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: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: UKTruth
Just curious what people think of this scenario..

If a person spots a pregnant woman and runs up to her and kicks her in the stomach, killing her unborn child and bruising her, would a pro-choice people consider that to be assault or murder?


Pro-choice people would consider it proactive.


I guess it must be a difficult one to answer as no one from the pro-choice side of things cares to comment.
I would suspect they have to see it as assault only and not murder - otherwise their argument is left with the simple conclusion that 'pro-choice' is actually 'pro murder'.




posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: UKTruth
Just curious what people think of this scenario..

If a person spots a pregnant woman and runs up to her and kicks her in the stomach, killing her unborn child and bruising her, would a pro-choice people consider that to be assault or murder?


Pro-choice people would consider it proactive.


I guess it must be a difficult one to answer as no one from the pro-choice side of things cares to comment.
I would suspect they have to see it as assault only and not murder - otherwise their argument is left with the simple conclusion that 'pro-choice' is actually 'pro murder'.


Which is exactly what I mentioned earlier that they simply cannot face the reality of that statement....so they avoid it. Yet, they advocate to give that decision to a woman (without the father/man's input at all), because it is HER body. If it becomes a person, then the father has a say in the decision as it is also HIS child.


It is a thinly veiled rabid feminist viewpoint.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: UKTruth
Just curious what people think of this scenario..

If a person spots a pregnant woman and runs up to her and kicks her in the stomach, killing her unborn child and bruising her, would a pro-choice people consider that to be assault or murder?


Pro-choice people would consider it proactive.


I guess it must be a difficult one to answer as no one from the pro-choice side of things cares to comment.
I would suspect they have to see it as assault only and not murder - otherwise their argument is left with the simple conclusion that 'pro-choice' is actually 'pro murder'.


Which is exactly what I mentioned earlier that they simply cannot face the reality of that statement....so they avoid it. Yet, they advocate to give that decision to a woman (without the father/man's input at all), because it is HER body. If it becomes a person, then the father has a say in the decision as it is also HIS child.


It is a thinly veiled rabid feminist viewpoint.


BTW, I am pro-choice, and willing to say it is wrong after the 2nd trimester. And, even before if the need arises to deliver it to save the mother. However, at that point it is now under the protections of the COTUS. I do not advocate for a "transition" phase as that is a relative term that varies under too many unknown variables. Each case must be handled uniquely. What I do know is that a clump of cells, without form or any sort of circulatory system is not a human. It is a potential human at that stage.

But at least I am honest and open about my specific viewpoint....unlike others.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




Yet, they advocate to give that decision to a woman (without the father/man's input at all), because it is HER body.


You know WHY they do that? It has nothing to do with being her body......

Its because it allows them to wash their hands of the moral implications of the whole thing, or having to even think about it........so they just keep repeating the "her body" over and over with their fingers in their ears.....



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

You're misinformed.

The bill addressed the issue of parental consent, which is currently non-existent in Virginia, as to whether an infant that survived an abortion should be given life support. Right now there is no law that requires abortion survivors to be given life support or any clause that gives parents the right to request their infant that survived and abortion to be given life support in Virginia.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krakatoa




Yet, they advocate to give that decision to a woman (without the father/man's input at all), because it is HER body.


You know WHY they do that? It has nothing to do with being her body......

Its because it allows them to wash their hands of the moral implications of the whole thing, or having to even think about it........so they just keep repeating the "her body" over and over with their fingers in their ears.....


...and because it would also mean that man would have some say in the matter! OMG!! A feminist CANNOT have that now can they. Screw the life about to be snuffed out...because men are evil.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

You're misinformed.

The bill addressed the issue of parental consent, which is currently non-existent in Virginia, as to whether an infant that survived an abortion should be given life support. Right now there is no law that requires abortion survivors to be given life support or any clause that gives parents the right to request their infant that survived and abortion to be given life support in Virginia.




It is you that is uninformed. There is a law that does just that. It's called the United States Constitution. It is THE laws of this country, and no law may be passed that usurps it, ever. Once born, they are a citizen, regardless of viability, and are protected under the COTUS. Unless, of course, they are declared "non-people" as you are trying to do here.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

The infant that survived an abortion now has a pre-exiting condition, and it would be unconstitutional to require an insurance carrier, or the tax payer to be forced to cover the patient.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

The infant that survived an abortion now has a pre-exiting condition, and it would be unconstitutional to require an insurance carrier, or the tax payer to be forced to cover the patient.




Why would it, the parents are now responsible....not everyone depends upon the govt to take care of them you know.




posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

The infant that survived an abortion now has a pre-exiting condition, and it would be unconstitutional to require an insurance carrier, or the tax payer to be forced to cover the patient.




I'm surprised you find the murder of a "born person" a laughing matter. Well, not really surprised...



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I'm against abortion because it is an innocent HUMAN life that is being punished with a death sentence.

*shrug*

Sometimes. . . things are black and white and there isn't any grey.

In my humble opinion.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

What murder? Who's murdering infants?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Still no answer on when killing a child becomes horrific? One minute before birth when they are still "not persons?" An hour? A day? A week?

Is it horrific to kill a viable child in utero or not?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

What murder? Who's murdering infants?


Im starting to wonder if you didnt get hit with a stray coat hanger, with the way youre answering these questions and talking in circles.....



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

The infant that survived an abortion now has a pre-exiting condition, and it would be unconstitutional to require an insurance carrier, or the tax payer to be forced to cover the patient.




Why would it, the parents are now responsible....not everyone depends upon the govt to take care of them you know.



Late term abortion are performed because the fetus is deformed or diseased and otherwise non-viable. These infant will unfortunately, most likely live a very short and torturously painful life. Loving parents often opt to let their fetus die in the womb rather than have to experience wretched and heart breaking misery.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Earlier he/she submitted to science and common sense and discarded the "female's body" claptrap and called viable children "sovereign beings".

They have quickly retreated back to the "non persons" position when faced with the logical consequences, but it's something.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Please cite an example of doctors legally murdering newborn infants in any state in the USA.

This is a made up, fake news issue.




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



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Instead of talking about the variety extreme situations we might encounter, let's just tackle the most common and clear cut scenarios first.

Is killing a viable child in utero horrific or not? If so, when does it become horrific?




A sovereign body can survive outside of the womb, even if it requires medical life support to do so.

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



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




Is it horrific to kill a viable child in utero or not?


Please cite where this is legal and being done, in the USA. Otherwise, you're just lying.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




Is killing a viable child in utero horrific or not? If so, when does it become horrific?


When have you ever encountered that? Please cite an instance of a medical doctor legally killing a viable fetus in utero.




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




top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join