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: 44
40
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



Normally, religious fanatic, anti-choicers (not "pro-life" since most support war and the death penalty) are unable to keep their opinions and condemnation to themselves. It's physically impossible for them. But, as time marches on and the masses move away from religious extremism, their influence diminishes further and further, and they get louder and louder in their death throes. Just ignore them.


Well aren't you full of assumptions. Since he was talking to me...and you replied to him...I must assume that you are refering to me. Follow that?

So I am a religious extremist huh??? Care to back that accusation? Maybe a quote from this thread where I spout out some religious views???

How about it???


There are many stages of fetal development, and I believe if somebody is going to terminate their pregnancy, it's a decision that should be made as early as possible. Late term abortions should be very rare. For barrier breakage, and rape, the morning after pill is an option that would prevent a child from forming at all. Perhaps one day, instead of shouting at people, and wasting their breath expecting others to see things their way, anti-choicers can come up with another option. Perhaps they can put all that energy into figuring out a way to extract a developing fetus alive, and transferring it into an artificial womb of some sort. In such a program the woman would remain completely anonymous. Perhaps we can couple that with a space exploration program, in which we could find and colonize other supportive planets since we already have a population problem here.


There are many stages of HUMAN development...fetus being one...infant being another...toddler..."child"...adolescent...young adult...adult...elderly. You seem to discriminate against the very young...I don't.

Did you just suggest to ship babies off to another planet???




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
You do realize that your euphemisms and labels are showing right? You are not at all concerned with rational discourse you just want to appeal to the emotions of your unsuspecting prey. You sir are misinformed and predatory.


Wow. I thought I was just expressing my opinion.



This is about reasonable, rational, logical discourse among informed individuals, and we are all willing participants, you dont have to post here. If you are so pro choice then why don't you allow me the freedom of conscience and liberty to engage in this discussion and debate?


Although I haven't seen much rational, logical discourse coming from the "genocide" and "baby killer" camp, I never once said you shouldn't be permitted to engage in the discussion. I make the personal choice to ignore all the emotional exaggeration, others are free to let it bother them all they want. I am so pro choice.



So through your actions you are showing that you are not not pro-choice, and since you think it is ok to arbitrarily decide that it is acceptable to murder a generation of 65+ Million unborn babies in the name of recreational sex, godlessness, and hedonism, to perpetuate a culture of death and corruption, so you are not pro-life either. So what are you?


I'm a little bit of both.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



Although I haven't seen much rational, logical discourse coming from the "genocide" and "baby killer" camp


Oh, why didn't you say so...let me entertain you.

Here is my position on abortion:


I view human Life as a purely biological process. There is a clear starting point and a clear ending point to this biological process of life. The ending part isn't up for debate in the abortion discussion, but just for clarity the ending point is "death", which is when the cells in the human body stop dividing. The relevant portion to the abortion debate is the starting point. In the biological process of life, in all living things, the starting point is when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cells begin dividing. This is the same for humans...the beginning of the biological process of life is when the human sperm fertilizes the human egg, creates a complete and unique DNA, and cells begin to divide.

So we have a clear begin point (begining of cell division) and a clear ending point (when cells stop dividing). Anywhere between those two points is "LIFE". This is purely a scientific view of Life using Biology.

Now my view is that at any point between the begining point and the ending point, if another human intervenes and causes the "death" of that human...than it is murder. Hence...abortion is murder.


Clean, simple, scientific, logical.


If you care to...please refute it.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
Well aren't you full of assumptions. Since he was talking to me...and you replied to him...I must assume that you are refering to me. Follow that?


Sure I follow, and I was referring to you. And others like you. You may be trying to dance around it, but I'm quite sure you're a religious extremist. Oh well, right? What does it matter what I think?



There are many stages of HUMAN development...fetus being one...infant being another...toddler..."child"...adolescent...young adult...adult...elderly. You seem to discriminate against the very young...I don't.


Really? I seem to discriminate against the very young? I've never had, nor have I performed an abortion. I'm just rational, and understand during early development there is no self-aware, feeling human being. There is a mass of cells forming into one. I know to you religious freaks, every sperm has a soul, and that's fine. You do the right thing by your god, and don't get an abortion.



Did you just suggest to ship babies off to another planet???


Well, wouldn't that be better than "murdering" them? Hell, I think that would be pretty cool. We need to do something with this exploding population, or NONE of our children will have enough to eat or drink. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Over population, look it up. We need to find other planets with more resources.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Okay, I get what you're saying. So, do you feel that human life is more 'sacred' than other life? Do you eat meat? Although even plants are "alive". Just as alive as the mass of cells developing when a sperm fertilizes an egg.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
You do realize that your euphemisms and labels are showing right? You are not at all concerned with rational discourse you just want to appeal to the emotions of your unsuspecting prey. You sir are misinformed and predatory.


Wow. I thought I was just expressing my opinion.



This is about reasonable, rational, logical discourse among informed individuals, and we are all willing participants, you dont have to post here. If you are so pro choice then why don't you allow me the freedom of conscience and liberty to engage in this discussion and debate?


Although I haven't seen much rational, logical discourse coming from the "genocide" and "baby killer" camp, I never once said you shouldn't be permitted to engage in the discussion. I make the personal choice to ignore all the emotional exaggeration, others are free to let it bother them all they want. I am so pro choice.



So through your actions you are showing that you are not not pro-choice, and since you think it is ok to arbitrarily decide that it is acceptable to murder a generation of 65+ Million unborn babies in the name of recreational sex, godlessness, and hedonism, to perpetuate a culture of death and corruption, so you are not pro-life either. So what are you?


I'm a little bit of both.


the thread is full of it which leads me that you are a troll or a shill. Here for the third time I will reiterate my argument:

1.)Deliberately ending the life of an innocent human being is morally unacceptable.
2.)Abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being.
:.
Abortion is morally unacceptable.

They will say its not alive I'll say there is absolutely cellular growth and development which is biological criteria for one of the subjective aspects of life. If its not alive when does it become 'alive'?

They will say its not a human being, and as Mr. Columbo at BCCC taught me, its a simple matter of checking the DNA.

The next very foreseeable objection which comes from opponents is that a 'fetus' or an 'emryo' or 'zeitgote' is not a human person and they do not deserve legal protection. And I ask how is a human person different then a human being, and they will tell me something about consciousness, or sentience, so I will also ask when does a Human Being become a Human Person?

I have many more arguments too, but lets start here, or are you not up to logical discourse?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I will not read 44 pages of baby killer stuff. I am pro choice, have lived with a woman who had an abortion, and do not believe abortion is right. Amazingly the same people that want to deny their children comprehensive sex education don't want to allow abortion, until it happens to their daughters. Many of the ProLife crowd make the assumption that the ProChoice crowd is ProAbortion, and I cannot speak for all, but I know I speak for some, when I say "we are not pro-abortion". Educate your children, do not stick your heads in the sand.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Abortion is morally unacceptable.


To you. So, don't get one.



They will say its not alive I'll say there is absolutely cellular growth and development which is biological criteria for one of the subjective aspects of life. If its not alive when does it become 'alive'?


Athletes foot fungus is cellular growth and development, better wage a moral war on tough actin' Tinactin.



I have many more arguments too, but lets start here, or are you not up to logical discourse?


Well, you're argument, like the poster aboves argument, seems based on the premise that human life is more sacred than other life. I don't see it that way, all life is alive, and all life will die, one way or the other. That's the way it is on this earth, life lives, and it dies, for various reasons. We raise, and murder animals to eat them, or for their fur. Many mothers miscarry, at various stages in their pregnancies as well. Just cuz a sperm fertilized an egg, doesnt mean anything is a given.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



You may be trying to dance around it, but I'm quite sure you're a religious extremist.


Quite sure huh??? Would you please share you logic with me as to how you came to that brilliant conclusion?


I'm just rational, and understand during early development there is no self-aware, feeling human being. There is a mass of cells forming into one.


Is there a playbook you guys follow??? I'm getting tired of repeating myself...oh well.

I'm going to ask you for proof of how you measure self-awareness and "feeling". The funny thing is...I know your answer to this...but let's go through the whole process.


I know to you religious freaks, every sperm has a soul, and that's fine. You do the right thing by your god, and don't get an abortion.


Oh...I have been upgraded to a religious freak...how special.

I don't believe any sperm has a "soul"...in fact I have never said one word about a "soul" in this whole thread. I mass murder sperm often...and I use contraception...soooooooo...you are looking kind of foolish in your assumptions.

But it is funny how you pro-choice people try so hard to interject religion into this discussion when NO ONE is talking about it. It's called a STRAWMAN...create your own little controversy with your assumptions...then tear them down to try to make your position look better. This is the text book definition of a strawman.

I'm very dissapointed in you Mr. Logical thinker.


Well, wouldn't that be better than "murdering" them? Hell, I think that would be pretty cool. We need to do something with this exploding population, or NONE of our children will have enough to eat or drink. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Over population, look it up. We need to find other planets with more resources.


Overpopulation...I'm familiar with that myth that has been ongoing for the past what...100 years now???

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



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Okay, I get what you're saying. So, do you feel that human life is more 'sacred' than other life? Do you eat meat? Although even plants are "alive". Just as alive as the mass of cells developing when a sperm fertilizes an egg.


I think it is in the interest in any species to protect their own kind.

Wow...like a playbook...do I eat meat...lol....yes...it's delicious.


Try to understand this...I am speaking of HUMAN LIFE. I eat animals...I eat plants..it's how nature works. I don't eat humans...in case you were wondering.


I am a human...I am concerned about other humans.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Abortion is morally unacceptable.


To you. So, don't get one.

Ill give you a hint, you're supposed to attack on of the premises.



They will say its not alive I'll say there is absolutely cellular growth and development which is biological criteria for one of the subjective aspects of life. If its not alive when does it become 'alive'?



Athletes foot fungus is cellular growth and development, better wage a moral war on tough actin' Tinactin.

Athletes foot is not human growth and development, or human life, this is conflation and is fallacious.


Well, you're argument, like the poster aboves argument, seems based on the premise that human life is more sacred than other life. I don't see it that way, all life is alive, and all life will die, one way or the other. That's the way it is on this earth, life lives, and it dies, for various reasons. We raise, and murder animals to eat them, or for their fur. Many mothers miscarry, at various stages in their pregnancies as well. Just cuz a sperm fertilized an egg, doesn't mean anything is a given.


Did you goto Princeton or something? Specieism is a sham, as you are trying to assert that human beings are just like other animals and at the same time that we are supposed to act above them(humanely).

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

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

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

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



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
Quite sure huh??? Would you please share you logic with me as to how you came to that brilliant conclusion?


Yeah, quite sure. You haven't stated that you're not religious. If you're not, just say so and I'll eat my crow. And I'm sure we won't come to an agreement on what makes somebody an extremist, so no point in trying to argue your level of religious devotion.



I'm going to ask you for proof of how you measure self-awareness and "feeling". The funny thing is...I know your answer to this...but let's go through the whole process.


I don't need to prove anything. Abortion is legal. Cows are self aware, when I encounter them on the road, they move out of the way, because they don't want to get hit. Doesn't stop us from eating them, I bet you eat the hell out of some cow, huh?


I don't believe any sperm has a "soul"...in fact I have never said one word about a "soul" in this whole thread. I mass murder sperm often...and I use contraception...soooooooo...you are looking kind of foolish in your assumptions.


Sorry, that was a bit of sarcasm. I thought it was obvious.



Overpopulation...I'm familiar with that myth that has been ongoing for the past what...100 years now???


Oh, it's a myth. I see. 100 years isn't a very long time on the scale of our evolution and existence on this planet. Either way, resources are already too thin. There are large populations that go malnourished, children that are starving because they have no food. We're already over populated.
edit on 24-2-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmask
reply to post by geekyone
 
A baby doesn't NEED to be breast fed, an embryo needs to live off of a woman's body. Sorry your statement fails



Ah, but your logic would have failed you a hundred years ago. Medical science and food research has allowed breast feeding to become a want rather than a need.

So, for all of those hundreds/thousands of years that women breastfed, then I would say your statement fails. Of course, abortions were nearly unheard of. Isn't modern science grand!
edit on 24-2-2011 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The Coming Population Problem by Sir Julian Huxley for the U.N. Biodiversity Commission outlined the overpopulation problem. There is no problem with how bountiful the earth is, there are plenty of 'resources', the problem lies in greed, and sin,as well as the distribution of resources. It has become just like global warming (or is it cooling?)-another vehicle of the UN to interpolate into the sovereign affairs of nations and inflict laborious burdens of control like carbon taxes and Agenda 21.

I could on on but lets not get side tracked.
edit on 24-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


If you feel that abortions were not performed in the ancient world, then you need to do some research. There are several natural abortificants.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
See, you have both made it clear, that human life is the only "life" you're concerned about. That shows the delusional superiority complex religious humans have. There is no rational discussion from that point.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   


Yeah, quite sure. You haven't stated that you're not religious. If you're not, just say so and I'll eat my crow. And I'm sure we won't come to an agreement on what makes somebody an extremist, so no point in trying to argue your level of religious devotion.

Religion has nothing to do with the argument at this point, as we have not invoked God or Religion in our arguments.
However if you want to bring God up then sure yeah I'll bite. Abortion is from the pits of hell.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


I wasn't using overpopulation to defend abortion, I was using it to state why exploring other planets would benefit our species.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
abortion is against the hippocratic oath which all physicians are required to solemnly swear by.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Religion has nothing to do with the argument at this point, as we have not invoked God or Religion in our arguments.
However if you want to bring God up then sure yeah I'll bite. Abortion is from the pits of hell.


Thank you, and that's where the disconnect is. You don't have to invoke anything, your position comes from religious indoctrination, no matter how much you try and deny it. Show me one non-religious poster here who is arguing on the anti-choice side...




top topics



 
40
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join