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 Raist
Yes it might be their lawyers doing the talking but that is the problem they are letting their lawyers talk for them. For anyone to sit back and not even want to give their employees birthcontrol and then turn around and allow their lawyers to say the fetuses are not people so they do not have to pay is hypocritical.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Define sentience; I will play this game and work off of your false pretenses if you can do that for me.[
Lori was suffering a cardiac arrest and had stopped breathing due to a pulmonary embolism caused by a blood clot that traveled from her leg to her lungs. Two of the risk factors for the deadly condition are pregnancy and obesity, and Lori was experiencing both.
For the next hour, Jeremy stood by as hospital staff frantically tried to bring his wife back to life. After helping to hoist Lori, who at seven months pregnant weighed more than 400 pounds, onto a bed, Jeremy melted into the background and was eventually escorted to an adjacent room, where someone brought him juice and cookies. "I just become a wallflower," Jeremy says.
At some point that afternoon, he was handed a phone to speak to Staples, who never ended up coming to the hospital. "He said, 'Well, what do you want to do? Take the babies? Take the babies?'" Jeremy remembers. "I kept responding, 'I'm not a doctor!'"
A nurse listened for fetal heartbeats, according to depositions taken later. When she didn't hear any, the doctors figured the babies were dead and decided against doing a perimortem Cesarean section, an emergency procedure that can save mothers and babies. Lori's unborn sons stayed with her. Eventually, all three were pronounced dead.
Originally posted by Xaphan
reply to post by NarrowGate
Upset Catholic detected.
Originally posted by Malcher
Originally posted by RandyBragg
Its actually a win win for the church, and as much as people really want the church to lose they should think twice.
If the church wins then the state kind of overturns the ruling that unborn people are in fact people and just gives future anti-abortion legislation that much easier.
It wont make any difference.
Look at this example:
One day someone physically attacks another person. The person they attack has a belief in total pacifism even if someone attacks him. He uses force to thwart the attack and in the process the other person sues him. He can say "you are a pacifist" as a defense, but what does the law say? So if that were his defense it would not be a good one even if the person himself still declares himself to be a pacifist anyway. For that matter he cannot even take it upon himself to decide he was wrong to protect himself based on a belief. I am not in the law field in any way but fairly certain the above is accurate.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Define sentience; I will play this game and work off of your false pretenses if you can do that for me.[
Thought.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
After considering it. I think this case may do more for coming up with a compromise between the pro choice and anti abortion crowd than politicians and rallys have done.
Its clear we need to define in terms everyone can at least understand when a person becomes a person. I think my principled stance of thought and functioning brain/nervous system is the best qualifier (no thought, no person) if only for legal understandings...because I do believe there is no difference between a baby the day after it is born verses the day before.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Define sentience; I will play this game and work off of your false pretenses if you can do that for me.[
Thought.
OK, so thought only counts if it has already been thought? Is what you are about to think in 5 seconds thought or does it not qualify and therefore not need to be protected? Do you think the dimension of time will have the final word, or God?
Had the murder not occurred, there would have been thought. A whole lot of thought, actually.
Sperm has the potential of one day being thought with a bit of guidance and support.
What may be is not what is. Things that could one day be should not be protected. Such thinking would ban all forms of contraception and masturbation.
As far as god, interdimensional father figures, cloud men, etc...I am about as worried about such things as I am worried about leprecauns giving me the stink eye overall..but in this case, I stand on principle. I have no issues with removing a 2-3 week old growth as much as I have no issue with stopping life support on someone brain dead...its the same thing.
however, I do understand the potential for life in a fetus, and such decisions should not come often nor be made easily...as kids/people are great. I am a fan of em...however unloved or unwanted kids tend to do nobody favors...from harsh lives, higher criminal rate, etc. If you make it illegal for a person to remove something early after wisely deciding they are unable, unwilling, or incapable of raising a child, then you will only bring forth dismay into the world for no purpose.
If a deity questions my stance, I have no problem with my stances. My stance may be incorrect..a persons "soul" (if there is one) may start at conception, or may not even be around until a year after birth...I am going with what makes us different than a plant or amoeba given no further knowledge about supernatural affairs.
Thought...not potential of thought one day, or thoughts that used to be but are no longer..just current thought.
My only gray area here are cryonic storage of people/heads. That is a very gray area actually as there is no current thought, however, tossing them into the ground and letting them rot would remove their potential for reanimation/thought...but I think the establishment of former thought qualifies them for consideration as a person still.
still struggling with this issue actually.
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by NarrowGate
Yes that thought has crossed my mind after other posters have brought it up. If that is the case it is an underhander and dirty way to do it and it lacks honesty. Which of these methods do you think Jesus would aprove of? Everything we do shines a light on who we are.
Raist