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 Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


What they told you isn't necessarily what I would tell you. I'll extend you the same courtesy.

Fair enough.


I feel like I've done a pretty good job at keeping things civil and as objective as my mind permits, and yet your posts towards me are tinged with hostility and condescension. I'd so much rather have a dialogue and address arguments for the sake of understanding each others positions.

As would I. But, as I am sure you will soon understand, that civil discussion cannot happen. The hatred is too strong. The divide is too deep. Read the OP again. He demonizes everyone who doesn't agree with him. He later literally expresses disgust against the deeply held beliefs, the very things that I believe make us human in the first place, of others.

A discussion requires, first and foremost, respect for each other. If that respect is non-extant, the discussion is moot. The result is a war. If there are so many ready, willing, and able to start a war, I plan on defending myself. If that produces collateral damage, oh well. I didn't start it; I would not have started it; I wish it hadn't started. But I'll not go down without a fight.

TheRedneck




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

It is not that "we don't care..." The FACT is that the U.S. is not taking care of it's own, and instead we must allow illegal immigration and pay for them all?... Not to mention the FACT that people in the left like you still want to ignore that there is a difference between "LEGAL immigration" and "ILLEGAL immigration..."

The right doesn't want to stop "LEGAL immigration" but want to reign in on "Illegal immigration" more so when there are millions of LEGAL Americans and legal residents who are not being helped, meanwhile the left want to give everything for free to ILLEGAL immigrants...

BTW, if you are so "preoccupied" about over population why don't start by allowing the death penalty for murderers and rapists?... No, instead you want to murder for any reason the most innocent HUMAN lives who haven't done any harm to anyone...







edit on 19-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Rationally speaking;

We've ALL established that it is a human being.

We've also ALL established that it is alive.

Abortion ends the life if a living human being.



I can't get any more rational than that.


Since that was more or less in syllogistic form I will give my own on the fly argument:


Sentient creatures have the capacity to suffer.

Ending the life of sentient creatures is immoral because they suffer.

The fetus becomes sentient once necessary neurological development occurs.

Ending the life of the fetus prior to that development is amoral since they don't suffer.

Most abortions occur prior to that stage of neural development.

Therefore most abortions are of no moral consequence.


I feel the conclusion follows the propositions there. Notice also, the implied position that I might no longer view an abortion as amoral if it occurs late enough in the gestation period. So i'm not taking the position that all abortions are amoral. I honestly wished the dialogue of abortion was more nuanced... it truly seems to me that people either are not thinking deeply enough to understand what their underlying reasoning is, or they don't care to share. Not finger pointing. Just an observation.
edit on 19-5-2019 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

When you place qualifiers, you're saying, "Yeah. . . but. . . ".

You support ending the lives of living human beings.

Own it.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I own everything I just said in that argument I presented...



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: DBCowboy

I own everything I just said in that argument I presented...


'Kay.

*shrugs*

So did I.

Have a great evening.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yup.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Not all fetuses are healthy. Very few will survive at 20 weeks. Not all fetuses will achieve viability at 30 weeks. Sometimes, a fetus may be alive, but it still won't ever achieve viability. No matter how much its mother and father want them.



Not all human adults are healthy, or survive life and get to grow old. If we were to use your line of reasoning this would be grounds for "after birth abortions" even for adults...




edit on 19-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall



Please get out..

Okay. Got out 40 years ago.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Certainly, the potential life of an individual begins at conception. But, life itself is a closed system, that neither begins or ends, as far as we understand. A lot of things have to happen before a fertilized egg becomes a born person. One of those things is the mother's permission.



It is not "potential life", "it is human life" that starts at conception. What you are arguing is that the mother can decide whether or not the "human unborn" should live, or can decide when her unborn is human. I have proven in the past that this same argument you are making can be used, and is being used, to make "after birth abortion" legal because there isn't much difference between the unborn and newborns...


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
...
Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call after-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?



...
A mother who drowned her newborn son in a sink before leaving her home to write a university exam will not spend time behind bars, though a judge described her actions as "abhorrent."

Courtney Saul was sentenced to two years' probation in provincial court in Kamloops, B.C.

Saul was a student at Thompson Rivers University when her baby, George Carlos, was born on Dec. 15, 2011.
Kamloops woman who killed baby before writing university exam sentenced (to probation)
...

Link

The above case has set a precedence in Canada in favor of "infanticide."

In the U.S...

WATCH: College Students Support Infanticide Up Until TWO YEARS OLD

BTW, this perfectly shows how the "sentience" argument made by ATS member "Lucid Lunacy" can in fact be used in favor for infanticide.



Here is again a "progressive academic" argument.


Infanticide Should Be Legalized

The United States should allow the use of infanticide in the case of infants with severe medical complications. This policy should be adopted because euthanizing infants in some scenarios can be a valid moral option since certain infants can be born with absolutely terrible life prospects. For example, there are a number of instances where infants can have terminal ailments that cause them to suffer immensely after birth before killing them shortly thereafter. In these situations, infanticide should be an option available to the parents of infants with these conditions. Additionally, there are strong grounds that can justify infanticide in a broader context since infants are not rational and self-conscious agents. Because infants cannot hold a conscious desire to continue living – and have never held a conscious desire to continue living - they can't be given the same rights as persons. Therefore, painlessly killing an infant cannot be wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong. Of course, there would have to be parameters set around the practice of killing infants. And such technical matters are, indeed, important. But, for now, it is sufficient to recognize that there are certain situations in which intentionally killing infants can be justified.
...

www.debate.org...






edit on 19-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


BTW, this perfectly shows how the "sentience" argument made by ATS member "Lucid Lunacy" can in fact be used in favor for infanticide.


The US Law defines infanticide to pertain to newborns.

Infanticide refers to the act of killing of a newborn child. link

What I am talking about takes place prior to birth, and in fact prior to a particular stage in the gestation period. So you are completely misrepresenting what I have said multiple times in this thread.

I ask again, and I don't understand why it's so damn difficult to get an answer from people, what is the underlying reason for your moral position. Mine is based on sentience. What is yours based on?? Science? Theology? What?


because there isn't much difference between the unborn and newborns...


That's just factually wrong. There is a huge difference between the moment of conception and birth. There are stages of development. Stages of development of the central nervous system... the very thing that gives rise to the ability to be conscious and to suffer. Both what it means to 'be human', I would think, and where a moral argument would start. Of course there is a difference. To suggest otherwise is to say brain development is not a factor in this moral argument! So again, what is your ethical position based on if not human biology?
edit on 20-5-2019 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

The US Law defines infanticide to pertain to newborns.

Infanticide refers to the act of killing of a newborn child. link


And when an unborn survives an abortion and is born alive that makes him/her a newborn... But it is now completely legal in New York, and some other "progressive states", to murder newborns who survive abortion by just letting them die...


originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
What I am talking about takes place prior to birth, and in fact prior to a particular stage in the gestation period. So you are completely misrepresenting what I have said multiple times in this thread.


You are making an argument that at a time "you" specify makes the unborn sentient, yet before that time there is already brain wave activity for several weeks in the unborn. Not to mention the fact that they can feel pain, and try to resist abortions.


originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
I ask again, and I don't understand why it's so damn difficult to get an answer from people, what is the underlying reason for your moral position. Mine is based on sentience. What is yours based on?? Science? Theology? What?


I did give an answer, you just didn't want to hear it. For what reason would I have written that "human life begins at conception"? For what reason did I give a direct link and excerpt verifying that "science" states that human life begins at conception?

As for "your argument" about sentience... Again, many other progressives have a different definition and even claim that newborns, even 2 year olds, are not sentient beings...



edit on 20-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm trying my hardest to stick to the topic. Which is to say a discussion of abortion. If you want to hear my thoughts on the morality of other issues, then we can do that, but I don't see how it pertains to this. I truly don't see how my argument applies there. Seems like a red herring to me. Perhaps just a non-sequitur. I'm always willing to engage in discussion as I love moral topics; I just don't see it's relevancy.


You are making an argument that at a time "you" specify


No. It's not ME. It's supported by a body of scientific evidence! You know, like in the link you cited in support of your position. That was not just you, right? You were appealing to the legitimacy of scientific findings, right? What I did is no different. The science in fact shows sentience starts to arise once sufficient neurological structures have developed, and not before...


yet before that time there is already brain wave activity for several weeks in the unborn.


Correct. As I said, and as that study said, and the science shows, neural development has a starting point and its maturity comes to fruition at the end of the pregnancy. You're pointing to a specific point and saying "look, EEG activity!". The study, and the science, acknowledges that observation but also says sentience is not arising at the first point in the timeline of development. Brain activity does not equal sentience. The immature neural structures indeed register activity on the EEG, but the science says those early stages of neural development are not sufficient for the emergence of sentience. That does not occur until later neural development.

While I am a neuroscience student, I don't claim to be anything close to an authority. I do, however, believe in authority on these matters. I think the intellectually honest position would be to acknowledge what neuroscience demonstrates on fetal development. Once we do that, we can have an actual ethical argument on this issue.


For what reason would I have written that "human life begins at conception"?


I understand that. It doesn't actually convey as much as you think. Like, okay? Cells are living. My cactus is living. Simply stating a fetus is living is not a moral argument. I'm asking for the underling reasons for your ethics..

Unless, of course, this is ultimately a theological discussion?
edit on 20-5-2019 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

That's just factually wrong. There is a huge difference between the moment of conception and birth. There are stages of development. Stages of development of the central nervous system... the very thing that gives rise to the ability to be conscious and to suffer. Both what it means to 'be human', I would think, and where a moral argument would start. Of course there is a difference. To suggest otherwise is to say brain development is not a factor in this moral argument! So again, what is your ethical position based on if not human biology?


Yet that is the argument being made by "progressive academics and progressive scientists..." I even gave direct links and excerpts which you seemed to ignore.

You want to argue that "sentience starts at 18-25 weeks"despite the fact that we can detect brain wave activity on the 12th week. At the 12th week the baby/unborn can also feel pain.

Then again the fetus' neural plate (brain and spinal cord) starts forming 16 days after conception. The human brain and body continues to develop until we are about 21 years old. So we are not really a fully formed human being until at least we are 21 years old.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

I even gave direct links and excerpts which you seemed to ignore.


Sigh. I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to have a dialogue about what our positions are. What those progressive academics think and say is wholly irrelevant to our discussion.


You want to argue that "sentience starts at 18-25 weeks"despite the fact that we can detect brain wave activity


I'm trying to elucidate that you're conflating separate things. You seem to be under the impression that registering brain wave activity is necessarily indicative of sentience. That's not the case. Early neural development does indeed register on an EEG, but that starts prior to the point where the necessary neurological structures are in place to give rise to it. If you don't like source I used to substantiate that then I can submit another one from a scientific journal.


. The human brain and body continues to develop until we are about 21 years old. So we are not really a fully formed human being until at least we are 21 years old.


Well, we agree on something.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
...
The immature neural structures indeed register activity on the EEG, but the science says those early stages of neural development are not sufficient for the emergence of sentience. That does not occur until later neural development.
...


A new born is also in the early stages of neural development, and as I wrote earlier the human brain continues changing and evolving until we are about 21 years old. A newborn can not properly communicate as a sentient being, so at that stage it can still be argued that "the neural development of the baby is not sufficient for the emergence of sentience."

I have also based my argument on what science says that "human life begins." That's all that matters to me, when "human life begins." I do not assume to know at what point in our development we are a sentient being. Not to mention the fact that the baby reacts to his/her environment and what happens to the mother BEFORE the 18th week of pregnancy. At the 14th week the baby can already dream, swallow and blink, but you want to claim that still at this point the baby is not a sentient being.

Fetal Development: Baby's Nervous System and Brain



edit on 20-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and comment.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


A new born is also in the early stages of neural development

Agreed.


and as I wrote earlier the human brain continues changing

Agreed.


A newborn can not properly communicate as a sentient being


Obviously sentience arises prior to the ability to convey it through language. That doesn't in any way negate my argument.

I'm talking about what science has to say about fetal development. Do we or do we not agree that sentience does not start at conception, ElectricUniverse? If we agree on that, then obviously it follows it starts at a point in the timeline of human biological development. So do you have reason to disagree with what science is saying is the starting point? Which is to say, do you have good reason to disagree with them positing certain neurological structures need to develop to give rise to sentience?



I have also based my argument on what science says that "human life begins."


Sorry. I missed the other part you're basing it on. So it's science and what else?


That's all that matters to me, when "human life begins."


Me too! We agree again!! So I made it clear what I mean by 'when human life begins'. I'm still unclear on what you mean by that..

As I said earlier, cells are alive. If that's all you mean then of course I agree life begins at conception.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The starting point of human life IS NOT sentience. The starting point of human life is conception. When a person falls into deep coma, do they stop being a human being?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Okay, good. We are actually getting somewhere.

You don't think human life starts at the point of sentience and I do. You think it starts at the point of conception and I do not.

I have given much elaboration on my moral position and what science is saying in respect to my position.

You're still not really conveying yours. Why do you think the starting point of human life begins at conception and not where I think it starts?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


While I am a neuroscience student, I don't claim to be anything close to an authority.

OK, now that I have calmed down a bit from the idiocy and shameful statements I keep encountering in these threads, perhaps I did overreact. I'll try this again, since your statement would indicate a scientific instead of a purely emotional approach.

You say you base your position on sentience. So do I. But what exactly is sentience? My dog can recognize myself and my wife, our kids, our friends. He can respond to simple commands, knows his name, reacts to vocal inflections, and even knows what a gun is (he's scared silly of them, so much I have to hide it when I am checking on him at night). While that is not of the intellectual caliber of a human (I won't go off with the lack of intelligence shown by most humans), it does indicate that he knows enough to function as a higher-order being.

So is my dog sentient? Or is he simply displaying complex Pavlovian behavior? I say yes, he is sentient. Whether or not he is self-aware is another question, for I have no way to actually determine if anyone other than myself is self-aware. Ergo, sentience does not include self-awareness. If it does, it becomes a mere opinion that cannot be backed up by empirical data.

I define sentience as the ability to feel and respond to pain and changes in the immediate environment. An unborn child exhibits those traits at a very early age, well into the first trimester. An ultrasound will show that the child will reposition itself for apparent comfort when the woman is in a position which places pressure on it. Ultrasounds also have shown an unborn child reacting to inserted foreign objects in an abortion attempt. If injured, it will react with primitive facial expressions and will attempt to move its limbs in what appears to be a defensive maneuver.

I call that sentience.

I also look at the issue of viability. Again, a definition is needed; I do not speak of a child's ability to survive outside the womb as viability. I speak of a child's ability, barring extreme conditions, to develop into a being which is capable of basic survival skills as it ages. An unborn child of only a couple of months age exhibits both sentience and viability according to those definitions.

You speak of research that states the existence of brain waves is not an indication of sentience. Perhaps, but it is an indication of viability. Those brain waves indicate that a brain is forming normally and at some point will be capable of performing calculus equations, learning skills, imagination, forethought, and making future plans. Since there is evidence the child responds to its environment and pain, albeit in a primitive manner, there is a reasonable expectation that abortion attempts will cause pain to another human being.

Legally, Roe vs. Wade does not state what conditions an abortion will be allowed at what time. Instead, it attempts to define at what point states must provide a means to an abortion. That is troublesome in three ways:
  • We learn more about fetal development every day. No decision made 50 years ago can possibly be considered scientifically-based since so little was known then compared to what we know today.

  • The way Roe vs. Wade is worded, all abortions can be permitted. It does not carry any prohibition on abortions, only prohibitions on prohibiting abortions. Thus, states can indeed determine that under state law, abortions even beyond birth are acceptable. Yet, states cannot determine that a child should be protected from abortion except in late term cases. This skews the result of laws concerning abortion toward supplying abortions and is a political decision in a judicial decision that should not ever take a political stance.

  • There is no mention of abortion in the US Constitution. There are rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as the right of freedom of speech, the right to freedom of the press, the right to freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure in one's home, etc. The right to abortion, however, is based on a reference to privacy and equal treatment, and is a stretch at best. A similar law would have checks and balances built into our system of government: requiring a Presidential approval, the ability to change it legislatively, the potential for judicial review. A Constitutional right does not have those checks and balances; it can only be changed through a Constitutional Amendment. That process requires a super-majority of states. No Presidential action can challenge a Constitutional right, and neither can any legislative action repeal it. Thus, an imaginative reference has become an unchallengeable law by a Judiciary which is not empowered to make law.
That is what I base my position on. All else being equal, I would (and did for quite some time) support early-term abortion as a necessary evil, with less strict policies for rape and incest, and of course no restrictions for medical necessity. But that approach, as I stated, does not work in today's political climate. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it is possible we will enter a climate where there is more consideration for dissenting opinions; until then, I am concerned about even posting this.

Please prove to me my concerns are unfounded.

TheRedneck







 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join