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.
Well, an amoeba is a living organism, but it is not a person. A premature baby hooked up to machines has been born, and exists outside of the womb, making it a seperate entity. Until the umbilical cord is severed, that fetus is not a seperate entity and not a person. This thread is not about machines, it is about protecting women from being jailed for miscarriages, and the grey areas of the law. I myslef believe in medicine and medical procedures to help those of us who have been born and are already here. I believe in medical procedures for unborn babies too, if the mother so chooses, since the fetus is in her body it is her choice.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
And while a fetus exists once conception occurs, it certainly has no ability to survive outside the womb at that stage, making it a potential person, not a person.
So since a premature baby in a machine is not a real person since it needs the machine to live?
How about a person in a coma for the last 6motnhs? They need machines too.
What about the person who needs an Asthma inhaler to survive? Does one cease to be a real person when they are reliant on other persons or technologies for survival?
In the end, this means that none of us are real people. Because we are all reliant on each other and our technology at some level or another.
It has a DNA code and it is replicating, therefore it is a living organism.
Can a day old fetus survive outside my womb? No until it is born, it is a parasite upon my body, which is its host. It literally needs my body (not a bottle or boob or diapers or blankets, but my literal body) to survive. The fetus has the potential to become a person if I choose to go forth with the pregnancy. Once born, the fetus is a seperate entity, a person of its own rights.
Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by hotbakedtater
a day old fetus is not a person, it is a POTENTIAL person.
Where did you get this idea, ma'am? Can you please elaborate on this?
You are spot on. That is my whole point! This is about human rights, the rights of female humans to be free from persecution when it comes to the rights over their own bodies!
Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is about Human Rights and how the Government tramples them in the name of big $$$.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by hotbakedtater
Well smoking cigarettes would never terminate a pregnancy nor would smoking crack or heroin or marijauna for that matter the only thing that really has been proven to cause miscarriage is alcohol so they really will only find alcoholics to prosecute for this.edit on 24-6-2011 by ldyserenity because: edit for spelling
Anything I think can cause it, and everyone's bio-chemistry is different slightly.
Sometimes a woman's body will just decide it is not functionally correct to carry the child and will automatically miscarry as a biological chemistry based result. This is merely a theory based on observation and I admit I haven't seen any tests proving it but I would be expecting a result like this to pop up every once in awhile.
Like one fine ATSer posted above, their family has a history of having a higher % rate of miscarries. This can be genetic or environmental or both mixed.
There are potentially thousands of factors to take into account when trying to determine exactly what caused each individual miscarriage as each one will be different.
An increasing number of states are using a single, unconfirmed, positive drug test on a new mother or baby as a basis for involving child welfare authorities. In some cases resulting in the removal of the newborn from family custody. Women who have tested positive for drugs administered during labor, women in federally approved methadone treatment programs, and women whose drug use in no way compromises their parenting ability have had their children taken from them.
Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by hotbakedtater
Dear God.....is this where feminism gets us? If so, to Hell with feminism. Disgusting.
I.....I'm just at a loss right now.
Why is it that so many women seem to have no problems with killing their own babies? It's kind of hard to believe that society has sunk this low......
First off thank you for the links, I believe I have a Sagan book, but it is not the ones you mentioned.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
But using the crutch false dichotomy "it's not alive" is simply not true.
...
In the end, the only thing that makes us human is the fact we have human DNA codes. That's about it.
Amazon-Dragons of Eden
[url=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_30?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=shadows+of+forgotten+ancestors&x=0&y=0&sprefix=shadows+o f+forgotten+ancestors]Amazon- Shadows of Forgotton Ancestors[/url
Do not assume, I am discussing women's rights, and the right to abort for ANY and ALL reasons the female chooses. That is called freedom of choice for her body, which exists as a person.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by hotbakedtater
Dear God.....is this where feminism gets us? If so, to Hell with feminism. Disgusting.
I.....I'm just at a loss right now.
Why is it that so many women seem to have no problems with killing their own babies? It's kind of hard to believe that society has sunk this low......
Think about it though.
If you believe these people to have low moral or ethical standards, do you really want them reproducing?
I assume we are talking about "Cosmetic Abortion" and not abortion for medical reasons.
Originally posted by NightGypsy
The above quote from the OP's source is definitely ironic.....
Child welfare agencies across America consistently fail to pull children out of neglectful and abusive homes, despite substantial evidence of these crimes occurring. They put children at risk every day by placing them back in these homes over and over, many times with fatal consequences to the child. These agencies like to cite their reasons for this as being a heavy caseload that doesn't allow them to do their job....yet they see fit to remove a newborn from a family because of a positive drug test. I guess it's okay to let children survive in unfit homes and be battered or neglected throughout their childhood and fail to take action, though.
None of it makes any sense to me.....
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
But being alive does not make one a person. Birth does that. Trees are alive, yet they are not people.
t makes perfect sense to me. That you somehow think you or the government have jurisdiction or authority over what is right in other people's families or homes.
You have no idea how much misery and evil organizations or agencies like CPS have wrought upon the people of this nation. They destroy more lives than they fix I've seen it in real life first hand.
I make comments just like yours all the time so it's pretty pathetic that I jumped automatically after it. It's the whole "Well they aren't even doing their jobs right, if they did it right and justly things wouldn't be so bad but they can't even get the basics of their job correct" type argument. Yes I totally agree with that point.