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.

 

Pelosi Says Planet Is "God’s Creation" But Got Rattled When Asked If Unborn Baby Is Human

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa



Once a fetus is born, and now outside the mother's womb, is it a United States Citizen?


How about you tell me, since you seem to believe that you, and only you, are the arbiter of "the truth".


I want to hear your opinion. Mine is irrelevant, since I believe in the United States Constitution.




posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa



Once a fetus is born, and now outside the mother's womb, is it a United States Citizen?


How about you tell me, since you seem to believe that you, and only you, are the arbiter of "the truth".


I want to hear your opinion. Mine is irrelevant, since I believe in the United States Constitution.



Let me make it easier on you...and make the question more specific.

Once a fetus is born of an illegal alien, within the boundaries of the United States, and now outside the mother's womb, is it a United States Citizen?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I have no interest in turning this thread into an off topic, 14th Amendment citizenship debate.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

I have no interest in turning this thread into an off topic, 14th Amendment citizenship debate.


I see. So, you are afraid to answer the question, that was also posed to her. Typical garbage hypocrites. It is OK to fight and accuse others when it fits within your own narrative. But, when pressed on the issue under a different context, it's all "beneath you to answer such questions".

Speaks volumes about you and others I guess huh?

Considering if born within the United States, they ARE a U.S. citizen. Therefore, are entitled to the protections of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The COTUS says nothing about age, ethnicity, nor viability of that citizen.


Weak as water....weak as water.





posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa



Considering if born within the United States, they ARE a U.S. citizen. Therefore, are entitled to the protections of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The COTUS says nothing about age, ethnicity, nor viability of that citizen.



The 14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


A fetus is not granted personhood under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Only "persons born" are granted constitutional rights. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether or not the fetus in question belongs to a US citizen or an undocumented alien.

Also, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution don't only apply to American citizens. They cover all people on American soil, citizen or alien, documented or undocumented. But, it doesn't apply to a fetus, because it has not yet been born, and doesn't posses legal personhood.


edit on 28-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you don't think that an unborn child is human.





Unborn how many days weeks of growing, you always try to put the whole 9 months in one basket which sounds like maybe you didn't give it a good deal of thought.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

"How about you tell me," why this little human, with no abnormalities, shown below at 24 weeks, doesn't deserve a chance to live a productive life? Oh, I forgot, it's because a woman is a "legal" person, who has "a choice in what happens to her body and her and her family's family planning choices." So the answer is, NO, this little human doesn't deserve a chance to live, if it interferes with the woman's life. Where's the "morality" in that? Does this little baby look like it's "still in the mixing bowl" as you earlier stated. This baby has a chance to become a doctor, a teacher, a mother or father...a chance at life.



Human beings are like a cake, after its been baked and frosted. A fetus is like cake batter, still in the mixing bowl.



Premature baby born at 24 weeks overcomes the odds. Premature babies are defying the odds at increasing rates. Baby Sebastian is one of them. He was born during the second trimester of pregnancy at 24 weeks gestation weighing just 1 pound, 13 ounces, but he overcame every obstacle he faced.

www.liveaction.org...



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny




"How about you tell me," why this little human, with no abnormalities, shown below at 24 weeks, doesn't deserve a chance to live a productive life?


How about you show me a real life case of a doctor recommending aborting a 24 week old viable and healthy fetus.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you don't think that an unborn child is human.





Unborn how many days weeks of growing, you always try to put the whole 9 months in one basket which sounds like maybe you didn't give it a good deal of thought.


So you don't consider an unborn child a human until. . . when?

Just curious.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

Okay. Fine. Then the fetus can survive outside of the mother's womb. So, a woman should be able simply have her fetus removed, and someone else can take care of it. Right?



Can the mother safely remove her child from the womb without endangering him or her? If yes, then sure.


If it can't, then it's not a sovereign body. A sovereign body can survive outside of the womb, even if it requires medical life support to do so.


So ignoring for the moment whether or not I agree with you on this point, we both believe all abortions after 21 weeks are immoral then?


No, I don't agree. Most fetal anomality's can't be detected until, at the earliest between 20-22 weeks.

Yet we know a human child can be viable at 21 weeks. If we cannot detect an anomaly, the viable child stops being human again by default? It's either human or not at that point, right? It's Schrödinger's fetus because you didn't look or cannot see? "Murder away, just don't peak"?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Stop with the "human" distraction from the issue, already! This isn't a question of fetal species, it's about a female human's right to choose what happens to her human body and her family's well being, and human, not horse or sea horse, fetal viability.

Women abort unwanted embryos and fetuses pre-viability on demand every day. Some, not all, women whose fetuses are diseased or distressed and/or who are unable to carry an unviable fetus to term due to health reasons, often terminate their pregnancy on a doctor's recommendation. If a woman is unable to carry or deliver a viable fetus, due to health concerns, a C-section is performed, not an abortion.


edit on 28-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

And if born, regardless of "viability" (Whatever legally that #$#@$ means), it is a U.S. citizen, and therefore has all the rights and protections from the COTUS. Killing it should be unconstitutional, and a blatant violation of it's rights.

I am pro-choice....until birth. Then, it is a United States citizen and should be treated and protected as such.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

Stop with the "human" distraction from the issue, already! This isn't a question of fetal species, it's about a female human's right to choose what happens to her human body and her family's well being, and human, not horse or sea horse, fetal viability.

Women abort unwanted embryos and fetuses pre-viability on demand every day. Some, not all, women whose fetuses are diseased or distressed and/or who are unable to carry an unviable fetus to term due to health reasons, often terminate their pregnancy on a doctor's recommendation. If a woman is unable to carry or deliver a viable fetus, due to health concerns, a C-section is performed, not an abortion.



So, to you declaring someone "human" is a distraction?!?! Really? Or is it just inconvenient for you to use that term for a living being?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Who is actively killing deformed and diseased babies after their born? Oh wait, the UK does that.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

Who is actively killing deformed and diseased babies after their born? Oh wait, the UK does that.





I don;t give a rats furry behind what other countries do....that is another attempt at deflecting and whataboutism on your part.


Not cool. Face the issue like an adult human that had the opportunity to live, grow, and make some sort of impact upon the world.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

Stop with the "human" distraction from the issue, already! This isn't a question of fetal species, it's about a female human's right to choose what happens to her human body and her family's well being, and human, not horse or sea horse, fetal viability.

Women abort unwanted embryos and fetuses pre-viability on demand every day. Some, not all, women whose fetuses are diseased or distressed and/or who are unable to carry an unviable fetus to term due to health reasons, often terminate their pregnancy on a doctor's recommendation. If a woman is unable to carry or deliver a viable fetus, due to health concerns, a C-section is performed, not an abortion.



So, to you declaring someone "human" is a distraction?!?! Really? Or is it just inconvenient for you to use that term for a living being?



No, you confusion of what is Homo sapien, AKA human, is a distraction.

We're humans, on a human chat forum, addressing human law and human biology. So, why keep asking if we're talking about human bodies and human biology? It's deflection from the topic of abortion and Christian morality.

There is, however, a legal and constitutional definition for personhood, and that definition applies to "persons born" only.
Even the Bible didn't count the unborn as "people" in the Hebrew people's population censuses.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

Who is actively killing deformed and diseased babies after the're born? Oh wait, the UK does that.


Why can't you answer the question? Who's killing babies? Source? Citation?




edit on 28-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

Stop with the "human" distraction from the issue, already! This isn't a question of fetal species, it's about a female human's right to choose what happens to her human body and her family's well being, and human, not horse or sea horse, fetal viability.

Women abort unwanted embryos and fetuses pre-viability on demand every day. Some, not all, women whose fetuses are diseased or distressed and/or who are unable to carry an unviable fetus to term due to health reasons, often terminate their pregnancy on a doctor's recommendation. If a woman is unable to carry or deliver a viable fetus, due to health concerns, a C-section is performed, not an abortion.



So, to you declaring someone "human" is a distraction?!?! Really? Or is it just inconvenient for you to use that term for a living being?



No, you confusion of what is Homo sapien, AKA human, is a distraction.

We're humans, on a human chat forum, addressing human law and human biology. So, why keep asking if we're talking about human bodies and human biology? It's deflection from the topic of abortion and Christian morality.

There is, however, a legal and constitutional definition for personhood, and that definition applies to "persons born" only.
Even the Bible didn't count the unborn as "people" in the Hebrew people's population censuses.





So, according to you, until it is born, it is not part of the family of homo-sapien-sapien? Therefore, once born, via natural or C-section, it is a person. Regardless of viability at that point?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa




originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

Who is actively killing deformed and diseased babies after the're born? O

h wait, the UK does that.


Why can't you answer the question? Who's killing babies? Source? Citation?



Why, because I don't care what other countries do in this case. That is within their jurisdiction, not mine. I care about what we do here in the U.S. And unless you have been under a rock, read up on the post-birth abortion movement.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What's the difference between a person and a human?




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join