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: 78
40
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


ImaginaryReality has already conceded the facts that new biological life begins at conception and that an abortion terminates biological life.

He is just trying his old "tumor" argument because he probably thought he could just reboot the entire discussion without anyone remembering he conceded those points. He is kind of like a broken record.

You can get him to concede point after point...and then he will just accuse you of being a troll. But I wouldn't suggest it...unless you like talking to walls.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Yeah until you adopt some measure of grammar i'm not gonig to slog through that wall of text. sorry but my eyes go kind of funny trying to read it.


Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Oh, I know exactly what you were saying...and my statement stands.

The fact is some women are so selfish and vain that stretch marks trumps the ability to give life.


It's funny that these women don't realize that life is short, and beauty (or self percieved beauty) is even shorter. And stretch marks or not...their skin will become old and wrinkled if they are lucky to live that long.


I guess it would be easy for me to be of the mindset that as a society we are better off if selfish flesh bags don't reproduce and abort their babies...but I am of the thinking that good can come from bad. And that even if a baby has a horrible excuse for a mother who is so selfish that they think about stretch marks before protecting their own offspring, that baby still should have the chance to live it's life to the fullest without it's own mother murdering it.



Sorry but the amount of hatred aimed at women in this is so obvious it's disgusting. You are not worthy replying to because your hatred of women is clear. You cannot possibly be objective when you hate women this much.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Oh, it's not directed towards "women" in general.

Just those women who get abortions. You know...kind of like the others in this thread who direct their anger only towards "pro-life" men??? The ones you called women haters and religous extremist??


Yeah...double standards are fun.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


ImaginaryReality has already conceded the facts that new biological life begins at conception and that an abortion terminates biological life.


I never disagreed with the point enough to concede it, you make it sound like i was in disagrement about biological lifes beginning.


Originally posted by MindSpin
He is just trying his old "tumor" argument because he probably thought he could just reboot the entire discussion without anyone remembering he conceded those points. He is kind of like a broken record.


No no, the user said that unique DNA means protection and so i pointed out the fact that unique DNa means very little, this isn't being a broken record it is addressing someones point.


Originally posted by MindSpin
You can get him to concede point after point...and then he will just accuse you of being a troll. But I wouldn't suggest it...unless you like talking to walls.


No MindSpin, i accuse you of being a troll because you demand people to address your points and then when they do you either repeat your questions without altering them or you simply say they have not answered your questions enough to be worthy.

Therefore you are a troll, not because of some random attempt to disregard your points, but simply because you show troll behavior. The user i was responding to may very well raise some valid points, but you decided to inject yourself to try and disrupt the discussion with your old troll arguments.

As i have said before, until you come up with somethign new you are basically trolling, repeating old arguments that have been answered, that you refuse to admit have been answered. You are the judge of your own argument and so no one can ever refute you.

Just like i can say a pink unicorn rules the world and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I am judging my own argument, as you do



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Oh, it's not directed towards "women" in general.

Just those women who get abortions. You know...kind of like the others in this thread who direct their anger only towards "pro-life" men??? The ones you called women haters and religous extremist??


Yeah...double standards are fun.


Actually i defended the people in this thread who were pro abortion, odd you are once again trying to lie to get out of your obvious hatred of women. I have called some people religious extremists and woman haters, because they are those things, but i have also posted about secular anti abortionists who have arguments which are not women hating.

Again you try and spin, because you have little else



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Yeah until you adopt some measure of grammar i'm not gonig to slog through that wall of text. sorry but my eyes go kind of funny trying to read it.



You can not refute my logic so instead of conceding the argument you side track and digress, then you resort to name calling. It's predictable really. It is unfortunate that you find my grammar difficult to comprehend; I think it is pretty clear and articulate; don't you?
edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


ImaginaryReality has already conceded the facts that new biological life begins at conception and that an abortion terminates biological life.

He is just trying his old "tumor" argument because he probably thought he could just reboot the entire discussion without anyone remembering he conceded those points. He is kind of like a broken record.

You can get him to concede point after point...and then he will just accuse you of being a troll. But I wouldn't suggest it...unless you like talking to walls.


I thought I'd revisit this thread.

The question isn't whether life is being terminated, but if abortion is murder or genocide. Murder is a legal term, which applies to adults and children, which a fetus is NOT. Genocide doesn't describe this as well, as it's not dependent on someone else's decision, but the decision of the person carrying the fetus.

You can argue all you want but those are the facts. Your opinion is a different matter. I'm fine with your opinion, as yours and mine differs, however, calling abortion murder OR genocide is factually wrong. It IS the termination of life, but I don't think anyone is picking that particular nit, so it doesn't make sense for you to argue it when no one is disputing that.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


No no, the user said that unique DNA means protection and so i pointed out the fact that unique DNa means very little, this isn't being a broken record it is addressing someones point.


Actually I would prefer if you don't contort what I said, as I have chosen my words carefully. This is what I said:


Originally posted by mrphilosophias

Originally posted by heavymetalgolfer
I am pro choice. I think the only moral issues would lie within the doctors and the couple deciding on it. If that is murder or genocide, then masturbation might as well be too. ITS THEIR BODY ITS THEIR CHOICE.



actually it isn't their body and that can be quite obviously shown by the unique DNA. If the placenta doesn't form properly the developing baby will be attacked by the mother immune system, as it is a foreign body. Next flimsy argument...

every argument in this thread I have dealt with here


edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 



It IS the termination of life, but I don't think anyone is picking that particular nit, so it doesn't make sense for you to argue it when no one is disputing that.


There are very few that have been able to admit that abortion is killing a human life. Are you ok with the word "killing"?

It is easier for them to say it is "removing a clump of cells"...it allows them to deny the fact that they support the killing of human life.


I use murder because from my point of view a fetus is a living human being in an early stage of development...no different than a newborn...just a few more months earlier in development.

Besides a court ruling (which is just a group of peoples opinion), no one can provide any argument based on solid logic nor science to claim otherwise. I don't allow a court ruling to dictate my opinion or use of words.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
Besides a court ruling (which is just a group of peoples opinion), no one can provide any argument based on solid logic nor science to claim otherwise. I don't allow a court ruling to dictate my opinion or use of words.

Well lets see what the law says.


Originally posted by grahag
The question isn't whether life is being terminated, but if abortion is murder or genocide. Murder is a legal term, which applies to adults and children, which a fetus is NOT. Genocide doesn't describe this as well, as it's not dependent on someone else's decision, but the decision of the person carrying the fetus.

You can argue all you want but those are the facts. Your opinion is a different matter. I'm fine with your opinion, as yours and mine differs, however, calling abortion murder OR genocide is factually wrong. It IS the termination of life, but I don't think anyone is picking that particular nit, so it doesn't make sense for you to argue it when no one is disputing that.




What is murder?
murder:

Murder

5. Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

* of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
* unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
* any reasonable creature (human being);
* in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
* under the Queen's Peace;
* with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).


This definition of murder comes from the U.K. Like this legal definition you have precluded the unborn, but for what reason? The reason for this preclusion of abortion from the definition murder is a presumption(unfounded, hidden premise) that abortion is not murder. If you understand this then you will understand that the logic is circular. In fact it is actually proof that abortion is murder or else you would not need wording to preclude it. It is interesting how these contradictions work against themselves, and quite satisfying to discover these absurdities.


18 U.S.C. § 1111 : US Code - Section 1111: Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to
perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason,
espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child
abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or
perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
killed, is murder in the first degree.


This United States Federal definition of murder certainly include unborn children.


PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

Note the necessity to exempt abortion from the definition of murder. Without this exemption abortion would fall into the definition of murder. Again, the exemption is a proof that it is murder, and it too follows from a hidden premise and unfounded presumption that abortion is not murder, and it too is circular in it's logic.

simply murder can be summarized as such:



The elements of common law murder are:

1. the killing
2. of a human being
3. by another human being
4. with malice aforethought.


Lastly



S.1019 -- Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)

S 1019 PCS

Calendar No. 89

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1019

To amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to protect unborn victims of violence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 7, 2003

Mr. DEWINE (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. TALENT, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mr. Allen) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

May 8, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to protect unborn victims of violence.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

`CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

`Sec.

`1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child.

`Sec. 1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child

`(a)(1) Any person who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided for that conduct under Federal law had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall be punished as provided under section 1111, 1112, or 1113, as applicable, for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being, instead of the penalties that would otherwise apply under subparagraph (A).

`(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

`(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), 844(f), 844(h)(1), 844(i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), 1952(a)(2)(B), 1952(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

`(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).

`(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

`(c) Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--

`(1) for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in a medical emergency;

`(2) for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

`(d) In this section--

`(1) the terms `child in utero' and `child, who is in utero' mean a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb; and

`(2) the term `unborn child' means a child in utero.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 90 the following:


Murdering a pregnant woman is double homicide.

The argument simply put:
1.) Taking the life of an innocent Human Being is ethically unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent Human Being.
:. (therefore)
Abortion is ethically unacceptable.

There may be certain acceptable concessions however as the extent that Gov't can limit abortions is actually limited. However, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of the 70 million abortions which have happens since 1973 in the U.S.A., have not fallen into this category of 'necessarily accepted evil.' I have dealt with this issue more in depth here Also addressed here is what many believe to be the critical ambiguity which lies at the heart of the debate; what is the difference between a human being and a human Person.


What is genocide?


Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide


Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:

* (a) Genocide;
* (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
* (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
* (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
* (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.


under sections 2a and 2d it seems that abortion would indeed fit into the internationally accepted definition of Genocide.

This thread should now be closed, but it won't; thankfully the truth will always prevail in the end.

edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Dear Kevin and all pro abortion posters in this thread.
Kevin you state right off the bat you can't think of any reason for justifying an abortion. You are a perfect example of blinkered beyond belief, here is one perfect example:
Child born in Africa, with AIDS and who is going to live a life of poverty, drugs, abuse and probably die by the age of 10.

There you go, blinkers removed perhaps?

Onto the other people, your views are your views, however when you start to tell people what they should do it becomes a bigger problem, one of a rather more facist regime dictating the choices of individuals. Kevin again states what about a governments stance to protect it's citizens. Please quote where (in any European law) an unborn child is a citizen. Then please tell me where in the human bill of rights it states an individual's body is not theirs to control with regards pregnancy.

I'm all for people having opinions, go right ahead. I don't agree with yours, I also think most of you have zero experience of what abortion is about, the pain people can go through to make THAT choice, you're just back seat drivers in life justifying your despotic views on society because you're closed minded. Genocide? Don't make me laugh.. how about the plight of nations across the world living in abject poverty, how about real genocide, how about the poverty bracket, how about .. ah.. never mind it's not worth it is it?

If I could remove stars I would!

No star, no flag.

Edit - Just for you mrphilosophias. What a load of crock. Abortion, under the quoted statements you made above cannot be included in that definition of murder. You should re-read your own quotes. And furthermore, lots of those quotes are based on laws written by religious people. It goes against other laws, written by open minded non religious based people. Stop quoting stuff to justify nonsense. Morally non ethical? Don't make me laugh

Cheers,
T


edit on 9-3-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
You can not refute my logic so instead of conceding the argument you side track and digress, then you resort to name calling. It's predictable really. It is unfortunate that you find my grammar difficult to comprehend; I think it is pretty clear and articulate; don't you?
edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)


I cannot refute what I haven't read. Sorry but i just have trouble processing large blocks of text that don't use paragraphs, my eyes go all funny and I get a headache. I didn't call you any names i simply informed you i wouldn't be able to reply because i can't read what you posted.

That's not side tracking or digressing either.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 




1. the killing
2. of a human being
3. by another human being
4. with malice aforethought.


Being

it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character, cf. sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex and evolved state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").


Does embryo fulfill the definition of a being? No. Therefore killing it is not murder, even by your definition.



edit on 9/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
In her testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 2004, Dr. Elizabeth Shadigan testified that “abortion increases rates of breast cancer, placenta previa, pre-term births, and maternal suicide.... Statistically, all types of deaths are higher with women who have had induced abortions.”*

“Abortion has completely failed as a social policy designed to aid women,” writes Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life. “It is a reflection that we have failed women.”*



Originally posted by Rustami
One third of abortions are performed on teenagers without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

over 80 percent say they would have carried to term under better circumstances or with the support of loved ones , over 60 percent report having felt "forced" to have the abortion by others or circumstances, and approximately 40 percent were still hoping to discover some alternative to abortion when going for counseling at the abortion clinic.

Perhaps one reason for the strong abortion/suicide link exists in the fact that in many ways abortion is like suicide. A person who threatens suicide is actually crying out for help. So are women who contemplate abortion. Both are in a state of despair. Both are lonely. Both feel faced by insurmountable odds.

Like the suicide clinics described above, abortion clinics also exploit desperate people. They promise to release clients from the darkness of their despair. They appeal to our consumer society's demand for instant solutions to all our problems. They pose as places of compassion, but they are actually reaping huge profits through the harvest of the lonely, frightened, and confused people who are "unwanted" by society. In place of life, they offer the "compassion" of death.

Granting the wish for suicide or abortion is not an aid to desperate people. It is abandonment. It is a false compassion that protects us from getting entangled in the "personal problems" of others. It is "cheap love." www.abortionfacts.com

(updated April 2010)
A report released by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shows that the suicide rate among teen girls and young women has tripled in the past 25 years, despite an overall drop in suicide rates across the United States.

NIH reports that suicide is now the third leading cause of death among American young people, and the sixth leading cause of death for children between the ages of 5 and 14 www.physiciansforlife.org...

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women.(12) It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men. For women under 45, the suicide rate is twice as high as that of Chinese men. Government officials are reported to be at a loss for an explanation..Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide? www.abortiontv.com...

"The data clearly shows what we have long suspected: that abortion is harmful rather than helpful to women," said Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon, one of several researchers working on the study..example, found that women who had abortions were three-and-a-half times more likely to die within the next year as women who carried their pregnancies to term..They also presented studies that found higher rates of depression, mental illness, miscarriages and substance abuse among post-abortive women compared to women who gave birth www.afterabortion.org...

A conspiracy of silence seems to surround the well-documented excess of suicide deaths among women with a history of abortion.Dr. Barry Garfinkel, head of the University of Minnesota's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, surveyed teenagers to determine what factors contributed to depression, stress, and thoughts of suicide. The study found that girls who had abortions were four times as likely to attempt suicide as girls who had not aborted.
"Suicide More Likely Among Aborted Teens" National Right to Life News 4 Apr. 2, 1987

For many women, it is a life changing event with significant physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. Most women who struggle with past abortions say that they wish they had been told all of the facts about abortion and its risks



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
fetus
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," from L. fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from Latin base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus"), but this was not the basic meaning. www.etymonline.com

How terrible it will be for pregnant women and for those who give suck in those days.

We were told abortion would "empower" women and let them make their own choices. But research has shown that 80 percent of women are pressured by.. to abort their baby. www.hoshuha.com

Sir Albert Lilley, widely considered the "Father of Fetology", and unabashedly pro-life (as anyone with his vast knowledge of fetal development should be) makes some remarkable statements about fetal pain..By the same token we lack any proof that animals feel pain. However, to judge from their responses, it seems charitable to assume they do. Were this not so there would be no point in having an organization like the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I for one would be unhappy to think we would withhold from the human fetus a charitable consideration we were prepared to extend to animals. www.abort73.com...

He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.


Originally posted by Rustami
"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
www.prolife.com

When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being.

"There is a great deal at stake here. When the public learns that the causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community- for reasons that are idealogical rather than factual -- the feeling of betrayal will be strong." stopabortionbreastcancer.org

98% of abortions are for reasons other than rape, incest, or the mother's life.


Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress


edit on 9-3-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 




1. the killing
2. of a human being
3. by another human being
4. with malice aforethought.


Being

it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character, cf. sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex and evolved state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").


Does embryo fulfill the definition of a being? No. Therefore killing it is not murder, even by your definition.



edit on 9/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


sorry but that was human being, try again



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 




sorry but that was human being, try again


???
Embryo is not a human being, since it does not fulfill the definition of a (human) being (stated above). It is only human (living human cells, like skin cells are living human cells, but not a human being), not a being.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 




sorry but that was human being, try again


???
Embryo is not a human being, since it does not fulfill the definition of a (human) being (stated above). It is only human (living human cells, like skin cells are living human cells, but not a human being), not a being.


a double blind DNA test would beg to differ.

Perhaps this will help you understand that your words/labels are being redefined a result of an subconscious obstinate hidden presumption:


human being
n.
A human.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
human being
n
a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

edit on 9-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
As we come to another grim anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must never forget how this was accomplished. We now know it was done by using fraudulent facts, and a perjured rape testimony. It was furthered by the lie, given to expectant mothers, that what is in their womb is not a baby. This coupled with the lie that abortion has no negative consequences for women, these lies have been told millions of times over.

For those who continuously push the travesty of abortion aside, a closer look at the statistics can help put the issue into perspective. Since there are so many who are concerned about the tragedy of war, but have no such concern for the taking of innocent lives of babies, a comparison of the deaths between the two seems appropriate.

55 million, Second World War (20C); 40 million, under Mao Zedong (20C); 40 million, Mongol Conquests(13C); 36 million, An Lushan Revolt(8C); 25 million, Fall of the Ming Dynasty(17C); 20 million, Taiping Rebellion(19C); 20 million, toll of American Indians, (15C-19C), 20 million, under Joseph Stalin(20C); 19 million, Mideast Slave Trade(7C-19C); 18 million, Atlantic Slave Trade(15C-); 17 million, Islamic Conquest of India(14C-15C); 17 million, British India(19C); 15 million, First World War(20C); 9 million, Russian Civil War(20C); 9 million, Hindu Thuggee cult killings(13C-19C); 8 million, Fall of Rome(3C-5C); 8 million, Congo Free State(19C – 20C); 7 million, Thirty Years War(17C); 5 million, Russia's Time of Troubles(16C-17C), 4 million, Napoleonic Wars(19C); 3 million, Chinese Civil War(20C); 3 million, French Wars of Religion(16C).

Taken all together, we have 401 million deaths over nearly 2000 years of war and barbarism. Just for the sake of argument, let’s add another 10%, or 40 million, to cover margins of error, and other wars. This would bring our total to 441 million deaths over the last 20 centuries.

Now, what about abortion? At the low end of the Guttmacher scale, even if we ignore all abortions done prior to 1980 when accurate numbers are a little more difficult to ascertain, abortion accounts for more than twice the number of deaths by war! In just the last 25 years, the ghastly toll for abortion has totaled over 900 million dead babies. Taking the more probable mean average, the toll rises to well over 1 billion babies; or nearly three times the amount of deaths due to war. www.covenantnews.com...


Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by SystemResistor

It is certainly no secret that this sort of self-policing never works in environments where large amounts of money are involved. In this case, the result is that the corpses of children killed by elective abortion are now marketed like old car parts salvaged from the local junkyard. Rhetoric like "site fees," "donations," and "retrieval reimbursement costs" are simply code words designed to conceal that fact. www.lifedynamics.com...

Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married womenwww.mswm.org..

Deaths of pregnant women, he explains, will be blamed on unsafe abortion and the lack of reproductive rights. So abortion activists are trying to wed that with maternal death numbers, which, according to Meaney, "doesn't work scientifically speaking, but it's very useful for propaganda purposes." He explains that the countries involved are often pro-life, but they face strong economic pressures to bow to abortion forces. "The major donors for health projects tend to also be very much on the pro-abortion side, and so there's something of an exchange that goes on," the HLI spokesman reports. www.onenewsnow.com...

Maternal Death Rate Lowest in Abortion Free Ireland
by David Schmidt on February 9th, 2010
Where is the maternal death rate lowest? Ireland, where human abortion is a crime against humanity. liveaction.org...

Women considering elective surgery, such as abortion, consider all information about physical or psychological risks to be very relevant to their decisions. Fully 95 percent of patients wished to be informed of all risks statistically associated with a procedure, even if the causal connection between the procedure and risk has not been fully proven. (This finding is especially relevant to abortion providers who assert that, without proof that abortion directly causes problems such as depression or breast cancer, women would prefer not to be given such "worrisome" and "unnecessary" information.)(19) Journal of Medical Ethics, 2006

A number of studies have been done recently that document abortion's harm to women. This is a collection of them. www.clinicquotes.com...

Communist society
Lenin(Bolshevik) tried to make Russian society communist:
Banned religion, destroyed churches and killed priests. A Labour Law gave workers an 8-hour day, unemployment pay and pensions. There was a huge campaign to teach everyone to read. Education: Science was encouraged, and useless subjects like Latin and History were banned. Free love, divorce and abortion were allowed. = different morality and style of life. www.johndclare.net...

For many women, the most common method of birth control remains a Soviet-era holdover: abortion.
"Young women who think that having an abortion is an easy thing are wrong," Latypova tells RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service. "An abortion is not only an operation. It's a deep psychological trauma for a woman. This is an operation that causes a woman physical and moral pain. I don't think it's the right decision."
Russia was the first country in the world to legalize abortion, in 1920. www.rferl.org...

September 24, 2005
Mother Russia now sees more abortions than babies bornBy her 50th birthday, Russia’s population could have halved, based on current trends.. By Russian standards, she is lucky to have made it even this far: last year, there were 1.6 million registered abortions in Russia and 1.5 million births..“The situation is critical,” said Vladimir Kulakov, deputy head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and an adviser to President Putin on the demographic crisis. “The most important thing for every nation is to have confidence in its future.”..Russia’s population has been in decline since 1992 ..Mr Putin raised the issue in April, calling it a “national crisis”, but the Government has yet to respond. Mr Putin is now under pressure to dip into the Stabilisation Fund, designed to save excess oil revenues, to arrest the population decline. www.timesonline.co.uk...

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women. It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men. For women under 45, the suicide rate is twice as high as that of Chinese men. Government officials are reported to be at a loss for an explanation..Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide? www.abortiontv.com...


For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.


edit on 9-3-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 


star for you
you may enjoy this read.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join