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.

 

Pregnant and Miscarry Your Baby In America? Do Not Pass Go, Directly To JAIL!

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
But being alive does not make one a person. Birth does that. Trees are alive, yet they are not people.


Trees were born, therefore they are people.

People who came from C-Sections are not people, they were never actually 'born naturally'.

???

Sorry just pointing out how easy it is to chop this line of thinking up. You are making "unsound arguments".

Inductive Reasoning - Wiki

Soundness - Wiki

Deductive Reasoning - Wiki

Defeasible Reasoning - Wiki

edit on 24-6-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-6-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)
I disagree. Being alive does not in any way equal being a person.




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
It would be preferable and more humane if women could abort unwanted fetuses, which may become babies with the potential for life-long complications/debilitations from drugs used by the mother. Women have the free-will to choose to abort and the government should not jail women who have the history of miscarriages.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
My point is, it makes no sense to me that they fail to protect children who have extensive case files involving abuse and neglect, but yet turn around and take such aggressive action as snatching a newborn from it's mother after one failed drug test.

That's all I'm saying.......
And an excellent point it is. Maybe if the focus of the attention was on the people who already exist, and not potential people our children would have better futures.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
A license To Kill ?
Perhaps women will be required to pay $100 and pass an exam ?
But if they have an abortion at a clinic the hundred bucks is waived and the cost put onto th etaxpayer as it is now?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


So unique DNA is the only attribute needed to for something to be a person? Why is death of a person not defined as breakdown of all body DNA then, but is defined as irrevesrible dissapearance of brain waves?

What about functioning neural cortex? Our sentience is what defines a personn

BW = person
absence of BW = potential to develop into person, at best

Braindead patients, skin cells, embryos/fetuses till 5th month are therefore not persons. (all transplanations would be illegal under your definition of a person btw.).

eileen.250x.com...


[P]hysicians have always determined when a person is alive by measuring for the presence of certain "vital signs." ...[W]hen it became possible to replace both cardiac and pulmonary functions with machines, physicians turned to measuring the function of the only truly unique and irreplaceable organ — the brain. I submit that from this effort, the following principle has clearly emerged: The presence of a functioning human brain means that a patient, a person if you will, is alive. This is the medical definition of human life. We use it daily.

Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual's life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?

I suggest that as physicians we should view human existence as a continuum from the first cell division of the fertilized ovum until the death of the last cell in the organism. When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 




We need to stick with "The Government has no authority over my medical treatment." That is probably the best route to win this thing.


If the fetus is a real person, not different from born child, then government has EVERY right to protect it from murder or harm, by any means necessary (just like it has this right when it comes to protecting born children, or other persons). Being a mother does not give you the right to kill your child.

The best route to "win this thing" is to show that fetus is not yet a person. All others are logically inconsistent, unless you want to legalise murder

edit on 25/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


In reality there is only a potential person until consciousness begins, for we are not our body suits, we are our consciousness.

That begins second trimester, roughly, and I do say roughly, but in reality its more likely to be 9 weeks note this isn't when soul arrives, that is still a bit later, this is really body suit potential. However, since soul hasn't been formally proven yet, all we really go on is: brain development.

Here in Canada, abortion access is universal and there are no charges, but its done in the brief window between 6 weeks and 9 weeks on average, no AI suit consciousness, let alone soul. Indeed, early on this is potential.


edit on 25-6-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



a day old fetus is not a person, it is a POTENTIAL person.

Where did you get this idea, ma'am? Can you please elaborate on this?




Well with her type of thinking that would make her a several years old potential fetus that can be aborted. I also believe that any mother that drinks and drugs during her pregnancy knowingly harming the child should be prosecuted.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


In reality there is only a potential person until consciousness begins, for we are not our body suits, we are our consciousness.

That begins second trimester, roughly, and I do say roughly, but in reality its more likely to be 9 weeks note this isn't when soul arrives, that is still a bit later, this is really body suit potential. However, since soul hasn't been formally proven yet, all we really go on is: brain development.

Here in Canada, abortion access is universal and there are no charges, but its done in the brief window between 6 weeks and 9 weeks on average, no AI suit consciousness, let alone soul. Indeed, early on this is potential.


edit on 25-6-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)







So you believe we are only a person after we obtain consciousness and some genius chose the second trimester as to when, funny how that just fits into the legal timeframe for committing state sanctioned murder. But to get on with you idea of when we become us, I say all the information is in that very first piece of DNA that makes us who we are. If growing in the womb is not consciousness from day one I don't know what is . Does the dan not communicate back and forth between cells to produce us and is that not showing a level of consciousness ? It's funny how people choose words to belittle the focus of their assault so they can justify the attack. In this case oh it just cell it's not intelligent go ahead and murder it . You see they always assign IT to describe the human being growing in them to disassociate the fact they are human , just not fully grown .



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Godsontoo
 


Why should we protect unsentient life merely because it has human DNA?

And how do you define death of person?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   


This is what you get when you have a bunch of morons dressing up in ropes and other costumes claiming they have special powers to make``laws``, and this is exactly what the population deserves when they respect the laws of such morons.
edit on 25-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Burn the Christian lawmakers at the stake, as they would have it done to these women if it were still legal.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Godsontoo
 





I also believe that any mother that drinks and drugs during her pregnancy knowingly harming the child should be prosecuted.


I agree with this. There is an actual victim, and a crime in this case, because when the baby develops, it will suffer the consequences. I know I would be pissed if my mother did this during pregnancy.

Either abort early before sentience, or dont drink/do drugs.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
But...1 in 3 pregnancies end in a natural miscarrige, purely because the genes couldn't produce a viable embryo...thats alot of women going to jail for nothing



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





We need to stick with "The Government has no authority over my medical treatment." That is probably the best route to win this thing.


Im with you on that one
2d line



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


As long as it don't have a brain then it's not a person is it?
It still doesn't have a consious so it don't count as an individual
does it?
The way they make it sound like is that your threatend if your
pregnant and do not want to have a baby.
Well the thing is, if you don' want a baby then you don't have sex
No unprotected sex = No Baby. simple.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

Dear God.....is this where feminism gets us? If so, to Hell with feminism. Disgusting.

I.....I'm just at a loss right now.

Why is it that so many women seem to have no problems with killing their own babies? It's kind of hard to believe that society has sunk this low......



Feminism makes females look like your avatar.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is," Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.


Unintentionally is the key word here.
Spontaneous miscarriage happens more than people seem to think.
When I was pregnant with my son, my doctor told me not to get too excited yet, he stated that approximately 10% of pregnancies spontaneously miscarry. No reason, just not viable.

This thread seems to have gotten into the idea that miscarriages are on purpose. That's ridiculous. I even saw one woman I worked with drink all the way through her pregnancy, which was disgusting, but she did not miscarry. If drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol were the only reasons for miscarriage, there would not be babies born addicted, or with alcohol fetal syndrome.

Miscarriages are just nature's way of saying "not now". It just means the pregnancy didn't take. Any woman who was diagnosed as pregnant early, and then starts a period, has just miscarried!! A fetus doesn't just drop out of a woman having an early miscarriage, it's too small to recognize. It's a spot of blood if early. It's like a normal cycle, starting again.

If alcohol, drugs or cigs can ever be blamed for a miscarriage, then so can any other over the counter drugs, or prescription drugs. Just the stress of being afraid of miscarrying with the threat of being charged with murder, is reason for the body to miscarry. :shk:

It isn't criminal. It's just nature's way.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
WOW! I want to say that before I got too disgusted, I read alot of the comments on this post and while I understand that people are entitled to their opinions, no one truly understands the severity of this problem until it is a part of your daily life. That being said, I want to inform everyone that drugs do more harm to an unborn child than most people realize. My knowledge is NOT my OPINION, it is a fact of life that I CHOSE. Three years ago today, I was in the hospital awaiting the birth of my son. Three years ago tomorrow, I was told that my son might not live. MY son, from the womb of a selfish person, spent his entire conception in a daze of drug infested delirium. My son, that was yanked from the womb in such a flurry as his heart rate continued to dangerously drop. My son, that could not breathe on his own for days, despite the fact that he was born post term. My son, who at 6 days old, was intravenously given morphine in order to quit hyperventilating himself. My son, whom I was unable to touch until he was 12 days old. My son, diagnosed with 'Drug Withdraw Syndrome', such a broad diagnosis to try to include his many sicknesses because the doctors couldn’t properly diagnose each one, let alone help him overcome them. All because a selfish girl could not think past herself and consider the little life she carried. One would think that her continued drug use was because she knew that she was no longer carrying 'her' child, as I agreed to take him the day after she found out about her pregnancy, BUT I also have a daughter, 19 months old, born of the same girl (dare I call her a woman), with many more sicknesses to overcome than my son. HER daughter, whom she intended to keep, but that had to be rescued from a freezing car, clearly forgotten, in 20° weather, while she, for hours, had been passed out on a warm couch. The sad truth to all of this is that although I live in one of the states, as listed in a previous comment, that such action SHOULD be against the law, she has never been confronted with her blatant harm to these childrens lives, nor the lives of her older 2 offspring, but also that the state picked up the tab for these complicated births and required drug testings afterward. Oh yes, I cant forget the case worker that came to us in the hospital (several days AFTER they let the biological mother go home without so much as questioning her of his condition) to say that she would 'understand' if we chose to allow the state to 'take this problem off our hands' since he was already 'legally' our son and that they could probably find a family that would be willing to foster a child with such complications. Furthermore, it infuriates me to hear people with their opinions about how its their body, their life, their children... without stopping to think that if these woman are doing this to their children while in their womb, what will they do when they cannot handle the problems that these children face when they are born? I love both of these children, as they are MY children. My husband and I have been blessed that our son has finally overcome this, and in time I believe that our daughter will as well. Nor do we overlook the fact that she has not fought us in our legal road to adopting her, and has in fact condoned it. Unfortunately her 'parental' rights far outweigh ours. Furthermore, we also understand that the battle has not yet been won, nor possibly will it ever, as I was informed by my dentist last week that my sons several rotting teeth is just another complication of 'Drug Withdraw Syndrome'.
Just an FYI - both children tested positive for Laboratory Prescription Medications... ie... loritab, oxycontin, hydrocodone, dalata..etc... NOT street drugs... ie... meth, heroine, coc aine, crank....etc...



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Part of this debate seems to be about men failing to examine their role as sexual beings in the world, accepting a model of masculinity that displaces responsibilities and anxieties onto women and turns the act of conception into some sort of transaction whereby the woman becomes nothing more than the host and care-taker for the Father's or the State's child.

If you support prosecuting a woman for murder when she has a miscarriage, and want to tell a story about how this horrible woman took an innocent life, then where the hell is the father? Does he not bare some responsibility to the mother, and for the developing child, in this twisted tale? Guys, how would you like to be prosecuted by the state for involuntary manslaughter when, after leaving your pregnant girlfriend or wife in a terrible fight, she had a spontaneous miscarriage? Or your baby is born underweight, and the state investigates and finds that you have sufficient income to properly nourish a pregnant mother, so they charge you with negligence?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join