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: 69
40
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

This site seems to point out several academic sources that state that human life begins at conception, with the creation of an embryo that is distinct from the two gametes that combined to create it. This is simple biology, not my opinion. What sources do you have that state that human life does not begin at conception? Thank You.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


This "valid solution" is the same thing that I and several other people have been pointing out. Except in the case of rape, a woman has just as much say in whether or not she has sex. You cannot simply hold the man responsible for a pregnancy, since it biologically takes a gamete from both genders to create a new life (not that I am claiming that you or anyone else holds a man solely responsible for pregnancy).
edit on 28-2-2011 by 44247844 because: Deletion of information



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


You know, I was thinking the same thing, but I posted a link to see if she may change her mind.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 44247844
 


Oops, it seems that the site has "pro-life" mentioned in the link. However, the quotes came from academic sources that presumably have no tie to the "pro-life" movement, and should be relevant.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 44247844
 


Right, both parties are responsible for pregnancy. That's why, if one feels so strongly about the subject of abortion, they need to make sure they're on the same page as whomever they jump into bed with. Male or female.
edit on 28-2-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44247844
reply to post by Annee
 


I already caught that one, Annee. You said that you do not believe in late-term abortions, so my question was not addressed to you. My question is addressed to people who believe that abortion is okay at any point, except for once the baby is outside the womb. And yes, I know of cannibalism, and I am challenging some points that have been brought up in response to my thoughts on cannibalism. Thanks for your response.


Did I use the word believe?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Here is what I actually said:

Of course - - we do live in a Society - - and need to have certain laws that are reasonable. I don't think it can be acceptable in our society to terminate the physical being after it is born. As far as late term abortion - - - my personal feeling is not after being has the ability to live on its own outside the mother. However - - I can not force this thought on someone else.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44247844
Why is it against the law to kill people for food, but not to kill other plants and animals for food?


I don't make the laws, so I can't answer that.



You are right, in the past, there were people who ate people. They saw other people as they would see any other food. It seems that relatively recently, people decided that people were "different" somehow and not eligible to be eaten.



Right, as we became a civilized society, murder became illegal in order for society to be civilized. We won't eat other people because of social conditioning, not because it's not in our nature. As with other primates, humans do practice cannibalism.



Some people do not even eat people if it meant starving to death. I am just pointing out that people must see something "special" to make humans forbidden as food. Thanks again for your input, 27jd.


But some people will eat others when starving to death. So, like views on abortion, views on cannibalism will differ from person to person. But, again, it's illegal. Abortion is not.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
From what I can tell about Princeton - - - they are heavily Christian focused - - - and only recently (19th century) bringing secular science into the curriculum.

So - - I do question their claim of when Life begins.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Here is a really good (but long) article of when Life Begins.

When Does Human Life Begin?

The question of when a human life begins is a profoundly intricate one, with widespread implications, ranging from abortion rights to stem cell research and beyond. A key point in the debate rests on the way in which we choose to define the concepts of humanity, life, and human life. What does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be human? Is a zygote or an embryo alive? Is a zygote or an embryo a human being? These are intricate philosophical questions that often incite intense debate, for their answers are used as evidence in the answers to questions about the moral status of a zygote, embryo or fetus.

The question of when human life begins has been pondered throughout history and in a multitude of cultural contexts. The "answer" is fluid, in that it has been changing throughout history, because any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that drew the conclusion. Throughout history there have been several "answers" to the question of when human life begins, but the only consistency among the answers is that they are always changing as social contexts change, religious morals fluctuate, or new knowledge about the process of embryo development is obtained.

8e.devbio.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44247844
Also, scientifically, a "life" definitively begins at conception


I concede that. It wasn't easy to find something that was not of a religious nature. I think I was thinking of the debates of when a fetus is a "legal person".

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics.

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

www.abort73.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Is it relevant? You specifically mentioned that you cannot force your thought on other people. I was only addressing the question to those who believe that abortion is okay at any point until the baby is outside the womb. You mentioned viability, so the question is not directed at you.

As to your point of Princeton becoming secular in the 19th century: This is irrelevant as well. Assuming that they are still religiously oriented and nitpicked sources to support their view, my point was that the sources themselves are not necessarily biased like Princeton.

Of course, I can acknowledge that the answer can be fluid, even in science. Science claims (according to your source) anything from conception (genetic view) to about 25-27 weeks (the concept of viability). From a neurological basis, 8 weeks is considered a landmark, and a recognizable EEG pattern occurs between 24-27 weeks. From an embryological basis, gastrulation occurs at 3 weeks (at which point there can only be one human being arising from the embryo).

All these scientific views would claim that a "human" is being aborted, at the very latest, at 27 weeks. This brings up the other point that was in your source: A philosophical view that referred to self-consciousness. In this view, supporting abortion means that one would logically support infanticide, since self-consciousness does not occur until a relatively later period of time after birth. Therefore, an infant does not have the right to life that a full-fledged human has. Most people are obviously uncomfortable with this view.

This brings me to a point that follows from your source: Looking at it from a scientific point of view, anyone who supports abortion after, at the latest, 27 weeks (and at the earliest, conception, from a genetic standpoint), is supporting the killing of a human (or human life, or life, or whatever you want to call it). What do you think of this, Annee? Thank You for your response.

edit on 28-2-2011 by 44247844 because: Addition of information

edit on 28-2-2011 by 44247844 because: Addition of information



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I appreciate that you are able to concede that point. There are people who would continue to argue out of emotion (or an inferiority complex, or to get the last word, etc.), but you did not do this, and I respect you for that. Thank You.
edit on 28-2-2011 by 44247844 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44247844
This brings me to a point that follows from your source: Looking at it from a scientific point of view, anyone who supports abortion after, at the latest, 27 weeks (and at the earliest, conception, from a genetic standpoint), is supporting the killing of a human (or human life, or life, or whatever you want to call it).


I know the question wasn't directed to me. But I agree with the above. When the nervous system is developed, and a fetus can likely feel pain, elective abortion should not be a (legal) option. I've always felt that if a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy, it needs to be done early.
edit on 28-2-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44247844
This brings me to a point that follows from your source: Looking at it from a scientific point of view, anyone who supports abortion after, at the latest, 27 weeks, is supporting the killing of a human (or human life, or life, or whatever you want to call it). What do you think of this, Annee? Thank You for your response.


I just wanted to be clear that it was truly hard science based. I did that. And it is.

As I stated - - - culture/belief. I can not dictate someone's culture/belief. They can not dictate mine.

Society - - well that's kind of a different story. You need to have reasonable laws/rules that everyone can live with.

From a hard science view - - it would seem you are eliminating a living physical being if done from conception. So does it really matter when?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44247844
reply to post by Annee
 


I appreciate that you are able to concede that point. There are people who would continue to argue out of emotion (or an inferiority complex, or to get the last word, etc.), but you did not do this, and I respect you for that. Thank You.


Thank you. No - I make every effort to use logic and look things up when questioned.

LOL - No no ego here.



edit on 28-2-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Any question I ask is directed to everyone, it is just that some are directed especially at particular people. I agree with you that late-term abortions are entirely unnecessary. I know that abortion is an important decision, and that it may take time, but 6 months into the pregnancy you would think that a person would have an idea of what they are going to do, especially considering that there is a baby continually increasing in development inside of them as they decide.
edit on 28-2-2011 by 44247844 because: Addition of information



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I have stated the same thing before as well. I know that anything I say will not change a person's mind, nor will it change the laws governing abortion. I simply like coming here to challenge ideas and ask people for their opinions, because in the end, that is all that I can do. Thanks again.
edit on 28-2-2011 by 44247844 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Unbelievable that it took someone 69 pages to look up biological fact that others have been stating throughout the entire thread.


:shk:



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Mindspin, The woman is not in remorse over the clump of cell. She is thinking that it would have become a baby, and it is this future image that she created to feel bad about.

You are arguing from when does life start…I don’t care when it begins. It doesn’t matter. The whole issue hinges on the woman’s right to own her own body. What she does with it is no one’s business.

This “when does life begin” argument was brought up by those who control freaks who want everyone to believe as they do about everything. This is their diversion from the fact that they wish to keep woman under man's power. Force her to be an incubator just to show her who is boss. Keep her a slave if only for a minmum of 9 months. Most law makers are men. There are women who cannot see what is going on and have come under their influence.

Then we get into the "she shouldn't have had sex" argument. Which is another diversion. They seem to want to control her sex life too. Strangely or perhaps not so strangely this argument is Never thrown at the man. When he has to pay child support and whines about it....Does anyone ever say to him, "Well, you shouldn't have had sex....You know the consequences".... etc. etc ad nauseum.?

You never told me how either the birth or the abortion affects your personal life.
For that matter how does any birth or death outside your personal sphere, affect your life?
If I have an abortion how does that affect your life.
Babies die naturally and unnaturally every day. Are you in a perpetual state of grievance over it?

Your remarks about the act of putting down a sick pet are thoughtless. It is obvious that you have never had a pet that was in great pain. I can tell you that it will tear your heart out. You are in a double bind. You must bear the pain of seeing your beloved pet suffer as well as the pain of knowing that to end the pain it must die. Tell me that you could stand by and hear it cry hour after hour. You would just let it suffer until its body could not handle it anymore?

44247844, I cannot possibly imagine the number of circumstances where it would be possible for the man to walk away. So I cannot elaborate further than to say it is possible.

LeoVirgo, It seems that man has created this problem for himself. He’s the one who long ago made woman a 2nd class citizen fully dependent upon him for support. Woman still do not get equal pay for equal work.

Women usually trick men by getting pregnant when they want them to marry her. That sometimes goes the other way around too. Man getting woman pregnant so she marries him. Further to that the man shouldn’t depend on the woman being “protected”. He should take necessary precaution himself.

As to the “morals” of the man being violated….they aren’t. They are her morals, not his. He can be against abortion all he wants…it doesn’t count when it comes to her rights to her own body.

You seem to be forgetting that many of these “men and women” in this position are teenagers.

ElectricUniverse says: “Can people not see how detached they have become because of the indoctrination that has been going on to devalue human life?

I don’t know that it is so much “indoctrination” as it is that there is so much of it. Like anything else, when it is scarce it is extremely valuable; when it is abundant its value declines. Seems to be one of those facts of life on Planet Earth.





edit on 28-2-2011 by OhZone because: added comment




top topics



 
40
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join