Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 39
40
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin
 




As a "student of medicine", I would HOPE you had better sources than wikipedia

Or is that where you do your studies from???


The definition of legal death as brain death was also in our lecture.

Here is another relevant quote:
en.wikipedia.org...


A patient with working heart and lungs who is determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead without clinical death (cessation of blood circulation and breathing) occurring. However, some courts have been reluctant to impose such a determination over the religious objections of family members, such as in the Jesse Koochin case.



*FACEPALM*

I guess your textbook IS Wikipedia then.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by geekyone
reply to post by Fox Molder
 


So you would rather the poor girl have to deal with the fact that she killed a baby on top of everything else she has gone through?



Aborting would be HER choice

Getting raped and pregnant because of it wouldn't have been (i guess).

Whatever the reasons might be, i don't think any pregnant woman would just walk into a clinic and "get it over with" and even if they would, it would be THEIR choice.

How many pregnancies get aborted to prevent the kid from growing up in poverty or with a debilitating chronic disease? I ended my mom and dad's lives prematurely trough euthanesia (or signed for the consent), am i a murderer also now? I'd rather see a pregancy aborted than a kid put into the foster care/adoption system, or abandoned at a trainstation.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Let me guess, Kevin, you do not possess a uterus of your own?

Let me guess, you'd rather a child born to impoverished, unfit and/or uninterested parents to be part of a broken public child care system where they can develop crippling emotional issues; or even worse, die from illness or starvation, or maybe a drug overdose on the street.

Let me guess, you would rather those children develop a sense of self and fully come to learn what the meaning of suffering is before their lives tragically end?

Yeah, that sounds a lot more reasonable than making the responsible decision to abort the fetus before it's living, breathing and thinking on its own.

If you're so interested in bringing every single accidental or forced pregnancy into the world, why don't you start your own foster home? I'm sure you can provide the upbringing they deserve.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


The only thing that i condone is a woman's right to choose. It's not my place to tell anyone that they can't do something that doesn't affect me directly. I feel that the father of the child should have to submit their acceptance of the abortion as well before it's allowed, but that's the only thing I would change.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitl103
Let me guess, Kevin, you do not possess a uterus of your own?


Let me guess...you don't support equal rights???


Let me guess, you'd rather a child born to impoverished, unfit and/or uninterested parents to be part of a broken public child care system where they can develop crippling emotional issues; or even worse, die from illness or starvation, or maybe a drug overdose on the street.


Let me guess...you are a psychic and can foresee the future of unborn babies???


Let me guess, you would rather those children develop a sense of self and fully come to learn what the meaning of suffering is before their lives tragically end?


Let me guess....what???


Yeah, that sounds a lot more reasonable than making the responsible decision to abort the fetus before it's living, breathing and thinking on its own.


Yes...killing is the answer to protect the child from a portential hard life that you have foreseen with your psychic powers...right???


If you're so interested in bringing every single accidental or forced pregnancy into the world, why don't you start your own foster home? I'm sure you can provide the upbringing they deserve.


Don't make me break out the statistics again...it already made others leave.

98% of abortions are for personal reasons...but go ahead and put ALL your focus on the rape cases



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by geekyone
reply to post by Fox Molder
 


So you would rather the poor girl have to deal with the fact that she killed a baby on top of everything else she has gone through?


*snip*
I'd rather see a pregancy aborted than a kid put into the foster care/adoption system, or abandoned at a trainstation.


Really?! I can't say I would ever agree with that. To say that is to say to every child in a 3rd-world country that they are better off dead. Could you go to sub-Sahara Africa and dole out the "truth" that their life is not worth living? I'm pretty sure there are some pretty damned content people who were going to be aborted for those reasons. Um... Aristotle, Jesse Jackson, Edgar Allen Poe, etc... I can keep going.

I'm not saying that the debate should end there. But poverty should never ever ever ever be an excuse to abort a child. Wealth does not equal = only reason to live.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This is why I think we should encourage abortion:




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 




This is an open invitation to any pro-choicer here. If anyone wants to officially debate me in the debate forum about the beginning of HUMAN LIFE...I will gladly accept.


I dont dispute that human life in the biological sense begins at conception, it was others who denied that. What I dispute is that human life without sentience (any life without sentience) should be protected as sentient person or being (having universal human rights). And to answer that requires more than simple biology, certainly it requires some philosophy and morals.

So if you set the topic as "the beginning of human life", I wont debate, since I agree with your answer, there is nothing to debate about the beginning of human life.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by whitl103
 


Who says these kids wouldn't go on to become the next Einstein and live perfectly normal lives? Stop arguing that abortion is ok by making hypothetical remarks on how the kids would lead a life of misery and poverty.

The fact is abortion is wrong, and kids don't get a chance at life because of it...So what if it did lead a life of misery and poverty? Who's to say that experience won't drive them on to making other peoples lives better? What doesn't KILL you makes you stronger!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Squat
 


No, that's an argument for planning. Ironically, in that example, it would be the sophisticated couple who would consider an abortion and not the hillbillies...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaGremlin
reply to post by byteshertz
 


So killing a baby just 1 week before it becomes self aware is no big deal right? Great logic.

You have missed the point of my post - go back and read it. I said there is no way to define what self aware is and who are we to judge where this magical line is - please quote the blue and red parts of my post with your next rebuttle so it is easy for people to see your misinterpretation.



Besides...what's so great about self awareness? How does that give us the right to live?
I just think we need to either say it is never okay to kill someone or it is always okay to kill someone. I mean, technically a 2 year old still needs my assistance to live right? In fact, without me there he would die. So he relies on my body to survive. What if he's "dumb"? What if he is never "self-aware?" I should be able to kill him when I want right with no negative consequences?

So you are saying it should be black or white - yes or no - on or off. You are applying this belief to a world of analogue - nothing in this world is black and white, yes or no - everything has grey area - who are we to draw a line between that grey of someone elses life.



Obviously self pleasure cannot result in a child. A man is not killing children when he spills his seed. It takes TWO sexual cells of different types to create a being. So sure, you may have a point if he was masturbating onto the sex cell of a woman. Otherwise, it is another failed point. Sperm cells are not humans. Ovums are not humans. When the two haploids join...it becomes a being.

I addressed this in my post - at this embryonic stage of pregnancy we are indistinguishable from any other embryo besides our DNA - so are you saying it is the DNA from the spearm and egg combining that makes us human? Even though we have no form of a brain in any way - we are in your eyes a human being?
I am going to make a bold assumption this view comes from a religious point of view - and therefore I ask, does the soul not live on anyway?



If you have an abortion, even an early one, I can understand convincing yourself it wasn't a being...but it was. It was a being that if not disturbed would grow to a larger being much like yourself with it's own thoughts and beliefs. You know, kind of like a 2 year old.
There are no age or size requirements to deserve to live. Also, take your argument about "how we can't kill the soul blah blah blah" and apply it to illegal murder. It still applies right? I believe that if you can take your argument and apply it to something that is obviously wrong and it still fits....it's time to rethink your argument.
edit on 2/24/11


You say there is no age or size requirement to deserve to live, but where is the line between a living cell (like sperm) and a living being or animal. Why should I rethink my argument when you have not yet given me any proof I am incorrect - It is not "illegal murder", there is nothing illegal about abortion in most of the western world.

Tell me why we should worry about destorying a fetus that has not even developed a brain or organs if the soul lives on any way?

Pasted for your convenience:
If God exists then having an abortion may be a waste of the gift of life but it has only killed a body - not a soul- you are not really destoying their life either because aparently God could give that soul a new body - if it is his will. So I think maybe people need to have some faith in their own beliefs.

If God or any form of afterlife does not exist - then nothing happens when we die, and this fetus (say it with me) is not self aware at 10 weeks - so no harm has been done. And if you can understand this then where do we draw the magical line?

(This is where I ask what is the difference between a sperm which is living and the embryonic fetus at day 0 - you say the human being is created when the emryo and sperm meet - but that is simply an opinion not fact - what are we: Are we the soul, the body, the mind or the DNA? Your argument to me indicates we are simply the DNA - to which I ask how does our DNA which is proven to change slightly throughout our life due to our environment factor in to this? When it change's does that mean technically we no longer exist?)
Again, I think you are applying a digital (black and white, yes or no) answer to an analogue world.

Some would go as far as saying the sperm itself is the seed of life and should not be wasted. Masturbation in their eye's is a crime, and all you guys reading this know you kill a lot of babies all the time in their eyes ;-)
edit on 24-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)
extra DIV
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin
 




This is an open invitation to any pro-choicer here. If anyone wants to officially debate me in the debate forum about the beginning of HUMAN LIFE...I will gladly accept.


I dont dispute that human life in the biological sense begins at conception, it was others who denied that. What I dispute is that human life without sentience (any life without sentience) should be protected as sentient person or being (having universal human rights). And to answer that requires more than simple biology, certainly it requires some philosophy and morals.

So if you set the topic as "the beginning of human life", I wont debate, since I agree with your answer, there is nothing to debate about the beginning of human life.


Exactly...you won't debate because you know that is correct.


Your arbitrary criteria of "sentience" can not be measured.

A main criteria of sentience is being self aware....are newborn babies self aware?

You have the slippery slope...because you are choosing to not use science and instead use the subjective and widely differing opinions of philosophy and morals.


I will stick with science...I will not willingly abandon logic and science just in order to attempt to justify abortion.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Yeah... because the hillbillies are too stupid to plan. We should encourage them to abort their "doomed before having a chance" puppies before the litter spreads across the world.

Or at the very least spay and neuter them.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Squat
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Yeah... because the hillbillies are too stupid to plan. We should encourage them to abort their "doomed before having a chance" puppies before the litter spreads across the world.

Or at the very least spay and neuter them.


I can't tell if you are serious or not...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I'm being half-serious. Or, I'm half-joking.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 




I guess your textbook IS Wikipedia then.


And what should I scan our textbook or lecture notes for you?

The problem with using definitions from a dictionary is that they give only one most encompassing one, which is now more or less historical. There are actually different types (stages) of medical death (clinical death, brain death, somatic death), and the one used as a legal death IS irreversible brain death, in the modern era of medicine.

library.thinkquest.org...

And of course, if you use whole brain definition of brain death (higher brain+brain stem), then all your point is moot, since spontaneous (without life support) function of circulatory and respiratory system cannot exist with brainstem dead.

From your definition:

The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions."


The keyword is spontaneous.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 

if I remember right, many of the victims on one genocide died at the hands of scientists, in the form of hideous experiments. all, justified by the potential advancements for mankind!! nice logical explanations, with no heart or feeling involved....

just saying.....



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
abortion is an abomination, and it is indistinguishable from first degree murder. The most tragic part is that the Mother and Father of a child are called to seflessly give everything to provide for and protect their child. It is not difficult to prove that abortion is ethically wrong:

1.) Taking the life of an innocent human being is morally unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent Human Being
:.
Abortion is morally unacceptable.

The real problem is that since the early 20th century private interests have been attacking the very foundations of this nation-sociological institutions, which are the bedrock of society. The purpose for this deliberate corruption of the foundation which this Nation is founded upon, is that a moral, prosperous, and disciplined America, which used to be at the heart of our prosperity, these things are not condusive to the ends that these private interests lust for: perpetuous money & control.

Which is more condusive to corporate profitability, and market opportunities: a nation with strong faith in God, moral conviction and integrity, or a godless pagan state where nothing is sacred or forbidden? There is mind control technique in the press, mass media, popular culture, and public education. I have evidence of this mind manipulation, mind control, and thought conditioning, this is by no means a joke. All of these mechanisms have been siezed by these private interests to indocrinate, inundate, and imbue the majority of the citizens into a false world view that is unnatural and contrary to our own interests. We have been lied to about who we are, what is the good life, what is our relationship to each other and the Universe.

This empire will collapse unless we regain our integrity as individuals and as a nation, and what once was-a strong faith in the Creator. Don't let the labcoat wearing scientists trick you into thinking they know what they know not! Not all of the experts have your interests at heart! And the Government that the People of this Nation have come to serve is not what you think it is.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 



Imagine baby Jesus was aborted!!!!?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 




Your arbitrary criteria of "sentience" can not be measured.


In life on Earth, brain waves = sentience. Brain waves can surely be measured.



A main criteria of sentience is being self aware..



Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive.


See self-awareness there?



are newborn babies self aware?


That depends on what level of self-awareness you mean, in broad sense yes. But what is important for us is sentience, not self-awareness. Babies and third trimester fetuses are surely sentient



You have the slippery slope...because you are choosing to not use science and instead use the subjective and widely differing opinions of philosophy and morals.


Biology cannot answer moral questions such as "what kind if life should we protect by law?"



I will stick with science...I will not willingly abandon logic and science just in order to attempt to justify abortion.


You are just using wrong science, the answer to pro-life/pro-choice question is the domain of sociology, or Science of Morality, not biology.

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





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
40
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join