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.

 

Just a mess on a napkin

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I'm in favor of the Texas law that biological remains belong to the mother, not the hospital, and in any case cannot be disposed of along with the day's medical waste, that the mother gets to decide how the hospital will treat the remains, or else turn them over to a mortician of the family's choosing.

In the US there is no medical/ethical standard for what to do with the remains, or at what point of pregnancy they must be treated with the respect normally accorded a human corpse. Some states have legal standards, such as pointing out to the grieving mother that she can designate the destination of the biological materials, or that after the 24th week of pregnancy the remains can no longer be disposed of as medical waste, but must be cremated or buried, and recorded as such.

I'm in favor of giving the power to make choices in the hands of the people whose lives have been forever impacted, rather than the institutions who have other interests in mind.




posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen


Here's an article about an argument in the P.A. legislature about giving the parents the right to fetal tissues.

it's dated 4 days ago.



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

Thanks.



and in any case cannot be disposed of along with the day's medical waste




State Rep. Francis Ryan, R-Lebanon County, stressed that his bill would give families the option to bury or cremate fetal remains after a miscarriage, but would not force them to hold funeral services.


That's not bestowing rights. It's bestowing financial responsibilities. More medical bills that insurance won't cover.

Are you okay with women having the right to donate their fetal and embryonic tissue to science and medical research? Where's that in the bill? Cremation or burial....the only choices?

I strongly object!


“I think this is a significant bill that came to pass for those of us who have lost children and I‘ve lost three,” Ryan added. “My bill does nothing more than give parents the option at their own expense to take care of the remains on their own.”


It financially punishes women, even those that choose to abort.


House Bill 1890 would require medical facilities to notify parents that that they have the option of cremating or burying any medical tissue - including embryonic tissue, fertilized ovum or blastocyst - resulting from a miscarriage or an abortion.


That's nuts! (In my humble opinion) It's a glaring example of virtue signaling!

I agree with this sentiment:


“We received heartfelt emails from women telling us about their early miscarriages, how difficult they were, and how much worse it would have been were they forced to get a death certificate for a pregnancy that they understood so differently,” said Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny. “It’s simply wrong to tell women what a loss of pregnancy is supposed to mean to them.”

edit on 3-11-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nothing.

What/who is calling their loved one a piece of garbage? A politician in Pennsylvania and YOU.

That's my beef.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




What/who is calling their loved one a piece of garbage? A politician in Pennsylvania and YOU.


The truth is, many miscarriages and early medical abortions result in a mess on a napkin and are flushed away. How the woman feels about that is no one's business but hers.



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
We are are a point where democrats don't see the unborn, or even worse - the recently born, as human beings.

The result of this is: I am at a point where I don't see democrats as human beings.

They are far far less than that. I have flushed things with greater moral and ethical content than the modern democrat. I regret that now. Those fecal monuments could be in congress right now representing us better than any democrat ever could.



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Way to prove my point.

You aren't just pro-abortion... you are anti-children.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
To any anti-abortionist here: Are there any instances where an abortion is necessary? If so, what is that?



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a silly question... of course there are. Life or serious health consequences to the mother, severe abnormalities (as in unable to survive for any appreciable length of time outside the womb... one of these I am familiar with is severely retarded brain development)... and of course within the first trimester I see no issue at all. That's a few examples.

My question to you: why would you want to falsely portray an entire group of people as being unreasonable? The entire argument in this thread is over the callousness some have towards others. Do you also believe the life that ended is always "just a mess on a napkin" and there is no reason to even consider those who might feel differently? Sookiechacha does. That's what I define as unreasonable.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

I think that how a person reacts to a miscarriage depends on the person and has nothing to do with a persons political party. I really doubt that anyone is thinking about politics when they are faced with that.
It is true that there are women who have no maternal goals or desires. That is true throughout the animal kingdom.
That is not most women and it has nothing to do with politics either.
I am sorry but this is about human nature and how people handle life's challenges including miscarriage.
Most of life happens without politics entering into it at all. If that is not true of you then perhaps you should step back. Not my business of course.

edit on 1132019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So all abortions in the first trimester are okay? Or just the ones that you approve of?

Have I portrayed an entire group of people as unreasonable here? Does callousness toward others exist? Sure.

Old as sin. Man’s inhumanity to man. Vicious little primates the lot of us.

The OP capitalizes on a very reasonable comment As a point-of-departure for a very predictable ideological rant. I don’t know if you’ve ever helped a lady with a miscarriage, but coarse reference or not, the representative from PA’s statement was not inaccurate. It was also not necessarily callous but realistic. Of course, the way these comments always get used in the anti-abortion arguments are really quite predictable.

What a loaded question ... “do I believe a life ended” ... a life? In the strictest sense, perhaps. Part of the lady’s body at that point I’d say. Perhaps if those who take the anti-abortion stance were a bit less melodramatic and more realistic we’d start to make some progress toward a reasonable compromise like, oh, I don’t know, abortions are not elective after the fetus is viable.

What a thought, eh?



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I don’t believe that a fetus is a human being until it is viable. Even after viability, there are certain horrific situations where it is a greater kindness to end the pregnancy.

Therefore, for my part, within the limits set by Roe (and logical progressions as medical science advances) it is simply not my choice. I am not a female and I cannot get pregnant. Even if I were female, the only person that I have any rights regarding is MY body, no one else’s.

The concept of the “unborn” is a political maneuver meant entirely to keep state control over female’s bodies. Let’s think it through, shall we? The state of being unborn for many begins at fertilization. The zygote is a person. The embryo is a person. The fetus is a person. In fact, for maximum effect, let’s use the terminology common to these sorts of rants, eh?

The zygote is a baby. The embryo is a baby. The fetus is a baby. Right?

Now, when someone who believes THAT says that there are occasions in which an abortion makes sense, what does that signify? It means that person is just fine with killing a baby AS LONG AS it meets their criteria for doing so?

... and anti-abortionists want to call those who believe in the right of a female to own her own body a monster?

Please.



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


So all abortions in the first trimester are okay? Or just the ones that you approve of?

Personally, I would love for there never to be another abortion in any trimester... life is precious. But that's not going to happen, and I realize that. I also realize that a total prohibition on abortion would lead to more loss of life, as some women will be so desperate they will actually harm themselves. I support life... ALL life... so I would accept first trimester on demand without much consternation. I base that on the assumption, correct I think, that at such early stages there is no pain to the unborn child.


Have I portrayed an entire group of people as unreasonable here? Does callousness toward others exist? Sure.

Old as sin. Man’s inhumanity to man. Vicious little primates the lot of us.

That is a very poor reason to celebrate such viciousness. I prefer to celebrate the good that mankind can do and denounce the bad, even when that bad may well be a part of our nature. We are not animals. We can control what we do.


The OP capitalizes on a very reasonable comment As a point-of-departure for a very predictable ideological rant. I don’t know if you’ve ever helped a lady with a miscarriage, but coarse reference or not, the representative from PA’s statement was not inaccurate. It was also not necessarily callous but realistic.

No, sir, it was not. Yes, sir, I have. No, sir, it is not.

~ removed by poster ~


Perhaps if those who take the anti-abortion stance were a bit less melodramatic and more realistic we’d start to make some progress toward a reasonable compromise like, oh, I don’t know, abortions are not elective after the fetus is viable.

What I hear from that is: "if you guys would just do as we want, we might let you have some say some day if we feel like it."

Sorry, that is a not just a "no." That is a "HELL NO!" You want more reason? Start with the man in the mirror. Compromise does not begin with one side giving up everything.

This is exactly why I am rooting and hoping Roe v. Wade becomes a footnote in history.

TheRedneck

edit on 11/3/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


The zygote is a baby. The embryo is a baby. The fetus is a baby. Right?

According to me, yes. According to others, no; they are simply garbage.


Now, when someone who believes THAT says that there are occasions in which an abortion makes sense, what does that signify? It means that person is just fine with killing a baby AS LONG AS it meets their criteria for doing so?

There is more to it than that, and you know it. At some point, that baby achieves sentience. Once that happens, once it can feel and react to pain or danger, it deserves as much protection as any other human being. It is true that it must remain secondary to the mother should the occasion arise that the survival of the child is deadly to the mother, but those instances are thankfully rare.

I have explained my reasoning in the above post; you do neither yourself nor your cause any favors by trying to remove part of the equation so it fits your personal narrative.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I’m with you. I’d rather prevent pregnancies than have to face the question of an abortion.

So pain is the determining issue for you? Fascinating. That’s unusual and very logical and humane. A zygote/embryo/fetus in the first trimester does not have a developed nervous system so it’s impossible that there is anything similar to what we would call pain.

I’m not celebrating viciousness. I understand that it exists. However, in the context of this discussion, there was nothing vicious about what the lady from PA said. Or callous. In my opinion.

What I do find vicious and callous is the OP’s gross misrepresentation of what the lady said AND then the attempted castigation of millions of Americans who are Democrats claiming that they’re all monsters. Gallup polls over decades show that about 17% of Democrats are completely against abortion, and most are only in favor on some occasions. Not unlike you yourself, Redneck. From the OPs view though, you’re no better than a dirty Democrat who are all baby killers.

That’s what gets so old. The lies that are told in defense of “life.”

We disagree on the intent of the OP then. You have my sympathies. Yes, it is a realistic assessment in the context in which it was made.

A nerve I don’t want to step on? I’m sorry for your experienced loss. If the topic is too close to you or emotional for you to participate in rationally, may I suggest you are the one who needs to“step away.” I didn’t refer to your daughter as garbage, and shame on you for suggesting I said such a thing. The fact that you know or imagine that your lost child was a daughter plainly says to me that you’re way off base in terms of the comment made in the video.

Your comment about “what you hear” is pure BS Redneck. You don’t hear me saying that at all. You can keep acting like this is the first time you and I have had a conversation if you wish, and you can keep painting everyone who disagrees with you as a monster. That level of irrationality is common for those who are anti-abortion activists ... you try to twist those of us who are standing up for ACTUAL human rights into the exact autocratic crap you otherwise claim to hate. THAT is very clearly a big part of the reason why there will never be consensus or compromise on this issue.

I’m very familiar with the man in the mirror Redneck. I sleep just fine knowing that I stand for human rights for all.

One side giving up everything??? If the anti-abortion “side’ doesn’t want an abortion ... they don’t have to have one!!!

What you and the other activists want is to tell the rest of us what we can do with our bodies ... and no, that’s not just in the right to an abortion it seems.

Apparently for many, tyranny begins at home, eh?






edit on 3-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Zygotes are human beings? Should the 50% of spontaneous abortions be considered involuntary manslaughter then?

Pfft.

Show me reasonable medical evidence of how we determine when sentience occurs and we can talk.

Feel pain and react to danger? So, the 38 week fetus that is discovered to have horrible disfigurements should be born and forced to exist for whatever period of time it exists in pain?

You state that the mother is of primary importance and the “baby” is of secondary importance?

Therefore killing the “baby” to save the mother is understandable???

No thanks. I will continue to believe that a fetus is a fetus. I will continue to believe that we should do EVERYTHING as a society to help prevent pregnancies and care for children that mothers decide to have whether they give them up or keep them. I will continue to believe that offering assistance to mothers and children is an act of charity that we all can well afford as a culture. Too many times, however, the constellation of “politics” that requires anti-abortion stances is also altogether against all that “socialism.”

I have explained my thoughts as well. I’m fine with what I’ve said as I expect you are. Time will tell which if us is correct.



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I’m with you. I’d rather prevent pregnancies than have to face the question of an abortion.

Good! Agreement on the basic issue is the first step.


So pain is the determining issue for you?

I suppose one could say that, yes. After all, isn't that what basic human rights are founded on, the denial of others' legitimate ability to cause pain to the innocent? If I assault you, I cause pain. If I murder you, I cause pain to you and your family/friends. If I refuse to allow you to use a proper restroom, I cause pain to you. If I refuse to hire you over skin color, I create mental pain as you struggle harder to get by.

At the beginning of a pregnancy, the child (yes, I still refer to it as such, even at that point) is a single cell. It obviously cannot feel pain, and there is no emotional bond between it and the mother. As the pregnancy progresses, it becomes a clump of cells... still no reason to believe it is sentient in any way and still no emotional attachment. At some point, however, that single fertilized cell grows into a breathing infant. We can debate where that point is located, but what I normally hear from one side of this argument is that the point is when it exits the birth canal and not one millisecond before. That is illogical poppycock pretending to be reason, and not doing a very good job at it. It is as inane an argument as saying the fertilized single cell is sentient.

Since the basic premise I operate on is the sanctity of sentient life, and since there is a known correlation between unintentional suicides by botched self-abortion attempts, there should be a line drawn somewhere that balances the life and health of the mother with the life and health of the unborn. We do not have that balance today, and statements like the one that started this thread only serve to ensure that such a balance can never be achieved. Garbage has no rights by definition.


I’m not celebrating viciousness.

Actually, you are. You excuse, even attempt to rationalize her statement. The woman herself later apologized for her choice of words... and you still defend them. I am not expecting anyone to suddenly decide that "Hey! Abortion is wrong because of what a Pennsylvania politician said!" but I do expect condemnation of her words, if for no other reason than they hurt people greatly.

Hurting people so callously is vicious.

I have not, to my recollection, accused all Democrats of agreeing with this woman; such a broad brush would be hard to accurately paint with. It does follow that many Democratic leaders and followers, though, support the statement and therefore show the same uncaring callous and vicious attitude the politician who uttered it did... worse, actually, since she did apologize.


A nerve I don’t want to step on? I’m sorry for your experienced loss.

Thank you. I am editing out that section of the post. It is not something I enjoy talking about.


I didn’t refer to your daughter as garbage, and shame on you for suggesting I said such a thing.

Yes, you did. If all miscarriages are just "mess on a napkin," then you also included her as "mess on a napkin." Understand that. You are in agreement with this politician who called a miscarriage a "mess on a napkin" which is a piece of garbage. That is the same as referring to the child miscarried as garbage. By agreeing with the terminology used, you are, indeed, calling every unborn child a piece of garbage.

That is not something I can see any debate in.


You comment about “what you hear” is pure BS Redneck. You don’t hear me saying that at all.

Perhaps that was not your intent, but you do not determine my interpretation of your message after the fact by simply disputing it. If you wish to clarify, that is one thing, but a simple dispute of my interpretation is not your domain.

That is the very basis of communication: ensure that the information being sent is received with the correct meaning. A garbled or unclear transmission is not the fault of the receiver; it is the fault of the transmitter. if the message is received in error and that error is discovered, it is the job of the transmitter to clarify by re-transmission of a clearer message.


I’m very familiar with the man in the mirror Redneck. I sleep just fine knowing that I stand for human rights for all.

Does that include the unborn? I thought you agreed they were garbage.

There's that miscommunication again. I am getting two different positions that do not compliment one another.


One side giving up everything??? If the anti-abortion “side’ doesn’t want an abortion ... they don’t have to have one!!!

Society says it is illegal to run down a pedestrian. Is it then reasonable to say this is unfair because anyone who doesn't want to is not required to run down a pedestrian? It's their car, so why can't they do with it as they want?


What you and the other activists want is to tell the rest of us what we can do with our bodies ... and no, that’s not just in the right to an abortion it seems.

I have no interest in what someone does to their own body. When they start doing things to the bodies of others, though, even if that body is inside theirs, it becomes a social rather than an individual matter.

That said, no one really has unlimited rights to their bodies anyway. Many of the same people who make this claim also want to see vaccinations made mandatory. That's the government deciding that one must inject a chemical into their own body. Prostitution is illegal in most US locations; why? It's a woman's body, so why can she not use it as she sees fit?

Face it, there are plenty of laws that regulate what we can do with our own bodies, including laws against assisted suicide. Your argument does not have a basis in reality, because no one has exclusive rights to their own body.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Pain might be a special case of damage I guess. Some pain is worthwhile though, so it’s not a hard and fast rule in my opinion; I take your point and as I said, using pain to the fetus as your threshold for judgement is logically consistent.

I have never seen a pro-choice argument that states that life only begins at birth another gross exaggeration on your part. Interestingly, that is the Judaic formulation, and even more than that, the infant must survive 30 days to be considered a person under Mosiac law.. Whether that is YHVH’s will is another question.

Yes, I do get to interpret your gross misunderstanding of my comment and of my general beliefs as stated here at ATS as such. Was it honest on your part? I’m not a mind-reader and have never claimed to be. You’re wrong though.

Another claim that I’ve described aborted fetal remains as garbage. That’s a lie, and I’m bored now. Play this holier-than-thou dirty dealing game with someone else.



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Zygotes are human beings?

They are human. "Human being" insinuates sentience, and since there is no evidence that a zygote is sentient, no, I do not consider them "human beings." I do consider them human... no zygote ever conceived inside a human has ever grown into a lizard.

You're adding words now. That is disingenuous.


Show me reasonable medical evidence of how we determine when sentience occurs and we can talk.

There are ultrasounds of abortion procedures where a fetus will retract involuntarily from an invading needle or pliers. No, I will not link them, as it would be against the T&C. You can find them for yourself if you so wish. They're not hidden.


Feel pain and react to danger? So, the 38 week fetus that is discovered to have horrible disfigurements should be born and forced to exist for whatever period of time it exists in pain?

You are talking about a mercy killing. That is along the same lines as assisted suicide, which I believe should be allowed under very tightly controlled conditions. And for the same reason: minimization of pain.


You state that the mother is of primary importance and the “baby” is of secondary importance?

Therefore killing the “baby” to save the mother is understandable???

Yes. I believe any reasonable person would be able to find reason in that.


I will continue to believe that we should do EVERYTHING as a society to help prevent pregnancies and care for children that mothers decide to have whether they give them up or keep them. I will continue to believe that offering assistance to mothers and children is an act of charity that we all can well afford as a culture. Too many times, however, the constellation of “politics” that requires anti-abortion stances is also altogether against all that “socialism.”

I actually agree with you. But today, abortions are far, far too commonplace. Education on birth control is essential, although it must be approached with a careful bent toward abstinence as the only sure method. Social services to help mothers who are unprepared to handle a child are another absolutely critical area; we have some assistance (I have actually used such in the past), but I don't think it goes far enough. It was enough for me and my wife, but often is not enough for others who were in worse straits.

I do not think it helps that goal to insist that the child is garbage, though. That would seem to me to be the opposite of encouraging social assistance.


I have explained my thoughts as well. I’m fine with what I’ve said as I expect you are. Time will tell which if us is correct.

Your explanations are confusing and contradictory. You support expanded social services to care for garbage? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Consider this: if I am right, I have inconvenienced many women. If you are right, you have killed many children.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I haven’t killed any children Redneck. If you are right about the matter, I hope you nor anyone you care about never have to be a part of a decision to do so because sometimes it’s okay.

Best.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join