It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Abortion providers will be killed in South Dakota - Islam is not the only extremist breeding hole.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Here's something to think about....

If the current laws state that an unborn fetus is NOT a viable Human Being then it wouldn't be a crime to do harm to that fetus... right? So with that in mind, if the mother of an unborn fetus kills someone for trying to harm her unborn child/fetus, she could be prosecuted for murder UNLESS there was a law in place making it legal to use deadly force to protect her un-born non-human entity growing inside her... does that make any sense???

No, because you can't attack the fetus without attacking the mother. Her being pregnant is an aggravating factor, elevating any assault to a felony. Protecting yourself from a felony assault is pretty well protected under law.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Master or servant?

I haven't been able to make sense of it yet. Why do they have to speak like that? Why don't they just say what they mean??

Is the Grand Old Republican Party trying to bring back slavery?
edit on 16-2-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:35 PM
I suspect this change was originally penned in 1740, on a Sunday after a fine evening of partying then scheduled to be brought forward at some later point. Someone finally put it back on the docket.

On a more serious note - I'd seriously suggest that you look deeply into the affliations of the person/people who penned this.

Language is VERY important. Using language like this in a modern piece of legislation lets it stand as precedent. Masters exist and have legal recognition because we have modern legislation referencing them.

Language framing is a very important issue, both for assessing someone's psychological bent, but for controlling the content of discussion and for assessing what is culturally relevant.

In this case, this organization thinks and is indeed setting in motion in goverenment legislation, that Masters exist amoungst you.

edit on 2011/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by stuncrazy

to each their own. wonder what the ratio is, how effective a single doctor murder would be in this case. most phone books have multiple listings for most medical specialties. a client seeking a service would simply make a second phone call upon finding out the first doctors office is closed. so there is no real gain, no win.

there may be doctors who have a change of heart from knowing or reading about an abortion doctor who was murdered in the name of abortion protest, and cease to offer abortions out of fear.

on another point, with the increasing social trend to abandon religion, mock the faithful and take pride in godlessness, there are probably more young interns with no qualms about heaven or hell than ever before. pressure to pay school loans and typical personal greed can help make a profitable abortion clinic a win-win investment.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:33 PM

If we define the start of life as conception this is true. I personally can't see that a life that is wholly dependent on another life to survive as having any rights that the host does not wish to provide.

Following your logic, why is it that society does not accept a parent abusing or even killing their children? The child is dependent upon its parents from the time of birth until the age of 18 according to Mans laws.
There is absolutely no means of proving conception is not the start of definitely can be proven that it indeed is!

Who gets to decide what is absolutely necessary? What if the baby can be saved at the expense of the mothers life? Who makes these decisions? My logical premise is that a mother, and only a mother gets to decide. She is the ultimate decision maker for that life and it is up to her if it lives or dies. And no matter her choice I will support it. Once that life can live on its own it is no longer her choice, but societies choice. Until it can live on its own it falls under the mother's personal domain to do whatever she choses with her body.

Your premise is flawed due to several reasons.
Without a male there would be no mother.
It takes 18 years (+ or -) before that life can live on its own.
It is not societies responsibility to make decisions concerning a childs life.It is the parents.
A mother can always choose to do what she wants. The dilemma is determination of what is right/wrong.

This is why humans are one of the few animals on the planet who enjoy sex? This is why sex is used to secure social bonds? This is why human's have one of the lowest rates of successful pregnancy in mammals? Sex is a fun social activity with pregnancy being a side effect. And in the modern world with a little care and education that side effect can easily be negated.

Sex is and always has been an act which creates life. Its' ultimate purpose and goal is the creation of life. The above positive social aspects you posted in regards to sex are indeed important, but they are secondary. A side effect is usually regarded as an undesirable secondary effect. The creation of life is not a side effect it is a direct effect. I do agree with your base-line premise that with care and education unwanted pregnancies can be averted though.

Not sure how many women who have had abortions you've known but I guarantee you nobody is purposefully using it as birth control. Not more than once at least. I do agree that personal responsibility is important, and I think taking the responsibility and grown up decision that one can't properly care for a child is VERY responsible.

I am personally aware of several women that have had multiple abortions. There is no doubt that they are using it as a means of birth control.
Taking the responsibility and mature decision that one can't properly care for a child is VERY responsible.You are correct.NOW take your line of thought a step further and realize that life starts at conception so the logical mature decision one needs to make is to not allow ones self to become pregnant. With contraceptives being 99.8 percent effective in todays modern world their is absolutely no reason or justification for an unwanted pregnancy.

So I believe that a mother's choice supersedes an unborn fetuses right to life. It is the mother. In my world the mother should have ultimate choice over the life of her children until they can live independently of her womb. At this point, and only at this point is society allowed to step in and dictate.

I have pointed out in an above answer why this logic is flawed. Id est: The child is dependent upon its parents from the time of birth until the age of 18.Sustenance, shelter, ethical knowledge. All human knowledge is learned. False and untruths have steadily been taught as knowledge to undermine truth. Why do you think this is?

Really I have a hard time with most of my arguments against you and understand they are a little weak (except the sex one). The bottom line is I believe in every humans personal freedom to do whatever they want with their own body and mind very strongly.

I also believe in every humans personal freedom to do what they choose with their body and mind. Free will is a wonderful thing that has been taking for granted. Immoral, unethical choices may always be made; BUT they do NOT have to be taught as acceptable!
Societies problems stem from the lack of education in an ethical vision of liberal arts. An educated man is much more difficult to control than an uneducated. This premise entertwines looping back into learned human knowledge, false and untruths being taught as acceptable norms in society and personal responsibility. It really is an archaic unfaithfulness.
edit on 16-2-2011 by TexasChem because: spelling error

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by TexasChem

What I meant when I say an unborn child is completely reliant on the mother for survival is just that. I believe after a child is born they are no longer wholly reliant upon their mother to survive and if the life is at that point unwanted she no longer has the right to choose life or death; society must now make this decision.

As for the sex being for reproduction I can't argue that point, all I am saying is that this is not the sole reason for sex in today's world. And you are absolutely right that does entail a greater level of personal responsibility and education on how to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

I think I communicated the rest of my points disagreements will occur and neither of us will wholly change the others mind on the fundamentals though I believe.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
reply to post by TexasChem

Okay - Excuse me for a moment - But what does any of that have to do with it being okay to kill the doctor for accepting a contract of abortion?

When you have fully imagined the process of being raped, and impregnated with the man's sperm, and you feel his child growing within you. Then you can have a realistic opinion of abortion being good or bad.

The mother is not a slave of birthing to the government and a clump of cells or a fetus is NOT a person.

Its all too easy for us to say what is right in regards to another person's situation.

But frankly - They dont give a damn. Its their business what they do with their womb and its contents. Not ours.

edit on 16-2-2011 by Gradius Maximus because: (no reason given)

It's really quite obvious from reading the bill that its intent is not to allow open season on abortion doctors.
It is to establish legal precedent towards overturning current abortion laws plain and simple.

So in your opinion it is better for a raped woman to deal with the implications of killing the child within her mind for the rest of her life rather than face the moral obligation of providing for a new life growing within her?How...altruistic of you. Rather than rising above the hardship of the rape and difficulty of dealing with the stresses and bodily changes happening due to the pregnancy you would wish her to kill an innocent? Do you not believe a woman strong enough to learn a wonderful sense of accomplished satisfaction from her ordeal? Could she not be a stronger more knowledgable and wise woman of incredible substance from her trial?

Who told you a fetus was not a person Gradius? Is a nine year old not a child since it too is still dependent upon its mother to provide for life?

If indeed you believe it to not be "our" business what women do or do not do with their wombs Gradius; then why on earth did you start this thread?

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:10 PM
A nine year olds body doesn't stop functioning because you detached it from another person. Though I'm sure this distinction is lost on you because it doesn't work for your argument.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by TexasChem

Wow - So basically if a woman is raped, they should just stiffen that upper lip and birth the baby, completely altering the course of their lives into a path of motherhood. Raising the offspring of their sexual oppressor?

You're insane if you think thats okay.

I started this thread because this needs to be brought to light - The problem is too many people like you think women should just do the following.

Sit down. Shut up. Have the baby. Do as your told. We know better. You have no choice.

Sorry - I'm going to drag issues like this out of the closet for the world to see until everyone gets it into their thick skull that certain things are beyond the laws of man, and that includes a womans right to choose her children, even if she was forced to conceive.

A fetus is a part of the mother, its no less conscious then any other part of her body - yet it is still her body. It is her choice to remove her gaul bladder, just as much as it her choice to remove her fetus. It is not seen as a separate consciousness until it is indeed separated.

edit on 17-2-2011 by Gradius Maximus because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by TexasChem

Why are you opposed to letting a victim of a crime that resulted in pregnancy choose? Oh yes because to you it is wrong. We are the same you and I.

You believe absolutely and so do I of an extreme. That makes us both extremists and no different from any other extremist. An extremist doesn't base his belief in logic, he bases it in his soul. What he believes so deeply it sometimes hurts. Something he would be willing to fight for because he believes so deeply that it is worth it to raise arms and defend his precious belief.

I'm sure several others here are the same possibly Gradius and several others.

In cases like this the end decision doesn't come from logic. It comes from who is willing to take a bullet for what they believe. Not who is willing to pull the trigger, but who is willing to risk their life.

I don't know who will win in the end, because logic won't make the final choice, it can't there is no logic.

And no, I won't take a bullet for this one.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Aeons
A nine year olds body doesn't stop functioning because you detached it from another person. Though I'm sure this distinction is lost on you because it doesn't work for your argument.

Semantics my dear Aeons.
You will arise at the same end conclusion if a nine year old is detached from its mother without society stepping in to help as you would a fetus.
Please explain your premise of how the age difference of the two beings is the deciding factor of life or death.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:30 AM

Originally posted by TexasChem
Please explain your premise of how the age difference of the two beings is the deciding factor of life or death.

If a fetus is removed from the mother it dies from it. If a nine-year-old or even an infant is removed from the mother, it doesn't die from it. A fetus is dependent on its host for its very life. An infant is not. If fed and cared for, it will be just fine. Not so with a fetus.

Society DOES step in. Society WILL step in.
edit on 2/17/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If a fetus is removed from the mother it dies from it. If a nine-year-old or even an infant is removed from the mother, it doesn't die from it. A fetus is dependent on its host for its very life. An infant is not. If fed and cared for, it will be just fine. Not so with a fetus.

Isn't abortion allowed after viability? I know someone who was under 2 lbs when born.

Your logic is insane in any case... making another life dependent on you for survival gives you the right to kill it? Just the opposite, it creates an obligation to protect it.
edit on 17-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by TexasChem

If I were in that situation, and I had to choose between investing nine months and an infinitude of mental anguish into giving birth to a rapist's baby, you can bet your ass I would kill it. It was not invited in. It has no right to be inside of me. It has absolutely no right to exist. It is a germ, an invader, a weapon used against me by the universal patriarchy.

Agents of the patriarchy such as yourself would have me enslaved to the sexual whims of man, because you privilege conception, the ONLY part that a man plays in a fetus' life, over pregnancy. The life of the fetus doesn't matter to you. It doesn't matter what its history, its point of origin, its potential future may be. It doesn't matter whether it is deformed or crippled or mutated and unviable. No, none of these concerns come into the mind of the anti-Woman crowd. The only thing that they care about, the ABSOLUTE only thing that they care bout, is that a man put his sperm inside of me, and it is good. Well, excuse me if I disagree. Life does not begin at conception. Life does not begin when a man injects himself into me. Life begins when I am born. I am alive before the rapist assaults me, and I die when I have his child.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:37 PM
Whoa, that is crazy.

It is sort of good in a way, but also really heinous in a way.


I don't think it is ever a good thing for someone to get an abortion, but there are situations where it is the best thing to do.

I don't think you should be allowed to kill someone who performed or was attempting to perform an abortion if the woman wanted it done.

However, there have been some cases of someone stealing an unborn child from the mothers womb lately. In that case I think it is fine to kill the kidnapper, kidnappers in general should be shot.

edit on 17-2-2011 by downtown436 because: Forgot to add something really important.

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SirMike

Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

But in summary:
Section 2, from a legal POV, states that if you witness someone being forcibly assaulted and you have a reasonable belief that the victims unborn baby is in danger (even if the victim isnt), then you have justifiable cause to use lethal force against the aggressor.

In both instances, its only justifiable if the aggressor is committing a felony...

Can I ask where this information comes from? It doesn't state that in the bill.

The first section, I agree with you, but the second section (22-16-35) states that homicide is justifiable when committed by ANY PERSON in the lawful defense of themselves, their family or their unborn child. So, this means that a man whose wife is going to have an abortion could kill the Dr. to protect his unborn child. (Doesn't it?)

Where do you get that the person has to be under attack by someone committing a felony?
edit on 2/15/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

He made it up. It says committing a felony OR doing harm, in each of the predicates to the defense. See that word "or" in there.
In any event, the bill was itself aborted last week.

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by TexasChem

The difference between a person and non-personal lump of cells is obvious - since all qualities that define a person, or being, come from the nervous system, embryo cannot be considered human person, if it does not have any neuronal tissue. I agree with you though that independent viability is a bad criterion for determining the beginning of human personhood. Would that mean we could kill all people that are dependent on others? Status of the nervous system should be the criterion, just as status of the nervous system determines the end of human person - death in medicine is defined as absence of brain wave activity. The beginning of the existence of human person should therefore be the first appearance of them - which is around 20 weeks (legally it should be defined sooner, just to be sure, some fetuses can be atypical. I am for 3rd month as a limit to the legality of abortion).

edit on 21/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by TexasChem

Here is the original intent of the bill explained. It was not intended against abortion, but assaults on pregnant women.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in