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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

so call it a part of the mother's body all you like, its simply not true



So you're seriously saying that a foetus isn't part of the mother's body.


Sheesh. While I agree with a lot of the things you've said, I can't agree with that one.

Anything physical attached to a body is part of it, yes?

Everything it is, is part of the host...fact. Although a foetus may has it's own blood and DNA, where did the ingredients for that come from...thin air. The fact that it is still connected with an umbilical cord becomes irrelevant when one considers that it "is" because of it's host and the ingredients it has been given to "be".

Your comments here have been interesting but I see no point in me reading this thread any longer. I don't think "person" will be redefined and I think this topic will always be filled with dissagreement.

-------------------------------------------------------

Don't make babies if you don't want them, shouldn't have them, can't afford them, care for them and love them.

Allow those who fall pregnant from rape to have abortions without unneccessary peer-pressure.

Allow those with life already to have control over their own futures in deciding whether or not to have abortions...accidents happen!

To all anti abortionists.. get a grip and stop trying to meddle with society, humanity and the personal lives of strangers for your own satisfaction without fully accepting the needs of each individual.

Finally...it takes a lifetime to define a person, not a dictionary or a medical statement.

peace.

[edit on 29/9/2009 by nerbot]




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


Fascinating that you would refer to a human life as little more than a "accident".



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You'll have to do better than that.


An unwanted pregnancy is NOT a human life, it's an EVENT that COULD lead to life if allowed to progress.

Must try harder ... 2/10



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


Considering the source of the rating I have to admit that made me chuckle. Thank you. But seriously, you do realise how illogical your argument is right? That just because a child or fetus is unwanted that somehow magically makes it's not what it is?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

we arent talking about potential for animal live in millions of years. we are talking about human life that WILL mature in months.

BIG difference


Not really. How do you know the mother WILL live for the next 9 months ? She can die tomorrow in a car crash or whatever. Thats the whole point.

Are you saying what happens in 9 months is more important than what may happen millions of years from now ? If so, than the current state today is more important than what may happen 9 months from now isnt it ?

Today the fetus is just a few cells, just like microorganisms that evolved into human beings millions of years ago. The potential for what they MAY become if things go well is not nearly reason enough to discount the rights of a person today.

In essence by doing so, you are equating a single cell fetus to a highly complex, conscious sentient being . THAT is the real crime!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by IAF101
 


I believe the government calls it pre empty attacks in this case anti abortion rights are using the same technique but no necessary the wording
to always plan for what if not or may be.


Pre-emptive strikes are a matter between national security and in of themselves are dependent on case-to-case.

Abortion rights are a matter of individual rights based on maybe's and whatif's . It would be like arresting a person for a crime they may commit in the future! Just like forcing a woman to carry a fetus that MAY become a baby one day if she doesnt have a miscarriage or gets into an accident!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
you know a person who is injured in a fault accident can receive compensation for money potentially lost, meaning that a disabled person can fight for money he can no longer earn because of his disability.


Sure, but he/she can't make someone give their blood/bone marrow as compensation.


Originally posted by miriam0566
yes a zygote doesnt have a brain (or one that makes him sentient) but the point is that he WILL.


Legally "potential to be" states they are not there yet. Zygotes in IVF clinics will have a brain (actually most die - deliberately killed), a skin cell will have a brain (cloning technology).

But a woman still has to gestate a z/e/f in her body for nine months. Sounds like the equivalent of women being nothing more than breeding cattle once they're pregnant.


Originally posted by tripletau
the father is currently being deprived of his input/"rights" in an abortion, or conceivably could be. Is this fair?


The father isn't the one who has to gestate the z/e/f in his body for nine months then endure labor. Legally that's a big difference.


Originally posted by miriam0566
If you are using dependence as criteria, then killing infants, mentally handicapped and elderly are "fair game".


Difference is they're not dependent on someones bodily resources. Someone else can take care of a baby/elderly etc.

No one has a right to someones bodily resources be it blood, bone marrow etc. even if they will die.


Originally posted by Darth Lumina
When you get pregnant, a responsibility from both parents is required. They made the baby, now they have to care for it.


Only in pro-lifers imaginations. There is nothing in the law that says such a thing. Abortion during pregnancy, Adoption after pregnancy are all options.


Originally posted by miriam0566
which has more weight?

- right to not go through a pregnency and raise a child? or - right to live?


No one has the "right to live". . . at the expense of someone else's bodily resources.

Being forced to gestate an unwanted organism for 9 months and then endure labor against their will is definitely at "the expense of".



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by miriam0566

we arent talking about potential for animal live in millions of years. we are talking about human life that WILL mature in months.

BIG difference


Not really. How do you know the mother WILL live for the next 9 months ? She can die tomorrow in a car crash or whatever. Thats the whole point.


The pendulum swings both ways. How do you know that nine months from now the female would not have an entirely different take on abortion than she had when hormones were coursing through her veins? A comet could drop on the earth and every last human's presence could count in the survival of the species.

It is all speculative.


Are you saying what happens in 9 months is more important than what may happen millions of years from now ? If so, than the current state today is more important than what may happen 9 months from now isnt it ?


"Important" is subjective, and how time is perceived and weighted is, as well.


Today the fetus is just a few cells, just like microorganisms that evolved into human beings millions of years ago. The potential for what they MAY become if things go well is not nearly reason enough to discount the rights of a person today.


Are you an "Intelligent Design" person? This argument only works if you are-- as you are stating that there is an underlying order that will allow "things" to work out in a positive for human life kind of way.


In essence by doing so, you are equating a single cell fetus to a highly complex, conscious sentient being . THAT is the real crime!


And why should you not? Do they not have the same genetic make-up? In fact, the cells that comprise the fetus are more dynamic than that of the mother (or are we calling her a "host" now?) In terms of hard-core scientific value the mother's body is in decline, aging, and will become obsolete quicker than that of the "parasite". Her organs are unable to regenerate with the same verve as that of the fetus/parasite, her neurological system is also in decline, and her ability to think and compose is not that of a child. If we discount morality and ethics, then, yes, her body is a recepticle and the fetus of more value insofar as the "materials" alone.

Have you heard of the "Butterfly Effect"? Of course you have. Tiny changes in a system could have enormous impacts. No life, however small, is without value.

Who is to say that the mother's desires outweight the value to "the system" that may occur with a birth of a child?

To say that her rights and feelings are more important is a form of "morality" and morals change. To say that choosing a fetus over a mother is a crime is an opinion based on current value systems. If a meteor hit the planet or a Cylon race is chasing your fleet across the galaxy then the needs of the many would become the morality of the age and her rights would be less important to the masses.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
The pendulum swings both ways. How do you know that nine months from now the female would not have an entirely different take on abortion than she had when hormones were coursing through her veins? A comet could drop on the earth and every last human's presence could count in the survival of the species.

It is all speculative.

Its not speculative at all. The point is the right to choose that is being denied. If the female changes her stance on abortion in the future that is her choice and she would be free to exercise her beliefs at another opportunity. However, right now she should also be given the choice to decide if she wants to keep the fetus or not.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
"Important" is subjective, and how time is perceived and weighted is, as well.

That is merely philosophical sophistry nothing more. Time is measured is absolute terms in seconds, minutes, hours, days, months and years. There is no "subjective" evaluation of time. Reproduction is a biological process that is very "definitive" in terms of time.

What is of "Importance" at all times in this culture is the rights and liberties of individuals and society as a whole. The very idea of liberty and freedom is what is central to our society, if these ideas are "subjective" to you then you are in the wrong discussion all together.


Originally posted by A Fortiori

Today the fetus is just a few cells, just like microorganisms that evolved into human beings millions of years ago. The potential for what they MAY become if things go well is not nearly reason enough to discount the rights of a person today.

Are you an "Intelligent Design" person? This argument only works if you are-- as you are stating that there is an underlying order that will allow "things" to work out in a positive for human life kind of way.

Intelligent Design ??

Evolution is not a "design element" but a natural process. It is inevitable .

I'm questioning the logic of subverting the liberties of an individual on an hypothetical future. It is a factual argument.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

In essence by doing so, you are equating a single cell fetus to a highly complex, conscious sentient being . THAT is the real crime!


And why should you not? Do they not have the same genetic make-up?

A human being and a fruit fly share 95% of the same "genetic make-up". Does swatting one equal homicide ??

No reasonable person would equate the two. The reason being that unlike a fruit fly, a human being is a self-aware, sentient being. That distinction is monumental and changes everything as sentience is unique and special among all life.

An unconscious, unaware, collection of cells is not sentient and does not warrant awarding the same privileges of a human being.

Even among sentient beings, maturity is valued hence there are limits in place that warrant awarding special privileges to the mature like voting rights, right to operate dangerous machinery etc.

This is standard logic.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
In fact, the cells that comprise the fetus are more dynamic than that of the mother (or are we calling her a "host" now?) In terms of hard-core scientific value the mother's body is in decline, aging, and will become obsolete quicker than that of the "parasite".

Again fallacious reasoning.
Most reptiles have greater regenerative abilities than mammals, some reptiles are capable of regenerating entire limbs. That doesnt make them superior or of greater "scientific-value" because they lack one major element - self awareness!
Comparing organisms cell by cell is a foolish pursuit because a fetus's resilience is a product of its nature. Further to state that the mother's body is in decline and will become obsolete is utterly wrong because no female who's body is in decline would be capable of giving birth as incubating a fetus is a tremendous burden on the human body and anything less than a healthy body would not be able to successfully incubate the fetus to maturity. As for the term 'obsolete' that term is just utterly wrong as the present human body has yet to be replaced with something better through evolution !

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Her organs are unable to regenerate with the same verve as that of the fetus/parasite, her neurological system is also in decline, and her ability to think and compose is not that of a child.

What exactly are you talking about ?? A fully grown human being is much more resilient than a fetus to all kinds of external influence . Be it illness, physical injury or nature.
Think and compose as a child ??
A fetus cannot think period!

Do you think a child built a rocket to the moon ? Or give us the equations to General relativity ? Or paint the Mona lisa ?

Your reasoning is ridiculous.


Originally posted by A Fortiori
If we discount morality and ethics, then, yes, her body is a recepticle and the fetus of more value insofar as the "materials" alone.

Receptacle ?

The female is the incubator without which the fetus cannot mature. The fetus is an unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells that merely consumes, the female's energy, saps her blood to grow and sustain itself.
How is that of more value than a fully grown human being that has two functioning arms and can walk upright, speak, think, etc ?

Originally posted by A Fortiori
No life, however small, is without value.

Who is to say that the mother's desires outweight the value to "the system" that may occur with a birth of a child?

This is again philosophical sophistry that is not supported by any scientific facts.
All life has value but all life is not equal as I have tried to point out. An ant and an elephant are two entire different beings who's live have value yet who's lives have different value.

It is not the "mother's desire" but the rights of an individual that are being violated and arresting those rights in an attempt to advocate for a hypothetical individual is ridiculous.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
To say that her rights and feelings are more important is a form of "morality" and morals change. To say that choosing a fetus over a mother is a crime is an opinion based on current value systems. If a meteor hit the planet or a Cylon race is chasing your fleet across the galaxy then the needs of the many would become the morality of the age and her rights would be less important to the masses.

Again, this argument is total sophistry.
We can only weight the rights of an individual to the values that this society shares today. In a society that prides freedom and liberty as its core values, denies these freedoms and liberties in any situation would only be an affront the the morals of today's society in this nation.

In the People's Republic of China your idea of "morality" is dominant and there the society curbs the rights of the individual to satisfy the needs of the masses thus, trying to please the masses by persecuting the individual.

That morality has been repudiated in this country and many others as morally bankrupt, reprehensible and doomed to failur. Experience that has made us re-evaluate our morality to guarantee the rights of the individual in concert with the the rights of the masses. These societies are known as "free societies" in our time.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

ts not speculative at all. The point is the right to choose that is being denied.
Who is denying? Me?

As for others they do not appear to be denying "choice" just the timing of when the choice is made.

I made a choice to take drugs once upon a time. I knew the range of ultimate outcomes prior to "choosing" drugs. I would have been a real dog in the manger to complain about my lack of preparedness for addiction and dependency after the fact.

Not everyone that does drugs becomes dependent, but it is a possibility that I ought to have taken into consideration prior.

I had a choice. I had many choices, in fact.

I have a choice prior to sex to enforce the use of condom. In fact, in my job I advocate condoms daily for HIV and STD prevention.

However, this is all mish-mash. I am a civil libertarian and do not feel that this is a governmental decision. I just reserve the right to think they are irresponsible, and I reserve the right to say that it is "life" with value.

You have yet to hear me talk government intervention.


That is merely philosophical sophistry nothing more. Time is measured is absolute terms in seconds, minutes, hours, days, months and years. There is no "subjective" evaluation of time. Reproduction is a biological process that is very "definitive" in terms of time.
You were the one who brought up millions of years from now to another poster, not me. My point is that it is wise to consider the long term effects of personal choices and societal choices.


What is of "Importance" at all times in this culture is the rights and liberties of individuals and society as a whole. The very idea of liberty and freedom is what is central to our society, if these ideas are "subjective" to you then you are in the wrong discussion all together.


Rights and liberties change with technology. Abortion was hit or miss thousands of years ago. Was it a right then? Life support systems did not exist. Many things that we consider a right or liberty slides with the age.


Intelligent Design ??

Evolution is not a "design element" but a natural process. It is inevitable .


I've never said otherwise.


I'm questioning the logic of subverting the liberties of an individual on an hypothetical future. It is a factual argument.


So we should continue to pollute the planet because an asteroid may hit the planet in the future and kill us all? Sometimes decisions we make now have long term repercussions we are not aware of. My point is to suggest that we consider those instead of seeing things in present tense only.

More to come...



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   


And why should you not? Do they not have the same genetic make-up?

A human being and a fruit fly share 95% of the same "genetic make-up". Does swatting one equal homicide ??

No reasonable person would equate the two. The reason being that unlike a fruit fly, a human being is a self-aware, sentient being. That distinction is monumental and changes everything as sentience is unique and special among all life.

Come now, the devil is in the details. Comparing a human fetus to a fly is rather disingenuous to the argument at hand. A fly embryo will never become a human being. To state that they are both "life" may be true, and as "life" they deserve respect.

I take all life seriously. Spiders petrify me but I will go out of my way to move them out of the house rather than kill them because I feel every living thing has a purpose and as such deserves respect and a chance to fulfill it.


An unconscious, unaware, collection of cells is not sentient and does not warrant awarding the same privileges of a human being.
Privileges, no. Respect for its uniqueness, yes.


Even among sentient beings, maturity is valued hence there are limits in place that warrant awarding special privileges to the mature like voting rights, right to operate dangerous machinery etc.

This is standard logic.


No, it is a custom. Customs change. Logical would award privileges based on other factors of appropriateness. A twelve year old abreast of current affairs is a more logical choice for voting rights than a thirty year old who doesn't even know who is on the ballot.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
In fact, the cells that comprise the fetus are more dynamic than that of the mother (or are we calling her a "host" now?) In terms of hard-core scientific value the mother's body is in decline, aging, and will become obsolete quicker than that of the "parasite".

Again fallacious reasoning.

No, not fallacious in regards to the host-parasite argument.


Most reptiles have greater regenerative abilities than mammals, some reptiles are capable of regenerating entire limbs. That doesnt make them superior or of greater "scientific-value" because they lack one major element - self awareness!
And you know this how?


Will finish more later...you had such a long post!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
How many of you anti-abaortionists are in favor of slavery?

I await your answer with baited breath.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Okay, I'll have to play devil's advocate on this one, even though my views on this are admittedly more moderate.

Tell me, how is a cell that was produced by a woman's body, joined with an invading cell produced by her lover's body, and divided, constructed, and built from components of the woman's body and the food she buys and eats, sustained solely via a cord of flesh spawned by her uterus, literally created from and surviving on the mother's physical body alone, eligible for consideration as another person? And why is it that a barely conscious, subsentient life form considered far more sacred and valuable than a fully developed, mature human being? There are billions of fully grown, legally human people who are without any support, any consideration, or any love at all with nothing but their own craft keeping them alive and in good health. Are they as special as an egg? Is a homeless person worth less than a zygote? Why do we allow children to die of starvation in the richest country in the world, and in any other country for that matter, without even an awareness of that reality? How is an expanding lump of flesh worthy of protection under law, while at the same time a person accused of a crime, which he may or may not be guilty of, eligible for the death sentence under the same authority?

Keep in mind, if it's just the "egg" that's a person, then women commit manslaughter almost every month. Consider this too, if it were a chicken egg, you'd dump it in a pan and eat it, wouldn't you? Of course, it's assumed that the law implies a fertilized egg, but it's all the same. What separates a fertilized egg from an unfertilized one? The sperm cell. Is spermicide be illegal? Of course not. So what about their union makes wiping them both out a heresy?

Furthermore, what separates a human being from an inanimate object or a machine? It's level of sophistication and mode of operations, chiefly. It's capacity for abstract thought or reasoning… One could say the human body is the most advanced technological vehicle/computer known to us. What sets it apart, in a nuts-and-bolts sense, from a sufficiently advanced technology? With the exception of consciousness? Nothing. So now, we must define consciousness. In religious terms, it is what constitutes the soul. So then, when does a fetus obtain such a thing? When does that lump of flesh become a conscious being, and by extension, when does a human go from being as valuable as a fetus to being as expendable as an old car or an outdated technology? Think about it. And, of course, the question of what consciousness happens to be goes unanswered, because while I could easily define the true nature of consciousness, that enters the realm of speculative pseudoscience, which cannot be proven, nor can it be fully understood. The same could be said for our own moral instincts. Something about destroying a defenseless proto-human body disturbs us. Why? I could go on and on into more speculative pseudoscience, but I think I've made my point.



[edit on 30-9-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Syrus Magistus
 


So is your argument that we should only protect things that can speak to us? Bulldozing the rain forest is okay then, right?

The universe is hinged upon quantum



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


You mistake my rhetoric for honest opinion. On a personal level, I am inclined to agree with you.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrus Magistus
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


You mistake my rhetoric for honest opinion. On a personal level, I am inclined to agree with you.


My apologies. I have been attempting a response to another post (it's still sitting here) and toggling back and forth is confusing. Shant do that again!

I did read your post and I do agree with the idea that there is something that tells us that there is more to the story. I think, however, we have been so ingrained to believe there are actual "sides" to this debate--that there are only two "choices". I find that and the snark that goes with a perceived wrong choice to be completely demoralizing.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


I read and do agree with your post on that other thread too. Incidentally, would you believe me if I told you I was underage?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


If you'd like, I'd be more than willing to share everything I know about the big picture, what's "more to this" than we can see.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Just a random thought that this thread inspired. Anyone ever seen: Children of Men?
This is a second line. Weeee.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrus Magistus
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


I read and do agree with your post on that other thread too. Incidentally, would you believe me if I told you I was underage?


Underage for what? I'm sure I would believe you. I tend to believe people until they prove themselves liars (don't say it, Watcher), and then I don't.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join