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.

 

A new push to define 'person,' and to outlaw abortion in the process

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth Lumina
 


I see, you are against sexual acts? so should we regulate sexuality also and make laws against the act of sex unless if solely for reproduction?

Why not? after all some think that regulating the female reproductive parts is a good thing.





posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Like I say emotions play a big role in understanding sexuality, the act of sex, reproduction and abortion rights.

That is why in this nation is becoming very dangerous to let emotions dictate how we are to live our private lives and change or make laws to dictate behaviour.

I love children have two of my own, I will never have an abortion myself but I will never deny somebody else the right to do as they wish with their bodies and their lives as that is in my opinion a personal and private issue.

Monitory reproductive parts of male and females and create laws against them is no only unattainable but dangerous because as usual is the females the intended target when it comes to reproduction rights.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Darth Lumina
 


I see, you are against sexual acts? so should we regulate sexuality also and make laws against the act of sex unless if solely for reproduction?

Why not? after all some think that regulating the female reproductive parts is a good thing.



You sure like to put words into my mouth or in this case put words in my posts. Where did I mention anything about being against sexual acts? Also, when and where did I mention anything about the government regulating this? I'm pretty vocal about less government actually. But typically when someone has a weak argument to a discussion they usually resort to stupidity.

I'm talking about personal responsibility. Yes, personal responsibility, I know that's a poisonous word in the "me, me, me" generation, but that is something you have to except when you are a grown up. There are responsibilities that can result from your actions, and in this case it is conceiving a baby. When you have sex, protected or not, there is always the risk of conception. If conception happens, then you are responsible for that child. As I have written before and said many times, abortion performed for convenience is murder.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

potential is half of everything.

yes a zygote doesnt have a brain (or one that makes him sentient) but the point is that he WILL


Sorry to flog a dead horse as it is but as you said "potential is half of everything", that would make a fetus only half a person and half a person cannot have the rights of a fully conscious, self aware sentient human being.

A sperm, an egg, a fetus are just cells that are no different than amoeba, paramecium or any other single celled organism. Now, while the fetus could potentially become a human being in 9 months, so could a single celled organism evolve to be a sentient being in a couple million years. So do we base our actions on the future what ifs that are not certain or do we act with the knowledge of right now.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


I believe the government calls it pre empty attacks in this case anti abortion rights are using the same technique but no necessary the wording
to always plan for what if not or may be.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by inthesticks
Boy, I hate abortion, but this is absurd!

As disgusting as I find abortion, I think it is a decision that should be left to the woman, her doctor and the father if he's in the picture. The state or some busybody has NO place in making this decision.

My continuing hope is that some day girls/woman will take responsibility for
themselves and practice birth control rather than using abortion as birth control.
As far as the ones that get pregnant while using birth control, they need to deal with the fact that they danced to the tune and now must take responsibility and pay the piper. If they don't want the child, there are thousands of couples desperate for a child and it should be put up for adoption. Of course, I know my hoping for this is just a pipe dream!


She, she, she, her............
Everytime I see someone say this it makes my HEAD EXPLODE!!!!!
What about the MAN that impregnated her for God's sake!
I have been involved with this issue, no I am not an advocate of abortion, and 75% of the time what I hear is, he said he was sterile, or he said he would stick by me if anything happened, and he is saying it isn't his but he Knows it is.
Those are the three main things I hear. The birth control failed is usually used by the older women, ( Late teens and up ) but the first three are the main ones.
Now, while I would not advocate abortion, I will defend a womans right to choose the option.


Besides the aforementioned there is also, my Father had sex with me, I was raped on my way home from school, I was raped by a date. etc.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


All Americans are killing thousands in the middle east and support it? That's news to me. Don't confuse our governments actions with the citizens. Different entities.


I never said that was the case, it would be absurd to think or say such a thing. Yet at the same time it is still very hypocritical that a country that is at war killing untold amounts of innocent people is more concerned about abortion than trying to stop the lives of already born people being needlessly killed.

Its just my opinion but, I would rather see effort, time and money go into stopping a war abroad that is out of control than trying to force laws onto men and women at home. You cant talk about the moral wrongs of killing people yet to be born when your nations is engaged in conflict that kills people already born.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by quackers
 



An unborn foetus is a parasite, it should have no more rights that the common cold or any other virus/disease/parasite.


This post nauseated me.



If it is an unwanted foetus then the statement is true.

Sorry it makes you feel sick Ashley but the truth hurts.


[edit on 29/9/2009 by nerbot]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by miriam0566

1 - no. the DNA is unique from the moment of conception. an individual



HOW can an INDIVIDUAL be a part of a woman AND dependant on her?



you are assuming that physical connection means fusion and you are wrong. even siamese twins that share parts of their brain are still considered 2 distinct individuals.

besides having its own DNA, a fetus has its own blood, separate from the mothers.

even the mother's body treats the fetus as separate, sometimes the mothers immune system even attacks the baby. the placenta is what makes these attacks unsuccessful.

so call it a part of the mother's body all you like, its simply not true



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

reply to post by quackers
 

There is little difference between a feotus and a tapeworm, but I would not want the law telling me I had to live with a tapeworm.


oh wait, except a tapeworm doesnt have human DNA and will of course never become a human.

but other than that no difference.

i hope that if you ever have a child, i hope that you avoid calling them a tapeworm (at least for their sanity)



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
a fetus needs a host to survive that is call a parasite and in many instances it can kill a host or better put the "mother" if that sound more pleasant to you and don't make you feel so sick.


classifying it by its actions doesnt change the fact its human.

i mean a killer can be called a "monster", but fundamentally they are still human



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
A sperm, an egg, a fetus are just cells that are no different than amoeba, paramecium or any other single celled organism. Now, while the fetus could potentially become a human being in 9 months, so could a single celled organism evolve to be a sentient being in a couple million years. So do we base our actions on the future what ifs that are not certain or do we act with the knowledge of right now.


we arent talking about potential for animal live in millions of years. we are talking about human life that WILL mature in months.

BIG difference



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
If it is an unwanted foetus then the statement is true.

Sorry it makes you feel sick Ashley but the truth hurts.


its not the truth. its unloving. to deny a child life because they are unwanted.

its almost absurd that a woman who gets an abortion is practicing her "right" but that prom girl who tossed her baby in the trash is a monster and social repulsive.

neither "babies" had the faculties to know what is going on, the only difference was age.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
It is, and should be a womans right to make the decision of continuing a pregnancy or not. This is a very personal and painful decision and Most women do not make this decision lightly.

For those of you that picture adoption as a "wonderful option" I would like you to look at this page.
I, like many others, used to think of adoption as a wonderful thing, you know the white picket fence, the mom baking cookies and doting over the wonderful "Chosen Child". Until I was involved with the adoption/ foster parent programs.
Adopters Who Abuse & Kill
www.amfor.net...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Reply to post by refuse_orders
 


Deflection. If you feel the issue is unimportant the answer should be obvious, go elsewhere and discuss that. Instead of self rightously barging into a topic you claim to have no intrest in and attempting to dictate to others exactly what they should be discussing. Your issue IS important, but you are going about it all wrong.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


Wonderful view of humanity you have if you believe all beginning human lives are nothing more than parasites. Or really all mammals and any other species that gives live birth when you get right down to it. Which does include you.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



[edit on 29-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Where did I say that I did not feel this issue is not important? I stated my opinions on the hypocrisy that exists with this specific issue that's all. Last I heard you could post your opinion related to a subject here? Maybe I missed that memo, never mind.

Anyway as for the introduction of blanket laws on abortion would it not be much more productive to judge each case on individual merits and let trained professionals decide if it should be granted? Banning abortions will create a whole world of hurt for many more than it currently does, the return to Victorian style back street abortions would reappear overnight. Is it not better that somebody seeking such a procedure has access to clean and professional environments where every person involved is safe?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


All Americans are killing thousands in the middle east and support it? That's news to me. Don't confuse our governments actions with the citizens. Different entities.


I never said that was the case, it would be absurd to think or say such a thing. Yet at the same time it is still very hypocritical that a country that is at war killing untold amounts of innocent people is more concerned about abortion than trying to stop the lives of already born people being needlessly killed.

Its just my opinion but, I would rather see effort, time and money go into stopping a war abroad that is out of control than trying to force laws onto men and women at home. You cant talk about the moral wrongs of killing people yet to be born when your nations is engaged in conflict that kills people already born.



Trust me, a lot of people are just as passionate about the casualties of both wars. Of course there are many that are supportive of it, but more people are not for the killing of anyone. But i do see your point.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



But a SPERM that is required for women to develop a fetus in her womb is not part of the female body and is very much a foreign object introduced into the womb by outside help be by sexual act or in vitro (no sexual act required).

So actually unless a women produces her own sperm is not way a women can get a fetus developing in her womb without outside help.


This statement actually supports my argument, as it shows you clearly understand that an embryo is the result of cells from the same species coming together thus it is clearly NOT a parasite by definition. Again from a different source "Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host."
from en.wikipedia.org...

Additionally, a fetus that is carried to term results in survival of the species, and thus is the greatest possible benefit to the parents, from a strictly biological standpoint. So again a challenge to your use of the word parasite.

Then there is the biology of the event. The mother's body is genetically programmed, to support and assist the embryo/fetus/baby. This is well beyond the assertion that the mother is a mere "host."

I'll give you that an unborn child does have SOME similarities to a parasite, but I think trying to pass it off as such is just a rationalization to justify it's termination on demand by the parent.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by Pauligirl
I’m just not in favor of sacrificing women’s rights in favor of fetal rights.


which has more weight?

- right to not go through a pregnency and raise a child?

or

- right to live?

lets make no mistake, we are talking about life or death. if a mother has the responsibility to protect her child, why wouldnt she have that same responsibility with her unborn child?


To me, the right not to go through an unwanted pregnancy. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. I just don’t see a potential person as having the same rights as an independent, conscious person.

I’m all for eliminating abortions......by eliminating unwanted pregnancies, not by making abortions illegal.

If this was a perfect world, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But this is not a perfect world. Things happen. I don’t think there are any women out there that get pregnant just so they can have an abortion. I don’t think there are many that take this as casual decision.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join