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.

 

Should unborn children have ANY rights?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 


You HAVE chickens?
Then you know that the only way for a hen to lay a fertilized egg is to have a rooster around!
People who sell eggs usually are responsible enough to keep the roosters separate, unless they want the hens to have chicks.
Egg farms almost ALWAYS don't have roosters. Just layer hens.




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Could we all please keep this thread ON TOPIC?

This is not about whether you think a fetus is a parasite or not. It is about YOU being a real life responsible adult human being that cares for life. It is about having the guts to do the correct thing and not just take the easy way out. Whatever your opinion is about a fetus being a human or not; all life should have rights.

At what point is it anyone anyone's right to determine a living beings fate? If you play the game be ready to pay the price before you play.

Tell me this. Is a severely mentally disabled person that has all higher brain function wiped out but lives on motor function a human being? Should we take them out behind the dumpster and shoot them?

So then what gives anyone the right to determine a fetus's right to life? Because of its brain function? The brain is not the being but a way to interpret the world the being lives in. A non developed brain (notice I do not say mind that is a different thing entirely) does not determine if you are human or not.

Otherwise maybe we should have a eugenics program like we did in the thirties? Just line those with severe retardation up and kill them?

Take a look inside for the answers not what you have been fed by others. Wake up and listen to what you are thinking instead of reacting.

Think deeply please.




[edit on 24-2-2009 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


What about all the children who have been aborted? Murder is murder, justify it how you will, make up all the scenarios in defense of it. However one determines to justify their conscience and alleviate the guilt, that they will do to avoid the truth: abortion is an act of murder.

End of discussion for me.


Lol, once again, you are showing how naive you really are. It is impossible to abort a child, considering that a child has already been born. But, you can go ahead and be holier than though. You have nothing to back up your view on it but emotion, and making your decisions based on emotion is about as illogical as you can get.




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


I agree, all viable life should have rights. Unfortunately a fetus is not viable life. Also, I hope you are an animal rights activist, because "all life" doesnt just refer to humans.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Did I not say think deeply?

You are a parasite to the earth. Without it you would not live or breath.

The mother is the "earth" to the fetus. So how is it not a viable life? It has the spark of life and lives via the mother as you live via the earth.

Now think deeper.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Did I not say think deeply?

You are a parasite to the earth. Without it you would not live or breath.

The mother is the "earth" to the fetus. So how is it not a viable life? It has the spark of life and lives via the mother as you live via the earth.

Now think deeper.

Take your own advice my friend, and think deeper. Do you know what viable life is? It is self-sustainable life. Can a fetus provide for itself? Can it perform the actions of eating, or waste disposal, or breathing? No, it must be provided by the symbiote host (the mother). So no, it isnt viable life.

Is it amateur hour today or what?



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Do you know what viable life is? It is self-sustainable life. Can a fetus provide for itself? Can it perform the actions of eating, or waste disposal


Neither can a 7 month old!
What?

or breathing? No


Yes, a fetus DOES (In a way)breathe by it's amniotic fluid!



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Do you know what viable life is? It is self-sustainable life. Can a fetus provide for itself? Can it perform the actions of eating, or waste disposal


Neither can a 7 month old!
What?

or breathing? No


Yes, a fetus DOES (In a way)breathe by it's amniotic fluid!






What you say is completely false. A fetus cannot perform the bodily function of eating and digestion. A 7 month old can. A fetus cannot deficate or urinate. A 7 month old can. A fetus cannot perform the act of breathing, it absorbs oxygen. A 7 month old has fully functioning lungs.

I'm glad to debate, but dont flat out lie, and dont thing rhetoric cuts it.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sadisticwoman
A fetus is not a person, and therefore has no rights. Until out of the womb, it is a parasite.


I am afraid this is just how low some get with this argument, yet when someone murders a pregnant woman they get charged for murdering TWO persons. So I guess the second one is a scandalous bit more than


JUST A PARASITE.


We have lots of parasites in my State of AZ, they are called illegal aliens and yet they have more rights than a person called a fetus.


We sure have a lot of nonsensical double standards in this country



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Do you know what viable life is? It is self-sustainable life. Can a fetus provide for itself? Can it perform the actions of eating, or waste disposal


Neither can a 7 month old!
What?

or breathing? No


Yes, a fetus DOES (In a way)breathe by it's amniotic fluid!






What you say is completely false. A fetus cannot perform the bodily function of eating and digestion. A 7 month old can. A fetus cannot deficate or urinate. A 7 month old can. A fetus cannot perform the act of breathing, it absorbs oxygen. A 7 month old has fully functioning lungs.

I'm glad to debate, but dont flat out lie, and dont thing rhetoric cuts it.


She wasn't lying, if you think a 7 month old can sustain itself without anyone's assistance then please do the world a favor,

DON'T HAVE CHILDREN




[edit on 24-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic



I'm glad to debate, but dont flat out lie, and dont thing rhetoric cuts it.


She wasn't lying, if you think a 7 month old can sustain itself without anyone's assistance than please do the world a favor,

DON'T HAVE CHILDREN


You are spewing rhetoric. A fetus does not have the physical function to eat, drink, urinate, deficate, BREATH. A seven month old, while needing the assistance of someone a parent to teach them these things, has the full function to perform them to sustain life. They can eat food, absorb the nutrients into their bloodstream. They can breath, and pull oxygen from their lungs into their blood. A fetus, in the stages we are talking about, cannot. They CANNOT survive without their symbiotic host. NON-VIABLE.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic



I'm glad to debate, but dont flat out lie, and dont thing rhetoric cuts it.


She wasn't lying, if you think a 7 month old can sustain itself without anyone's assistance than please do the world a favor,

DON'T HAVE CHILDREN


You are spewing rhetoric. A fetus does not have the physical function to eat, drink, urinate, deficate, BREATH. A seven month old, while needing the assistance of someone a parent to teach them these things, has the full function to perform them to sustain life. They can eat food, absorb the nutrients into their bloodstream. They can breath, and pull oxygen from their lungs into their blood. A fetus, in the stages we are talking about, cannot. They CANNOT survive without their symbiotic host. NON-VIABLE.


I am NOT spewing anything, but YOU are giving a false argument predicated on a false perception of what is "Viable". an infant in the womb certainly DOES get oxygen and nutrients and elimination is also facilitated in a symbiotic relationship. It is as dependent on the mother for his or her care on the inside as it is for many years on the outside. Your definition of what is viable is contingent on the method of viability and not the FACT of its dependence on the mother FOR its viability.

Just because the method to introduce nutrients and oxygen are different has nothing to do with its viability till it gets cut from the umbilical cord then its dependence for viability changes methods outside of the womb but its viability is still as dependent on the mother as it was inside. HOW it survives does not define viability until we take from it the means of its survival but as long as it gets fed and breaths oxygen it is viable, HOW it gets that is irrelevant

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Are you kidding me? The ability to to eat, breath, and LIVE under your own power is the same thing as a symbiotic relationship where only one part needs the other, ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY? How do you even argue that? I mean, we are talking about bodily function. its not really up for debate, honestly.
I suppose you can't, if the other person refuses to acknowledge scientific fact, or even bother to check the meaning of the word they are arguing against.


[edit on 2/24/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 

When did I say a fetus feeds itself or defecates?
Quote please.
I said a 7 month old can't either!
Also, a fetus can defecate in the womb, which can create problems for lung development!
My middle child did, but it didn't affect him!



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jdposey
 


Think of all the children who were aborted in the past, who could have been here, posting their opinion on this thread.

Yes, as if there wasn't enough stupidity in the world already. Another argument for aboartion, surely.

Star for you.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Take your own advice my friend, and think deeper. Do you know what viable life is? It is self-sustainable life. Can a fetus provide for itself? Can it perform the actions of eating, or waste disposal, or breathing? No, it must be provided by the symbiote host (the mother). So no, it isnt viable life.

Is it amateur hour today or what?


We are all the same condition as the fetus in the bigger picture. The earth takes care of our waste. The earth provides our nourishment. We are in a symbiotic relationship with OUR host earth (the mother) so then with your logic we are not viable.

Did I mention deeper thought?


I cannot keep dealing with your train of thought you have made up your mind and it cannot be budged.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
We are in a symbiotic relationship with OUR host earth (the mother) so then with your logic we are not viable.

Did I mention deeper thought?

And our symbiotic function is what, exactly? I'd love to know.

If you want deeper thought, try some Nietzsche:


The earth, said he, hath a skin; and this skin hath diseases. One of
these diseases, for example, is called 'man'.

Thus Spake Zarathustra, Ch. 40


[edit on 25-2-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
We are in a symbiotic relationship with OUR host earth (the mother) so then with your logic we are not viable.

Did I mention deeper thought?

And our symbiotic function is what, exactly? I'd love to know.


I here you. I dont agree but I understand and I am just using this as an excuse to bump this thread.

Keep Myn alive here for a bit...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Common good says: “As far as octomom, I think she should be locked up,”

****Really? And besides preventing her from breeding further, what will this accomplish.?

As to non-licensed people using birth control…..that does not always work, not even with the best of intentions. So how would you know that they violated the suggested law in this regard?
If they are to be non-breeders forever, then they should be sterilized.

We are not talking about abortion here. I believe this is about setting up a situation that will be in the best interests of the life of s planned child; that is qualifying the parents. OP is saying that the child has a right to a decent life.

They qualify, they get the license. If they don’t - maybe they get a chance when they get their act together. Most losers are obvious and should be sterilized. Simple - no abortion necessary.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Fetuses within a couple of weeks of viability should have human rights.

There is no human right that gives you the right to force another person to let you use their organs to keep you alive.

Just because you have human rights doesn't give you rights OVER another human.

Pretty simple.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join