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: 51
40
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Self Awareness happens between the ages of 3-5 or something like that.

We know this because young kids don't understand how mirrors work.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Self Awareness happens between the ages of 3-5 or something like that.

We know this because young kids don't understand how mirrors work.


You obviously don't have kids.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Self Awareness happens between the ages of 3-5 or something like that.

We know this because young kids don't understand how mirrors work.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



LMAO That is one of the stupidest comments I've ever had to read.....LOL.....

A one week old baby understands that a reflection in the mirror is just that, a reflection. Self awareness is instant at birth......Good god kid, get an education and some basic life experiences, step away from the keyboard and the PS3 !!! lol



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Self-awareness is not sentience, it is sentience what is important for protection (the ability to feel, perceive, suffer)

Very young babies often cannot recognise themselves in the mirror, but that does not in any way imply that they are not self-aware is the psychological sense (not having the concept of "me" vs. outside world). It just mean they dont know what mirror is and how it works, or dont know how they look from the outside.


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


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 25/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Really, cant read?

Genocide:
Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

Abortion:
Termination of pregnancy .

As you can see the difference pretty much explains itself.

To compare these 2 shows the type of ignorace that convinces me religion should be DESTROYED, its this type of ignorace that is killing the planet, there will NEVER be true peace an equality on this planet while people spout mindless garbage like this with no facts or COMMON SENSE.

People right now are dying all over the planet, our kids are being poisoned by food, chemicals, as is our land, People are dying for BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS all over the world, giving their lives for just the CHANCE of a chance!

And here you all are debating a NOTHING ISSUE with no care for the ACTUAL WORLD.

The FACT is there is NO LIFE without the mind, the MIND IS LIFE, NO MIND, NO LIFE. A fetus does not have a mind, so it is NOT ALIVE in the conventional sense, It is alive the same way a plant is alive.

What happens when a persons brain fails and they are brain dead? EXACTLY. No Mind, No LIFE. So abortion? The fetus never even had a mind to begin with, Its up to the woman, end of story, if you think otherwise, then?

get in line, there are billions of useless/ Ignorant/ bitter/ corrupt people doing everything they can to hold us back in the dark ages, you are but another of those people! (wether intentional or not)

Comparing Abortion to killing children is not even ignorant its pure idiocy and doesnt even deserve to be addressed. (its no different than "god hates fags", just another way of saying "Look at me", "look at me".)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by S3ns1bl3
 





The FACT is there is NO LIFE without the mind, the MIND IS LIFE, NO MIND, NO LIFE. A fetus does not have a mind, so it is NOT ALIVE in the conventional sense, It is alive the same way a plant is alive.

What happens when a persons brain fails and they are brain dead? EXACTLY. No Mind, No LIFE. So abortion? The fetus never even had a mind to begin with, Its up to the woman, end of story, if you think otherwise, then?


Exactly. I have yet to see some justification from an anti-abortionist why should we protect mindless life at the expense of already sentient and mindful life (mothers, people who would greatly benefit from embryonic cells therapy etc.). Abortion, or mindless life (incapable of suffering) being killed is maybe not a good thing, but when the only alternative to it is already sentient beings suffering, then the correct and moral answer is clear, the far lesser evil becomes obvious.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by S3ns1bl3
 


Exactly right. Religious indoctrination is probably the main cause of most real genocides that have happened on this planet. These loudmouth anti-choice posters, seem to argue from a standpoint that the law is on their side. It's not. A woman legally has the choice, and that isn't going to change. Their outrageous comparisons mean nothing at all.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

edit on 25-2-2011 by 27jd because: double post



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
I believe in war as an act of self-defense.


So, is collateral damage, the killing of frightened innocent civilians among the bad guys, acceptable? Self defense would be the act of defending yourself or loved one, from being directly attacked. Not killing everybody in a 4 square mile radius to get to one or two people. That's the way ALL modern wars have been fought. So, why are you not railing as hard against modern military weapons? They kill innocent human lives, MANY of them.



I'm against the death penalty and I am against assisted suicide. If someone wants to end their own life...then that is one situation where I agree that it is none of my business.


At least you're somewhat consistent. Odd though, that you draw the line at somebody ending their own life (not as a result of physical suffering) as none of your business, many times those people need somebody to care more than anybody else, and are not in their right minds. But in the case of assisted suicide, where somebody is suffering terribly due to disease and seeks the help of a doctor to stop it, you are against that? That doesn't make any sense.



"me and my ilk"....there you go again...is it possible for you to not attempt to paint me as a religious extremeist???


Your ilk, meaning people who feel they have the right to tell somebody what they can and can't do in regards to their own bodies. You're kind of a walking contradiction as far as religion goes, being an "agnostic theist", somebody who isn't sure if there's a god, but believes there is only one? I'm a spiritual agnostic myself. I believe there is more to life than we can see, but I'm very grounded in science as well. An early developing fetus (1st trimester) is not a self-aware, conscious, feeling being. I do not feel late term abortion should be an option simply because the mother changes her mind.



And I'm just wondering...are you going to answer ANY of the questions I have asked you...or are you just going to ignore them???


Lay them out for me in a nice, numbered format, and I'd be happy to. I can't really make out what is a real question, and what is just an emotional rhetorical question in your previous posts.




edit on 25-2-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Actually, your supposedly "logical" and "scientific" arguments are flawed, and based upon emotion:




And what exactly is that hypocrisy??? My position has changed. Here, I'll lay it out for you in nice little bullet points.

- I believe human life is a purely biological process that starts when cells begin to divide and ends when cells stop dividing. (short version...for long version...read previous reply)

- I believe any person who ends another persons life is murder

- I believe murder is always wrong, but acceptable in defense of yourself or others (mostly loved ones)

- I'm concerned with protecting human life, not all life.


I think that about covers it. Where is my hypocrisy???


You're hypocrisy here is that you are indirectly arguing *for* PRO CHOICE : "Murder is always wrong, but acceptable in defense of yourself." Eg - the parasite shall be removed in defense of the host.

And these thoughts actually hinge off emotion, rather than logic, because you chose to use the word "murder".

Murder is a *legal* term, it has nothing to do with logic or science. Choosing that word comes from emotion.

The word LIFE is also suspect - because "potential life" is not the same as "life". But, you have pronounced your own thinking logical, and then proceeded to bootstrap off of that.

Why I was curious as to what sort of work you do is that you strike me as quite young. College student enamored of 'logic' which they picked up from a Philosophy 101 text. You really do come off this way with your repeated use of the words "logic" and "science".

I suspect you might be rather confused as well. You have the word "warlord" under your name. Yet you claim to be pro life. You have a disingenuous and hypocritical thought as your signature as well. This points to being confused. Or, someone who is looking for an argument.

You fail on 'logic' because you are only using thoughts which *appear* logical - to you. You stated elsewhere that you felt people should be controlled for the good of society. This points to Fascism and I strongly suspect that you are a conservative shill. Or a simple troll looking for arguments.

And your own *belief* right here could be *logically* used in the opposite direction: Control people for the good of society? OK - force them ALL to have abortions as there are too many people. See? You can flip the entire thing to the polar opposite view based upon some particular *logic*. And you can twist any emotional response by calling it "ethnic cleansing" rather than murder.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
22% in the UK? Wow. I have heard though that teen pregnancies are a lot higher than in the states.

I wouldn't say it's on the same level as genocide though.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


its not mass killing. no one is forcing these women to come to abortion clinics and kill their babies. this is 100% voluntary. you make it sound like theres a Fetus Gestapo rolling around with a bat and a pillow sack killing babies.
and honestly, ask yourself if your girlfriend got raped by some maniac and became pregnant would you want to keep the child as a constant reminder of such a horrific event? Not to mention trying to explain to this child that their father is in prison because he's a rapist, and said child is the result of a rape. seriously??

And you would argue that these babies can be put up for adoption. Look at statistics for adopted children, how many of them suffer from extreme emotional problems. imagine the feeling of not being wanted as a child. knowing your parents didnt want you. that rele screws with a childs emotional state.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



So, is collateral damage, the killing of frightened innocent civilians among the bad guys, acceptable?


Nope...not in my opinion. It is technically a war crime to kill innocent civilians...so what more is there to do about it?


That's the way ALL modern wars have been fought. So, why are you not railing as hard against modern military weapons? They kill innocent human lives, MANY of them.


And I disagree with the killing of innocent human lives...and as I said it is already a war crime to do so.

Do you want me to argue that it should be more of a war crime???

It'd be nice if you addressed my arguments, rather than continuing trying to raise up another strawman. First religion...now this. :shk:


At least you're somewhat consistent. Odd though, that you draw the line at somebody ending their own life (not as a result of physical suffering) as none of your business, many times those people need somebody to care more than anybody else, and are not in their right minds. But in the case of assisted suicide, where somebody is suffering terribly due to disease and seeks the help of a doctor to stop it, you are against that? That doesn't make any sense.


Makes perfect sense to me. I'm against another human being directly involved in ending another human life. Which is why I'm against assisted suicide by another person...but am ok with someone doing it themselves.

Again...my position is clear and 100% consistent...not "somewhat" consistent.


Your ilk, meaning people who feel they have the right to tell somebody what they can and can't do in regards to their own bodies. You're kind of a walking contradiction as far as religion goes, being an "agnostic theist", somebody who isn't sure if there's a god, but believes there is only one? I'm a spiritual agnostic myself. I believe there is more to life than we can see, but I'm very grounded in science as well. An early developing fetus (1st trimester) is not a self-aware, conscious, feeling being. I do not feel late term abortion should be an option simply because the mother changes her mind.


Belief is not knowledge my friend...I would think such a logical and agnostic person yourself would know that.

There is no contradiction in being an agnostic theist...because like I said...one deals with knowledge...the other with beliefs.

You say you are very grounded in science...but you refuse to use the only 100% scientific definition of LIFE.

And you say a 1st trimester fetus is not self-aware and hence not a human yet. Are newborn infants self-aware???



Lay them out for me in a nice, numbered format, and I'd be happy to. I can't really make out what is a real question, and what is just an emotional rhetorical question in your previous posts.


Any sentence that ends with a "?" is a question.

Do I really need to hold your hand to help you identify what a real question is??? And yes...that is a question.


At any time...feel free to answer any of them...or address my argument about the biological proccess of life. Or just continue to attempt to build your strawmen...whatever works for you



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Whiffer Nippets
 



Actually, your supposedly "logical" and "scientific" arguments are flawed, and based upon emotion


Really...I never knew Biology was based upon emotion.

ATS is such an enlightening place.



You're hypocrisy here is that you are indirectly arguing *for* PRO CHOICE : "Murder is always wrong, but acceptable in defense of yourself." Eg - the parasite shall be removed in defense of the host.


Yes, I agree...I have said so in many many replies. I am 100% fine with an abortion when the mothers life is in danger.

Not when there is a less than 1% chance of danger (like in all pregnancies)...but when there is an actual medically determined problem.

You can keep trying to find a hole in my position...but you are failing.


And these thoughts actually hinge off emotion, rather than logic, because you chose to use the word "murder".

Murder is a *legal* term, it has nothing to do with logic or science. Choosing that word comes from emotion.


I'm so sorry that word bothers you so much.

Would you rather me switch to "killing"...is that really going to affect my argument???


The word LIFE is also suspect - because "potential life" is not the same as "life". But, you have pronounced your own thinking logical, and then proceeded to bootstrap off of that.


I have never said anything of "potential life". Potential life would be sperm or egg. Life is life...life is cell division and DNA.

It's a complete biological point of view.


Why I was curious as to what sort of work you do is that you strike me as quite young. College student enamored of 'logic' which they picked up from a Philosophy 101 text. You really do come off this way with your repeated use of the words "logic" and "science".


Really...where am I using philosophy in any of my arguments???

Philosophy is being used by those arguing sentience and consciousness...not me arguing biology.

If you have seen a flaw in my LOGIC or SCIENCE (I know you like those words)...please show me.


I suspect you might be rather confused as well. You have the word "warlord" under your name. Yet you claim to be pro life. You have a disingenuous and hypocritical thought as your signature as well. This points to being confused. Or, someone who is looking for an argument.


Yes...it is confusing you...isn't it???

Your screen name is "Whiffer Nippets"...Nippets isn't evena word...you must be rather confused


See how silly it is to sink to picking apart someones online profile???


You fail on 'logic' because you are only using thoughts which *appear* logical - to you.


Maybe you aren't familiar with biology...but my argument is 100% biological based.

Care to share with me exactly which "thoughts" of mine only appear logical???


You stated elsewhere that you felt people should be controlled for the good of society. This points to Fascism and I strongly suspect that you are a conservative shill. Or a simple troll looking for arguments.


Oh...have I??? I don't remember saying "people should be controlled for the good of society"...maybe you would like to go back and find the quote of me saying that. I'll wait.


A conservative shill...LOL...tell that to the members that believe I am a paid employee of Obama or Rham Emanuel. You are free to check my posting history...I don't think Conservatives would consider me one of their own.


And your own *belief* right here could be *logically* used in the opposite direction: Control people for the good of society? OK - force them ALL to have abortions as there are too many people. See? You can flip the entire thing to the polar opposite view based upon some particular *logic*. And you can twist any emotional response by calling it "ethnic cleansing" rather than murder.


Except that isn't my own belief...that is your accusation against me which you have failed to provide any proof for. I believe what you are refering to is someone accusing me of wanting to control people...and me replying by saying something like "if enforcing the laws of murder is controlling people...guilty as charged".




Now...if you can put away your emotional ranting long enough...I have a few questions for you.

Since you wanted to know my profession...what is yours? And what is your level of education in formal "logic", since you seem to be the judge of "logic"?

Are you going to even attempt to argue against my biological view of the process of life???



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by S3ns1bl3
 


Exactly right. Religious indoctrination is probably the main cause of most real genocides that have happened on this planet. These loudmouth anti-choice posters, seem to argue from a standpoint that the law is on their side. It's not. A woman legally has the choice, and that isn't going to change. Their outrageous comparisons mean nothing at all.



Well you just love to blame the world's problems on religion don't you.

Do you notice that you are just about the only person in this thread talking about religion???

Obsess much?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I never once said a fetus isn't alive, tumors are also alive. A fetus in early development is not a self-aware, feeling being. It's a mass of dividing cells that are in the process of forming a self-aware, living being. I'm done going round and round with you. As I've said before, your opinion, no matter how strong it is, means absolutely jack squat. How do you feel about that? You can state and restate your opinion, over and over and over, and it won't change anything. No matter how much you want to dictate what others do with their bodies, you can't.

And yes, I feel organized religion is one of the biggest roadblocks to human evolution, and peace on earth. It's nothing more than a few rich, greedy men controlling populations using fear of the unknown and guilt. But, because I support personal freedoms, I'm not for outlawing organized religion. I'm just hoping people wake up and see for themselves that they've been manipulated by true evil.
edit on 25-2-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
First: Miscarriages happen all the time... Does that mean that a woman who's experienced one is a murderer? Could one call that a "child suicide"? C'mon people... These are private matters, and none of your (or my) business.

Secondly: Anyone who is against the freedom of choice should be given no choices, in any matter. Period.

Third: Mostly everyone on earth has developed their views based on the social and political landscape of WHERE they've grown up. If you lived in a country that said it was -okay- to throw acid in a womans face for cheating on you, do you think abortion would even be mentioned??



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 




I mean nearly 200,000 out of that only 52 were aborted because the mother might die when giving birth. I think this is justifiable but would also ask why the mother should live and the child die. The mother has probably already lived perhaps 30 years of her life.


Are you actually insane?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I never once said a fetus isn't alive, tumors are also alive. A fetus in early development is not a self-aware, feeling being. It's a mass of dividing cells that are in the process of forming a self-aware, living being. I'm done going round and round with you. As I've said before, your opinion, no matter how strong it is, means absolutely jack squat. How do you feel about that? You can state and restate your opinion, over and over and over, and it won't change anything. No matter how much you want to dictate what others do with their bodies, you can't.


By your defintion...a plant isn't alive.


A fetus IS in early development of HUMAN LIFE. Just as a tadpole is in early development of a FROG LIFE. Biology...Science...it is your friend...USE IT.

Are people in a vegetative state "self-aware"??? I guess we can just kill them...huh???


I'm sorry your philosophical argument of picking one arbitrary human trait to define life is failing so very hard. You are getting emotional and ranty...maybe you need to take a break. Let the facts of biology sink into your head and reflect on them.

Until you can provide some sound and logical argument as to why the biological definition of life isn't the best definition to use for humans, just as it is used for all other species...then please refrain from yelling and getting all emotional. It doesn't make you look very good.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by soundalchemy
First: Miscarriages happen all the time... Does that mean that a woman who's experienced one is a murderer? Could one call that a "child suicide"? C'mon people... These are private matters, and none of your (or my) business.


Ummm....no. Miscarriages are a 100% natural and biological process of life. There is no direct human involvement in spontaneous miscarriages. I don't believe it is that hard to understand.



Secondly: Anyone who is against the freedom of choice should be given no choices, in any matter. Period.


Well..that is quite an oxymoron. A beautiful piece of circular logic. If someone doesn't believe in choice...then you don't believe they should have a choice...which means you don't believe in choice...so you don't have any choice in them having a choice if they are against this so called "freedom of choice".

It sounds like you just shut yourself up




Third: Mostly everyone on earth has developed their views based on the social and political landscape of WHERE they've grown up. If you lived in a country that said it was -okay- to throw acid in a womans face for cheating on you, do you think abortion would even be mentioned??


It sounds like that is what you may have done...and other pro-choicers.

But I choose to think for myself and I like to use silly things called facts and science. So I will stick with my purely biological definitions...I'll leave you to the emotional responses.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join