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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



Abortion isn't on trial here. A man's actions are. Did he take a life? That is the only question to be answered. If it is yes, it was Murder under the law.


It is about the hypocrisy of the abortion defense (it’s ok for a woman to take a life but not ok for a man to do it).

You just said if a life is taken then it’s considered murder (I agree). Why isn’t it murder when a woman takes that same life (that I disagree with)?

Hey, we’re not going to come to terms here…the debate on this issue will never go away. I was only attempting to point out the ridiculousness of charging a man with murder for killing an unborn child when this country advocates a woman’s right to do the SAME THING.

What a society we have today!



**edit to add**
We disagree on some things but I appreciate the spirited debate! It's why I log in!



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




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

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.


I'm not. This is something that is discussed in medical ethics all of the time. One cannot link being human to the ability to survive without help because there are a plethora of situations where living humans cannot survive on their own. That benchmark us neither logical nor physioligical. You mention "it's not magical" but then you apply magical thinking. Human development is s continuum. There is no magic that makes an organism "not human" one instant and then "human" the next. It is a process.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

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.


And thus, you cannot murder a child until after he has been born. The law in this regard is inconsistent.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Originally posted by seabag
It is about the hypocrisy of the abortion defense (it’s ok for a woman to take a life but not ok for a man to do it).


Not exactly accurate. It's OK for a woman to get an abortion. It's not OK for ANYONE else, man or woman, to force an abortion on her.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
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)


But is the person who cut off your nuts charged with murder? Therein lies the inconsistency.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Abortion and Fetal Homicide



The legal distinction is based almost entirely on the mother’s will. If she wants the child, it is illegal for someone else to kill it. If she does not want the child, it is legal for someone else to kill it.
...
Perhaps the reason pro-lifers see the law as being inconsistent is because they think fetal homicide laws are meant to protect the rights of the unborn. This is not true. Fetal homicide laws are mean to protect the rights of the mother. Both abortion law and fetal homicide laws treat the unborn as property, and exist to protect the right of mothers to do what they wish with their unborn child.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

Hello there,seabag,reality check:if you're tricked into drinking an abortificient,you did not have a choice.It's like you tricking me into drinking poison,and then being surprised at being arrested for murder,because in your reality,i commited wilful suicide.This man caused the death of an unborn human,which might well have been forfeit anyway,had his girlfriend decided to have an abortion,yes.But we'll never know,because the mother had no say in the matter.

It's that type of attitude,of this man,that is one of the main reasons this world is in such a state-people willing to screw each other over for their own convenience-and at the cost of human lives,often.

In my opinion,abortion Is murder.

No wonder the "elite" has such contempt for the average citizen:We don't ourselves hold human life high and sacred,we devalue our own worth,the worth of our Own very lives,by the measure of worthlessness we obviously attribute to the rights of an unborn human.If we,the "99%" choose to view ourselves as so expendable,so worthless-how can we expect the rulers of this world to feel different? Are we better than them,if we are so ready discard our own flesh and blood like used toiletpaper,to have it cut out like a tumour,at our convenience? THEY HAVE NO MERCY FOR US,and you know what? That's not what will sink this ship,for us,the people-it will the growing prevalence of the belief that our lives are worth nothing - the fact that WE HAVE NO MERCY FOR US.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Abortion and Fetal Homicide



The legal distinction is based almost entirely on the mother’s will. If she wants the child, it is illegal for someone else to kill it. If she does not want the child, it is legal for someone else to kill it.
...
Perhaps the reason pro-lifers see the law as being inconsistent is because they think fetal homicide laws are meant to protect the rights of the unborn. This is not true. Fetal homicide laws are mean to protect the rights of the mother. Both abortion law and fetal homicide laws treat the unborn as property, and exist to protect the right of mothers to do what they wish with their unborn child.


And thus we get back to the primary point that the law is inconsistent. If the child is human, then the mother has no right to end its life at all. Not pre birth, not post birth. One's humanity is not contingent on another individuals wishes at the time. If the fetus is human, no one has the moral or legal right to take its life.

If the fetus is not human, then the mother has every right to dispose of it as she sees fit just as she has a right to dispose of her fingernail clippings as she sees fit. However, to be logically consistent, then a third party cannot be charged with murder as there is no human life removed and the tissue he destroyed is no more special than the afirmentioned fingernail clippings.

Assault, sure. Maiming, definitely, but not murder.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Sure you can. This just happened.

The "Law" you are saying is inconsistent is actually several laws in both the Criminal and Family sections of the code. Inconsistently applied laws are only illegally inconsistent if the law in question is applied to different people in a manner that gives an unlawful regard to one over the other. What we have here are two or more separate laws, i.e. Murder and Paternity, which are consistently applied to everyone, even if the laws themselves are at odds with each other.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Abortion and Fetal Homicide



The legal distinction is based almost entirely on the mother’s will. If she wants the child, it is illegal for someone else to kill it. If she does not want the child, it is legal for someone else to kill it.
...
Perhaps the reason pro-lifers see the law as being inconsistent is because they think fetal homicide laws are meant to protect the rights of the unborn. This is not true. Fetal homicide laws are mean to protect the rights of the mother. Both abortion law and fetal homicide laws treat the unborn as property, and exist to protect the right of mothers to do what they wish with their unborn child.


And thus we get back to the primary point that the law is inconsistent. If the child is human, then the mother has no right to end its life at all. Not pre birth, not post birth. One's humanity is not contingent on another individuals wishes at the time. If the fetus is human, no one has the moral or legal right to take its life.

If the fetus is not human, then the mother has every right to dispose of it as she sees fit just as she has a right to dispose of her fingernail clippings as she sees fit. However, to be logically consistent, then a third party cannot be charged with murder as there is no human life removed and the tissue he destroyed is no more special than the afirmentioned fingernail clippings.

Assault, sure. Maiming, definitely, but not murder.


I read your link and it dies not say what you think it says. It says that fetal homicide laws are based in propety rights if the mother, however, this is not true. The man is neither charged with theft or vandalism (which is what would apply to property) but murder, which is applied to killing a human being. Again, even by the quoted opinion piece, the law is inconsistent.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Sure you can. This just happened.

The "Law" you are saying is inconsistent is actually several laws in both the Criminal and Family sections of the code. Inconsistently applied laws are only illegally inconsistent if the law in question is applied to different people in a manner that gives an unlawful regard to one over the other. What we have here are two or more separate laws, i.e. Murder and Paternity, which are consistently applied to everyone, even if the laws themselves are at odds with each other.


What do you mean? It is applied differently to different people. That is the entire point.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




It is about the hypocrisy of the abortion defense (it’s ok for a woman to take a life but not ok for a man to do it).


It's not okay for a woman to take a life that's in another woman's body... she too would be charged with murder.

Now why do you think that is ?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I agree with the Original Post - a little bit.

If abortion isn't considered to be MURDER, then why is this man charged with MURDER for tricking her into an abortion?

That IS hypocrisy.

Yes, it is not fair that he tricked (forced) her into it, but if it isn't MURDER, then he shouldn't be charged with MURDER. He should be charged with something else...

(What exactly should he be charged with, I don't know but charging him with MURDER goes against the very argument that abortion isn't murder).
edit on 17-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by seabag
 


I agree with the Original Post - a little bit.

If abortion isn't considered to be MURDER, then why is this man charged with MURDER for tricking her into an abortion?

That IS hypocrisy.

Yes, it is not fair that he tricked (forced) her into it, but if it isn't MURDER, then he shouldn't be charged with MURDER. He should be charged with something else...

(What exactly should he be charged with, I don't know but charging him with MURDER goes against the very argument that abortion isn't murder).
edit on 17-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


Abortion is murder unless it's under the consent of the pregnant woman.

Why ?

Because the life and body of the pregnant woman are given full legal precedent over and above anything and anyone else... including the life of the unborn child.

If the unborn child puts the pregnant woman's life at risk, the unborn child is terminated out of necessity.

Why ?

Again... because giving full legal precedent to the pregnant woman comes above all else.

If the pregnant women decides to carry out her pregnancy to full term, even if it means putting her own life at risk for the sake of the child's life, she can choose to do so and nobody can force her to terminate.

Why ?

Again... because giving full legal precedent to the pregnant woman comes above all else.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Nobody has the legal right to force a violation/invasion/robbing/killing/plundering of someone else's body.

This is why rape is illegal.
This is why punching someone in the face is illegal.

Only the owner of that body has legal rights to that body and everything inside of it.

Imagine someone charging you with attempted murder of yourself because you're poisoning your body from eating a Big Mac and super-sized fries ??

If we take away people's rights to their own bodies (even if that body is carrying another life), we're going to slide down a very slippery slope.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Originally posted by NavyDoc
If the child is human, then the mother has no right to end its life at all.


Saying that doesn't make it true. In fact, she DOES have the right. It's called legal abortion.

This thread is getting no where. You believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same.
You have been told and shown what the law is, yet you complain it's inconsistent. In some view, it is. In another, it isn't. It's really a matter of opinion.

The fact is, it's up to the woman and I think that's what's really under the skin of the OP.

I'm out.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Originally posted by NavyDoc
If the child is human, then the mother has no right to end its life at all.


Saying that doesn't make it true. In fact, she DOES have the right. It's called legal abortion.

This thread is getting no where. You believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same.
You have been told and shown what the law is, yet you complain it's inconsistent. In some view, it is. In another, it isn't. It's really a matter of opinion.

The fact is, it's up to the woman and I think that's what's really under the skin of the OP.

I'm out.



I never said a woman does not have the legal ability to have an abortion. I never said she shouldn't have the legal ability to have an abortion. I never said that the law did not permit her to do so. What I said was the law was inconsistent, which it logically and demonstrably is.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Raxoxane
 



It's that type of attitude,of this man,that is one of the main reasons this world is in such a state-people willing to screw each other over for their own convenience-and at the cost of human lives,often.

It is selfishness that leads to abortion. It's the same selfishness whether its a woman's choice or a man's choice. Both are wrong and both are murder. When one person does it its legal but when the other does it its illegal even though the outcome is exactly the same. Explain that.



No wonder the "elite" has such contempt for the average citizen:We don't ourselves hold human life high and sacred,we devalue our own worth,the worth of our Own very lives,by the measure of worthlessness we obviously attribute to the rights of an unborn human.If we,the "99%" choose to view ourselves as so expendable,so worthless-how can we expect the rulers of this world to feel different? Are we better than them,if we are so ready discard our own flesh and blood like used toiletpaper,to have it cut out like a tumour,at our convenience? THEY HAVE NO MERCY FOR US,and you know what? That's not what will sink this ship,for us,the people-it will the growing prevalence of the belief that our lives are worth nothing - the fact that WE HAVE NO MERCY FOR US.

Well said and I agree. We, as a society, do not value life. As such, we can't complain when others don't value our life either. If innocent children are of no value than the biological parents of children have no value either.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Doesn't matter if it's a selfish act in your opinion or not. And completely irrelevent to the OP subject at hand.

If someone punched you in the face, would it be legal for you to lay charges against that person for violating your body ?

If you punched yourself in the face, would it be legal for someone else to charge you with violating your body ?

These are the laws.

If you don't like them, change them.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 



Because the life and body of the pregnant woman are given full legal precedent over and above anything and anyone else... including the life of the unborn child.


You forgot one! Not just the life and body of the mother but also the 'desire' of the mother. A woman can have an abortion simply because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced. That is arrogance and selfishness. If she didn't want a child then she should keep her legs closed rather than being irresponsible.

No worries though. Abortion makes it possible to be irresponsible and selfish. A woman can just murder the child these days.

It's a sad society we live in where selfish interests are more valuable than human life.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join