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.
Originally posted by miriam0566
Originally posted by Kryties
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).
your whole argument is based on thinking. therefore by your logic, you dont count people in coma's as "people". and apparentlymentally disabled as less "people" than you.
There HAS to be a definition for when a fetus becomes a "person".
Originally posted by Darth Lumina
Abortion is an excuse to run from your responsibility. Pretty cruel one too.
Originally posted by newworld
there should be a balance between both sides of the argument.
Originally posted by newworld
What about a woman that has been pregnant for 8 months and two weeks. Is the fully formed baby in her womb a fetus still?
If a person is someone that has been born, in other words outside the womb, then under that definition a baby that is going to be born in two days is still not a "person".
Originally posted by newworld
therefore if the definition of person means someone that has been born ONLY, then the definition is clearly faulty. Which is why a definition of when a fetus should be considered a person is critical before debating whether or not abortion should be allowed.
Originally posted by newworld
it is possible to abort an 8 month old baby in the womb in some states. However, at 8 months old the baby is almost fully formed, it has pain receptors, and a clear cerebral system. so wouldn't an abortion at this point of the pregnancy be considered murder?
Originally posted by newworld
the definition of human should not begin at the moment of birth, for a baby in a womb, at some point, stops being a bundle of cells and is clearly a baby waiting to exit from it's mother.
Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by dizzylizzy
You make some intereting points. If I might just pick up on one. You mention that women will abort due to abnormality ect, is this not fitting as within nature itself these abnormalities would be unlikely to survive on their own.The mother would simply abandon such offspring, or eat it. I see little difference. I'm not going to start arguing about quality of life and all that jazz, I just wanted to point that out. It is self correcting [?].
Originally posted by Pauligirl
I’m just not in favor of sacrificing women’s rights in favor of fetal rights.
Originally posted by nerbot
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.
Originally posted by igor_ats
Sentience (and hence cognitive ability) requires a brain. A zygote in an IVF clinic doesn't have a brain, it not only lacks cognitive ability, it doesn't have equipment to possess cognitive ability in the first place thus it's not a someone. This same applies to Hela cultures and cells capable of being cloned.
A brainless organism like a zygote, embryo or early fetus shouldn't be granted the same status as someone born. Failed IVF procedures in clinics resulting in zygotes being destroyed are not treated as deaths of people (nor should they be).
Originally posted by miriam0566
1 - no. the DNA is unique from the moment of conception. an individual
This is one of those instances where I really REALLY wish people would mind their own damn business. Abortion is nobody's business but those that helped conceive. That's it. PERIOD
An unborn foetus is a parasite, it should have no more rights that the common cold or any other virus/disease/parasite.
If we carry on like this, it will be against the law to cure any illness that might be considered "a life".
There is little difference between a feotus and a tapeworm, but I would not want the law telling me I had to live with a tapeworm.
Originally posted by Witness2008
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.
Originally posted by GovtFlu
Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by dizzylizzy
You make some intereting points. If I might just pick up on one. You mention that women will abort due to abnormality ect, is this not fitting as within nature itself these abnormalities would be unlikely to survive on their own.The mother would simply abandon such offspring, or eat it. I see little difference. I'm not going to start arguing about quality of life and all that jazz, I just wanted to point that out. It is self correcting [?].
Gotta love the simplicity of nature... We once had stray cat take residence in our garage & pump out a litter of 5, 1 had massively deformed mini front legs, but otherwise alive.. It couldn't kneed, or feed.. mom kitty chewed its head off and started to eat it.
Other cats didn't picket her nest chanting "kitten killer" and no authority from the kitty govt stopped by to judge her decision.