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: 47
40
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Yes we can. It's a cell. It's alive.

Argue all you want about the soul, consciousness, and a host of other utter bullsh*t that's irrelevant. Is it human? yes. The genes say so. Is it life? Yes. It has cells. No further debate is needed. You are murdering.

now you have to ask when murder is understandable. It's never acceptable and its never ok, but no one's going to stop you if you kill a pedophile 5 minutes before a rape.

Ergo, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the law of the land. We must think via this. Was the liberty taken to peruse happiness in the act of sex with two consulting adults? If so, the right to life has legal protection. Was liberty violated for one's pursuit of happiness? If so, there is no legal basis to protect that life from being ended as it violates freedom. Though morally disgusting, morals have no place in law. Fook off with them. Next thing, is a life threatened by another? The mother, being an adult, takes precedence. Thus if the risk to life is there the parasite is less important legally. A lot more effort is needed to crate a member of society all over again versus keeping one alive.

Ergo, if you did it like a retard without protection and got stuck with a kid, sucks to be you. You're retarded. learn and brace the consequences. if you were rape, it says nothing to you being retarded or not. So you have rights. if you're about to die because of another, you have to be saved by priority

And ultimately, abortion will become irrelevant when children can be grown outside the womb. At which time, it's banned.
edit on 24-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Constance888
I never really understood these anti-abortionists. You say there's no justifiable excuse for a woman to get an abortion unless it endangers her life or if she's raped and things of that nature.

Well if she doesn't play the role of the 'murderer' and decides to the bare the child and leave it on your doorstep will you take it?


Well, see... there are a lot of people who would say yes to that, actually. The problem is that, even if I said yes, the system makes adoption damned near impossible. My wife and I were going to originally adopt before we gave up on the bureaucracy and just had our own. Adoption has become a tool of a capitalist society and many people have figured out how to milk money out of acting as middlemen.

I agree with your general sentiments as to what we would actually do with all these people we suddenly allowed to live but had no willing parents. I would like to see more solutions from the pro-life folks on taking care of orphans, as well.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Yes we can. It's a cell. It's alive.

Argue all you want about the soul, consciousness, and a host of other utter bullsh*t that's irrelevant. Is it human? yes. The genes say so. Is it life? Yes.

So are the cells that get stuck under my finger nail when i scratch my butt. I am glad you feel so much passion about this topic that you need to use censored profanity to express that passion - but your opinion is just that an opinion. Please provide some evidence to back up your view: MY question to you is - when did that human DNA become a life - at what point? At the point it contained the full 46 chromosomes? The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being - It is a potential person but it is not a person. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation. Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA, does this glob now have the right to not be aborted? The problem is you can not define the point where human life comes in to existance because we are more than body,mind,soul or DNA - and without being able to prove that their is life then you can not prove a life is being taken - just a potential life. This is why abortion can be legally excused easily during early pregnancy but it becomes hard later.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo


I agree with your general sentiments as to what we would actually do with all these people we suddenly allowed to live but had no willing parents. I would like to see more solutions from the pro-life folks on taking care of orphans, as well.


Yes, Pro-life and Pro-Choice people need to get together and try to find solutions to more worldly problems. Adoption has the potential to be good and bad just like abortion in my opinion. We need to really focus on taking care of the people that are already here and stop sweating bullets over the ones who aren't.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I had a lot of cells taken out in a biopsy. We lose cells everyday. Body AI isn't soul/consciousness. And no one has that right over another human being, they can instead work on their own faults and failings, instead of trying to control someone else, and seek to help the poor, the homeless. There are many issues, and there is suffering of consciousness, right before our eyes.



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





Oh look...you answered one of your own questions than...Ants are sentient...everything with a brain that produces brain waves is a sentient being. I guess we should protect them all??? Make it illegal to kill all life with a brain??? That IS your argument..right?


Yes, that would be ideal, unfortunately, in our barbaric society its probably not real. Anyway, I see no moral reason to protect unsentient life regardless of the order of its nucleotides in the DNA.



Of course you ignored the fact that most definitions of "sentience" (because there are so many...I'm sure you will just ARBITRARILY pick ONE)...deals with "feeling" or being "self aware". Seems like you have a dilema...funny how I DON'T. So which is it...all living things with brain waves are sentient? Only humans with brain waves are sentient? Do you have to be self aware to be sentient, if so, how do you measure this? Do you have to experience "feeling" to be sentient, if so, how do you measure this?


Brain waves = sentience. There is no dilemma, you cannot have and dont have brain waves at the same time.

Hint: Not all electrical potentials emitted by neurons are clasified as brain waves.



SO many questions to clarify your criteria...maybe you should move to a more simple and complete definition of life....like the BIOLOGICAL definition???


That would be immoral.



There you go...I knew you wouldn't dissapoint...arbitrarily picked one to suit your needs....Bravo.


If you dont like the term "sentience", because coording to you its vaguelly defined, substitute the term "presence of brain waves" in its place.



How do you know? How do you know a baby has the ability to perceive??? You are stuck in trying to defend something that you CAN NOT measure...and you fall back on non-sensical philosophy instead of sticking to SCIENCE.


The science of neurology and psychology teaches as so, and babies have brain waves. Would you dispute even that?

We CAN measure sentience exactly - as presence of brain waves.



You don't need biology to answer this...human law should protect human life. Quite simple isn't it???


No, I dont see it as self-evident. Many people think that we should protect only sentient human life, and dont have to protect unsentient life. Why should your moral opinion be better or more relevant than theirs?

Are you a moral relativist, or a moral objectivist? If relativist, you have no right to impose your morality on others who disagree with it. If objectivist, what do you claim is the universal source of objective morality?



LOL...sociology is NOT science...don't make me laugh.


LOL
Tell that to social sciences professors and they will probably rip you apart.



Sociology is the study of society.[1] It is a social science—a term with which it is sometimes synonymous—which uses various methods of empirical investigation[2] and critical analysis[3


The distinction between so called "hard" natural sciences like medicine or biology and "soft" sciences is purely arbitrary. Both study homo sapiens, just on a different levels.

To me, social sciences, most notably research works by Sam Harris, are the source of objective morality, that tells me abortion in the first trimester should be allowed.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Those scales, when they die, do not erase your genetics from existence. please, no strawmen.

my opinion is based on scientific fact. The only thing that matters when it comes to law and society.

Life begins when life processes begin. Conception. The haploids are not human. They are byproducts of human, indifferent than those butt cells you mentioned. Their deaths do not erase your genetics from existence.

All people under the age of 28, the time when the brain stops developing, are potential human. My question to you, where is your line for what potentiality matters? To me,potentiality doesn't matter. All people have the right to peruse their maximum potential, or lax and do nothing. You have no right to force your view of viability or not. They are inviable. We all die eventually. That's not to say it doesn't matter when you die. That's to say the law is to allow you to live. Not to end your viability potential. Every human being has the potential for greatness at any point. From a purely wtf random possibility, at any point that zygoat may fall through a hole into the universe into a place where time does not exist. Where anything ti could become is immediately present. An instant god. because there is no line, no line should be drawn.

The hair you pull out has no potential. it's already dead, btw.

TBH your argument is weak and homocentric. Please look past your pre-defined definitions for terms you do not even fully understand.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Consciousness it worthless. We can cut out half a brain and the other half can work perfectly well. Clearly it's worthless. And on that basis, the waves that make up your brain wave never fully go away. They just pass into the sea of waves. But they're never fully gone. So in truth you never do die if you want to count on those waves.

leave your religion and ethics at the door please. We deal with physical things here. Consciousness is not physical. It's just a measure based on what you think you know about a subject unknown. Therefore, abandon it in scientific debates.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


How does



We can cut out half a brain and the other half can work perfectly well.


imply



Consciousness it worthless.


???



And on that basis, the waves that make up your brain wave never fully go away. They just pass into the sea of waves. But they're never fully gone. So in truth you never do die if you want to count on those waves.


These sentences do not make sense to me. Can you clarify?


edit on 25/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Consciousness it worthless.


Counsciusness (or more exactly, sentience) is not worthless, it is the SOURCE from which our rights are stemming. If you have no brain, you would have as much rights as a vegetable - none.




We can cut out half a brain and the other half can work perfectly well.


How is this relevant?




nd on that basis, the waves that make up your brain wave never fully go away. They just pass into the sea of waves. But they're never fully gone. So in truth you never do die if you want to count on those waves.


No, they fully go away when you die, in fact it is medical and legal definition of death.




We deal with physical things here.


Indeed.




Consciousness is not physical.


Consciousness is as physical as breathing, heartbeat or digesting.




It's just a measure based on what you think you know about a subject unknown. Therefore, abandon it in scientific debates.


We know many things about consciousness and sentience, one of them is that it is seated in higher brain.


I never understood why consciousness is associated with something unscientific or magical. There is nothing special about it, except that it is a little more complicated physical process than other processes in human body. It absolutely is scientific, and science has the answer on the lower bound of its emergence.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Clearly, the number of brain cells, as well as brain complexity, has no affect on the outcome of intelligence potential. Therefore, I see no reason to argue for potentiality being invalid when the reduction of supposed potential has no relationship to actual achievement.

Hell, you could store the wave on a machine and never worry about brain cells all together.

No data, once created, can ever be fully destroyed. The wave will collapse to ever smaller levels but will never fully be gone. That's why we see still the light waves of the furthest galaxy from just a billion years into the Universe's 15. Why just have to wait long enough to collect enough to see them.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I don't approve abortions, especially after three months of pregnancy. But asking to make abortion illegal goes against the basics human rights.

The mother have the right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not; and she have this right not because you or the law gave it to her, but because that's the way the nature works.

The fetus depends on the mother to become a child; it's inside her. Until it is born, alive or not, the fetus depends on the mother, and the choices are all hers, no matter what you say. That's the way it happens with all living creatures who gave birth. Maybe an animal can't have an abortion, but an animal will kill or abandon the weak offspring after birth. It's always the mother's decision.

To put a fetus rights before mother's rights is a twisted and sick logic. A child cannot come into being without the woman or against the woman's will. What, will you imprison the pregnant woman until birth to make sure she carries it? No one have rights over other person's body; but the mother have the natural right over the fetus inside her. That's the way it is. Trying to take this right from her is definitely wrong.

And I'm sorry to say that, but murder is justified in our society. Sending soldiers to kill other people is murder; death sentence is murder, like someone else pointed out. Wake up and look outside your bubble. For enough profit or "moral" justification we kill on a daily basis, my righteous friends.


A question that most of anti-abortion supporters fail to answer in over 40 pages of debates is who will take responsibility for that life that you protect and want to bring into world without mother's consent. What will happen with that kid? Thousands of couples who want to adopt a child is not even close to solve the problem. Have any of you ever adopted a street child, or a disabled one? Oh, but I guess is ok to leave them at the fire stations or hospitals, as long as they're alive. That's real compassion.

Someone said here "we kill our children". That's plain hypocrisy. Stop lying to yourselves.
Our children are at home, safe, loved and cared for. We talk here about nobody's children, the kids out there, in the system or on the street. They are the fruits of unwanted pregnancies; go take a good look at them before asking for more.

It seems like most of people here fail to make the connection between the unwanted pregnancies and the ever growing number of abandoned children. From their point of view the issue ends when that "sacred" life arrives at the hospital. It's alive, now it's somebody else' business. Let's torment another pregnant woman.

As I already said, a society that is not able to take care of all it's member has no right to choose for them.

Let's take care first of all the abandoned children out there, and only after that we'll have a basis to oppose abortion.
edit on 25-2-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Clearly, the number of brain cells, as well as brain complexity, has no affect on the outcome of intelligence potential. Therefore, I see no reason to argue for potentiality being invalid when the reduction of supposed potential has no relationship to actual achievement.


It is not true that when the brain is cut in half, it works perfectly well. The result is a condition called split brain, and nicely illustrates that consciousness is a physical manifestation of connections between higher brain neurons. Number of cells is not so much important, their connections are.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...




Hell, you could store the wave on a machine and never worry about brain cells all together.


Theoreticaly indeed, and such a machine would have as much rights as you and me. Because our mind is the source of our rights. Thats the reasoning behind transhumanism (extropianism).




No data, once created, can ever be fully destroyed.


That is debatable, but indeed it is the basis for ultimate definition of death, one we will use in the future, IMHO:

en.wikipedia.org...

There is no such data created at conception, tough. Fewe months after conception is the earliest time we can talk about data encoded in higher brain.
edit on 25/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Exactly. Now where to draw the line at complexity? This is known as eugenics. That because your some how superior you're more important. This is only true when your life is in danger as a result of another. I don't see abortion as justifiable for nay reason, but legally it is defendable when the mother is at risk or rape is involved. That is all.

The mind is not the source of your rights, because then we have a line between the dumb and smart and the smart get priority. Not so. Unless a life is in danger or a liberty is violated through another's pursuits, there is no right to judge. All of humanity from their beginning at conception to their rightful death have legal protection under the law.

The wave of a human begins technically when their molecules are put there by the mothers food digestive system. The brain cells simply produce more waves on top of that. They are just modifying what's already there. hence we are nothing more than quite literally dust in the wind. In ergo, the only thing you can define life as and draw a line for is genes. The genes are formed, and they are unique. They are what makes a human. A human can have a sudden quite literally EMP blast to their brain and all information is lost or reset and they have to regain it. At this moment they are indifferent to that fetus without brain cells. Nothing matters. but they are still human and still have rights.These waves are just electrons. Indifferent to a rock on Pluto. just photons and electrons interacting. The genes, however, are physical. They come, then they go. They are a unit. A thing which can be metered. And therefore concrete proof of life. Their creation is birth, their destruction and erasure death.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Cancer cells also come from human cells and are very much alive. You don't see people holding up signs chanting for "Cancer rights"



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


So consciousness is not a requirement nor detail of life? Just cells? Does everything containing life, i.e cells, deserve rights? Plants? Cancer? etc.

That is ridiculous. To say that just because there is cell division that it is morally relevant? I would think that you owe us something in the way of justification, surely there is more to what you consider morally relevant life.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by issaiah1332
 


Morals are crap. no thank you.

We're human. That's all that matters. What makes us human? Our cells. What makes those cells alive? Their genes. End of story. Consciousness comes from the cells, not the other way around. It's a dependency and therefore irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by issaiah1332
 


Because they violate the right to life of Humans.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 


A child of 5 is just as dependent as the fetus. therefore the parasitic nature before the age of 13 is irrelevant. What is relevant is if liberty was violated in its formation or if a life is threatened by its continuation.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Those scales, when they die, do not erase your genetics from existence. please, no strawmen.

I quoted you what the definition is according to blacks law dictionary - the most commonly used dictionary in the court room. Nothing 'strawmen' about it - it is fact, just because this is often quoted by the freeman society does not make it untrue.


my opinion is based on scientific fact. The only thing that matters when it comes to law and society.

Just like everybodies on ATS - care to provide some sources? Because your scientific fact would stand up in a court of law if true - but it does not, hence abortion is legal in most of the western world


Life begins when life processes begin. Conception. The haploids are not human. They are byproducts of human, indifferent than those butt cells you mentioned. Their deaths do not erase your genetics from existence.

"life begins when life processes begin. Conception"
Life processes:
*Movement (moving parts of the body)
*Reproduction (producing offspring)
*Sensitivity (responding & reacting)
*Nutrition (getting food to stay alive)
*Excretion (getting rid of waste)
*Respiration (turning food into energy)
*Growth (getting to adult size)


So you have proved my point - by your definition life processes must begin - by the scientific definition life must posses ALL these traits. An organism is only alive if it does all seven life processes! A zygote does not fit this description.



All people under the age of 28, the time when the brain stops developing, are potential human. My question to you, where is your line for what potentiality matters? To me,potentiality doesn't matter. All people have the right to peruse their maximum potential, or lax and do nothing. You have no right to force your view of viability or not. They are inviable. We all die eventually. That's not to say it doesn't matter when you die. That's to say the law is to allow you to live. Not to end your viability potential. Every human being has the potential for greatness at any point. From a purely wtf random possibility, at any point that zygoat may fall through a hole into the universe into a place where time does not exist. Where anything ti could become is immediately present. An instant god. because there is no line, no line should be drawn.

My point is there is not line - under law things must be proven to be beyond reasonable doubt - hence if they were the late stages of pregnancy this could be presented to be highly credible proof that it is a life with personhood and therefore a murder took place- but if it was early in pregnancy it is impossible to prove because no matter what your opinion thinks - their is no time when a being's life and personhood begins that can be pinpointed - therefore no murder could have take place - if you have science sources that say otherwise I would be happy to reevalute my understanding.


The hair you pull out has no potential. it's already dead, btw.

TBH your argument is weak and homocentric. Please look past your pre-defined definitions for terms you do not even fully understand.

I said the clump of cells at the bottom of the hair - not the hair otherwise the same argument could be said for aborting the zygote - it's already dead, it now has no potential. When you pull a hair out the cell's at the bottom of it are still alive and they contain human DNA.
edit on 25-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
40
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join