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 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.
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.
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.
...the child is considered an individual
-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 maming but not murdering that foot.
Who exactly is being hypocritical here
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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 "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.
Originally posted by onthedownlow
Procreation is a right reserved to the women?
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.