Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

To staunch pro-lifers : Is abortion always wrong?

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
(don't weasel out of it this time!).

where have I 'weaseled out of ' anything? i triple dog dare you to find it!
I'm old and may have MISSED something you have asked or said -
but I never 'weasle' out of anything. I'm a brash-old-Irish woman.



What about the fetus when it is at a 4- cell or 8-cell stage. It has no capability to sustain itself independent of the mother.


- A person on kidney dialysis can't sustain him or herself without artificial means.

- A person with a heart stint can't sustain without the artificial help.

- People everywhere across the globe are living only because they take certain pills each day or go through certain medical procedures each day.

They are all just as incapable as the pre-born child of surviving without additional help, and yet they are all just as sentient as everyone else.





posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I thought you were ignoring that point:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry for being a bit blunt. Im a bit irritable as I had to rebutt the ad-hominems of a communist on another thread



Yes indeed certain people can only survive with the help of others. Though that help is willingly given.

A fetus must be supported for 9 months by a woman, and she must have the choice whether or not she aids the fetus' development by carrying it.

Helping an person with a disease doesn't impinge upon the life of anyone else. Making a woman carry a child she doesn't want revokes that element of freely given aid.

The massive, massive difference is that an ill person is sentient. A multiplying mass of cells is not. It doesn't hurt anyone if a fetus is terminated before a certain uncontentious point. At the 4-cell or 8-cell stage... what sentience do you see? What humanity do you see?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Of course abortion is a choice. Everything you do is a choice.

It's not a choice for the child. No one asks the child if he or she wants to be killed by his or her mother before being born.

The woman who commits abortion doesn't stop her own heart from beating. She stops someone else's heart from beating. That's homocide.



Thats just the point, oh course the child dosent get a choice, its just complex tissue growing as a parasite off the mother. It IS the mothers choice and not YOURS as to whether she wants to abort said child. Her Choice and no others. I find it hard to believe that all you people feel you have the right to judge and take choices aways from others, it's none of your business.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
How is she being selfish if she knows that she can not provide for the child?

Killing a child is selfish.
Allowing the child to live and be adopted into a loving home is not.


How is she being selfish if she knows that the child will suffer pain it's whole life?

Very few abortions are for medical reasons and even then, it is NOT the womans right to decide if the child should live or die. It's Gods' right alone.


So I suppose you got have gods digets? You can call him up and say hey god should I abort this child or not? Leave religion out of it. Right or wrong its a personal choice that another should not take away because it stomps on their personal beliefs.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by juveous
 


So the sin is in the choice?

What about if the choice is between saving the mother's life or saving the fetus' live? Why does the mother's life become more important at that point?


Because shes a supposed contributing member of society. Because she was here first? Your going to kill a women to save an unborn child? How is that not wrong?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aleksander
as a parasite off the mother.

Those who call unborn children 'parasites' always set off my alarm. It's such an odd thing to say. The hate spewed against helpless preborn children is beyond reason.


Her Choice and no others.

So if I decide to stop your heart from beating then it's my choice and my right. Same logic. Both end a human life.


you have the right to judge

No where have I judged someone saying they will go to hell if they commit abortion. That's not my place. That's God's place.


Originally posted by Aleksander
Leave religion out of it. Right or wrong its a personal choice that another should not take away because it stomps on their personal beliefs.

The only religion I bring to the table is that it is not our right to take away someone else's life.

By your logic we should all be allowed to steal and commit murder. If all that matters is personal choice then no consequences should be dealt for anything. Abortion painfully kills another human being - painfully stops THEIR HEART from beating. Since you think that's okay, then I can go out and stop anyones heart from beating. It shouldn't matter.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
A fetus must be supported for 9 months by a woman, and she must have the choice whether or not she aids the fetus' development by carrying it.

The choice was made at the time of procreation. For those that conceived but no choice was made to have sexual relations (rape) then the child should not be punished for the actions of the biological father.


Helping an person with a disease doesn't impinge upon the life of anyone else.

Sure it does. Anytime anyone helps anyone else they have to 'do something'.


Making a woman carry a child she doesn't want revokes that element of freely given aid.

Free choice was used when the woman said 'yes' to the procreative act of sexual relations. 'I changed my mind' is not an excuse to kill someone else.


The massive, massive difference is that an ill person is sentient.

Do you KNOW that the preborn person - preheartbeat - is sentient or not. Do you really KNOW?

Remember - most women don't even know that they are pregnant until the child's heart is beating anyways. The 4-8 cell example you give is WAAAAAAAAY too early for a woman to even know she's pregnant let alone for her to schedule and commit abortion.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ok I see two distinctions:

a. That a woman must live with the consequences of her actions.

b. That the fetus should not be exterminated under any circumstances.


OK bearing in mind that I'm testing your system of values here (so please dont think Im just being difficult for the sake of it!
), what of the following scenario:

A woman is raped (ergo no choice involved). The pregnancy is detected at the 4-cell or 8-cell stage. Clearly this is clinically unlikely, but lets just assume that it is.

Then would it be ok to abort that 8-cell fetus? After all, it has no sentience... it literally is just a collection of 8 cells at that point (I've seen it myself under a microscope). There is no difference between that collection of cells and any other in the body. It doesn't have any physiological difference.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Her Choice and no others.

So if I decide to stop your heart from beating then it's my choice and my right. Same logic. Both end a human life.

No I am not an unborn child and your right to stop my heart would most likely put you in jail, if I were an unborn child in YOur womb then it would be your choice. Not your choice if I were an unborn child in anothers womb.



Originally posted by Aleksander
Leave religion out of it. Right or wrong its a personal choice that another should not take away because it stomps on their personal beliefs.

The only religion I bring to the table is that it is not our right to take away someone else's life.

By your logic we should all be allowed to steal and commit murder. If all I that matters is personal choice then no consequences should be dealt for anything. Abortion painfully kills another human being - painfully stops THEIR HEART from beating. Since you think that's okay, then I can go out and stop anyones heart from beating. It shouldn't matter.



I don't see how you got that out of what I said above. I don't understand why you or most other people like to twist the topic to achieve your opinion. Your right it's not our right to take the life of another, nor is it our right to make that choice for anyone else as you and your group seem to want to do. Unborn whether right or wrong is soley up to the mother unless you for some reason think god is going to come down and say no you cant abort it, I mean thats what I get out of your argument right? So the only other person that can abort the child would be the mother. It's her choice and if she thinks it's a sin and does it anyway, well that would be on her conscience wouldn't it? How do you figure you have any right what so ever to tell another what choices to make?

I personally would hope my wife never goes the abortion route but I have discussed this with her and it for some reason she were to get pregnet and we have no way to support the child or it makes her un healthy in any way I leave the choice to her. I would much rather have my wife with me then a new born child. You might say thats selfish, but to me its selfish of anyone to let my wife die to bear a child or go homeless due to a child we had no right having cause we had no money to support it. Fact is people have sex, get over it and accidents happen. How are you to tell anyone what choices to make with their life?

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Aleksander]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleksander
 


Hey mate, we aren't debating the legality or coercion elements regarding abortion. That is to say, we aren't debating Roe vs Wade. I'm not interested in RvW... I will always be pro RvW even if I am personally anti-abortion.

The point of this debate is to identify the moral issues surrounding abortion and debate them.

I asked "Is abortion always wrong". Not "Should abortion be illegal". At the end of the day, that is a different debate in itself.

Here we are just trying to delve into some of the issues that a person might want to consider for themselves, and for them to take a personal stance on.

I was seeking illumination from the "other side". Let's not let this thread fizzle into another Roe vs Wade debate. The ethical and moral debate is so much more interesting!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


to give an opinion no as we are a collection of cells.(a few more than 8 but still!) where does this end ? i think thats what she's geting at. who do we get rid of next because they arent conveniant? do we kill a whole nation for who its government is or have done? ignorant people would'nt see that its not the subjects fault, they like us are subjected to it! it is not the unborne childs fault it is subject also

mr 50



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Aleksander
 


Hey mate, we aren't debating the legality or coercion elements regarding abortion. That is to say, we aren't debating Roe vs Wade. I'm not interested in RvW... I will always be pro RvW even if I am personally anti-abortion.

The point of this debate is to identify the moral issues surrounding abortion and debate them.

I asked "Is abortion always wrong". Not "Should abortion be illegal". At the end of the day, that is a different debate in itself.

Here we are just trying to delve into some of the issues that a person might want to consider for themselves, and for them to take a personal stance on.

I was seeking illumination from the "other side". Let's not let this thread fizzle into another Roe vs Wade debate. The ethical and moral debate is so much more interesting!


Sorry about derailing the thread.
I would say at the end of the day if the women decided that she would endure to much financial hardship with nofamily to support her then I would say its ok.

I would also say at the end of the day if the unborn child is going to cause a health risk to the mother then yes its ok. Above all else right or wrong it is the womens choice to do what she wants with her body.

I would hope she talked with people and made an informed decision but still her choice. It would be in rather bad taste if said women used it as birth control or made the decision on vanity that would in my opinion be considered wrong bt not my choice.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleksander
 


Its quite alright
RvW is an interesting debate too.

I think I agree with most of your positions.

The only thing stopping me from (personally) being pro-life is that I don't believe aborting a fetus pre-18/22 weeks is immoral. I was just trying to see if anyone can convince me otherwise.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
(so please dont think Im just being difficult for the sake of it!
),

Of course not .. no one here does that. Right?



Then would it be ok to abort that 8-cell fetus?

If someone actually knew they were pregnant before a heartbeat?
I still have to say no. I understand what you are saying, 44soulslayer, but I still have to say it's wrong.


Originally posted by Aleksander
nor is it our right to make that choice for anyone else as you and your group seem to want to do.

We make that choice every day in the USA. We have decided to live by laws which say 'no murder'. We take away the 'right' of people to kill each other all the time.


It's her choice and if she thinks it's a sin and does it anyway, well that would be on her conscience wouldn't it?

Like I said - murder isn't a choice.


Originally posted by Aleksander
it is the womens choice to do what she wants with her body.

That's what it boilis down to - and abortion isn't something a woman does to her own body. It's something she does to someone else's. She doesnt' stop her own heart from beating. She stops someone else's.

If she wants to kill HERSELF - that's her choice.
But she's killing someone else.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I don't believe aborting a fetus pre-18/22 weeks is immoral. I was just trying to see if anyone can convince me otherwise.


AHA! A challenge!
How about this . If I were to tell you that a preborn child's nervous system is reponsive at 10 weeks - would that make you reconsider your position? Or that at 12 weeks the preborn baby can suck it's fingers?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Granted, Im posing a very, very tough question.

But why is it wrong?

I agree with you that killing something that is sentient is wrong.

But when it comes down to the cellular level, there is no question of moral hazard.

I guess this ties into the cloning question and debate also.

Perhaps the question to ask would be:

Why do you think life begins at conception?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aleksander
nor is it our right to make that choice for anyone else as you and your group seem to want to do.

We make that choice every day in the USA. We have decided to live by laws which say 'no murder'. We take away the 'right' of people to kill each other all the time.

True but as far as I know it's your opinion that it's Murder not mine. You can argue or spin it however you want it's still your opinion and that does not give you the right to make the choice for another.


It's her choice and if she thinks it's a sin and does it anyway, well that would be on her conscience wouldn't it?

Like I said - murder isn't a choice.

Like I said it's your opinion that it's murder not mine so Yes it is her choice.


Originally posted by Aleksander
it is the womens choice to do what she wants with her body.


That's what it boilis down to - and abortion isn't something a woman does to her own body. It's something she does to someone else's. She doesnt' stop her own heart from beating. She stops someone else's.


no it boils down to, it's being incubated in the mother womb which is her organ and hers choice to make. Just because you think its murder does not mean anything as again it is your opinion. She is aborting developing tissue in her Organ.

If she wants to kill HERSELF - that's her choice.
But she's killing someone else.


That last argument is just completely stupid. Your going to sit there and tell me that if a loved one was in danger of losing her life due to an unborn fetus you would tell her that her life is less important then the child so die and let the child live. Complete and utter BS!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I don't believe aborting a fetus pre-18/22 weeks is immoral. I was just trying to see if anyone can convince me otherwise.


AHA! A challenge!
How about this . If I were to tell you that a preborn child's nervous system is reponsive at 10 weeks - would that make you reconsider your position? Or that at 12 weeks the preborn baby can suck it's fingers?


Certainly, that is interesting information. I would need to study much further into the issue to decide on a line for myself on this issue. At the moment, I think the line is 18/22 weeks since beyond that point, the fetus can live outside the mother's body. For me, at that point abortion becomes pointless and illogical (unless the fetus is severely deformed/ has an incurable disease).



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
But why is it wrong?

I say it's wrong at that level because ... and this is hard to explain ... I am anticipating science a bit.

Long ago people thought that life started at birth.

Then we became aware that the baby could survive outside the womb as early as 8 months pregnant. So we backed up the 'life' date.

Then we became aware that the baby could survive outside the womb as early as 6 1/2 months - with lots of medical care - So we backed up the 'life' date again.

Then we developed ultrasounds which show the baby playing inside the womb and sleeping and waking as early as 3 or 4 months along. So we backed up the 'life' date again.

Doctors discoverd that preborn children feel pain and so give them pain killers for in-the-womb surgeries. And then there is that video called 'the silent scream'. These solidified the moved up 'life' date some more.

I'm anticipating science. As time goes on we learn that the life in the womb is aware earlier and earlier in the process. I have no doubt that sometime we will discover that the life force is always there. Yes, that's my personal belief. Because it's based upon the science history in this subject.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aleksander
it's your opinion that it's Murder not mine.

Stopping someone else's heart from beating is murder. There's no room for 'opinion' on that.


that does not give you the right to make the choice for another.

Murder of an innocent person isn't a choice.


That last argument is just completely stupid.

No. It's valid. If she wants to kill herself by stopping her own heart beat - through suicide - that's her body and her choice. But to say that Abortion is something that a woman does to her own body is silly. She isn't killing herself in abortion, she's killling someone else - stopping someone else's heart from beating.

She's not aborting herself. She's aborting someone else.
She's not stopping her own heart from beating - she's stopping someone else's.


Your going to sit there and tell me that if a loved one was in danger of losing her life due to an unborn fetus you would tell her that her life is less important then the child so die and let the child live.

No. I never said that. I have no idea why you bring that into the conversation. I didn't even come close to saying that.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join