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.

 

Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

page: 20
40
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
No, I don't.

BUT, I would condone some form of medical sterilization until such time as an individual or couple can meet guidelines that would establish a 'right to reproduce'.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - Yes!

This I support.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I've had my tubes tied, and I'm here to tell ya, it is very invasive surgery. I was out of work for 4 weeks.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Somehumanbeing
 



I have already pointed out to you the flaw in your logic, you have tried to defend it by trying to find a flaw in my logic which i have promptly defended.


Well let's see it then.



Let's summarise

You believe life begins in fertilisation, when cell-division begins.
You believe cell-division alone is enough proof for the beginning of a human being's life.
You believe that brain activity nor heart-beat are needed for the beginning of a human being's life


Correct so far.


I have stated your first belief is a general opinion, an arbitrary scientific "fact" that can go as far prior to fertilisation to the development of the sperm cell and the egg.


Incorrect. Sperm and egg do not have a complete human DNA. You keep posting this as a "fact"...which it is not. There is no complete DNA in a sperm or an egg...if left alone to natural processes...these do not develop into anything.

On the other hand, an embryo contains a complete unique human DNA which left to natural process will develop into a fully formed human being.

Please dispute any of the above.


I have stated that cell-division alone is not enough for proof of human-life, I have exemplified this with the scenario of the brainless body being kept alive through machines. The artificiality of the scenario is irrelevant; the resultant ethical, moral, and philosophical implications are what matters.


I am not speaking in ethical or philosphical...I'm trying to stick the the basic scientific and biological process of life.

But since you insist on continuing to use this example...then it seems that it is a disagreement on the "end point" of the process of life and not the "starting point". If we want to start another discussion on if it is ethical to remove life support from someone who is "brain dead"...then that is one thing...but this discussion is about the beginning of life and abortion.


I have stated that a brain-activity is the prime definition of a living human being. You bring the example of medical practitioners that declare a person dead when the heart stops beating; that is mere convenience, when the heart stops beating, the brain is not dead (although lack of oxygen will inevitably lead to it's dead after a small amount of time)


It is the current scientific and medically accepted definition of "death". You can all it a mere convenience if you want...but they 100% DO NOT use the absence of brain activity to declare death.

This is contrary to your definition of what constitutes life. A human can sit on life support for days and days with no brain activity and they are not declare dead...this is an accepted medical FACT. How do you defend this? Are you going to shift your definition to include brain death AND heart death???

As with my definition...I don't have to shift at all. Once the heart stops beating, whether or not the brain is already dead or not, the cells will stop recieving oxygen and will cease to divide...and hence death will occur.

They don't mark the death at the heart beat stopping...because people can fully recover from a heart beat that stops for many minutes (in rare cases hours).

They don't mark the death at the time the brain "dies"...because the heart can still be beating by use of life support.

They don't monitor cell division...but that is the only time one actually "dies"....when that process stops.

It seems if you want to stay with this argument...you are going to have to include oxygen deliver into your definition of "life".


When a definition of when a person suffered a biological death is needed, coroners and doctors turn to when the brain ceased functioning at all. When a person's heart stops beating, there are opportunities for revival using CPR, when a persons brain stops function completely, it is irreversible.


This is false...as I said above...death is not declared in a "brain dead" person until the heart stops beating. There seems to be some combination of the two that they have to use...but in reality...it is at the point where cells can no longer divide. They can continue to divide when the brain is dead...so they don't declare them dead soley when the brain stops functioning...they can continue to divide after a heart is stopped and revived...so they don't delcare them dead soley on a heart stopping.

My position is staying the same..."death" occurs when cells stop dividing. Seems like you are going to have to modify your definition a little though.

Re-read my previous section.


When the embryos brain begins demonstrate presence of brain-waves, it can begin to be considered a living human being, prior to which, it is merely a bundle of cells, akin to the brainless human body.


That "bundle of cells" you speak of...if left to natural process will develop into a human being. It has unique DNA and it's cells are dividing.

Tell me..when is a new plant "alive"??? Do you not think plants are "alive"???

If not...you go against all current scientific thinking.

We are talking about the process of "LIFE"...not the begining of sentience. There is a HUGE difference in the two.


Feel free to answer ANY of the questions I have presented to you in all of my replies. I have answered everything you have asked...haven't left one question unanswered. I think it is your turn for some answers.
edit on 23-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


No, I don't.

BUT, I would condone some form of medical sterilization until such time as an individual or couple can meet guidelines that would establish a 'right to reproduce'.



And exactly who is going to make this decision for people to be sterilized? And you feel that sterilization is reversible? Did you know that Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, made sterilization her prime method of birth control and eugenics program, which is what Hitler admired and patterned his eugenics program after. Sanger's clinic was called American Birth Control League, till Hitler imitated American Progressive eugenics, and then it was changed to Planned Parenthood.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Didn't take long to bring up Hitler. Good for you.

Someday, my friend, someday this will be a reality.

Let me ask you this, have you ever seen a couple or individual with children and, based on your observations of said person or persons, thought to yourself "Why did he/she/they have children or be allowed to have children?" If you or anyone has ever thought this, then you are part of society that has already made the decision on 'right to reproduce'.

I do not believe that we have an automatic "right" to reproduce. We may have been given the "ability" to procreate, but that does not mean that we should be given the "right" to by default.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I should like to see this much attention paid to the already born.
Abortion shouldn't be used as a means as birth control yet I think there are cases where it may be necessary. I leave that to the Docter and the individual.
Like it or not and like it or not, the choice lay with the individual, it is their womb and they are the one who is going to have to make the sacrifices and suffer the consequences.
I'd like to add that most people who do have abortions don't go out and party and go yay. For many it is a heart wrenching decision that they do not make lightly. That's the hard reality of life. I think it is erroneous to put this into a black and white realm.
As for the Bible, any one who has read the Bible front to back will note that it is not always consistent and will note some passages which arn't always kind to women nor infants during war yet will also note some passages are kind.
I suppose a majour part of the debate lay in what constitutes life and murder and ones rights. On that, I am not qualified to addresse yet I wonder how relevant that is to a certain degree at certain points...for if we take it to extremes, one could say menstration is murder because of that poor unfertilized egg or that a miscarriage is murder or that the spilling of one's seed without the intent of impregnation is murder. Perhapes intercourse without the intent to conceive is a haneous act for it means depriving that awaiting soul its entry, oh my. When do rational concerns become irrational and emotional based? :-)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Didn't take long to bring up Hitler. Good for you.

Someday, my friend, someday this will be a reality.



Don't ya love it?

Then they throw around communism - - - like they have any clue what it really means.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The problem is its being completley abused. I know a girl that is 27 now and she has had 3 abortions, she has never been raped she's just a slut. The fact remains no matter how you dress it, it's murder. The only argument you all have is a woman should be able to do what she wants to her body, then i ask you why cant we do drugs, why is it illegal to commit suicide, there are many laws that say we cant do what we want to our bodies. You want to know why its legal, because TPTB think of it as part of population control, and all of you pro choice people are falling for it. You've been desensatized and you dont even know it. Wake up.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


First of all, this isn't to say that I do not agree with you; but there are some issues with your post. You never gave a reason as to why abortion is why, other than it is "murder".

So, I assume your argument goes along like this:

1) It is wrong to kill innocent human beings
2) A fetus is an innocent human beings
3) It is wrong to kill a fetus

You owe us something here, another premise of some sort. You seem to be equivocating, as Warren stated years ago.

So the argument goes something like this:
1) It is wrong to kill innocent, morally, significant human beings. (I.E Those who are conscious of moral choice)
2) A fetus is an innocent human being (I.E holds the DNA makeup, specific to a human being. Fetuses are not conscious, nor capable of moral choice.)

If you mean the premises to hold the same definition, then you are begging the question. "It is wrong to kill innocent human being, where innocent human beings includes fetuses."



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Didn't take long to bring up Hitler. Good for you.

Someday, my friend, someday this will be a reality.



Don't ya love it?

Then they throw around communism - - - like they have any clue what it really means.


Excuse me...a pro-choicer brought up Hitler first...and one brought up Pol Pot.

Funny huh???



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zoloft
The problem is its being completley abused. I know a girl that is 27 now and she has had 3 abortions, she has never been raped she's just a slut.


So what!

Its none of your business.

If it were me - - I'd have government walk-in abortion clinics available in every city.

Free - of course.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zoloft
The problem is its being completley abused. I know a girl that is 27 now and she has had 3 abortions, she has never been raped she's just a slut.


So what!

Its none of your business.

If it were me - - I'd have government walk-in abortion clinics available in every city.

Free - of course.



Good thing it isn't up to you...you'd probably allow women to kill babies up to 1 year old.

And thankfully federal dollars will never go towards abortion.

And hopefully with a few more modifications to the health care reforms...we will eventually be able to opt out of abortion coverage on insurance.
edit on 23-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
When a mother gets an abortion, technically they kill the baby but since the baby is not even born yet one can argue the baby does not feel/understand anything. Genocide is killing adults which do feel/understand themselves and their enviroment.

Huge difference in my opinion! I have no idea why some people are fanatically against abortion. Either they get carried away with religion or they are too emotional. Life is not a rose garden and nobody ever claimed it was. Its about making smart decisions for yourself and others!

I don't intend in getting involved in a flame war so I will respectfully walk out. I simply felt like giving my opinion for whatever it was worth.


Being an adult is a stipulation for calling it genocide in your opinion? So a child of oh say 5 or 6 being killed ruthlessly doesn't fit your scenario of what constitutes genocide? Very telling. Perhaps you meant that adult is interchangeable with being outside the womb. But who calls a two week old baby adult? That baby is also still dependent on those around him to care for him. And then of course there are those babies who somehow survived a botched abortion, but are left in a trash bin to die. The current WH occupant is so cold-hearted that he voted against a bill which would supply care for it till it died. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.
For the record, here is a medical definition of the term genocide: Medical Dictionary

geno·cide definition
Pronunciation: /ˈjen-ə-ˌsīd/
Function: n
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group compare HOMICIDE
geno·cid·al Pronunciation: /ˌjen-ə-ˈsīd- ə l/
Function: adj
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source

But perhaps genocide is just not accurate enough. How about infanticide:
Medical Dictionary


in·fan·ti·cide definition
Pronunciation: /in-ˈfant-ə-ˌsīd/
Function: n
1 : the killing of an infant
2 : one who kills an infant
in·fan·ti·ci·dal Pronunciation: /-ˌfant-ə-ˈsīd- ə l/
Function: adj
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source
I heartily recommend changing this definition to include unborn and newly aborted.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   


Tell me..when is a new plant "alive"??? Do you not think plants are "alive"???


Yes.




Feel free to answer ANY of the questions I have presented to you in all of my replies. I have answered everything you have asked...haven't left one question unanswered. I think it is your turn for some answers.


I have answered all your questions for your replies, I do not understand why you cannot comprehend that. Do you wish for me to do it in line-by-line format like this? I do not have time to do it in such exclusive detail unfortunately.



We are talking about the process of "LIFE"...not the begining of sentience. There is a HUGE difference in the two.


Herein lies the resulting problem.

You believe a life is a life regardless, yes?
I believe a life is a life when there is a form of sentience - even if it is primitive.

You have shown me scientific evidence promoting the existence of a living being without sentience, of which I have shown you a scenario and scientific evidence for what happens upon brain death (loss of sentience).

For me to convince you otherwise to my point of view would drift from a scientific stand-point to that of the nature of a religious nature.

As previously stated this is purely an argument of life vs sentience.

So, in comprehension, now that we have this clear, you seem to believe that a pre-10 week "embryo" has as much value as a human living sentient being. Is there anything stopping you from declaring a brainless body of as much importance as a body with a brain and sentience?

You say that sperm cells and the egg are incomparable due to DNA differences (they are not combined etc) but then, how is a recently fertilised egg comparable to a fully sentient being, regardless of DNA similarity, when there is no hint of sentience?

You say that I am trying to focus on the end point of life while you are focusing on the beginning. That is incorrect, I am using the definition of a braindead person kept alive through artificial means (an artificial "womb" you could say in a vague manner) as a latter example of an embryonic state. Prior to the development of sentience, the embryo is brain-dead, yet its development and functions are still there due to the aid of the womb, yet again, it is still brain-dead.

And since it is brain-dead, upon abortion you are not eliminating a sentient-life, you are eliminating a POSSIBLE sentient-life, which is a big difference, and here comes my comparison again from the elimination of non-sentient embryos and the elimination of a sperm cell or egg.

What seems to be more relevant of discussion here, is WHEN human sentience begins; which of I have read, begins around the 10 week marker. Prior to human sentience, you are not murdering a human life, you are destroying an collection of cells without sentience, just as you leave sperm cells to die upon masturbation and the proceeding ejaculation.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



I have enjoyed this somewhat stimulating debate, just try and stay stress free. I will return at a later time (perhaps in a few hours) to retort as I have spent a significant amount of time (for me) on this forum. I look forward to your response.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by zoloft
 


Question: Based on what you know about this person, if you could go back in time and prevent this individual from becoming pregnant would you?

Question: If you could have had some method of ensuring that this individual was in a position to have a child and raise a child, would you have been for that?

Question: Would this individual be more of, less of, or the same slut in your eyes is she didn't get pregnant three times and abort those children?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fox Molder
The point is that it is her choice and her choice only we are not to judge that choice and if you are a God fearing Christian then you will know that on God will judge her for her choices.....


And I never said there was "heaps" of them... I admitted that I stopped reading when I came across "a" post that said something along those lines.

Anyway, you are just detracting from the main point of the post I made - which was that there can be severe consequences for both mother and child when a baby conceived through rape grows up and finds out the truth.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zoloft
The problem is its being completley abused. I know a girl that is 27 now and she has had 3 abortions, she has never been raped she's just a slut.


So what!

Its none of your business.

If it were me - - I'd have government walk-in abortion clinics available in every city.

Free - of course.



Good thing it isn't up to you...you'd probably allow women to kill babies up to 1 year old.

And thankfully federal dollars will never go towards abortion.

And hopefully with a few more modifications to the health care reforms...we will eventually be able to opt out of abortion coverage on insurance.


Guess What! It is not up to you.

I will continue to support and fight for Free Government abortions. No Limit on any person.

If you are not ready to be a parent - - then don't be.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cybermerc
reply to post by geekyone
 


Words are cheap. Have you even looked into the cost of adopting a child? Plus the cost of raising one. Now multiply that by 5, since there are a lot of unwanted children waiting to be adopted.

What about the rest of you anti-abortionist?
edit on 23-2-2011 by Cybermerc because: (no reason given)


Please tell me why Americans have so much trouble adopting children here? Why do they frequently have to go to foreign countries to adopt. I personally know a woman who went through Chilean friends to adopt children from Chile. 3 of them. On a Sears repair workman salary.
edit on 23-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
The only two occurrences I can see are when the mother is practically guaranteed to die due to birth of the child, and when a girl can prove she was raped and becomes pregnant. Even though if I was a girl in that situation I would put the baby up for adoption, saving a gift from god and allowing a family who can't conceive on their own the gift of a child.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Cybermerc
reply to post by geekyone
 


Words are cheap. Have you even looked into the cost of adopting a child? Plus the cost of raising one. Now multiply that by 5, since there are a lot of unwanted children waiting to be adopted.

What about the rest of you anti-abortionist?
edit on 23-2-2011 by Cybermerc because: (no reason given)


Please tell me why Americans have so much trouble adopting children here? Why do they frequently have to go to foreign countries to adopt. I personally know a woman who went through Chilean friends to adopt children from Chile. 3 of them. On a Sears repair workman salary


Because the adoption process is insane - - ridiculous - - and expensive.

Why should providing a home for a child be so difficult - - and so expensive.

The average time to adopt is something like 10 years.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join