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 KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Honor93
This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue... Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....
That is what I stated on the first page...I don't think anyone got the metaphor...Abortion only affects females, therefore it is a Women's Rights issue...Males can't judge on what the female does...For one males can't get pregnant hence the Junior metaphor up above...This technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have...edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Honor93
This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue... Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....
That is what I stated on the first page...I don't think anyone got the metaphor...Abortion only affects females, therefore it is a Women's Rights issue...Males can't judge on what the female does...For one males can't get pregnant hence the Junior metaphor up above...This technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have...edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jagermeister
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Honor93
This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue... Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....
That is what I stated on the first page...I don't think anyone got the metaphor...Abortion only affects females, therefore it is a Women's Rights issue...Males can't judge on what the female does...For one males can't get pregnant hence the Junior metaphor up above...This technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have...edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)
"Murder technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have."
See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it? So now murder is a woman's right? I do love the mentality here though. As if women just magically place children inside them on their own. What do they wake up one day and tap their heels together and make a baby?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
on the contrary, current abortions seldom occur prior to the stage referenced as fetus.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
if your argument is built on vocabulary nuances, you should step away from the keyboard.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
this audience isn't comprised of only biologists, scientists or adults for that matter. most everyone over the age of 13 relates to the word "fetus" when referring to the result of conception.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
IF the point of conception initiates life (as per the bill) and bestows Constitutionally protected rights at that moment in time, why or how would that change during the fetus stage ?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
big deal the Feds supposedly can't prosecute, the State boys can and would.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
do you have any substantial contributions or more of the same ?
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Again, I dont know how many times I can say this, but it is pure FALLACY to claim that redefining embryo, zygots and fetus as a person does not grant them rights.
"Murder technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have." See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it? So now murder is a woman's right? I do love the mentality here though. As if women just magically place children inside them on their own. What do they wake up one day and tap their heels together and make a baby?
Originally posted by benrl
And is it wrong to leave this issue to the state level?
thats all im asking, cause that seems to be the thing people keep missing with Ron Paul.
Even if hes the most Adherent prolifer, he wont step in and let the Feds force it on the states.
What ever the issue is, thats what it comes down to.
Is it okay for states to decide this on their own...
while this may be true, your "suspicions" don't make it so.
I suspect that those numbers have increased since then, as it is a more "convenient" and less costly approach to terminating a pregnancy.
totally agree, so, let's take a look at just that, the words in the bill ...
If such a bill does become law, every word will be scrutinized as to allow those fore or against the subject
emphasis mine
www.govtrack.us...
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
true and it would be strongly advised, if you're going to engage anyone on these boards, that you take your own advice before you type.
IF one is to intelligently argue his case, he should make sure that he understand the subject matter before engaging in a debate/discussion
while i am glad that you can make this distinction, you seem to be falling short on the PoC point of the conversation.
I can differentiate between what some are referring to as a zygote and a fetus
i beg your pardon, but for the number of yrs i've meandered round here, yes, i can.
You cannot know for a fact what most of any particular age group would relate to regardless of the subject
ah soooo grasshopper, clearly, you haven't even bothered to read what we're discussing ??
if I understand you correctly, you are saying that as per the bill, rights are implicitly granted at the moment of conception.
then, perhaps you should continue reading it and get back to us after you've absorbed the 14th.
That is what I understand when reading the tenth amendment of the constitution.
when you figure out just how wrong that statement was/is, get back to us or spend some time comprehending ?your?/the US Constitution.
I agree that rights given to people in this country are just that, given to people
Originally posted by Jagermeister
See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it?
While the man has a crucial part in getting that woman pregnant, it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy. The man is in no way physically affected by the pregnancy as nature had intended. Everything the woman eats, drinks, what she does, will affect the pregnancy, ultimately the decision is left to her whether you like it or not.
Nature has given the responsibility of pregnancy to the woman and the woman alone, this is just fact, the man has absolutely no further physical responsibility, as nature had intended. You cannot make a law in some pathetic attempt to make so that men can have a say, it just isn't possible, unless they invent some way where by men can take part of the responsibility, which would then be counter to nature.
Originally posted by Honor93
sorry to hear about your experience with dad but thanks for sharing.
question: if you had to make the decision to end his suffering, apparently he did not have a directive on file ?? (DNR)
in a case where there is no directive, usually next of kin makes the decision, occasionally the State makes the decision once other avenues are exhausted.
again, this is a decision of the willing, living, breathing participants.
how does a fetus fit that description?
i see no comparison between the two.
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Jagermeister
"Murder technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have." See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it? So now murder is a woman's right? I do love the mentality here though. As if women just magically place children inside them on their own. What do they wake up one day and tap their heels together and make a baby?
It is a women's choice because she has to live with it....And no it isn't murder if she is making the abortion decision for the right reasons...There are more right reasons to having abortions, then there are wrong reasons which could fall under the category of murder... Really doesn't matter women should have the final say....edit on 4-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by Jagermeister
See what I did there? You change the word "abortion" to "murder" and it just doesn't sound right any more does it?
No it doesn't, but we're not talking about murder now are we? We're talking about abortion. A fertilized egg is not a human being, it isn't considered one among all those in the scientific community. Where you define what is and is not a human being or a person is your deal and yours alone.
I also agree with Konquer that abortion only really concerns the women. While the man has a crucial part in getting that woman pregnant, it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy. The man is in no way physically affected by the pregnancy as nature had intended. Everything the woman eats, drinks, what she does, will affect the pregnancy, ultimately the decision is left to her whether you like it or not.edit on 6-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)
Now onto murder. Anytime that you stop a human heart from beating it is murder. I don't care where the human may be.
while this is true (and a problem on so very many levels), status is not the same as an "ability to assert rights" ... all of the other examples could assert their rights and did, a fetus, a zygote, an unborn child cannot and no living person has the "right" to speak for the unborn.
Well if the law were to pass. The fetus would be given the same status as a living human being.
It would be the same in the eyes of the law.
Originally posted by Jagermeister
If there is a heart beat it is alive.
I don't care what the scientfic community says.
it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy.