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.
Sorry Windword but that is.......wrong.
windword
reply to post by Quadrivium
I'm not defensive. And, I don't think that anyone in this thread has declared that an unborn baby, at any stage of gestation, is a "parasite".
I agree with this statement.
www.abovetopsecret.com... The Regal:
If you honestly can't tell the difference between saying "This thing is a parasite" and "This thing's functionality is closer to a parasite than a human being", then I really can't help you, sorry
Sorry Windword but that is.......wrong.
The relationship between mother and child is more like a mutualism relationship, aka a symbiosis relationship.
Both parties gain from the relationship. Therefore the child is nothing like a parasite.
windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
If you share that opinion, then you are mistaken. DNA doesn't lie.
DNA isn't a "person" either.
A fertilized egg is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree.
a·nal·o·gy
A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A large share of fertilized eggs never successfully implant to establish a pregnancy: Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully implant........
rhrealitycheck.org...
LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by windword
It's a very poor analogy. If you don't see people as any more important than a plant, then we have nothing further to discuss. I am not the one who will have to explain your position one day.
TheRegal
She isn't saying that people are plants. No distinction is needed.
It's an analogy used to help describe the fact that a fetus is not a human being.
This is third grade stuff.
fe·tus noun \ˈfē-təs\ : a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born
TheRegal
A fetus is a fetus, an acorn is an acorn.
A human being is a human being, and an oak tree is an oak tree.
TheRegal
It's symmetrical and does not require that humans and trees are the same thing for the sake of the argument, so your argument that humans an plants are not the same thing is not a point at all. If you want to defame an analogy, you have to show where the links are broken, not just blurt out some empty rhetoric. You would have to prove that an acorn does not turn into an oak tree or that a fetus does not turn into a human being to invaliate the analogy, or show an external factor that indirectly does such.
TheRegal
My 9-year-old neice could have explained this.
Common sense states that one doesn't ignore basic definitions, and simple science, to excuse killing people, too.
libertytoall
RealWoman
Quadrivium
RealWoman
Quadrivium
RealWoman
charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)
What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.
I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.
The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.
None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.
There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.
Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?
I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.
You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.
This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?
The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.
edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity
The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.
He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.
The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your'e the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which you have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.
I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible thumper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)
wombatta
reply to post by nixie_nox
Amazing how people spend a fortune on IVF to have a child,and yet kill 5-6000 unborn each day ,cant people comprehend how to use contraceptives ? whats the matter with these people ?
"I'm plagued with remorse and regret for the horrible actions I've committed which led to this day," the fertility doctor's son said before the judge imposed sentence. "And what I've done will stay with me every day for the rest of my life no matter what happens today or the day after."