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.

 

Aborted Humans Destination

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 



You did misinterpret, as well as miss the point of the entire post. Your assumption is wrong,the basis of my post was not solely on the comparison of the relationship of the fetus to the mother.


You are saying many different things here. You're contradicting yourself. It's arguments like yours why i left organized religiong, seriously. Look again, all you're doing is defining what a fetus and a host is and saying that's why it's okay. It's not an argument, it's more like notes in science class.




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 


I do not beleive that you are a sexist, just that you are fallible and cannot see when you are acting like someone who is sexist. You have totally ignored what I"VE been saying because this little strawman thing has got you so riled up that you can't see what is right there. Hosts do not have rights under any constitution that i'm aware of.



I don't agree I'm acting like one. But I can turn the point in your post on you, and ask:

Are you saying that when a human is a host to a parasitic organism, the human host suddenly has no rights? You must be confused what host means. I can't keep explaining all of this to you. Please look it up.

I feel the thread is getting derailed from your comments. U2U me if you want to continue.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 


I feel you are judging by appearances, to be honest....

A human being has a right to kill anything that it is hosting and does not want as long as it is not or will not turn into a human being. We can talk about the million ways to define a human being in our seperate states, but that makes us no less human. a thief does not have the right to steal. A host does not have a right to kill it's unborn child at whatever stage of development there is.

and frankly, i can taste your condescension like it came in with the wind.
Deny Arrogance.



[edit on 14-5-2009 by heyo]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Twista
Ok Dr Conspire, lets say you were rapped and held at gun point by the most vile human being in the world. Would you give birth to the rapist's daughter?

The child is innocent and therefore does not deserve to be painfully put to death because of the sin of the biological father. I am a woman and I say YES ... I would definately give birth to MY INNOCENT DAUGHTER.



I don't believe you. Do you really believe, after becoming a victim of rape, that you would drop everything going on in your life to carry the rapist's baby to full term?

You would put up with the morning sickness and nausea you feel when you are pregnant, and all your friends would see your big stomach and would gossip about it, and you would have to experience the pain of giving birth, and then after all that you would bring up a rapist's child even though you're a single and have to raise the child yourself? Be honest, you would get that abortion in a heartbeat, and even after this explanation you still think you wouldn't get an abortion that's great, but I know at that point anyone else would have an abortion, and if they were illegal they would find a way. In any case, how are you so sure that you would give birth to a DAUGHTER? Maybe you would give birth to a SON who HAS HIS FATHER'S EYES.

These emotional arguments get us nowhere, so lets use logic instead. If you make abortion illegal, the people who get abortions will either be the very wealthy who can afford to travel out of state/country and get an abortion, or they will be people getting makeshift abortions. The point is, they are still getting abortions, except now we have laws that favor the rich over the poor and the taxpayers have to pay for the emergency room visits for the botched abortions/overdoses/whatever the person tries to do.

Ultimately you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. People are going to get abortions no matter what, so as long as that is happening they should have access to safe and legal abortions. Regardless, if you personally know that you aren't ever going to get an abortion then the fact that abortions are legal shouldn't bother you, and if it still does maybe you should shift your focus a little bit to some of the already-born people that are being murdered all over the globe daily in acts of violence and war. You know, the ones that have personalities and can talk and may even have kids of their own. Those kinds.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


If the soul exists, they are spared this life or just put into another body..

Hey that doesn't sound like a worst case scenario, it sounds like a best case. Everyone wins.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 



My point is the same as it was on the first page. Until we know, we are cowards for taking the easy route.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Miraj
 



My point is the same as it was on the first page. Until we know, we are cowards for taking the easy route.



What, pray tell, is the 'easy route'?
I had to make a very difficult decision and it wasn't made lightly.
Unless you have been there and been through it, you are in no position to speak.
I would love to be able to circumvent thet erms and conditions in this reply, but I won't. I will retain my dignity and composure and call you on your lack of understanding, compassion and empathy for an issue that is not black and white, but various shades of grey.



[edit on 15-5-2009 by aorAki]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Conspire
 


Without reference to spirituality, God or religion what is destroyed in abortion is a human life. Strictly and biologically it is a human life distinct in quality and nature from a bundle of cells on an arm or individual sperm, ova.

It is human because it has the genetic coding of the species (for example when someone announces they are pregnant we don't worry that they're going to give birth to an elephant.)

It has life because it exhibits: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction.

Now it is possible to go on and speak of "souls", "personhood", "consciousness" etc. but none of that is required to show the fetus is a "human life" it is the pro-choice lobby who must instead introduce such numinous qualities to justify the termination of these human lives.

Those who proclaim a pro-choice attitude on this issue whilst speaking of animal rights could make a fortune in the fur trade. Wait until the seal is about to give birth, wait till the cub has crowned then crush its skull and take it from the womb to harvest the fur - its not a baby seal yet after all. Pro-choice vegetarians can enjoy veal from aborted bovine fetuses. Imagine the economic possibilities ~ after all that's what its all about.

Those adovcating abortion in the case of rape, I look forward to your lobbying your government for the death penalty in all cases of rape. After all why should the innocent consequence be the only human life eradicated? I know, people would worry that sometimes the innocent would be executed but hey they already are, you've demonstrated no concern for the innocent so far.

To the OP, believing your question was more metaphysical than material, I am assured that she who was given as mother to us all by her Son gathers the souls of these martyrs of modernism to her immaculate and maternal heart and presents them to her Son as his brothers and sisters.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 

What do you mean "[s]adly"?
Would you rather these fetuses just be thrown out, instead of possibly saving MORE lives than just itself if it lived?
If the fetus is already dead, why not use it to benefit humans?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari
reply to post by Dr Conspire
 


Without reference to spirituality, God or religion what is destroyed in abortion is a human life. Strictly and biologically it is a human life distinct in quality and nature from a bundle of cells on an arm or individual sperm, ova.

It is human because it has the genetic coding of the species (for example when someone announces they are pregnant we don't worry that they're going to give birth to an elephant.)

It has life because it exhibits: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction.

Now it is possible to go on and speak of "souls", "personhood", "consciousness" etc. but none of that is required to show the fetus is a "human life" it is the pro-choice lobby who must instead introduce such numinous qualities to justify the termination of these human lives.

Those who proclaim a pro-choice attitude on this issue whilst speaking of animal rights could make a fortune in the fur trade. Wait until the seal is about to give birth, wait till the cub has crowned then crush its skull and take it from the womb to harvest the fur - its not a baby seal yet after all. Pro-choice vegetarians can enjoy veal from aborted bovine fetuses. Imagine the economic possibilities ~ after all that's what its all about.

Those adovcating abortion in the case of rape, I look forward to your lobbying your government for the death penalty in all cases of rape. After all why should the innocent consequence be the only human life eradicated? I know, people would worry that sometimes the innocent would be executed but hey they already are, you've demonstrated no concern for the innocent so far.

To the OP, believing your question was more metaphysical than material, I am assured that she who was given as mother to us all by her Son gathers the souls of these martyrs of modernism to her immaculate and maternal heart and presents them to her Son as his brothers and sisters.


Lets hope , but as you know and we all know, we should banish present suffering not just pray for future compensation.

To be ripped from a pact in the spirit world and abandoned what is that?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Conspire
Since Easy legal Abortions were introduced , it is estimated that there have been approx 250 million potential human lives extinguished in the western world over not so many years, in fact the numbers are embarrassing if that word is appropriate.

Just where do these miniature humans ripped from their hosts wombs go?


Maybe now the Depopulation and Forced Sterilization crowd can go preach their gospel to other countries and quit forcing their ideology down our throats.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari
It has life because it exhibits: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction.

So does any cell in the human body. What's your point? Cancer cells are human life (not trying to compare fetuses to cancer, though).


Now it is possible to go on and speak of "souls", "personhood", "consciousness" etc. but none of that is required to show the fetus is a "human life" it is the pro-choice lobby who must instead introduce such numinous qualities to justify the termination of these human lives.

Again, any part of the human body is human life. Only a human who has gone through the whole reproductive process can think. Fetuses and the cells you just (possibly) scratched off of you can't think, don't have emotion, have little to no senses, etc.
Again, I say, having an abortion is like a late form of contraceptive (aka birth CONTROL).


Those who proclaim a pro-choice attitude on this issue whilst speaking of animal rights could make a fortune in the fur trade. Wait until the seal is about to give birth, wait till the cub has crowned then crush its skull and take it from the womb to harvest the fur - its not a baby seal yet after all.

This part fails because you are removing the choice from the animal. The animal has every right to get it done itself (if it could choose and find a way to.)


Imagine the economic possibilities ~ after all that's what its all about.

What? Are you saying the reason people "advocate" abortion is because they think it will benefit the economy? That's messed up.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyindevil
Fetuses have no consciousness, and if they do, they don't think; they only sense.

And how would you know that?

Unborn children suck their thumbs in the womb. They open and close their eyes. They sleep. They wake up. They play with their toes. They play with the cord. It's all well documented.


Fetuses don't feel pain.

That's dead wrong.
Pain of the unborn

more pain of the unborn
many articles

Fact is .. when surgeons perform surgery on unborn children in the womb, they use pain killing drugs for the preborn child. If those children didn't feel pain, there would be no need to give them painkillers.


BOTTOM LINE - when someone commits abortion they murder another human being. That preborn human being has a heart beat and the person doing the killing stops that other persons heart from beating.

When one person stops another persons heart from beating ... it's murder.

And yes .. that other person feels pain.




[edit on 5/15/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by flyindevil
Fetuses have no consciousness, and if they do, they don't think; they only sense.

And how would you know that?

Unborn children suck their thumbs in the womb. They open and close their eyes. They sleep. They wake up. They play with their toes. They play with the cord. It's all well documented.


Fetuses don't feel pain.

That's dead wrong.
Pain of the unborn

more pain of the unborn
many articles

Fact is .. when surgeons perform surgery on unborn children in the womb, they use pain killing drugs for the preborn child. If those children didn't feel pain, there would be no need to give them painkillers.


BOTTOM LINE - when someone commits abortion they murder another human being. That preborn human being has a heart beat and the person doing the killing stops that other persons heart from beating.

When one person stops another persons heart from beating ... it's murder.

And yes .. that other person feels pain.




[edit on 5/15/2009 by FlyersFan]


Yes but they make money and the abortion industry make a lot of money.


The buy offs and payroll demons ensure that Abortion is a respected part of the new civilised society.

Rip rip blood pips turn it into ?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by flyindevil
 


Do as your avatar suggests and deny ignorance, find the common ground which in this case is a definition of what organic life is as individuated in individual members of a species.

I understand pro-choice advocates reject belief etc. when it comes to this issue, except their own when they foist numinous notions unto what is simple biological unquestionable fact. Find the common ground - deny ignorance.

Abortion advocates often and persistently cite economics as a justification for the "choice": the particular economic situation of those who find themselves pregnant, general poverty etc. It's why there are disproportionate numbers of various races and economic status who have abortions. In China/India etc. girls are aborted more often than males for economic reasons. In the west "career prospects" are an often cited reason. The population control mythology is based on a fear of economic hardship, etc. etc. If you think modern economics and materialism have nothing to do with the abortion phenomenon then that is trully messed up.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari
reply to post by flyindevil
 


Do as your avatar suggests and deny ignorance, find the common ground which in this case is a definition of what organic life is as individuated in individual members of a species.
It's simple really. The skin cells on your arm are from a human, but are not a fully formed human. A fetus is a combination of 2 gamete cells, which multiply. From 2 humans, but not human yet.



I understand pro-choice advocates reject belief etc. when it comes to this issue, except their own when they foist numinous notions unto what is simple biological unquestionable fact. Find the common ground - deny ignorance.

Thanks for overgeneralizing. You're completely wrong. SOME pro-choice advocates are non-religious, but most pro-choice are, in-fact, religious. Also, you don't know how the non-religious work. We don't reject "belief", we reject religions and the notion of the supernatural. Belief is much different than religious faith. You can have a belief about anything, it's the same as an opinion, so of course people will defend their beliefs and think that theirs are right. While you're looking up the definitions of "atheism" and "belief", please look up "unquestionable fact". It's not what you think it means.


Abortion advocates often and persistently cite economics as a justification for the "choice": the particular economic situation of those who find themselves pregnant, general poverty etc. It's why there are disproportionate numbers of various races and economic status who have abortions.


It's true. People who can't afford a child will likely have an abortion because it allows the already born and matured parents to survive in the world. It's not as cruel and heartless as you think it sounds. Would you rather both the parents and the born child go into poverty and find themselves unable to care for the child and possibly abandon it? However, you made it sound like the whole economy is somehow getting pumped full of money from a medical procedure.


In China/India etc. girls are aborted more often than males for economic reasons. In the west "career prospects" are an often cited reason. The population control mythology is based on a fear of economic hardship, etc. etc. If you think modern economics and materialism have nothing to do with the abortion phenomenon then that is trully messed up.


Also true about girls in china. China has a gender imbalance from the sexist views of males as being more worthwhile. That's a different issue from economics. Or are you alluding to how China has a huge population and is running out of room for it's population, like the whole planet is?
Is it wrong for the parents to want to be able to make money, and continue with their own lives before they are ready to have a baby? Are you suggesting forcing the baby onto them? If so, that is no different than forced population control, it's forcing women to be brood mares. It's personal economics, not the economy that in part shows the necessity of legal safe abortions.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyindevil
reply to post by flyindevil
 

What do you mean "[s]adly"?
Would you rather these fetuses just be thrown out, instead of possibly saving MORE lives than just itself if it lived?
If the fetus is already dead, why not use it to benefit humans?


No I dont want them thrown in the trash. I think they should have a funeral.

The "Sad" part is that they have fully formed fingers and toes. In Seattle they will abort a baby when the mother is 5 months pregnant. These often come out alive, then killed.

Mothers have been horrified to hear them cry.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
In the near future most will go to create new stem cell lines however, since President Obama made that legal just a few months ago, proper procedures and ethical guidelines still have to be written and approved first.

In the mean time, they are disposed of by incineration, which is a loss for humanity because if President Bush had not outlawed the practice, we could have had thousands more stem-cell lines by now as well. This in turn could have advanced research into treatments of many diseases from minor annoyances to major degenerative brain conditions.

As for the ethical ramifications, to be completely frank, it's not really a big problem in my mind. I'm an atheist, with a utilitarian philosophic outlook so I don't really believe they have souls to "go" anywhere, and I am one of those people that fully believe that abortion should be safe, legal, accessible and rare. I'm also very much pro-adoption, and believe that people should be educated on safe-sex practices above all else. As for my moral view on when a person is a person, well birth is a pretty hard defining barrier for me, otherwise it's just a potential-human.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 



In your bold statement there, you were forced to take the humanity away from the pregnant woman by calling her simply "a host". Ya know, men used to think like that back in the day............


That was not my intention, and you completely missed the point.

Furthermore, by definition, she is a host to the growing fetus. That doesn't make her any less human. When a tick bites you, you are the host. Are you not human anymore? Your strawman is not a valid argument, if that's what your reply was trying to be.


Wow that was probably the worst rationality I've seen yet. Comparing a tick to a human life? So in a sense you're saying that since it's ok to kill off the tick, ie a living organism, it should be ok to kill the human fetus as well? Since you know, we human's are "host" in your terms.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cds4344

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 



In your bold statement there, you were forced to take the humanity away from the pregnant woman by calling her simply "a host". Ya know, men used to think like that back in the day............


That was not my intention, and you completely missed the point.

Furthermore, by definition, she is a host to the growing fetus. That doesn't make her any less human. When a tick bites you, you are the host. Are you not human anymore? Your strawman is not a valid argument, if that's what your reply was trying to be.


Wow that was probably the worst rationality I've seen yet. Comparing a tick to a human life? So in a sense you're saying that since it's ok to kill off the tick, ie a living organism, it should be ok to kill the human fetus as well? Since you know, we human's are "host" in your terms.


Since you missed the discussion I had on this yesterday, I'll explain it to you, too.

It's not "killing" off an organism anymore than scratching your arm getting a haircut. Are you saying if a tick bites you, you're just going to let it stay there, sucking your blood and giving you diseases?

It should not be "okay" in the sense you're looking for. It should be a last resort should birth control fail. It should still be an available option since you're not murdering any human being. You're aborting a clump of human cells. However, once in the third trimester, the fetus is too unmistakeably formed into human it would be too late to do an abortion. A third trimester fetus is much different than a zygote or developing fetus.

Lastly, you're the one calling all humans hosts. If you want to look at it this way, we are host to the bacteria in our intestines that help us digest food. Please reread my posts.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join