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 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 ??
so, when the Rh IS poison to the host, why should the host be required to carry full term ?? without medical intervention
and how would that "zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn child" functionally assert their rights IF it was their choice to remain unborn ???
ah but you did ... here ...
i didn't say anything of the kind.
conception is the only reasonable definition for the beginning of human life.
well, it is the same as conception and that's what we're discussing here so what's your point exactly ?
having sex isn't the same as being pregnant
agreed but that isn't for us to decide now is it ??
then killing the child because it's an "inconvenience"
being forced to bear and potentially abuse an unwanted child is not being "responsible".
it's called responsibility.
i tend to agree however, when it is not my decision, it's simply, not my or your decision to make.
killing an unborn child is wrong.
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 ??
there are some grey area cases where it's either the mother or the baby, but such happenings are rare.
hardly problem solved ... how would you enforce such a law ??
i would define life as beginning at conception. problem solved.
on the contrary, THAT happens quite often and if the mother does not receive her monthly injections, she will likely die.
that doesn't happen often, and when it does, it isn't always fatal to the mother.
while it's nice to see that you share this sentiment, the proposal allows for no such thing.
if it was known that the baby would most likely kill the mother, then it would be the mother's choice.
soooo, if it can and does happen to one or more, there is a problem with the generalities of the proposal, isn't there ?
this is a very small minority of abortions.
this statement doesn't even address my question.
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.
but, you want to make the decision to take that option away from the host ??
their choice, not yours
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!"
18-21 days after conception, the "fertilized egg"/parasite/tissue blob has it's own heartbeat with a blood type separate from the mothers.
it definitely isn't human and doesn't deserve mention. substituting in nice clean words like "abortion" for murder
conception is the only reasonable definition for the beginning of human life.
Life isn't fair and men know they have plenty to risk when they choose to engage, as a male I personally know this.
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?
well, it is the same as conception and that's what we're discussing here so what's your point exactly ?
agreed but that isn't for us to decide now is it ??
being forced to bear and potentially abuse an unwanted child is not being "responsible".
i tend to agree however, when it is not my decision, it's simply, not my or your decision to make.
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 ?
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 ??
on the contrary, THAT happens quite often and if the mother does not receive her monthly injections, she will likely die.
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 ??
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
once you make this argument, all pretense of absolute morals goes out the window. 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?
really ?? then why don't you clarify it for this grandmother.
it seems like you're unfamiliar with how things work and the terminology involved.
wrong ... fertilization can NOT occur without intercourse or artificial insemination.
most of the time sex does not lead to "conception" which is when an egg is united with a sufficient amount of sperm.
these products are consumed before a "life form" is ever detectable so how can you "kill" what you cannot even detect ??
products like plan b would obviously fall under this category.
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?
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.
so says you, others would disagree.
being responsible entails NOT having unprotected sex in the first place.
excuse you, but 1 is too many and most certainly a valid argument.
rape accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so that isn't a valid argument.
while we agree the solution should be something else, what are your suggestions ??
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.
well, if not the parents decision then whose ??? their servants ??, ie. government
again, it shouldn't be the mother's decision either.
Rh incompatabilities are not an unmanagable "complication" but why should a mother be forced to endure the tx if she chooses otherwise ??
because if the child were to be lost in complications, then it isn't exactly abortion.
agreed but what does that have to do with the abortion statistics ??
its not the same as sleeping around, getting pregnant, then killing the child.
again, since you cannot pinpoint or prove conception or fertilization occurred until after plan B is effective, what is your point?
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.
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.
the blood type issue can be treated
ok but you first and while you're at it, try not to be such a tool
don't be a fool.
no, you avoided it again and avoided the question posed directly above this response.
i answered your question.
and there is the rub ... being born and not are very different things.
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.
so ?, that's well within her rights as a person just as is dealing with the consequence of said actions.
with almost all cases, the mother consented to unprotected sex.
since you cannot determine any such thing, especially at the PoC, it is ultimately, a NUNYA - nunya-dang-business.
that was her choice. once a child is made, she does not have the right to kill that child