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.

 

A new push to define 'person,' and to outlaw abortion in the process

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld

then how do you plan to enforce it?


I don't.


i have suggested, what I believe is the best way to compromise both sides of the debate, by allowing abortion to be legal as long as it is done before the fetus gains pain receptors.


So you are trying to define "person" are you?



It would be much better if no laws were necessary to enforce this, but it should be clear that as long as there are no laws that set some sort of limit to when an abortion becomes illegal then we will continue to see this form of debate.


And as things stand there are pregnant women and possible fathers who have choices they can make for themselves along with help from proffessionals (non-legal)....that's a good thing. Take those choices away and you can have one unhappy father, one unhappy mother and probably an unhappy and even disfunctional kid.

What point is there bringing a child into a world when that world would not be a good one?

Is THAT not the CRUELEST thing?




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
Until that "entity" becomes unattached it is part of the host and not two seperate "people".


so never mind that it has its own DNA, doesnt DNA determine individuality?

also nevermind that if the baby is left alone it WILL eventually grow into a human adult



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Killing a developing person is just that, killing. We have redefined it so we can be morally absolved of all responsibility.

What is the difference between a person that is 30 and 31?

The same difference between someone who is 6 months post partum and 6 months pre partum.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by newworld

then how do you plan to enforce it?


I don't.


i have suggested, what I believe is the best way to compromise both sides of the debate, by allowing abortion to be legal as long as it is done before the fetus gains pain receptors.


So you are trying to define "person" are you?



It would be much better if no laws were necessary to enforce this, but it should be clear that as long as there are no laws that set some sort of limit to when an abortion becomes illegal then we will continue to see this form of debate.


And as things stand there are pregnant women and possible fathers who have choices they can make for themselves along with help from proffessionals (non-legal)....that's a good thing. Take those choices away and you can have one unhappy father, one unhappy mother and probably an unhappy and even disfunctional kid.

What point is there bringing a child into a world when that world would not be a good one?

Is THAT not the CRUELEST thing?


There HAS to be a definition for when a fetus becomes a "person". It obviously is not at the moment of conception, for at that stage it is not even human yet but only a mass of cells that has potential for being human.

You wouldn't clearly kill a new-born baby as soon as it comes out of the womb, I am sure. However, the "fetus" was clearly a baby one week before it was born. what needs to be defined is when a fetus stops being a mass of cells with potential to be a human and when it should be considered a baby.

Is a fetus considered a baby three months into the pregnancy? is it five months? what about eight? there clearly needs to be a definition for when a fetus can be considered human, we can't deny that.

It is true that future parents should consult professionals before making an abortion, but at some point during the pregnancy committing the act of abortion should be labeled murder, but for this to happen a definition of "person" is essential.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Women who are faced with the gut wrenching, life altering decision as to whether they should, or could take on the mind boggling responsibility that is birthed with that child should in my opinion be left in the trusted hands of family and doctors, leaving total strangers that attempt to butt in out in the cold where they belong.

Again I ask....How many of the moral crusaders on this thread have ever looked into the eyes of an unwanted or abandoned child and offered any assistance to that child?

I suggest turning words into deeds.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
There HAS to be a definition for when a fetus becomes a "person". It obviously is not at the moment of conception, for at that stage it is not even human yet but only a mass of cells that has potential for being human.


no its not obvious. and the reason its not obvious is because some refuse to acknowledge that "mass of cells" could be human.

think about it... if they determine that a "human" is a fetus that is more than 100 (random number) days old, then does that mean that a fetus that is 99 is not human?

its like saying a pile of a 1000 beans is a pile, but 999 isnt.

its absurd.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Is a chicken egg a chicken? is a seed a tree? When is a seed considered a tree or an egg considered a chicken?

It is the same thing when it comes to humans. a fetus has POTENTIAL to be a human, but it still is not a human.

which is why there needs to be a definition of "person" before we decide at what point an abortion should be allowed or not. I believe coming out with a definition of when a fetus is in fact a human is not absurd; it's actually necessary in my opinion if an agreement is to be made.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
Is a chicken egg a chicken? is a seed a tree? When is a seed considered a tree or an egg considered a chicken?


why not? why does there have to be a difference?

the genetic material is there, the growing process is there and it all starts at conception.

from conception on, life grows, why are the early forms discounted as unimportant?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008

Again I ask....How many of the moral crusaders on this thread have ever looked into the eyes of an unwanted or abandoned child and offered any assistance to that child?

I suggest turning words into deeds.






Have you?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Imagine you are sitting in a lab with a young child. The lab contains a small fridge containing one hundred frozen embryos. Suddenly, there is a fire in the lab and you can either grab the child and run out or grab the small fridge containing the embryos and run out. What would you do? Your answer should answer the question whether you consider a child's life equal to the life of an embryo

From an article by Ayesha Khanna



I’m just not in favor of sacrificing women’s rights in favor of fetal rights.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth Lumina
 


I was so hoping someone would ask. Yes I have. I was a child advocate and foster parent for seven years in Seattle.

The more tempid weather environments attract many unwanted and discarded children, so I saw a lot of them. Then there are those who are too young to flee their conditions but the brutal neglect and abuse they wear sadly attract little attention and they go on to bring more unwanted children into the world.

Before anyone takes the moral high ground with anyone's life they need to first hold a three month old broken body in their arms.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I don't buy into the whole 'abortion is murder' bollocks. Up to a certain point the bloody thing is a zygote or an egg with no thought processes of it's own (I am waiting to hear from someone claiming they do have them - that will be a laugh a minute).

I can totally understand not aborting after a certain age, like when they form a brain and arms and legs, but until then the debate is ridiculous.

Personally I think that if a woman wants to abort a baby then she should be allowed that choice without being taunted, bullied or spoken to in any way that is derogatory just because her beliefs are different to yours or someone elses.


I was reading intently up to the point where you said that not only should she have the choice but that no one is allowed to have an opinion about that choice and express it openly. This is a potential moral-ethical issue. In societies those issues are and must be debated as they effect the tone and timbre of the future.

When we make choices in this world we cannot expect that everyone is going to agree with them and be just peachy. If we cannot withstand public opinion about the choices we make then perhaps we are not so firm in those choices.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


The problem is not simply the opinion of others.... it is that we have actions taken to strip away that right of choice. Putting a woman's life and the quality of her life up for ideological grabs is an idiotic endeavor.

Most women and many men in the world are beginning to lean in the direction of quality over quantity.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
There HAS to be a definition for when a fetus becomes a "person".


We cannot know everything. You may as well ask when does a seed become a plant or at exactly what point does the earths atmosphere stop and space begin.

Maybe fuzzy logic (used in computing) is the easiest way to accept these kind of things.

If you wish to put your finger on an exact point of reference and say "this is it!", then you must accept also that it is only your single point of view. Without more information it's impossible at the present time to be more specific, and seeing as there will always be dissagreement about this subject we will never find an answer.

Therefore, from my point of view I think it's important to leave the BIG decisions like abortion to the individuals involved...man, woman, family and doctor, NOT the pen pushers, religious folk or selfrightious crusaders.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 




I can totally understand not aborting after a certain age, like when they form a brain and arms and legs, but until then the debate is ridiculous.


According to this site, www.religioustolerance.org...
there is a heartbeat between 18-21 days and by 5 weeks arms legs and hands, at 2 months the brain begins to form.....If the title of this site causes concern, here is another which says more or less the same thing but in more detail www.visembryo.com...

The problem with the whole abortion debate is in trying to rationalize when it is ok and when it is wrong. I think there are only two honest approaches; Declare that a life is not important until it can survive/eat/exist without help- that would extend up into the toddler years, OR that life is always sacred and destroying something that is developing on its own (under the directions of its own genetic replication sequence) is murder.




[edit on 28-9-2009 by tripletau]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by nerbot
Until that "entity" becomes unattached it is part of the host and not two seperate "people".


so never mind that it has its own DNA, doesnt DNA determine individuality?

also nevermind that if the baby is left alone it WILL eventually grow into a human adult


Is that DNA also not part of it's mother until seperated? And that baby will NOT grow into anything if it is left alone.

That young thing cannot survive with out the care, nutrition and attention of at least one individual......dependance, and unwanted dependance can be a huge burden. (take my sister's boyfriend for example
). It is that unwanted dependance that causes some women to have abortions knowing that they cannot or do not want to provide it.

Why make individuals personally suffer for years for the sake of an unconnected person's peace of mind.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
Women who are faced with the gut wrenching, life altering decision as to whether they should, or could take on the mind boggling responsibility that is birthed with that child should in my opinion be left in the trusted hands of family and doctors, leaving total strangers that attempt to butt in out in the cold where they belong.

Again I ask....How many of the moral crusaders on this thread have ever looked into the eyes of an unwanted or abandoned child and offered any assistance to that child?


Abortion is a complex issue and these old tunes do not help.

You do not know that if the woman decided to have the baby that it would in fact be unwanted or even abandoned by the time it is born. Women have hormonal surges through pregnancy that may or may not affect their decision-making process. It is unclear if their fears would still be translated when she finally has the child.

Conversely, a planned pregnancy does not necessarily equate to a wanted child when all is said and done. I've seen a lot of people "plan" to have a child that then goes into daycare weeks after it is born. Some of my best friends told me later that they were completely unprepared for how much time children required. Romantic trips to Italy became a family vacation at Disney World. The kids, though the parents have $$, were seen as a lifestyle burden.

You just never know the decision-making that goes into the process. I always hear about how it is this big decision and well-thought out, but I think that's a myth we tell ourselves to feel better.. Yes, sometimes humans take a long time and put a lot of thought into decisions, but a lot of time we go on emotion.

I know of at least two people that went to have abortions and changed their mind at the very last minute. They were so sure that they wanted to have one that they got naked, got in the dressing gown, and got on the table. One of them told me that she was iffy and got a lot of pressure from her friends not to have it because her relationship was terrible and her boyfriend was a -BEEP-.

How do you know that everyone who has an abortion thought it all the way through? How do you know that they would have been miserable had they gone on to have the child? Nine months is a long time and it is quite possible that it would be enough time to be happier about the decision.

Like I have said on other threads. It is a complex enough subject without bringing in logical fallacies that generalize. It can be discussed in terms of civil liberties, or federal versus states rights, or even the historical context of pater familia-- I mean, it doesn't necessitate that we bring in these same old arguments/stories.


I suggest turning words into deeds.



How do you know that people do not? Jim Caviezel is very big in the Pro-Life community and he's adopted two children who had life-threatening diseases and/or crippling conditions. The Pro-Life community is as diverse as the Pro-Choice community.

Again, can't this be debated without resorting to the same old same old? Not picking on you, I just see the same thread over and over again.

On another thread like this I asked about the future of designer babies; if people would still be Pro-Choice if it meant that someday there would be no gay children, no transgender children, no unattractive children, no un-athletic children, no un-intelligent children, no handicapped children--no child that was considered less than desirable by the shallow standards of our population, would people still be Pro-Choice?

Most hemmed and hawed, but Benevolent Heretic said that, yes, even if all the gays were wiped from the face of the earth she would still be Pro-Choice. I had much respect for her because she thought about all the possible ramifications of abortion as a form of birth control and still felt that a woman had a right to choose what type of child she had or if she had that child.

Most people don't think that far and it is a shame because science is way ahead of us. These questions will be on our plate all too soon and the decisions and paths we take now will lead us towards a direction we might not have predicted.

Most people only think as far as this idea that it is somehow an agonizing decision for women. I would say, no, not always. Maybe now it is still a little agonizing when there is still a stigma attached to the procedure, but as in vitro becomes more common this will go away relatively quickly. People are already used to the idea of de-selecting or terminating embryos rather than end up an Octomom.

What about when a couple has a choice of specifically removing the girl babies? Is that okay? Or what if they can do a test to see if the child will someday have cancer? Do you save it the suffering by terminating it now? What about the Hawk? Would you have aborted him to save him the pain and suffering he would have faced? Or what if that idiot at Westboro Baptist? I could completely see him arguing to kill gay babies in the womb...

This issue will only be more complex and if we talk about what it could mean, what our future could look like without resorting to "stories" and "generalizations" we can at least walk into this future prepared for the consequences of our actions.

That is what adults are supposed to do, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


Is interesting that the real term of a fetus should be a parasite as a fetus in early times of gestation can not survive without the womb of the host.

What many are forgeting while into their own personal choices and opinions and don't understand is that regulating something that is a parasite early in gestation and giving a right is the same as taking away the rights of a women's to have any decisions about their womb.

Meaning the law will have to regulate a women reproductive organs and womb like it was a part of the body that is not theirs.

Who knows perhaps the real sick agenda behind regulating women wombs is to actually create, a way to profit for those interested.

Why not mandatory licenses or permits by the government for women to have the right to carry a womb, or better yet take away their womb as a method of punishment for not following the government laws.

See how stupid that sounds right? that is why reproductive rights will never be an issue in court on regulating body parts no matter what stupid attempts many try to do to get there, it always end in nothing.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 




Is interesting that the real term of a fetus should be a parasite as a fetus in early times of gestation can not survive without the womb of the host.

What many are forgeting while into their own personal choices and opinions and don't understand is that regulating something that is a parasite early in gestation and giving a right is the same as taking away the rights of a women's to have any decisions about their womb.


I have a good friend who had an abortion and referred to the fetus as a parasite also. Personally I think this is a pretty warped view. The body is genetically designed to reproduce through the sexual act.

A parasite is a FOREIGN object which lives off of a host "1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." from dictionary.reference.com...

As I stated in my earlier post, if while the child is in the womb,you are willing to put the mothers preference above the child's, then it is just as plausible to give the mother of an infant the right to terminate the child's life, since according to your view, it is still a "parasite" and can't exist without an adult to feed it. Does this seem reasonable?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
We're all here to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain of all beings with nervous systems (that feel pleasure and pain). Beings without nervous systems aren't in the game. So I'm a vegetarian who supports animal rights.

But it is also true that beings have a right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their personal dwelling spaces from intruders, predators, parasites, and pests. If a fetus has no nervous system yet, abortion is acceptable (though to be avoided if possible). If a fetus was not a product of rape, at some level its existence should have been foreseen as a possibility and so the fetus is not truly an intruder.

If one opens one's door, it should be foreseen that pests such as bugs may enter the home, and if one chooses to deal with possibly-contaminated food/soil/water/whatever, it should be foreseen that parasites might enter one's body.

I have exterminated insects from my house and have not always been able to stop myself from swatting mosquitos in their homes outdoors away from my property. (In both cases I felt sorry for the bugs.)

My logic is far from crystal-clear, but this philosophy relates to how I think about the abortion debate. So am I pro-choice or pro-life? I still can't figure it out.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join