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.

 

Alabama judge allows lawsuit that names aborted fetus as co-plaintiff.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Do any of you care about the dead baby?

Chillin’ in its womb, then all of a sudden a power tube started suctioning its limbs off

Is that the way for anything to die? Much less a human...

The question I keep seeing here is, what if the mother dies? That’s a hypothetical, the fact is, an human entity, with a specific DNA sequence was sucked through a tube and is no more.



It's not that ppl don't care about dead babies.

Many don't see it as black and white as you do.

Some are against abortion in the third trimester, for example, because they see the fetus as viable, and sentient by that point.

Is a fetus a baby a week after the egg is fertilized? A month?

Just because you believe one way, doesn't mean everyone agrees.

I'm not putting you down for your views at all. Just pointing out that everyone doesn't see it the same. That doesn't make them evil.


It is killing a life. All science agrees that "it" is alive. There is no viewpoint discrepancy on that. The viewpoint is whether you are ok with killing that life and what kind of life you categorize it. Is it a human life? A lizard life? Is a fetus a nondescript, non-human life? That is the only area up for contention.

As an example, think of a kangaroo. The "fetus" takes an interesting course of action and leaves the womb to be raised in an exterior environment. The "fetus" (clearly alive - if you argue otherwise you are just an idiot) , is 2 grams for grey kangaroo. 2 grams.

I didn't say "alive". I said "baby".

Your view is that it is a human life the instant of fertilization. That's fine.

My point is not everyone sees it that way.

Also, calling ppl idiots for not believing as you do is not an arguement.




posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   

edit on 392019 by Mach2 because: Dbl



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Do any of you care about the dead baby?

Chillin’ in its womb, then all of a sudden a power tube started suctioning its limbs off

Is that the way for anything to die? Much less a human...

The question I keep seeing here is, what if the mother dies? That’s a hypothetical, the fact is, an human entity, with a specific DNA sequence was sucked through a tube and is no more.



It's not that ppl don't care about dead babies.

Many don't see it as black and white as you do.

Some are against abortion in the third trimester, for example, because they see the fetus as viable, and sentient by that point.

Is a fetus a baby a week after the egg is fertilized? A month?

Just because you believe one way, doesn't mean everyone agrees.

I'm not putting you down for your views at all. Just pointing out that everyone doesn't see it the same. That doesn't make them evil.


It is killing a life. All science agrees that "it" is alive. There is no viewpoint discrepancy on that. The viewpoint is whether you are ok with killing that life and what kind of life you categorize it. Is it a human life? A lizard life? Is a fetus a nondescript, non-human life? That is the only area up for contention.

As an example, think of a kangaroo. The "fetus" takes an interesting course of action and leaves the womb to be raised in an exterior environment. The "fetus" (clearly alive - if you argue otherwise you are just an idiot) , is 2 grams for grey kangaroo. 2 grams.

I didn't say "alive". I said "baby".

Your view is that it is a human life the instant of fertilization. That's fine.

My point is not everyone sees it that way.

Also, calling ppl idiots for not believing as you do is not an arguement.



The only way you are feeling called an idiot is if you are claiming that at kangaroo "fetus" is not alive when it climbs into a pouch at 2 grams. Is that what you are claiming as your stance? Don't put words in my mouth.

Additionally, you are missing the point. I didn't intend to say "baby". It is a human-spawned life, and the only issue of contention is whether you are ok killing it or not and when that is. If you are ok with that, then own it. Just say, " I am ok with killing a human-spawned life up to XX weeks/months etc." Stop hiding behind nuances.
edit on 9-3-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Maybe we'll finally get some consistency in the law.

The real issue that is likely allowing this case to proceed is that in Alabama (and some other states if memory serves), killing a pregnant woman can result in two charges... one for the mother and one for the child (for clarity I am using the general term 'child' to refer to embryo, fetus, etc). In that sense, the child is legally considered a separate individual with human rights. If that is the case, it makes no sense to then claim that a woman who aborts a child is within her rights, unless those rights equate to a right to murder.

You simply can't have it both ways.

This case in itself is rather silly, in that I don't think anyone, at least anyone who is thinking clearly about the issue, really thinks that a six-week abortion is equal to murder, especially considering the age of the girl. However, we do need that clarity about what rights a child has pre-delivery as well as what rights a father has pre-delivery. Two people undertook the actions that created this child, not just one. The father will almost certainly not prevail here, but by pressing his charges, he might open up a new era of actually questioning our position on abortion logically instead of purely emotionally.

Of course, that might be difficult in the light of statements like the following:

any man who decides to use legal means to prevent a women from having an abortion should also be willing to sign a statement right there in front of a judge that if the pregnancy he is preventing results in the death of a women, he accepts responsibility for her death and will face manslaughter charges!! since, they want to force women to take on the risk of death, they should be willing to take the same kind of gamble and accept that they will be charged!

The situation is this: two people, a man and a woman, mutually agreed to engage in mutually pleasurable activities which had the distinct, known possibility of creating a child and the resulting life complications that are integral with such. While it is true that the woman bears the physical effects of the pregnancy for the first nine months, it is also true that both have an emotional and biological interest in any child produced. It is also true that mortality rates are quite higher among poor, uneducated women than among more affluent women, which I see as an indictment of a poorly-controlled health care system. The attempt in the above quote does nothing to counter maternity mortality, nor to establish a basis of equality between the partners; it instead uses pure emotion to attempt to push a political narrative that flies in the face of logical, reasoned discussion.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: strongfp

This was something I impressed strongly on my son when he was a teenager. I made it clear that birth control is never 100%, and he shouldn't be engaging in any activities that would make him a father unless and until he was ready to be a father. Fortunately, my son has a strong sense of responsibility and took that responsibility seriously... unfortunately, he has taken it so seriously, I'm still waiting for grandbabies!!!


And this is the proper response for both young men and young women ... and not so young ones. Children deserve to be brought into the world by a set of loving parents, and part of that is to have people acknowledge that there is no 100% safe sex, so you better not do it unless you are fully prepared to deal with the consequence in an equally responsible manner by either being a parent or choosing adoption.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

See what I mean about how we are wiping ourselves out?


Muslim growth benefits from the fertility factor because "globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman." This is above a replacement level of 2.1 which is "the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population." Size of youth population.



"Think of all the profound social and economic consequences of a society structured like that with more grandparents than grandchildren. "I think Japan is very aware of this, they're facing declining populations, but I don't think it's hit many countries in the West, because low fertility has been compensated with migration.



He thinks workplaces are going to have to change and even the idea of retiring at 68, the current maximum in the UK, will be unsustainable.


See, that because we have fewer children we have to import other cultures to REPLACE US. Also, we don't get to retire and have an easy older life because the workers can't be replenished from our own stock, even with migrants. How fast they will replace us and how fast we shall perish. No rest for the wicked, eh! That is what happens when you get all corrupted like this. See how quickly your destruction has come.


By 2030, Muslims will make up more than a quarter of the global population. Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 2.9 children per woman—well above replacement level (2.1) and also a younger age profile (median age of 24) compared to other religious groups.


Mean while,


Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher Institute researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman, just published in the American Journal of Public Health. By age 20, 4.6% of women will have had an abortion, and 19% will have done so by age 30.



Designed to look like a fashion boutique, the unique exhibition uses clothing to bring a range of abortion experiences to life, representing just some of the nearly 200,000 abortions that take place in the UK every year.

1 in 3 women in the UK will have an abortion – so why is it so secret


Are you seeing the pattern yet, ladies? Your freedom comes at your survival's expense this time. Do you see that we are dying out in the U.S and Britain? You are praising abortion on the levels I have here shown you. It is civilization destroying statistics happening right now. This REAL. It will not go away. At least become conscious of your actions for goodness sake.

I don't know about sisters are "doing it for themselves", but they sure are "doing it" to us all. Mean while the MSM are positively discriminating against us in favour of everything from any other culture but our own, on every page and channel of their media. Do you understand yet?

If you want to survive have lots of babies. It is as simple as that. If you don't then carry on as you are, trooper!

We deserve our extinction if we have become this destructive and cruel. That is far too many abortions for G-D to tolerate, I assure you, Moloch! It's the valley of Gehenna for you lot if you carry on like this, by your own hand.


edit on 9-3-2019 by Malak777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




she was a 16 year old high school student and he was a 19 year old


In some states that would make him a sex offender. But, Alabama?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
It's sad that in 2019, people are still advocating for the death of an individual for the sole crime of existing.




posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Do any of you care about the dead baby?

Chillin’ in its womb, then all of a sudden a power tube started suctioning its limbs off

Is that the way for anything to die? Much less a human...

The question I keep seeing here is, what if the mother dies? That’s a hypothetical, the fact is, an human entity, with a specific DNA sequence was sucked through a tube and is no more.



It's not that ppl don't care about dead babies.

Many don't see it as black and white as you do.

Some are against abortion in the third trimester, for example, because they see the fetus as viable, and sentient by that point.

Is a fetus a baby a week after the egg is fertilized? A month?

Just because you believe one way, doesn't mean everyone agrees.

I'm not putting you down for your views at all. Just pointing out that everyone doesn't see it the same. That doesn't make them evil.


It is killing a life. All science agrees that "it" is alive. There is no viewpoint discrepancy on that. The viewpoint is whether you are ok with killing that life and what kind of life you categorize it. Is it a human life? A lizard life? Is a fetus a nondescript, non-human life? That is the only area up for contention.

As an example, think of a kangaroo. The "fetus" takes an interesting course of action and leaves the womb to be raised in an exterior environment. The "fetus" (clearly alive - if you argue otherwise you are just an idiot) , is 2 grams for grey kangaroo. 2 grams.

I didn't say "alive". I said "baby".

Your view is that it is a human life the instant of fertilization. That's fine.

My point is not everyone sees it that way.

Also, calling ppl idiots for not believing as you do is not an arguement.



The only way you are feeling called an idiot is if you are claiming that at kangaroo "fetus" is not alive when it climbs into a pouch at 2 grams. Is that what you are claiming as your stance? Don't put words in my mouth.

Now you are just being dishonest. You brought the arguement of a marsupial, whos biology is obviously different than a human, into an abortion debate as a comparison. Your intent was obvious.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2


Is it "alive" the instant of fertilization?

Yes. There is no legitimate argument about that. It is certainly not dead, as it reproduces at the cellular level and takes in nourishment via the umbilical cord. There is no point in the reproductive process where the child is not alive, before, during, and after conception. That is scientific fact.

Perhaps you meant 'viable.' You might want to rethink your thought process on that specific issue.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Do any of you care about the dead baby?

Chillin’ in its womb, then all of a sudden a power tube started suctioning its limbs off

Is that the way for anything to die? Much less a human...

The question I keep seeing here is, what if the mother dies? That’s a hypothetical, the fact is, an human entity, with a specific DNA sequence was sucked through a tube and is no more.



It's not that ppl don't care about dead babies.

Many don't see it as black and white as you do.

Some are against abortion in the third trimester, for example, because they see the fetus as viable, and sentient by that point.

Is a fetus a baby a week after the egg is fertilized? A month?

Just because you believe one way, doesn't mean everyone agrees.

I'm not putting you down for your views at all. Just pointing out that everyone doesn't see it the same. That doesn't make them evil.


It is killing a life. All science agrees that "it" is alive. There is no viewpoint discrepancy on that. The viewpoint is whether you are ok with killing that life and what kind of life you categorize it. Is it a human life? A lizard life? Is a fetus a nondescript, non-human life? That is the only area up for contention.

As an example, think of a kangaroo. The "fetus" takes an interesting course of action and leaves the womb to be raised in an exterior environment. The "fetus" (clearly alive - if you argue otherwise you are just an idiot) , is 2 grams for grey kangaroo. 2 grams.

I didn't say "alive". I said "baby".

Your view is that it is a human life the instant of fertilization. That's fine.

My point is not everyone sees it that way.

Also, calling ppl idiots for not believing as you do is not an arguement.



The only way you are feeling called an idiot is if you are claiming that at kangaroo "fetus" is not alive when it climbs into a pouch at 2 grams. Is that what you are claiming as your stance? Don't put words in my mouth.

Now you are just being dishonest. You brought the arguement of a marsupial, whos biology is obviously different than a human, into an abortion debate as a comparison. Your intent was obvious.


Wrong. Science (read that again, Science) routinely equates the development state of the joey to a comparable human development state.


In comparison, a human embryo at a similar stage of development would be about seven weeks old


Although I just grabbed that quote from the wikipedia kangaroo page, the statement can be found in science books all around. Remember science?

Are you willing to draw the line at 7 weeks because science?? Just asking because science. Or would you rather stick with your personal beliefs (personal religion?)
edit on 9-3-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

that "life form" even for your normal uneventful pregnancy causes havok within the women's body, or in this case, child's body! how much havoc can vary from not much at all, to debilitation, TO DEATH!!!




Does it change if you want to feel morally superior when arguing that removing a life form is a ‘choice’ not murder?



the right will cling to their gun rights and fight any and all legislation that could possibly keep the lunatics that you going into schools and shooting up our kids en mass from legally obtaining the guns to do so. since, well, they have to be able to protect themselves if and when our gov't becomes too tyrannical and come after them!!!
and they will stand by their stand your ground laws, go out of their way to defend a lunatic that fires into a crowd of people, or drives their car into a crowd of people.
and, when it came to going to war in Iraq, hey, they were all for it!! ya, go kill the muslims before they kill us!!!
go bomb them with our depleted uranium and screw up a multitude of future generations!!!
we got to protect ourselves, our way of life, our economy!!!

well,there's 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births in 2014. There were 3,988,076 births that year. That's around 950 maternal deaths that year!!! Actually, it's more than that since I dropped the 76 births. but, how many lives were saved from that tyrannical gov't with your guns? How many deaths were the result of those "Iraqi terrorists"? How many lives were saved from those mentally disabled guys sitting in the road playing with their toy trucks??? Seems to me, just the threat of maternal death is more of a realistic threat to any pregnant women than most of the wars we've fought over the last 50 or so years. far greater than the threat of tyrannical gov't raising up and killing masses of people. seems to be no problem in finding justification for the deaths cause by these things!!! ya, men seem to feel that they have the right to protect themselves no matter how remote and unlikely the perceived threat should be!!
and, I have even the threat to a women, or child's earning potential in an economy where too many bosses find justification for not offering promotions or paying a equal wage to a mother in like manner that they do with a father!!
since most of the wars we've fought in the past 50 or so years has been more over economic terms, to protect our financial way of life!! well, shouldn't the women have the same right to protect themselves?
tell ya what!! when yous start considering the deaths of all those children that are bombed out of existence as murder, I might start considering aborting a 6th week embryo (deliberately, since many are aborted through miscarriage) as murder!

and well, if this guy gets to sue over an aborted embryo, will he also sue over miscarriages claiming that the women just was caring for herself properly?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


In some states that would make him a sex offender. But, Alabama?

Age of consent in Alabama is 16.

We also have the "close-in-age" exemption for any couple with an age difference of 2 years or less, which starts when the eldest turns 16 and ends when they turn 18.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I have to ask this: do you consider sexual relations a form of assault?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's sad that in 2019, people are still advocating for the death of an individual for the sole crime of existing.



The flaw in your statement is the word "individual".

Is it really an individual if it cant survive without the mother?

I'm not in favor of abortion. If a woman aborted my offspring, it would probably have a devestating effect on me emotionally, but at the same time I'm not god, and i also don't think i have the right to tell a woman she has no choice in the matter.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Think about this!

While you are being encouraged to be gay, have no children and believe you are being so modern and woke, the Royal Family are having lots. Kate even wants a fourth I believe! The Muslim migrants are being supported to have many children and given housing and welfare for that end as the new workers to replace you. There will be no feminism when they are in the majority, be sure of that.

I am saying this because it is a fact. I am not against Islam. I am just stating statistics and trends. Personally I would have had children with a Muslim woman no probs and bring up a child with both influences, better than being in this sorry end of it all state and lonely childless existence, just like you have no grand children and your kids will be left working until they drop down dead with no child to go visit them. I am just telling us that something is going on here, that somebody knows exactly what they are doing. It is you who need to watch out and not I. For guys it is not so hard to remain childless. From my point of view they have got you doing the self extermination thing while thinking you are doing a good turn for life. Think that if you like, but it looks so underhand and crazy to me. This is not how to do life. Muslims know that and so do Jews. You lot are happy to # away without consequence and flush it down the toilet with the condom and pat yourselves on the back for it as it wipes you out of existence. It is perhaps sifting the chaff from the wheat as the mill wheel turns, if you can be that monstrous.


edit on 9-3-2019 by Malak777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Mach2


Is it "alive" the instant of fertilization?

Yes. There is no legitimate argument about that. It is certainly not dead, as it reproduces at the cellular level and takes in nourishment via the umbilical cord. There is no point in the reproductive process where the child is not alive, before, during, and after conception. That is scientific fact.

Perhaps you meant 'viable.' You might want to rethink your thought process on that specific issue.

TheRedneck


You are correct. Wrong word. I meant to say baby actually. You can take that as "viable", although, i personally think it is a sentient being before it is viable.

I don't believe, however, it is a sentient being at the point of conception.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's sad that in 2019, people are still advocating for the death of an individual for the sole crime of existing.



The flaw in your statement is the word "individual".

Is it really an individual if it cant survive without the mother?


A two year old cannot survive on it's own either.


I'm not in favor of abortion. If a woman aborted my offspring, it would probably have a devestating effect on me emotionally, but at the same time I'm not god, and i also don't think i have the right to tell a woman she has no choice in the matter.


Isn't that like saying, "I'm against raping a child, but I'm not going to stop others from raping children."?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2


You are correct. Wrong word. I meant to say baby actually. You can take that as "viable", although, i personally think it is a sentient being before it is viable.

Thank you. That was my only point in that post. There is no point during which the 'child' is not both alive and human. There is no point after the completion of fertilization that it is not a unique human based on its DNA structure.


I don't believe, however, it is a sentient being at the point of conception.

I consider that legitimate. I believe a lot of the confusion surrounds the terms often used. In that light, let me state for clarity the internal definitions I tend to use:
  • Conception: the moment one sperm manages to enter the ovum for the purpose of fertilization.
  • Fertilization: the point at which a separate and unique DNA structure exists.
  • Viable: Capable of at least theoretically surviving outside the womb, including in a maternity ward under medical observation.
  • Sentient: self-aware and/or capable of feeling pain and responding to threats. The latter is much more easily shown to be applicable, since we cannot experience the thoughts of another.
  • Child: Any human with a unique DNA structure, which means any stage of reproductive progress after fertilization. I use this term not in the connotative sense, but as a general catch-all.
  • Baby: any viable child existing outside the womb.
I have no issue if anyone has a problem with those definitions; I simply state that we should be able to converse in similar terms we all understand if we are to intelligently debate.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: dawnstar
with the dead fetus ( just might be the wrong term to use since the abortion was done in the sixth week of pregnancy!)

What else could it be?

You are alive until you are dead... period.


I'm certainly not pro abortion, but most Americans do not agree with your position.

Not only that, when there is no room for compromise, or discussion, it is virtually impossible to come up with a solution.

Is there some secret state of limbo between alive and dead that I'm unaware of?


Is it "alive" the instant of fertilization?

YES!

That is an indisputable fact that you are trying to frame as an opinion.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join