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: 28
40
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I truly hope you didn't intend for that to come out how it did. To say you will prevent someone of their legal right by force? Especially after they were raped? See how well that goes with someone who has only been home from overseas for seven months. You don't know who people are, you don't know what they have had to experience...you don't know how hard it can be to have to endure being raped and find out your pregnant.

Ya go use force to prevent it from happening....especially toward someone who's only been out of combat for seven months




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


Dont tell that to me, I am more or less pro-abortion. I am just trying to point out how pro-lifers think, and which arguments are effective against their thinking, and which arguments are not gonna help.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia

I could not see where it was TOP of the list ! it certianly figured, why wouldn't it?


It was one of the two top reasons given... your the one who said it was hardly ever a factor...


Originally posted by eletheia
I would rather draw from my own experiences and know of several women who have been

through the procedure and finance never came into any of their decessions.


In other words you'd rather dismiss scientific evidence for anecdotal evidence that you're more comfortable with for some reason...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 




That is all fine...except he was talking about "emotion"...not sure how you measure emotion. I agree with sentience and brain waves being developed at that time...it just simply doesn't matter to me...because I don't use sentience to define life.


Emotion is a subset of sentience.
What is then the criterion to differentiate between protected vs. unprotected life? Potential to be sentient in the future? I assume human genetic code alone cannot be it, since that would imply you coud kill for example sentient aliens as intelligent as humans, or sentient simulated human neural network in a computer (transhuman), since they dont have human genetic code.

The potential argument has one big flaw - It esentially says we cannot act the way which prevents the potential appearance of intelligent sentient being in the future, which would otherwise appear. Unless we introduce another criterion, that means even things like using anticonception or even refusing sex is forbidden, since these acts prevent the future appearance of sentient protected being which would otherwise appeared. Just as system called "embryo" has a potential to become one in the future (but obviously is not at a time), in the same way a system "man and woman" has a potential to create another being. Should we outlaw anticonception of refusing sex then?




is a plant alive?

Is a plant sentient?


Yes and no. Therefore it can be killed.



That just isn't true. It is true they call that "brain dead"...but not medically dead. To declare someone medically dead, they have to wait until the heart and sometimes lungs stop functioning. Even then I think they have to wait a certain amount of time (2 minutes maybe) before they actually declare the person dead.


Irreversible lack of brain activity IS the medical definition of death, thats the philosophy in all those defititions. All other criteria (heartbeat, respiration) are used in practice only because if these are present, the lack may not be irreversible. Thats why in practical definitions used in a hospital they appear. But in some cases, when its clear the brain will not restart itself, even when these are present, the person is proclaimed dead (longterm braindead vegetative pacients can be turned off life support without it being murder, even if their bodies would be able to live like that till natural death, organ donors you mention..).
Not sure about the brainstem tough, we were told on pathology course that longterm lack of higher brain activity with necrosis (so its sure the brainwaves wont appear again) is enough to proclaim person medically dead even when lower vegetative brain is working. But even if we use more strict brainstem definition, embryos (which do not have even brainstem working) will still not be living persons, just fetuses would be.




Is killing a fish murder? A deer? Are these animals not conscious???


Yes, we live in a barbaric society that kills sentient beings, yet some people do not mind it. But they fight against killing life that is as unsentient as a bacterial colony, just because it has some stings of DNA and some chemicals ordered slightly differently than these bacterial colonies.
If it would be politically real (for example we would discover how to make cheap artificial meat, without killing conscious animals), I would gladly support outlawing killing of higher animals.



I have yet to hear one good reason as to why the biological definition of life is not accurate.


Because I subscribe to obejctive morality theory as discovered by Sam Harris. See here. The criterion to judge and compare moral laws or systems is whether they overall increase or decrease suffering (or wellbeing) of conscious entities. By this definition early abortion is moral, since it does not increase suffering of any conscious entity, but in average decrease suffering (increase wellbeing) of the woman who choses to have it done (otherwise she wouldnt want it). And in case of for example embryonic cell therapy, the benefit is far greater.



Consciousness is a human concept...as is religion...is religion a scientific concept???


Are hands, legs, lungs, neural system, schizophrenia, immune system human concepts? No, they are discovered natural things, emerging from biological (and ultimately physical) laws. Just as consciousness (as a result of natural neural system) arised in this universe by nature. So its a scientific concept of natural sciences. Just because people in the past believed in many superstitions such as that consciousness in supernatural or lacked knowledge to attribute it to purely natural and material neural system, so they made up all kinds of unscientific crazy theories about what it is, does not make it so.



Psychology and sociology are not hard sciences...they are "social" sciences.


Yes, the difference between hard and soft sciences is purely arbitrary. And there is nothing in principle preventing you to describe consciousness in purely hard sciences (as a result of biology, information theory and physics - neural networks) other than our practical inability to do so at this time. Just half a century into the future, the computers would probably gain so much power to be able to simulate entire human brain in silico (or in grapheno
), thus consciousness would become subject of hard sciences even in practice.



Neurology is a medical practice.


There is theoretical and practical neurology.



Now Biology...that IS A PURE SCIENCE. Why not use it to define life??? Please someone answer this for me.


I am using it. I just dont think all life should be worth of protection, or we would have to protect bacteria, stop abortions and embryonal therapy research, which would increase overall suffering of conscious creatures, and therefore would be immoral compared to status quo.
Only sentient life should be protected, and ALL sentient life. Just like in Star Trek



edit on 24/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Look, if government pandered to your views and banned abortion, do you honestly think that that would be the end of it? No, we'd go back to times of backstreet abortions.... .


No one can prevent suicide, as well. That does not justify suicide as a legal option. So suicide must continue as a "backstreet" possibility for those wishing to kill themselves.

Compassion is the better answer to the legal murder of babies.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
I'm not pro, or anti abortion. I'm pro choice. Pro choice with everything.

I hate how the government thinks they can tell me what i can and can't do in my life. Even what i can and can't put in my body (eg cannabis, which i love).

When it comes to abortion, the way i see it is this:
1) it's their body, let them do whatever they want with it
2) if we allow the government to determine if we can get abortions or not, then they would make rules for everything in the name of protecting us. This gets abused, as we all know.

There only needs to be ONE law: Do not hurt anyone.

Even if abortion is illegal, people will get it done anyway. Same with drug prohibition. Just because most drugs are illegal, doesn't mean people aren't gonna use em. Drug prohibition causes more problems then the drugs themselves.

So, if abortion is illegal, people would get it done anyway if they feel like it. And not only that, it would most likely be performed by un-qualified people in less than satisfactory conditions.

As i said, there only needs to be one law: Do not hurt anyone.

Once drugs become legal again (esspecially psychedelics) we will learn to love nature and each other again. The 60s are a great example. With just TWO drugs, cannabis and '___', humans became human again. Nixon realised that drugs were making people smart so that's why the War On Drugs Started. I might add that alcohol and tobacco are, ironically, amongst the most harmful drugs.

So yer, pro choice. Let people do what makes them happy so long as they don't hurt anyone.

And something else i just realised! If a woman wants an abortion, means she doesn't want a baby. So why force her to have a baby? All it means is the baby won't be sufficiently looked-after



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Law is the ultimate force, that is what I meant by it.


Thank goodness they outlawed suicide and put a stop to that then. The moral argument wins yet again!



Anyway. All you "pro life" MEN in this thread that feel your opinion about it should extend beyond your skull. Why don't you seem as fervently against rape of all kinds? I am curious why that is not a higher priority. Maybe when all men agree to put an end to rape, us women will come back to the table.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Im not interested in changing anyones opinion. The law isn't going to tell me what I can do or can't do with my decisions pertaining to my health and body. Personally I think abortion is ok in some instances. I think it is wrong to use because you lacked to take BC while sexually active with your boyfriend. Am I going to tell someone who has done that that they are wrong? Hell no its none of mine nor anyone elses business. It doesn't change how I feel about them. Hey some people here have had an abortion. Some of us here are felons, some of us here have killed many people in other countries, some of us here are homosexual.....does that make it right for you to judge what others do to with their own life? That fetus doesn't have a brain so it cannot make that decision for you. Look at your own skeletons before you try and condem someone for something you don't believe in that doesn't affect you period.
edit on 24-2-2011 by LoverBoy because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by LoverBoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Your damn right.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by PsychedelicSam
 





There only needs to be ONE law: Do not hurt anyone.


That is all well, but one could argue that abortion hurts the baby, so it indeed violates this ONE law of yours. What then?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by PsychedelicSam
 





There only needs to be ONE law: Do not hurt anyone.


That is all well, but one could argue that abortion hurts the baby, so it indeed violates this ONE law of yours. What then?

Very true.

Better than a baby being born to a mother who doesn't want it, i recon. It's #ed being neglected, trust me



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 





Thank goodness they outlawed suicide and put a stop to that then. The moral argument wins yet again!


Who is talking about putting a stop to abortion? That is not the only purpose of law. According to your logic, murder should be legalized if the police force happens to be innefective in stopping all murders in their jurisdiction.

You cannot blame pro-lifers for wanting to ban abortion. If it is murder, and they believe it is, it has to be banned. The question is whether it is murder, and where is the cutoff, if there is one.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
if a person has someone coming at them with a mean look on his face and a knife in his hand, and he pulls a gun out of his pocket and shoots the knife welding lunatic, killing him......do you see that as murder, or self defense?
what if the lunatic only has a baseball bat but gives you the impression that he's gonna just smash in both your kneecaps, disabling you for a long amount of time?

when I was in my 20's, if I wanted affordable birth control pills, family planning was the only option. I'd probably have six or seven kids, if it wasn't for family planning. why are the conservatives so hell bent to destroy the oraganization? they are gonna turn a blindeye to those kids once they are born. they aren't gonna want to pitch in any money to help those single moms take care of those kids, they will gripe and complain about all the money the gov't spends on taking care of the kids we have now, and yet, they want to add a ton more to the fray? are they that sadistic, does kids living in proverty, being hungry and homeless, having no hope give them some kind of high?? what's the gig???

someone gave a statistic as to the percentage of raped women who happen to conceive. what does it matter if it's one in a million, or one in ten??? if you interfer with her decisions as to what to do next, and bad things happen because of that interference, well, them you are responsible for those bad things happen, weather it be that she goes through the rest of her life resenting the baby she bore because that baby is a reminder of the man who violated her, or her death! or her disability, since pregnancy can cause temporary to permanent disablitiies!
that's another difference between genocide and abortion. the victims of a genocide aren't living in your body, possibly causing that body to break down, fall apart, or possibly cease life!

virginia might be losing most of their abortion clinics.

www.roanoke.com...

remember....
if this causes any women, be it one in a million, one in a thousand, or one in 5....to suffer any serious physical problems, well, you will be responsible. if she ends up being disabled, be it permenantly, or even temporarily, I expect you to stand up and volunteer to meet her responsibilities for herself, and her family. take the nightly meal to them to make sure they have a cooked dinners, watch the kids after school, give them baths, at least bring her a cup of tea and some toast to her bed for breakfast!!! and well, if she dies....you can be responsible for doing this for her family till those that depended on her don't need your services anymore!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
That is all well, but one could argue that abortion hurts the baby, so it indeed violates this ONE law of yours. What then?


One could argue that forcing a female, especially a young girl, to carry a baby to full term would harm the girl.
One could argue that forcing a baby into a family that will not care for it properly will harm the baby.
One could argue that forcing the baby away from the mother to put it into foster care would harm everyone involved.
Just sayin'



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


Compassion is something that most right-wing, pro-lifers lack.

Bitch and moan about this and that but they do nothing to help the situation. Classic.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Who is talking about putting a stop to abortion?


The pro-lifers. Did you miss that?


That is not the only purpose of law. According to your logic, murder should be legalized if the police force happens to be innefective in stopping all murders in their jurisdiction.


Uh no. I am not the one saying that I want murder to stop so it should be outlawed. I already understand the flaw in that logic. The pro lifers need to realize it.


You cannot blame pro-lifers for wanting to ban abortion.


I can't? Why not? Who should I blame for what pro-lifers want? I suppose it was pro-choice advocates that were bombing clinics? I am going to blame the people that stand up and announce they are the ones at fault. Call me crazy.


If it is murder, and they believe it is, it has to be banned.


Why? You just agreed with me that would not stop it.


The question is whether it is murder, and where is the cutoff, if there is one.



Maybe that is your question then.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
If they did ban it then what? They most likely will self abort god knows how tho! Or they will keep the pregnancy secret and kill it when it’s born. You hear stories about babies found in bins all the time.

Telegraph news report

dailymail news report

Ban abortions and you will see more stories like this, would you rather be aborted before you can feel anything?
Or would you rather be born and dumped like garbage and most likely freeze to death!??



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ototheb85
If they did ban it then what? They most likely will self abort god knows how tho! Or they will keep the pregnancy secret and kill it when it’s born. You hear stories about babies found in bins all the time.

Telegraph news report

dailymail news report

Ban abortions and you will see more stories like this, would you rather be aborted before you can feel anything?
Or would you rather be born and dumped like garbage and most likely freeze to death!??

Exactly



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Let’s not forget, this thread is about the Murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, that is what some of you are defending no matter what clever logic you use. We are talking about murder.

Now Last night when I went to my bed this thread was at about 11 pages, it’s now at 28 so I am not going to reply to everyone but I have had a skim of the past view pages and will try to address as many of the points as I can.

The 3 main arguments against as I see it are the “rape scenario”, eugenics and that it is the woman’s right. All three I covered in the first few pages of this thread, the first two do not justify the murder of an innocent child, the third is unfair as the human rights of the mother are taking precedence over the human rights of the child. These views may disgust you, what should disgust you more is the killing of kids because they are a incontinence for their promiscuous amoral parents.

The use of the word genocide in the OP has been brought up quite allot, I find it funny that you supposedly intelligent people have to all run to the same website to quote me a definition, but couldn’t give me the definition of the top of your heads. To me genocide is the organised mass murder of a specific group in society that is being discriminated against in some way because of their cultural, religious or ethnic origin but in addition to this their age. A mass cull of the over 85’s for the purposes of population control would be called genocide, you all know it. As such I think it is reasonable to call the murder of 200,000 children genocide. If you don’t like that, if that does not fit in perfectly form the definition you have had to look up on your online dictionary tough, to me this acceptance and defence of mass abortion is just the same as defending the Rwanda genocide.

Quite a few people have pointed out that i am a man, well done. Does that mean I should have any less say in whether my kids life or die during the first 24 weeks of their lives? All of you liberals are all defenders of equality, where is the equality in arguing that because I am a man I have less of a say in the matter as you women. Also me being Scottish has nothing to do with any of this, why some of you have pointed out my nationality is beyond me.

Some people have rightly pointed out that for abortion to become illegal firstly the adoption system would have to be fixed. Also rightly pointed out is that a ban in abortion would not eliminate abortion all together, there would be illegal abortions. I would point out however that the number of children murdered would still fall, and that the state and society would not be funding and defending this murder as they are now, those getting and carrying out the abortions would be sentenced just like any other child killer.

Again people, please remember we are talking about the mass genocide of our children.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


I do not any any manner agree with abortion. However I do nto stand inbetween that woman who believes in abortion. In the christian bible Jesus clearly tells us not to judge each other to leave the judgements for God. ZIf I tell a woman she cannot have a abortion and or highly condem her for havign an abortion then I am going against what the bible/jesus tells us is truth adn judging her. She will face her maker in the end, who are you or any other person to be gods pre judger? meaning you are judging for god before seh has her time with god. You are breaking a rule of god, you are ignoring his demands and doing what he told us not to do. Therefore in my honorable opinion You shall also be critically judged by god for being his judge of mankind



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join