It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Grambler
Well, whatever next then? You cannot self stimulate because it violates the right of ones sperm to life and the pursuit of happiness, the fulfilment of biological imperatives? You cannot treat a virus because it is life, and killing it is murder? You cannot eat vegetables because they are living things, and uprooting them from the ground is to kill them? No meat for OBVIOUS reasons?
What nonsense is this? Foetuses are not living things in their own right till certain things are the case. I would say, if the baby could survive outside the womb without outright dying in all cases, it's alive, independent of, merely sustaining itself with aid from the mother, rather than reliant entirely upon her.
However, previous to that point, what you have is nothing more than a tumour putting on airs scientifically speaking, and whether you decide to allow that growth to continue till the stage where it DOES become a life or prevent it from doing so, from a coldly logical stand point, is a matter of no consequence at that stage, save for to the mother, for whom it might be understandably difficult.
Now, that is a VERY cold, bald statement of fact, without icing, sugar, or added preservatives of any kind, and I realise it may be unpleasant to hear, but it is also the only way to look at this without allowing religious or ideological bias into the equation.
Once it is determined that the fetus is a viable life, then it is granted rights, such as the right to live. So it is no lnger a person telling a woman what she can do with her body, it then becomes telling a woman she can't harm another life.
However, some people think it isn't a life until it is born, and so they would believe in the right to terminate even during a birth.
The fact that we are relying on medical knowledge from 1973 to make these determinations is ridiculous.
Most people are against section 2, but are ok with section one. I don't understand why the man who helped create has no right to consent to the future and life or death decision of his baby. Her consent is mandatory for the actions that create the life. His consent should also be mandatory to destroy it, with a plethora of exemptions there as well.
I think that as long as it's still attached, it is a part of the woman's body and the woman should have the right to do whatever she pleases with her body, whether other people agree or not. I'm tired of the government deciding morality.
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
So here is a proposal I am making to really revamp our abortion laws
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler
So you found someone who doesn't understand the complications of pregnancy saying something ignorant. Still, what you are proposing is misleading nonsense and never legally happens, and is behavior not protected by Roe V Wade.
yet seven people starred it.
The real reason abortion is so controversial is that it is a difficult problem. Great minds on both sides have differing opinions on when "life" begins.
You said no one thinks that could mean right up until birth
I want women and all people to have maximum freedom and choice, but when another life is at stake, there needs to be a serious discussion about how to navigate this, and just shouting its always a woman's choice won't solve anything.