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.
Originally posted by jerryznv
Do you consider a person with a physical or mental hanicap that is totally dependent on another person to care for them, without rights too?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by jerryznv
Do you consider a person with a physical or mental hanicap that is totally dependent on another person to care for them, without rights too?
No. The life of the person you describe is not COMPLETELY dependent on another person. They are alive and anyone can take care of them if they need it. There's a big difference between needing CARE and one's very life (breathing) being completely dependent on another.
In other words, remove a fetus from it's incubator and it dies. It is COMPLETELY dependent for its very LIFE.
Does that make sense?
.edit on 6/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)
The life of the person you describe is not COMPLETELY dependent on another person. They are alive and anyone can take care of them if they need it. There's a big difference between needing CARE and one's very life (breathing) being completely dependent on another.
I love the way dim/libs ignore talking points that show their entire line of argument is false
Originally posted by Homedawg
So why isnt the dim leadership toeing up on the line and freeing up all that lovely money?...It cant be the republicans....they arent in power....the wars could end tomorrow if the dim leadership wanted it to....lets hear it from dim supporters...why dont they end the wars?...
Originally posted by Homedawg
It can be saved by tombambi simply ordering our troops home.....3 wars to choose from.....withdarw troops from any 2 within 48 hrs,which he has the power to do,and all that lovely money can be spent feeding welfare drones for years.....so its up to the dim leadership now
Originally posted by Maslo
Does it mean if someone somehow is completely dependent on another person (for example by requiring something from the blood of concrete another person to live), he is no longer a person and can be killed?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
First, thank you for such a well-thought and articulated post.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Keep in mind I'm talking about those listed in the OP. The lawmakers. The politicians.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now, citizens? I think the motivations for their opinions run the gamut. They are pro-life for religious, social, cultural and yes, political reasons. I totally support people having and expressing their opinions on abortion. It's when the law gets involved that I have something to say.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't believe an unborn's 'rights' trump a living, breathing person's rights. The Constitution protects the rights of people. And until that child is really a person and not a fetus, it doesn't have rights. As long its life is completely dependent on a person, I believe that the person has the rights, not the unborn life inside of them. Yes it is a life. But not yet a person.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are many things worse than death.
But I think the answer is that if someone needs blood to live and another person VOLUNTEERS it, then that's fine, but no one should be FORCED by law to provide it.
These types who call themselves pro-life are not for life, these conservative republican tea party types are pro-death and pro-slavery.
Originally posted by Maslo
Does it mean if someone somehow is completely dependent on another person (for example by requiring something from the blood of concrete another person to live), he is no longer a person and can be killed?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't believe an unborn's 'rights' trump a living, breathing person's rights. The Constitution protects the rights of people. And until that child is really a person and not a fetus, it doesn't have rights. As long its life is completely dependent on a person, I believe that the person has the rights, not the unborn life inside of them. Yes it is a life. But not yet a person.
But I think the answer is that if someone needs blood to live and another person VOLUNTEERS it, then that's fine, but no one should be FORCED by law to provide it.
If Bob, the plumber, depend on others for his life (blood donations or an organ) he has the RIGHT to those things. But only if they are available, usually because someone volunteered or donated to the situation. I could not support the government forcing people to donate organs, give blood or otherwise give of their very person, and risk their life, to make sure Bob stays alive.
reply to post by jerryznv
I am forced to pay taxes, and if my taxes are paying for abortions at any level, federal,state or otherwise, I am essentially being forced to pay for abortions.
Whether or not an unborn child has rights is arguable. They may have rights and they may not. It's a matter of each person's opinion. But the woman's rights are incontrovertible. They are the ones that must be protected and respected.
The federal “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” (more commonly known as “Laci and Conner’s Law”) as well as the laws of 36 states2 recognize an unborn child as a separate victim of criminal violence and treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide. In addition, twenty-two
states3 define non-fatal assaults on unborn children as criminal offenses. Thus, it is clear that
recognizing the unborn as “others” for purposes of the “defense of others” theory in no way
diverges from approaches taken by the states in other areas of criminal law.
Originally posted by Maslo
Donating an organ should not be forced, that is a risky procedure, and we have some organs multiplied for a reason.
But I think if there was no other option, it would moral to force healthy people for example to give blood to save anothers life, even if they disagreed.
reply to post by jerryznv
It is not arguable whether an unborn child has rights, at least not in a court of law, as it has already been decided!
Seems to me that pro-life supporters are pretty clear on what life is, and it depends on how it fits into your agenda, then pro-choice supporters pick and choose when life is considered life.
To me, that is an extreme violation of the very right to my own person and goes against everything I hold dear.
Secondly, how many people do you know that pay taxes for ONLY what they support? Can I see a show of hands? How many people here pay taxes ONLY for programs that they approve of? Are you all OK with paying for these wars? Should I get a check box on my taxes so that none of my money goes toward the military industrial complex?
You all know the "pro-lifers" in congress and among our state governments? The ones that insist upon telling woman what to do and what not to do with their bodies? The ones that support the idea of forcing raped woman to go through with the pain pregnancy? The ones that insist upon making a woman's womb the property of the state and federal government? Yes, the "pro-lifers" who apparently do this all out of respect for the sanctity of life, but wait, what's this?