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: 36
40
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


And could there be such a thing as halfhuman, if there you cannot be half-dead and half-alive?




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Is it murder to "unplug" someone in a coma? Is it ethical to put a living creature out of its misery, aka euthanasia. Why is abortion black and white but, we have shades of gray for justified homicide, self defense and euthanasia.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



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.


I'm not trying to define a universal "protected vs unprotected life". I am simply talking about human life...that is easy enough to understand...is it not???


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?


But I'm not using the "potential argument"...you and others are trying to insert into my argument.

My argument is simple...human biological process of life. ImagineReality finally understood what I was saying...his only remaining argument is that he thinks his determination of when life begins is better.

Contraception is fine to me because sperm and egg are not "human". They don't contain a complete and unique DNA and left to natural processes neither will develop into anything.

Please stop trying to interject ideas into my argument...that is being quite dishonest.


Yes and no. Therefore it can be killed.


So you have a criteria of "sentience" on what can be killed or not? Is a dog sentient? ImagineReality doesn't seem to believe they are. Is it ok to kill dogs???


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.


Look...I gave you TWO sources of definitions of medical death.

You can talk until you are blue in the face...but you are doing nothing but sharing your OPINION. I gave you facts...if you want to dispute them...please do so with FACTS and not your own personal opinion.


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.


Are Ants considered "higher animals" to you???

I think you are the one on the slippery slope here....you need to continue to define, redefine, classify, set criteria just to keep your position from turning into a completely illogical statement.

Throughout this whole thread my position has been clear...I have not had to waver or redefine a thing.

Just something for you to think about.


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.


And in comes eugenics.

Wouldn't it be more moral to end the suffering (decreaed suffering) of the severly mentally retarded???

How about the severly elderly with advanced alzhemiers...they don't even know who they are...shouldn't we just kill them???

Slippery slope indeed...my position doesn't have that problem.


Are hands, legs, lungs, neural system, schizophrenia, immune system human concepts?


Hands...no. Legs...No. Lungs...No. Neural System...No. Schizophrenia...YES. Immune system...No.

Most things dealing with thought and mental activity are HUMAN CONCEPTS.

What is the medical test used to diagnosis schizophrenia??? What chemical or phyisical attribute is scientifically measured to determine this???

I ask the same for "consciousness"...you can't measure it.


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.


Wow...I didn't realize you had consciousness all figured out.

You are one of many on ATS that has a nobel prize just sitting there waiting for them. All you have to do is write up your findings and collect.



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.


There you go...we can't do it. So it is scientifically impossible to determine what you and others are attempting to determine. And therefore illogical.

It is scientifically possible to determine where the biological process of life begins...and so to use that as the criteria of human "life" is the most logical thing to do.


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.


Then you need to get cracking at defining all that.

And please stop trying to interject ideas into my argument...I have never stated anything about protecting all life. I am strictly speaking of HUMAN LIFE. Please stay on topic and try not to put words into my mouth.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Well...there was research done on the subject "what was the main cause of increasing crime in... ammm 80-ties I think." So what they came up with in the end was that abortion was illegal at that time and so many young parents from troubled families an so on had unwanted children... parents who could not take care of these children could not give them enough love. Anyway so crime was growing and growing but then abortions were made legal and so those children who have ended up on streets - stealing, drinking, doing drugs.. and so on didn't born.

So I believe that it is perfectly legal and it is for greater good. What do you want full streets of unwanted children who weren't loved enough in their childhood so they grow up to be sociopaths, drug addicts, burglars, killers and so on roam the streets?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



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.


I am fervently against rape.

Last time I checked...all rape is illegal in my country.

What else would you like me to do?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



On the same grounds we could argue that even contraception, family planning or just refusing sex when offered is genocide, since it also causes millions of potential people to not exist in the future, that would otherwise exist. Potential argument is therefore fallacious. Only killing persons that already exist can be considered genocide.


YOU and other pro-choice folks are the only ones claiming sperm is a living being



Stop trying to interject ideas just so you can easily refute them....there is a name for that...it is called a strawman. Set hm up so you can take him down.

It's dishonest, fallacious, and illogical.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 




1) Every time a woman gets pregnant and chooses to go through child birth she is putting her life at risk. Child birth is tough on the body, can lead to a lot of complications, ie: Pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, anemia, PPD, back injury Gestational Diabetes...


There are risks involved in anything in life. Everyday you live, you are putting your life at risk. Driving in a car, walking down the street, eating food...all have potential risks to your life.

It's not an excuse to wake up and start murdering everyone because they may pose a risk to your life...so let's kill them...just in case.



2) I assume OP is male, It is my belief males do not have any say in abortion, why? Never will they experience child birth, never will they know the pain and complications that can happen during pregnancy. How can men make accurate decisions based off something so serious that they themselves cannot fully understand.


Sorry...but babies can't be made without a man. So a man SHOULD have as much say in it as a women. The women isn't only killing HER child...they are killing the man's child as well.

But typical extremist feminist drivel...fighting for equality my ass.


3) Religion should stay out of this debate. (plain and simple) Unless we all have a unified religion then there is no reason religion should be in the debate


There is only ONE group that has been bringing up religion in this thread....THE PRO-CHOICE SIDE. They keep trying to interject it as a nice little strawman....as you just did.


4) Enough with these Stupid threads. We all know how they end Mods have to step in shut the topic down because the Pro-lifers and Pro-Choice, start with the mud slinging and stupidity.


Trying to shut down discussion huh....you must not like what you are seeing. Sorry...I won't be silenced.


5) this is the last I promise, Abortion isn't birth control in anyway. It is an added medical procedure for women who are not ready to have children. Some women need to work and their jobs prevent them from being able to get pregnant. As well children who have parents who don't teach them about safe sex or their school doesn't offer it, shouldn't be forced to go through the trauma of child birth. Finally Rape victims are fully entitled to an abortion, its not their fault they got raped, and why should they have to deal with the consequences. That's just throwing salt on the wounds.


It is used as birth control by many. You seem to be in denial about the state of reality.

And your view of an abortion as a simple financial decision is very very disturbing.

The innocent babies that are killed in an abortion also had no choice in being conceived during a rape. Two wrongs don't make a right.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 



it's a lump of cells, a big question mark, has great potential, but even in the best of circumstances might never make it the nine months and get to see the world! it could become the next mozart, or the next hitler, or, well, it could become something rather similar to a tumor and sap the life out of the host!


Sorry...it is not a big question mark...you may want to revisit a biology class.

You can't compare it to a tumor, that is just 100% false.

Do you see all the silly examples and extremes you pro-choicers have to go through to attempt to validate your position???

That should give you guys a clue that your position isn't logical.


yes, those cells could become a human being, but many don't make it that far, naturally, it's just the potential...and in some cases, those cells could become a murderer, even before it's born, thus ensuring that it never makes it into the world!


They siimply die at a very early age in the process of life.

Not everyone makes it to age 80...some don't make it to age 2...is that an excuse to be able to kill them??? More illogical examples to try to justify your position.

And then you suggest maybe it will become a murder...so abortion I guess is a good thing to stop that



a century ago or so, many more women died in childbirth in my country, probably yours also. it's always attributed to the improvements in healthcare. but one of those improvements is the ability to detect problems before they become life threatening and take measures (abort) to prevent death


NO ONE...I repeat...NO ONE in this thread has ever said (to my knowledge) that they don't agree with a medical procedure to save the womens life.

PLEASE stop with this strawman...or got provide a bunch of quotes from this thread where people are claiming that they don't think women should be allowed to save themselves.


so, well, anyone care to take a guess as to how many more childbirth deaths there would be without abortion???


What???

There are roughly 3,500 abortions a day...and I think that is in the USA alone.

How exactly is that number going to increase if there was no abortion???



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by archasama
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Well...there was research done on the subject "what was the main cause of increasing crime in... ammm 80-ties I think." So what they came up with in the end was that abortion was illegal at that time and so many young parents from troubled families an so on had unwanted children... parents who could not take care of these children could not give them enough love. Anyway so crime was growing and growing but then abortions were made legal and so those children who have ended up on streets - stealing, drinking, doing drugs.. and so on didn't born.

So I believe that it is perfectly legal and it is for greater good. What do you want full streets of unwanted children who weren't loved enough in their childhood so they grow up to be sociopaths, drug addicts, burglars, killers and so on roam the streets?



Would you care to provide a link to this "study" that shows that making abortion illegal increases other criminal activities???

Believe me...I won't hold my breath.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Xiamara
 




1) Every time a woman gets pregnant and chooses to go through child birth she is putting her life at risk. Child birth is tough on the body, can lead to a lot of complications, ie: Pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, anemia, PPD, back injury Gestational Diabetes...


There are risks involved in anything in life. Everyday you live, you are putting your life at risk. Driving in a car, walking down the street, eating food...all have potential risks to your life.

It's not an excuse to wake up and start murdering everyone because they may pose a risk to your life...so let's kill them...just in case.




Sorry...but babies can't be made without a man. So a man SHOULD have as much say in it as a women. The women isn't only killing HER child...they are killing the man's child as well.


Wrong, women don't need men to create babies anymore and for that mater women are no longer needed either
www.dailymail.co.uk...

So....Is abortion still killing when the creation is made from artificial parts ? The relevancy is quite pertinent here because our choices will affect these future fetuses and babies !



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Fox Molder
 



Wrong, women don't need men to create babies anymore and for that mater women are no longer needed either



A man needs to provide the sperm.

But you are right...your logic makes perfect sense...women who get artificially inseminated are exactly the group of women that usually have abortions



And yet another extreme and illogical example to try to justify the pro-choice position.

Do you guys ever get tired of having to try to come up with increasingly ridiculous examples???


EDIT: Apologies...your link didn't work...I see now it is talking about creating sperm from stem cells. And how prevelant is that??? LOL. The extreme ridiculous examples amuse me.
edit on 24-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I posted my own thoughts on the situation based off the typical,
my responses to your critique




There are risks involved in anything in life. Everyday you live, you are putting your life at risk. Driving in a car, walking down the street, eating food...all have potential risks to your life. It's not an excuse to wake up and start murdering everyone because they may pose a risk to your life...so let's kill them...just in case.



A baby is a direct threat which can be avoided, I can choose not to drive, I can choose to only eat food I cook or not go outside to avoid the potentially harming people. Why would you automatically jump to killing. Is there an alternative to child birthing I do not know about where I do not have to carry the child to term and have a C-section or Vaginal delivery. Please do enlighten me.




Sorry...but babies can't be made without a man. So a man SHOULD have as much say in it as a women. The women isn't only killing HER child...they are killing the man's child as well. But typical extremist feminist drivel...fighting for equality my ass.


Well, making a baby and birthing one are two different actions, shall I explain where babies come from and the birthing process. And in fact its hypothesized that mammalian females can produce and exact copy/clone fetus if there is no males in the population.

How does fighting for equality have anything to do with this. Should we ignore gender based problems? Men and women are different and have different problems. Equality has no need to be brought up. Nor does feminism, your stigma to feminism is in fact offensive there is nothing wrong for fighting for equality, of how we treat one another male or female.




There is only ONE group that has been bringing up religion in this thread....THE PRO-CHOICE SIDE. They keep trying to interject it as a nice little strawman....as you just did.


I was just stating my opinion on the matter in case someone who was religious did mention it. I do like to cover the bases. These debates can attract religious fundamentalists and I was stating my overall opinion as a whole on the topic do you have a problem with that?




Trying to shut down discussion huh....you must not like what you are seeing. Sorry...I won't be silenced.


Is that projection I hear in your voice? No Everyone it entitled to their opinions as long as their civil. Note the key words Mud slinging, and stupidity. I have not seen that yet, but normally people do regress to their childish self the more their self identity is threatened by the out group, in your case pro choice people.

I'm quite fine with what people have to say as long as its logical, civil, and open to hearing new information. I would change my mind on the issue if child birth became 100% safe, with no harm to the mother, or if we develop a way to remove the fetus and grow it in a test tube.




It is used as birth control by many. You seem to be in denial about the state of reality. And your view of an abortion as a simple financial decision is very very disturbing.

The innocent babies that are killed in an abortion also had no choice in being conceived during a rape. Two wrongs don't make a right.


People do use it for birth control and that is not appropriate, note how I said I THINK. In no way did I say that people don't. Please look at the context of the sentence.

I don't know what to say to that but that's my opinion, and that's yours. Its the mothers choice again, if there was a way to transfer the fetus without harm to the mother different opinion on that.
edit on 24-2-2011 by Xiamara because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Fox Molder
 



Wrong, women don't need men to create babies anymore and for that mater women are no longer needed either



A man needs to provide the sperm.

But you are right...your logic makes perfect sense...women who get artificially inseminated are exactly the group of women that usually have abortions



And yet another extreme and illogical example to try to justify the pro-choice position.

Do you guys ever get tired of having to try to come up with increasingly ridiculous examples???


EDIT: Apologies...your link didn't work...I see now it is talking about creating sperm from stem cells. And how prevelant is that??? LOL. The extreme ridiculous examples amuse me.
edit on 24-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)


Obviously you can't see further than your own nose. The repercussions of creating sperm from stem cell illuminates the need for a man donor. Plus the egg can also be created in a lab. When the two are put together and life as you define it created, is it illegal to abort that embryo ? After all it was completely artificially created.

That is were humans are going and babies will be created that way in the future soooooooooooo The definition of abortion and the laws surrounding it right now are very pertinent. It's not an argument for the sake of arguing, it's the basis of the definition of life, it's creation and who has the power to decide over it.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Reread....childbirth deaths, the deaths of mothers while giving birth
right now, doctors are free to advise them to abort....before such conditions become life threatening...there ain't no debate as to just how risky it is, weather that risk is worth the new life, ect, at least not by any outside forces, it's up to the mother to decide. and I could provide just as many links scattered throughout ats, where people have tried to diminish the risk, discount it, or just flat out say that it didn't matter....
the case of the south american girl who was raped and found to be carrying twins comes to mind...didn't matter that she was still a child herself, didn't matter that she was raped, didn't matter that she had a few medical professionals testifying that hey, she more than likely won't survive...there were plenty of people on the thread trying to defend her being denied an abortion....

after all she could survive...
just like the guy pointing the gun at you could have missed, so well, you shooting him before he got the shot off was nothing but murder!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


you say that when abortions are necessary that somehow makes it alright? sorry, i don't really buy that. that's like saying under the right circumstances murder and genocide is alright. if someone is pro-life with this kind of mindset, it makes me question their moral fiber when they can so easily say that a "baby's" life is okay to be murdered under the right circumstances.

is abortion murder? is life precious?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I find it so frustrating when people bring religion and womens rights into this. That totally makes one side of the debate invalid because they are often viewed as intolerant nut cases. There are plenty of ethical, philosophical, medical, and legal reasons why abortion is frightening in our culture. For instance:


  • From conception, an embryo has genetics that are distinct from its mother. A geneticist can not distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and a fully-developed human.
  • Death is defined by the cessation of a heartbeat. Wouldn't logic dictate that the presense of a heartbeat indicates life?
  • A crucial role of the government is to protect life. In Roe vs Wade, we decided to not consider a child in the womb as a citizen. The burden of proof should have been on the life taker in this case. Nothing was ever proven to support their argument.
  • Any attempt to draw the line at what is infanticide and what is a victimless abortion has met in failure. Any argument for abortion can be used as an argument for infanticide. For example, if you say a fetus is not a human unless it achieves a certain IQ... then you can justifiably murder anybody that suffers from severe mental retardation. If you define life by time since conception, then what happens if we streamline the pregnancy process and fetuses can survive outside the womb or perfect the premie process? How would you justify killing children that are the same age as viable ones outside a womb?
  • I can not go around to hospitals and start unplugging people on life support or ripping out IVs yet we are legally allowed to take away an infant's life support.


Like I said, these are reasons that scare me as a citizen. Seeing any fellow human get his/her rights and liberties taken away is a frightening sight. If we dabble in the waters of defining humans and who can be offed and who can stay... where do we put our foot down?

I honestly think that if the concept of abortion never occurred to humanity (by shear happenstance) and it were suddenly introduced as a new procedure, it would be universally met with revulsion by everybody. We have been desensitized to it because it's always been a part of human culture, taboo or not.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


may i ask that since you view abortion to be murder if you would also support retroactively prosecuting anyone who got an abortion and anyone who took part in the abortion process as child murderers?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 



A baby is a direct threat which can be avoided, I can choose not to drive, I can choose to only eat food I cook or not go outside to avoid the potentially harming people. Why would you automatically jump to killing. Is there an alternative to child birthing I do not know about where I do not have to carry the child to term and have a C-section or Vaginal delivery. Please do enlighten me.


My comment was about the risk you were speaking of....which is very small...which is why I compared it to everyday activities.

www.redorbit.com...

Researchers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that between 1998 and 2005, pregnancy-related death rates were 14.5 per 100,000 live births.


That is a whole 0.0145% risk of dying from pregnancy. How do you think that small risk justifies

Let's look at the risks involved with abortion


001) The unadjusted mortality rate per 100,000 cases was 27 for women who had given birth, 48 for women who had miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 for women who had abortions. Thus, the mortality rate from abortion is 101/27 = 3.7 times higher for abortion than for giving birth. Fissler, M, et al., "Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987 - 1994--definition problems and benefits of record linkage," Acta Obstetricia et Gynecolgical Scandinavica, 76:651-657, 1997.


So this shows a slightly higher incidence of death for pregnancy/childbirth than the previous source.

0.027% for those who gave birth.

0.048% for those with complications (miscarriages or ectopic pregnancy)

1.01% for those who had an abortion.

That is a 26% increased chance of dying due to an abortion.

And there are many other studies as well that show an increased death rate for post abortion procedures compared to post childbirth.

afterabortion.org...

Clearly, the odds of a woman dying within a year of having an abortion are significantly higher than for women who carry to term or have a natural miscarriage. This holds true both for deaths from natural causes and deaths from suicide, accidents, or homicide. In addition, the study underscores the difficulty in reliably defining and identifying maternal deaths. Only 22 percent of the death certificates examined had any mention of the woman’s recent pregnancy.


You can't deny that abortion doesn't hold risks as well...and from the information I am gathering...it is a much higher risk than just going through the pregnancy.


So your argument about getting an abortion to avoid the risk of pregnancy does not stand up to the information available. Just another illogical argument to justify the killing of a baby for selfish reasons.



Well, making a baby and birthing one are two different actions, shall I explain where babies come from and the birthing process.

How does fighting for equality have anything to do with this. Should we ignore gender based problems? Men and women are different and have different problems. Equality has no need to be brought up. Nor does feminism, your stigma to feminism is in fact offensive there is nothing wrong for fighting for equality, of how we treat one another male or female.


LOL...too funny.

Equality...only when it benefits you


I'm all about equality...which is why I think man should have EQUAL choice in the matter. If not in deciding on yay or nay on the abortion...then they should at the very least be able to legally write off all responsibility of the child, financially and physically.


I was just stating my opinion on the matter in case someone who was religious did mention it. I do like to cover the bases. These debates can attract religious fundamentalists and I was stating my overall opinion as a whole on the topic do you have a problem with that?


You like to attempt to interject controversy and a convenient strawman that you can easily refute.

How about instead, you stay on topic???


Is that projection I hear in your voice?


No, not at all. I love these debates...can't you tell by my activity here??? It's only pro-choicers that have been trying to shut other people up



No Everyone it entitled to their opinions as long as their civil. Note the key words Mud slinging, and stupidity. I have not seen that yet, but normally people do regress to their childish self the more their self identity is threatened by the out group, in your case pro choice people.

I'm quite fine with what people have to say as long as its logical, civil, and open to hearing new information. I would change my mind on the issue if child birth became 100% safe, with no harm to the mother, or if we develop a way to remove the fetus and grow it in a test tube.


Logical...LOL.

Anyway...is abortion 100% safe??? Look above...why choose a procedure that is more likely to cause death to avoid a process that holds a smaller chance to cause death


There is that logic...huh?



People do use it for birth control and that is not appropriate, note how I said I THINK. In no way did I say that people don't. Please look at the context of the sentence.

I don't know what to say to that but that's my opinion, and that's yours. Its the mothers choice again, if there was a way to transfer the fetus without harm to the mother different opinion on that.


Let's look at some statistics...shall we???

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

rape - 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest - 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother - 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother - 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health - 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)

"personal choice" - 98% (78-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility --(32 %)
--economic--30% (21-36 %)
--to avoid adjusting life --(16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship--(12-13 %)
--enough children already --(4-8 %)
--sex selection --(



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Fox Molder
 



Obviously you can't see further than your own nose. The repercussions of creating sperm from stem cell illuminates the need for a man donor. Plus the egg can also be created in a lab. When the two are put together and life as you define it created, is it illegal to abort that embryo ? After all it was completely artificially created.


Currently, it probably wouldn't be illegal. I still personally think it is wrong because it is a unique human life. The way it was created doesn't matter to me.

I would hope this would be made illegal...but currently I don't know if it is.


That is were humans are going and babies will be created that way in the future soooooooooooo The definition of abortion and the laws surrounding it right now are very pertinent. It's not an argument for the sake of arguing, it's the basis of the definition of life, it's creation and who has the power to decide over it.


Um...I doubt that this is the way of the future.

The basisi for the definition of life is simple...the begining of the biological process of cell division. My position has stayed clear...it's the pro-choicers that have to dance around to justify their position.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by windword
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.


That must have been some time ago, before arthroscopic surgery. My Wife had her Gall Bladder removed in a day surgery and was fit within five days to return to light duty. She was only in the hospital for five hours total. Things have changed. A Vasectomy is now done in an office visit. Having your tubes clipped should have been a day surgery at worst if it was recently done. Unless your not in the US or had a inept Surgeon. Or was there more to this surgery?
.


Yes, it was some 30 years ago. I opted for the precedure when I had surgery for an eptopic pregnancy to save my life. As a waitress, there was no light duty, at the time. So out of work for a month.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join