those who can't defend themselves.

If anyone is offended by this, GOOD! Welcome to the club.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do we only draw the line of life at humans though? Have you ever stepped on a cricket? Why does a superiority complex automatically result in a determination of life? If life is life, there should be no separation between us and the insects.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Fully formed organs needed and WANTED for study, but.........not life.......

Weird right?!



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Why do you think a doctor would agree to abort a fully develop fetus? Do you think late term abortions happen because someone is angry with their "baby daddy'?


edit on 13-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join