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.

 

The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by seabag
 



Originally posted by seabag
Your desire (as a man or woman) for a child has absolutely no bearing AT ALL on whether or not that fetus is a life.


I didn't say that it's not a life. I agree with you there. A fetus is a life. Anyone who says it's not is just trying to rationalize it, IMO.

Choosing to have an abortion is taking the life of a fetus.
Taking the life of someone else's fetus (who plans to have the child) without their consent is murder of that child.

That's just the way I see it. You don't have to agree.
At least we agree that it's a life, either way.



But that is where I scratch my head. Nowhere else to we determine if something is a murder or not based on a person wanting that death to happen or not. If a stranger breaks into your house and drowns your kid that is murder, but if you drown your own kid it is not murder? Of course not...the child is considered an individual and murder is murder regardless if it is mother doing the murdering or a stranger.

If the law states that the man commited murder, then the law is stating that he ended the life of a human being--you can't legally murder a dog--you get charged with destruction of someone's property or animal cruelty but not murder. You can't murder a foot--if you cut off someone's foot you get charged with assault or maiming but not murdering that foot.

If the law is going to declare the fetus a person in order to charge this man, then the law is inconsistent if it permits a mother to kill that same fetus.
edit on 17-5-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by muse7
 


And what about my choice to donate a kidney as opposed to someone taking that kidney from my body? VERY different.


It's all about autonomy. I can do it to myself, but you can't do it to me without my permission.



However, if someone took your kidney to sell on the black market and you woke up in a bathtub full of ice as per the urban legands, they would not be charged with murder unless you, the person, died. They could be charged with kidnapping, theft, maiming, practicing medicine without a liscense, and a myriad of other things but, unless a person was killed, they will not be charged with murder.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Originally posted by NavyDoc
Nowhere else to we determine if something is a murder or not based on a person wanting that death to happen or not.


Nowhere else does the situation exist where one life is completely dependent on and housed within another person's body. It's a singularly unique situation, calling for unique rules.


...the child is considered an individual


Exactly. And a born child has rights. A fetus is not an individual and does not have rights. They are scientifically a parasite growing inside person.



-you can't legally murder a dog--you get charged with destruction of someone's property or animal cruelty but not murder.


Right. Murder is a legal term having to do with human life. A dog cannot be "murdered". But you can have YOU OWN dog euthanized with no legal repercussions.



You can't murder a foot--if you cut off someone's foot you get charged with assault or maming but not murdering that foot.


Exactly. The foot is part of the body, not a parasite and there is no possibility of it growing into another whole being (or baby).



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
What some seem to be missing here is what exactly is going on.

This is a legal proceeding. He has -charged- the man with murder. He has not been convicted. The prosecutor believes he will be able to convince a jury that this man broke the law as it is written, taking into account previous applications of the law from other court cases.

If the man is not convicted, the case will be used as a defense for others who are charged under this law, though mitigating circumstances being what they are, advancement of the pregnancy will most likely be the determining factor (i.e. Did the pregnancy advance to a stage where the resulting tissue could survive on its own?)

This has been the standard this law and other state laws have used when determining whether or not a murder actually took place.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 



Who exactly is being hypocritical here


The "who" are people who "define" life at a certain point in the pregnancy.

Abortion isn't considered murder because the pro-choice group has argued and convinced courts that up to a certain point, there is no "life"...just a clump of cells.

What the OP is pointing out is that somehow that "clump of cells" has magically turned into "human life" that is protected under Murder laws, but if this was the women's "choice", it would magically be transformed back into a "clump of cells".

The hypocrisy is plain to see, so is the dodging on the pro-choice crowd in this thread.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Originally posted by NavyDoc
Nowhere else to we determine if something is a murder or not based on a person wanting that death to happen or not.


Nowhere else does the situation exist where one life is completely dependent on and housed within another person's body. It's a singularly unique situation, calling for unique rules.


...the child is considered an individual


Exactly. And a born child has rights. A fetus is not an individual and does not have rights. They are scientifically a parasite growing inside person.



-you can't legally murder a dog--you get charged with destruction of someone's property or animal cruelty but not murder.


Right. Murder is a legal term having to do with human life. A dog cannot be "murdered". But you can have YOU OWN dog euthanized with no legal repercussions.



You can't murder a foot--if you cut off someone's foot you get charged with assault or maming but not murdering that foot.


Exactly. The foot is part of the body, not a parasite and there is no possibility of it growing into another whole being (or baby).


Exactly. Which is why the law that calls this murder is inconsistent.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by flobot
 


There is nothing magical about the definition of a human life.

If you can survive post pregnancy, you are alive. If not, you aren't.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by flobot
 


There is nothing magical about the definition of a human life.

If you can survive post pregnancy, you are alive. If not, you aren't.


SO if you are under general anesthesia and cannot survive without machines to keep you alive, you are not alive?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
You claimed that suicide is legal and murder is not. That is false. And will continue to be false until the federal laws are changed.


Not where I live. Where do you live?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by flobot
 


There is nothing magical about the definition of a human life.

If you can survive post pregnancy, you are alive. If not, you aren't.


SO if you are under general anesthesia and cannot survive without machines to keep you alive, you are not alive?


Why wouldn't that person be alive under the -very- simple definition?

Did said person survive past pregnancy? Said person is alive.

I'm not sure if you are going to try to turn this around on me with some sort of premature birth incubation debate, and it doesn't matter. If the tissue doesn't survive, it wasn't alive. If the tissue survives, regardless of the mechanical interventions used to help it, it is alive.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Procreation is a right reserved to the women? I wonder if it would make a difference if this woman raped the man? I agree, total hypocrisy. Absent the 9 months of pregnancy, a man has the same, and more often, more stringently imposed obligations when he procreates, whether it is his choice or not. We are a society of double standards.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


That would be a matter for a jury to sort out, just like this case would be a matter for a jury to sort out.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Choosing to have an abortion is taking the life of a fetus. Taking the life of someone else's fetus (who plans to have the child) without their consent is murder of that child.


Wait a minute….

You just said it’s “taking the life of a fetus” when the woman has an abotion and “murder of a child” when the man initiates the abortion. Why is it a “child” and not a "fetus" when it’s a man doing the abortion? Why is it “murder” when the man kills his child but not “murder” when a woman kills her child? That makes no sense?

Just because the woman is a human incubator doesn’t give her authority to kill IMO. The courts recognize that men have rights when it comes to paternity because a woman is NOT allowed to keep the biological father from seeing his child; the man can’t be denied visitation even though he didn’t carry the child. The court doesn’t recognize the man’s right with regard to abortion. There is a double standard with abortion.


edit on 17-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Choosing to have an abortion is taking the life of a fetus. Taking the life of someone else's fetus (who plans to have the child) without their consent is murder of that child.


Wait a minute….

You just said it’s “taking the life of a fetus” when the woman has an abotion and “murder of a child” when the man initiates the abortion. Why is it a “child” and not a "fetus" when it’s a man doing the abortion? Why is it “murder” when the man kills his child but not “murder” when a woman kills her child? That makes no sense?

Just because the woman is a human incubator doesn’t give her authority to kill IMO. The courts recognize that men have rights when it comes to paternity because a woman is NOT allowed to keep the biological father from seeing his child; the man can’t be denied visitation even though he didn’t carry the child. The court doesn’t recognize the man’s right with regard to abortion. There is a double standard with abortion.


edit on 17-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)


There isn't a double standard with abortion.

Parental Rights do not kick in until you are a parent. You are not a parent until you have a child. You do not have a child until one is born.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Double standard ??

Definition:

Double Standard:

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or two different people in the same situation.

Wikipedia


- The female can die from carrying an embryo inside her body, the male cannot.
- The female is the one putting the health of her body at risk from carrying an embryo, the male is not.
- The female is the one solely responsible for nourishing the embryo inside her body, the male is not.
- The female is the one going through the biological processes in her body, the male is not.
- The female is the one that will give birth at the end of the process if all goes well, the male does not.
- The female is the one at risk of dying during said birth, the male is not.

How is this two different people in the same situation ?!

Someone here is not understanding the literal definition of "double standard".

The decision making is ultimately the female's due to the obvious differences pointed out above. This is not a double standard, this is a biological fact of life.

Planting the sperm does not suddenly give you ownership to another person's body, therefore you do not have the right to terminate anything inside of that other person's body without their consent.

This is the reason why this case is being defined as murder.

He should also be charged with attempted murder because he forced a chemical into another person's body not knowing whether or not that person might have had an adverse reaction to the drug and could have possibly died from it. The female could have also died from massive loss of blood had the placenta not fully detached from the uterus properly... her life could have ended literally within minutes of that embryo pulling away from the uterus.

He knowingly put someone else's life at risk, not just the embryo's. Only a medical professional can determine if a drug is safe for any particular individual to take or not. This idiot is not a medical professional.

In fact, he should also be charged with carrying out a medical procedure without a license.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by flobot
 



The "who" are people who "define" life at a certain point in the pregnancy.

Abortion isn't considered murder because the pro-choice group has argued and convinced courts that up to a certain point, there is no "life"...just a clump of cells.

What the OP is pointing out is that somehow that "clump of cells" has magically turned into "human life" that is protected under Murder laws, but if this was the women's "choice", it would magically be transformed back into a "clump of cells".

The hypocrisy is plain to see, so is the dodging on the pro-choice crowd in this thread.


Well said, flobot!!


This issue is a CLEAR CUT example of the complete hypocrisy of our current abortion laws. I’m really surprised that people are dancing around the reality here.

Woman kills child = Abortion


Man kills child = Murder


The argument used to defend abortion (that it’s not a life until late term) is completely ignored when a man does it!



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Your post is a clear cut example of willful ignorance.

The situation has been explained to you multiple times, and you ignore that which doesn't sit well with you and laud that with which you agree.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Well this is just downright silliness.

Abortion is legal. FORCED abortion is not.

Just the same as getting a vasectomy is legal. But if someone took a knife to your walnuts they'd be prosecuted.

CHOICE being the operative word here.
edit on 17-5-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Double

Post
edit on 17-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 



Originally posted by onthedownlow
Procreation is a right reserved to the women?


No. Procreation is the right of men AND women. Pregnancy and childbirth are biological functions of the female of the species.



Absent the 9 months of pregnancy, a man has the same, and more often, more stringently imposed obligations when he procreates, whether it is his choice or not.


Yeah, that pesky little life-threatening "9 months of pregnancy" (plus childbirth, don't forget the actual birth) falls to the woman. So, if we just forget about pregnancy and childbirth, men and women share equally in the job of procreation.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join