Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



it is the woman who bears the full responsibility and pain of pregnancy.

it's funny you say that, but then once the child is born, it's all "give me my alimony NOW!"

18-21 days after conception, the "fertilized egg"/parasite/tissue blob has it's own heartbeat with a blood type separate from the mothers.

yeah, it definitely isn't human and doesn't deserve mention. substituting in nice clean words like "abortion" for murder and "fetus" for baby is just the first step.

conception is the only reasonable definition for the beginning of human life.
edit on 7-5-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

so, are you supporting the intent to make every unprotected act of intercourse, or "conception", at risk for violating a law such as murder or attempted murder ??
since a pill can be consumed long before the embryonic (heartbeat) stage appears, how would you differentiate which is murder and that which is not ??

as for a different blood-type, somtimes but not always the difference in said blood type is literally poison/deadly to the host (see Rh factors for more details) -- so, when the Rh IS poison to the host, why should the host be required to carry full term ?? without medical intervention, the child becomes the murderer of the host/mother, but i suppose that is ok in your book and for someone ELSE to decide ??

do tell, how would you enforce such a "law" ??
and how would that "zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn child" functionally assert their rights IF it was their choice to remain unborn ???
(there are an awful lot of living persons who claim to "wish they had NOT been born")
edit on 7-5-2012 by Honor93 because: edit format




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



so, are you supporting the intent to make every unprotected act of intercourse, or "conception", at risk for violating a law such as murder or attempted murder ??

i didn't say anything of the kind. having sex isn't the same as being pregnant, then killing the child because it's an "inconvenience". it's called responsibility. killing an unborn child is wrong. there are some grey area cases where it's either the mother or the baby, but such happenings are rare.


since a pill can be consumed long before the embryonic (heartbeat) stage appears, how would you differentiate which is murder and that which is not ??

i would define life as beginning at conception. problem solved.


so, when the Rh IS poison to the host, why should the host be required to carry full term ?? without medical intervention

that doesn't happen often, and when it does, it isn't always fatal to the mother. if it was known that the baby would most likely kill the mother, then it would be the mother's choice. this is a very small minority of abortions.


and how would that "zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn child" functionally assert their rights IF it was their choice to remain unborn ???

many people who wish that they wouldn't have been born at all suffer from depression, but they can either get treatment or kill themselves. their choice, not yours.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


i didn't say anything of the kind.
ah but you did ... here ...

conception is the only reasonable definition for the beginning of human life.

you cannot re-define the term "conception" to fit your argument.


having sex isn't the same as being pregnant
well, it is the same as conception and that's what we're discussing here so what's your point exactly ?
no method exists to identify pregnancy AT conception so how could you define the potential being destroyed ?
there are no current tests to identify the presence of a zygote during normal menstruation
(although its presence is entirely possible)


then killing the child because it's an "inconvenience"
agreed but that isn't for us to decide now is it ??


it's called responsibility.
being forced to bear and potentially abuse an unwanted child is not being "responsible".


killing an unborn child is wrong.
i tend to agree however, when it is not my decision, it's simply, not my or your decision to make.


there are some grey area cases where it's either the mother or the baby, but such happenings are rare.
whether rare or not is irrelevant as they are not even considered in this legislation, but you don't seem to have a problem with that, why ??


i would define life as beginning at conception. problem solved.
hardly problem solved ... how would you enforce such a law ??
pregnancy (your version of "life") can't even be medically determined or identified until 72hrs after conception has occurred.
so, if you cannot identify "life" at conception, how can you legislate it ??


that doesn't happen often, and when it does, it isn't always fatal to the mother.
on the contrary, THAT happens quite often and if the mother does not receive her monthly injections, she will likely die.


if it was known that the baby would most likely kill the mother, then it would be the mother's choice.
while it's nice to see that you share this sentiment, the proposal allows for no such thing.


this is a very small minority of abortions.
soooo, if it can and does happen to one or more, there is a problem with the generalities of the proposal, isn't there ?


many people who wish that they wouldn't have been born at all suffer from depression, but they can either get treatment or kill themselves. their choice, not yours.
this statement doesn't even address my question.
i did not ask for a mental evaluation of those who prefer they were never born.
i did not ask for an example of those currently living actively expressing or asserting their rights (to commit suicide)
i ASKED how the zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn child would be capable of asserting THEIR rights ??
and on top of that, who would be so qualified as to "speak" for the unborn ??

you go so far as to say ...

their choice, not yours
but, you want to make the decision to take that option away from the host ??
how does that logic work ??



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it's funny you say that, but then once the child is born, it's all "give me my alimony NOW!"


Good, atleast those women who choose to go forward with the pregnancy and demand that the father take responsibility. If men don't want to find themselves in situations like this, maybe they can learn to keep their pants on. Life isn't fair and men know they have plenty to risk when they choose to engage, as a male I personally know this.


18-21 days after conception, the "fertilized egg"/parasite/tissue blob has it's own heartbeat with a blood type separate from the mothers.


And before 18 days it doesn't? Right? What difference do you expect to make on the issue of abortion by waving around your own standards of what is and is not a human being or murder? What motivation does anybody have to abide by your moral and ethical rules? Aside from insisting personally that because an egg, fetus has a heart, a heart beat, how do you intend to get pregnant women to abide by your standards? seriously?

The truth is you can't, all you can really do is insist what you personally believe is a human being and what you believe is murder and throw it around at everybody who doesn't share your views, and in reality you do nothing productive to curb the decisions of women intending to go forward with abortions.


it definitely isn't human and doesn't deserve mention. substituting in nice clean words like "abortion" for murder


Abortion isn't murder, you may personally believe abortion is murder because you have your own personal standards over the fact a fertilized egg is a human being, but that does not make it fact.

Pro-lifers can continue insisting that any form of abortion is murder, that isn't going to change people's attitudes, scare mongering isn't, instead you'll continue finding yourselves in opposition.


conception is the only reasonable definition for the beginning of human life.


I don't believe human life necessarily constitutes as a human being. Sperm contains human life, that doesn't make it a human being. Do you consider a fertilized egg a human being? Why don't you clarify this for us here.
edit on 8-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Life isn't fair and men know they have plenty to risk when they choose to engage, as a male I personally know this.


I can up for this, I always use protection...And take extra precautions so I don't end up on the chopping board...I do all things necessary so pregnancy doesn't occur on my end...If she ends up pregnant then at least I can say it wasn't me...



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



And before 18 days it doesn't? Right? What difference do you expect to make on the issue of abortion by waving around your own standards of what is and is not a human being or murder? What motivation does anybody have to abide by your moral and ethical rules?

once you make this argument, all pretense of absolute morals goes out the _ what motivation does anyone have to abide by any moral or ethical rules?

if i think rape is ok, who are you to tell me it isn't? how dare you inflict your "personal" moral standards on me.

*obviously making a point* your logic is flawed.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



well, it is the same as conception and that's what we're discussing here so what's your point exactly ?

it seems like you're unfamiliar with how things work and the terminology involved. "intercourse" means having sex. most of the time sex does not lead to "conception" which is when an egg is united with a sufficient amount of sperm.

neither intercourse nor conception are illegal, nor should they be. i'm against mothers killing their unborn children. products like plan b would obviously fall under this category.


agreed but that isn't for us to decide now is it ??

it's the child's choice whether to live or to die. yes, you can take that choice away from them in the same way you can take the choice away from anyone.


being forced to bear and potentially abuse an unwanted child is not being "responsible".

being responsible entails NOT having unprotected sex in the first place. rape accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so that isn't a valid argument. i agree that abusing a child is irresponsible, which is why i said the problem is a lack of responsibility, however, the solution isn't murder.


i tend to agree however, when it is not my decision, it's simply, not my or your decision to make.

again, it shouldn't be the mother's decision either.


whether rare or not is irrelevant as they are not even considered in this legislation, but you don't seem to have a problem with that, why ?

because if the child were to be lost in complications, then it isn't exactly abortion. its not the same as sleeping around, getting pregnant, then killing the child.


hardly problem solved ... how would you enforce such a law ?? pregnancy (your version of "life") can't even be medically determined or identified until 72hrs after conception has occurred. so, if you cannot identify "life" at conception, how can you legislate it ??

as i said, products like plan b would be illegal because their sole purpose is to kill the child. if life is defined as starting at conception, then plan b couldn't be used, and the exact moment would be irrelevant.


on the contrary, THAT happens quite often and if the mother does not receive her monthly injections, she will likely die.

the blood type issue can be treated.


ASKED how the zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn child would be capable of asserting THEIR rights ?? and on top of that, who would be so qualified as to "speak" for the unborn ??

don't be a fool. i answered your question. anyone unhappy with being born can rectify their problem very quickly with either treatment or suicide. it's not your choice or the mother's choice.

with almost all cases, the mother consented to unprotected sex. that was her choice. once a child is made, she does not have the right to kill that child.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
once you make this argument, all pretense of absolute morals goes out the _ what motivation does anyone have to abide by any moral or ethical rules?


No, what motivation does anybody have to abide by your personal moral or ethical rules? We're talking about your personal standards here. What you hold morally or ethically may not be universal, it may not be generally accepted as fact, and it isn't. Fact is, abortion isn't considered murder by the majority of folks out there, more importantly it isn't legally considered murder either in the United States, it isn't considered murder in the majority of countries out there.


if i think rape is ok, who are you to tell me it isn't?


I don't have to tell you it isn't, rape is considered by the vast majority in this country and abroad to be a crime, it is illegal under the eyes of the law, rape isn't merely a personal position in society.

So the question is, how can we compare rape to the removal or disposing of a fertilized egg? Well one involves a human being that is being sexually violated by another human being against their will, and another involves a Zygote cell, that isn't considered biologically or legally, a human being (regardless of your personal position). Removing a Zygote or disposing of it is not legally considered murder as it isn't considered a human being, more importantly, there is no consensus among the scientific community that it is one. A Fertilized egg is neither 'alive' nor 'aware' of it's surroundings and 'independent' of a host.

A fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being, but it isn't one. Aborting a fertilized egg isn't murder, and this isn't just my personal opinion, unlike yours.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


it seems like you're unfamiliar with how things work and the terminology involved.
really ?? then why don't you clarify it for this grandmother.


most of the time sex does not lead to "conception" which is when an egg is united with a sufficient amount of sperm.
wrong ... fertilization can NOT occur without intercourse or artificial insemination.

no offense intended here, but why don't you try using the correct, medical definition of "conception". it might clarify things for you.

every act of unprotected sex (conception) CAN lead to fertilization (union of sperm with egg) and once you learn the correct terminology for the processes involved, get back to me, eh?

you can be against mothers killing their unborn children all you want, no one has said otherwise, however,

products like plan b would obviously fall under this category.
these products are consumed before a "life form" is ever detectable so how can you "kill" what you cannot even detect ??

so, back to conception, fertilization (that which you focus on) doesn't occur without conception (intercourse).


it's the child's choice whether to live or to die. yes, you can take that choice away from them in the same way you can take the choice away from anyone.
is it now ?? so, now you're changing your tune about "depression" and how these children need medical care ?? and it's the "child's choice", right?

do tell, when does a child have any exercisable rights prior to suffrage ??
(children don't even enjoy freedom of speech, let alone freedom to decide their own fate)


being responsible entails NOT having unprotected sex in the first place.
so says you, others would disagree.


rape accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so that isn't a valid argument.
excuse you, but 1 is too many and most certainly a valid argument.
are you even aware that you are speaking with one who's been a victim (multiple times) of those rare occasions ?? can't be too rare when one person is victimized repeatedly.
rarely reported ? - sure
rarely occurring ? - not so much


i agree that abusing a child is irresponsible, which is why i said the problem is a lack of responsibility, however, the solution isn't murder.
while we agree the solution should be something else, what are your suggestions ??
so far, all you've expressed is a desire for more babies yet no accountability.
exactly how would that work ??


again, it shouldn't be the mother's decision either.
well, if not the parents decision then whose ??? their servants ??, ie. government


because if the child were to be lost in complications, then it isn't exactly abortion.
Rh incompatabilities are not an unmanagable "complication" but why should a mother be forced to endure the tx if she chooses otherwise ??
rape is not a complication of pregnancy either but certainly shouldn't ensure a forced result.
and, out of curiosity, how many criminals actually pay child support?
so, we'd have another unwanted child with no support system (financial or emotional) and this is good, how?


its not the same as sleeping around, getting pregnant, then killing the child.
agreed but what does that have to do with the abortion statistics ??
that statement is pure propaganda unless you can link some proof.
do you have any idea how many rapes go unreported, even at the abortion clinic ???
many women prefer to not endure the process of pressing charges because dealing with the frequent outcome is stressful enough.


as i said, products like plan b would be illegal because their sole purpose is to kill the child. if life is defined as starting at conception, then plan b couldn't be used, and the exact moment would be irrelevant.
again, since you cannot pinpoint or prove conception or fertilization occurred until after plan B is effective, what is your point?
in essence, plan B is no more a "killer" than a condom is a preventative.

honestly, what i find humorous about this entire subject is that those who are "in the know" of natural remedies already know there are several ways to terminate a potential pregnancy.
no drs needed, no clinics or pills, just basic knowledge ... you know, that stuff they don't teach anymore. i can consume a particular plant that grows in my region naturally and achieve the same result.


the blood type issue can be treated
yes it can be but you are inferring the mother MUST and again, i disagree. if i don't want to participate in such treatment, no one can or should be able to force me.


don't be a fool.
ok but you first and while you're at it, try not to be such a tool

outta room, continued



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


i answered your question.
no, you avoided it again and avoided the question posed directly above this response.
what's the matter, afraid of the facts ??


anyone unhappy with being born can rectify their problem very quickly with either treatment or suicide. it's not your choice or the mother's choice.
and there is the rub ... being born and not are very different things.
being born means you can assert your rights and change your situation
being unborn means you cannot assert any rights or change your situation

i mean really, it's not like they can decide to trade-up for a new womb or reinvent themselves or invite friends over for a party. the reality is ... such is the cycle of life.


with almost all cases, the mother consented to unprotected sex.
so ?, that's well within her rights as a person just as is dealing with the consequence of said actions.


that was her choice. once a child is made, she does not have the right to kill that child
since you cannot determine any such thing, especially at the PoC, it is ultimately, a NUNYA - nunya-dang-business.





new topics




 
12
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join