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.

 

The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for wanting to discuss with me, Red. That's all I wanted, friend. I will read your post and edit this one with my response soon. My girlfriend wants to watch GoT and the show Killing Eve first. I look forward to our exchange.




posted on May, 20 2019 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

In the end, that's all I want too. My previous post was based on a presumption that I would be attacked for whatever position I took, and thus needed to attack pre-emptively. That is true for 99% of those discussing this. Once you mentioned a scientific field of study, I realized that maybe... just maybe... you are sincere.

I am also interested in comparing my AI work with your neuroscience where fetal development is concerned. I think it may provide some intriguing insight.

Anyone else who wishes to make asinine statements during our exchange will get the unbridled me, though. No one should think I am going soft; you do so at your own peril.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

Obviously that's a case by case basis. But whether the man is concerned or not, is not relevant. Just as it wouldn't be relevant after the baby is born. Just cause dad didn't care doesn't mean mom can kill her kids
.


A bit double standards there? The male party gets away without blame......

Allowed not to care ....Just pile all the blame on the female party?

Typical attitude a male is not responsible for where he puts his half of life

let the female carry the can!!




The man is also punished, he is liable for child support at the very least. But again, mom doesn't have to keep the baby. She just has to not kill her kid. She can put it up for adoption and the baby will be adopted rather quickly 95% of the time.



*The man is also punished, he is liable for child support at the very least.*


Not all adopted babies go to good homes or have good lives......pedophiles

wet dreams



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigDaddy38
So a woman has the right to kill her unborn child because its her choice???




So a woman has the right to kill her unborn child fetus

(language designed to be emotive) because its her choice?? and it cannot

survive without her body to sustain it to develop into a functioning baby.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienView

I think, what is most disturbing, is your attempt to justify killing unborn human life.



*Your attempt to justify killing unborn 'potential' human life?*



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Just to make it clear I am not in the US however while reading this thread

in the background there is a discussion programme going on on the TV and

this subject is being discussed......

It has just been said the politicians concerned (and pictures shown] are all

men and white?...... Now as pregnancy and abortion all happen to

women only, WHY is there no representation of at least 50% of women on

that panel


WHY are 100% men making decisions that concern 100% women, WHERE IS

EQUALITY



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

Just to make it clear I am not in the US however while reading this thread

in the background there is a discussion programme going on on the TV and

this subject is being discussed......

It has just been said the politicians concerned (and pictures shown] are all

men and white?...... Now as pregnancy and abortion all happen to

women only, WHY is there no representation of at least 50% of women on

that panel


WHY are 100% men making decisions that concern 100% women, WHERE IS

EQUALITY


Yeah it’s all about the white male privlidge when it comes to killing male and female and all the colours of the children, what an amazingly bizarre and abstract argument

My taxes pay for unmarried mothers and their children, I am a white male.

Where are those representing unborn babies, selfishness at its greatest level and you are moaning it’s males who pay for unmarried mothers



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

My taxes pay for unmarried mothers and their children, I am a white male.


My taxes too and I am white female......

However if all those studs out there took full responsibility where they were

planting their seed weather it was fertile or barren soil and the out come

there would be no single mothers?


Instead ALL blame is put on the woman.

Lets put the blame where it belongs, on the man who plants indiscriminately

without any concern of any consequences.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dfairlite




That baby wasn't given due process, was it?


The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that the unborn are not recognized as "persons" in the US Constitution. So, they aren't entitled to "Due Process" and in fact are not guaranteed a "right to life".

They ruled that, on several occasions, because of what it says in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.


"Don't pretend you don't understand this." LOL


You should be the one to stop pretending... First of all in the Declaration of Independence it is argued that there is a right to life. It doesn't say ANYTHING about abortion being a right... Despite leftists claiming it does... The U.S. Constitution also does not state that "abortion is a right."

Even Roe vs Wade argued that on the third trimester life is viable and as such the state can rule to protect the life of the unborn...





Sigh.
The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that a fetus is not a "person", and therefore, it has no "right to life", not me.

Secondly, The Supreme Court ruled that "viability" is the threshold for abortion. Medical science decides when viability occurs, not the Supreme Court.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienView

I think, what is most disturbing, is your attempt to justify killing unborn human life.




*Your attempt to justify killing unborn 'potential' human life?*





No.

The unborn child is a potential adult human being, but the unborn child is alive. There is no disputing that.

edit on 20-5-2019 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia



A bit double standards there? The male party gets away without blame......


That's not what I said, and not even a proper address to the point I was making.



Allowed not to care ....Just pile all the blame on the female party?


Well, being that it's currently ONLY the female that can decide to kill the baby, yeah, she's to blame for that decision. But again that's not a proper address of the point. Hell, it was your point that some men are ok with abortions. I was just going off that presumption.



*The man is also punished, he is liable for child support at the very least.*


Didn't have any real response to that (because it is true) I see.



Not all adopted babies go to good homes or have good lives......pedophiles wet dreams


Well, I guess we should just kill all kids then. Because something bad might happen to them otherwise.

Seriously, your arguments have more holes than a slice of swiss cheese.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If they're not going to survive, why do we need to kill them? That's an odd view of things.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy



I already framed the underlying reasons for my ethical concern - in that it all hinges on sentience.


And once that is proven to be earlier than current studies (it used to be 5 months, post birth, that babies were thought to be sentient. This was just 6 years ago.), you'll shift from sentience to reason. It's called moving the goal posts and the left is extra fantastic at it.

I also find it odd that your ethical concern isn't based around inflicting harm.



What are you basing yours on exactly?


The snuffing out of human life. The moment the baby starts growing it is human life. From the first cell split to adulthood are all just different stages of human growth. They're no less human at the first stage than they are at adulthood.

I'm not in need of justifying why we shouldn't kill an innocent human life, that's a fools errand. The onus is on you to make a reasonable argument for why we should allow it.

So far you've got:
As long as it doesn't know that I'm killing it, I'm ok with it. Which implies a lot of guilt for what you're doing. You know it's wrong to end an innocent persons life, but you want to so you've drawn a line in the sand and justified the side you stand on.

The abortion debate is an interesting one, because much of the argument style of leftists relies on dehumanizing your opponent and making them out to be a barbarian. But it's not quite so easy to call the person defending innocent babies a barbarian.

So I guess my question for you is two fold: If the baby can experience pain at 8 weeks, why does that not qualify as sentience? IIRC sentience is the ability to experience stimuli. The cerebral cortex (what gives us our sense of self) begins development in week 7 of pregnancy and won't fully develop until adulthood. Why is it ok to kill a person with a newly developed cortex (only 23 weeks old) but not a slightly more developed cortex (at say, 3 months post birth)?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that the unborn are not recognized as "persons" in the US Constitution.


Yes, they have ruled that, but they've never ruled when life begins. Which will be required to address the alabama bill.

It's funny that you would use this as an argument after just telling me that the supreme court doesn't have to decide something. They just have to decide if it's constitutional. So why did they rule that the unborn aren't persons? I mean they just needed to say constitutional or unconstitutional, right?



"Don't pretend you don't understand this." LOL


That was tongue in cheek, however upon reading your response it seems you don't understand it. So yes. LOL indeed.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView


I can understand why women are mad , but why aren't they mad that laws already control their bodies ?
All humans are currently unable to explore their own consciousness freely !

We are prohibited from understanding our own minds , the very thing that makes us human!

we are told what we can and cant consume !

add that on top of being told you can and cant abort your child

humanity is already limited by laws governing our bodies

Once again we believe we are arbiters of life and death , on one hand we are gifted the license to kill in the name of our government overseas , and on the other prevented from taking a life you created
but totally ok to take life you didnt create

What a mad world we live in !



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



It's funny that you would use this as an argument after just telling me that the supreme court doesn't have to decide something. They just have to decide if it's constitutional. So why did they rule that the unborn aren't persons?


They ruled based on what the US Constitution says.

Here's what Justice Gorsuch said about fetal rights at his confirmation hearing.


“Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment—and that book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.


thehill.com...

Here are some more cases in which the Supreme Court ruled on fetal rights.


A fetus is not a person under New York law or under the State and Federal Constitutions. (United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397; Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309; Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144; Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741; Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners
……….

A fetus is not a "person" pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which provide that no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process. (People v. Fein, 292 N. Y. 10; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Woods v. Lancet, 303 N. Y. 349; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Matter of Peabody, 5 N Y 2d 541; People v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 954, 397 U.S. 915; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
……...

Whether a fetus is a "human being" and a "person" to be afforded a constitutional protection is a question of law and not fact, and no court, as a matter of law, has declared the fetus a person under the Constitution. (Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217; United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62

………….

The occasions of State intervention extending benefit or protection to the fetus provide no support for the contention that the fetus has any constitutional rights. (People v. McGonegal, 136 N. Y. 62; Evans v. People, 49 N. Y. 86; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535; Matter of Sampson, 29 N Y 2d 900; Application of President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 331 F. 2d 1000, 377 U.S. 978; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542


msu.edu...




posted on May, 20 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that a fetus is not a "person", and therefore, it has no "right to life", not me.

Secondly, The Supreme Court ruled that "viability" is the threshold for abortion. Medical science decides when viability occurs, not the Supreme Court.

So you're saying the Supreme Court made the law about abortions and cannot be questioned, right?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




They ruled based on what the US Constitution says.




the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment


Please cite the section of the 14th amendment that says "fetuses don't count." Until then you'll simply have to cede my point, which was:



Oh, the insidious nature (from the left pov) of the alabama bill is that it will require the supreme court to define when life begins.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

What's weird, is that I don't remember the part in the constitution where the supreme court could make laws. I must have just blacked that part out or something.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




So you're saying the Supreme Court made the law about abortions and cannot be questioned, right?


Nope. The Supreme Court ruled that anti-abortion state laws were unconstitutional. They took into account the states' interest to preserve potential life, and determined that the woman's "personhood" was more compelling than a states' interest until the point of viability, at which point the states' interest overrides a woman's right to terminate an abortion on demand.


edit on 20-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join