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.

 

Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

page: 13
79
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91


Yes actually. If you want 100% security. But that would be silly.

If you gamble long enough, eventually you lose. You don't just erase the loss, especially if a life is involved. Don't play the game if you can't stand the risks. I don't mind if I get hit by lightning. Sucks if I do. I'll live with


This analogy would be more appropriate for those who do not use protection on a regular basis. Some people want to engage in intercourse simply for the enjoyment of it (I know I do) and they would use any and all manner of contraception to curb the risk of pregnancy. As a chemist, I would say that this type of situation is more akin o working in a lab. I wear an abundance of personal protective equipment and make a lot of concessions to avoid any potential accidents, but sometimes things go wrong nonmatter how many preventatives are put in place. If I somehow manage to spill acid all over myself, should I sit there and suffer the pain of my mistake? No. I mean, I don't have a sentimental attachment to said acid and would thus not feel guilt by ridding myself of it, but I'm sure you see the point of my metaphor.




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 
I am a full time student with three children and you can almost never 'afford' a child, but you can sure take care of it, if you want to. Children are better than puppies.



Sure, and that's fine for some. I know PhD students who support their own families as well. For me, I am at a point in my education where I spend 6 or 7 days at uni, in the lab or writing chapters for my thesis. I get scholarships that amount to enough to support myself comfortably and I do not have the time for an outside job and nor can I apply for government benefits on account of said scholarships. I have neither the time or the money to support a child and that's not looking to change until I have at least finished my PhD. When I get to Post Doc stage, my income triples, but I still have little time to devote to a family. I would not be comfortable having a child until I at least secure a lectureship position, and that is at a minimum of about 10 years away. Even having said that, I'm not sure I'd want kids. I think I'd be happy as a doting aunt.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
If you gamble long enough, eventually you lose. You don't just erase the loss, especially if a life is involved. Don't play the game if you can't stand the risks.


TRANSLATION: The Bristol Palin Supreme Logic of Abstinence Theory.

Oh and she can't dance either.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Don't play the game if you can't stand the risks. I don't mind if I get hit by lightning. Sucks if I do. I'll live with.


Sex is only for making babies?

Sounds like a concept from puritan, bible-thumping fire an brimstone types.

Glad they don't make the laws.

There's a risk I could kill a bus load of children everytime I drive my car. Maybe I shouldn't drive anymore?

Since creating a fertilized egg is neither illegal nor negligent no obligations can be derived from it.
edit on 26-2-2011 by igor_ats because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by igor_ats[/

Sex is only for making babies?

Sounds like a concept from puritan, bible-thumping fire an brimstone types.

Glad they don't make the laws.

There's a risk I could kill a bus load of children everytime I drive my car. Maybe I shouldn't drive anymore?

Since creating a fertilized egg is neither illegal nor negligent no obligations can be derived from it.
edit on 26-2-2011 by igor_ats because: (no reason given)


I thought the same thing myself. Gosh, my life sure would be boring if I had to abstain until marriage or until I wanted kids. Especially since I intend to do neither of those things; and that's not to mention the fact my partner in crime would probably go insane :p



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by igor_ats
Sex is only for making babies?

Sounds like a concept from puritan, bible-thumping fire an brimstone types.

Glad they don't make the laws.


All of us Christians doing charity work and helping crisis pregnancy centers have diapers, clothes, charitable funds and job placement for these women are really oppressive?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


Actually I don't, for that very reason. But those have no potential to become anything. So thus your statement is wrong.

reply to post by Clearskies
 


I probably have better maternal instinct than my mother, even as a man. I care for kids more than their parents in a lot of cases.

Considering I got most of my mothers genes, I suppose it's just in the genes. This maternal instinct doesn't make much sense to me though. A child ought to be cared for and taught many things to reach full potential. But whatevs. Men these days have a lot of female traits due to chemicals in the food and water. Why not maternal instinct too? Assuming it even exists.

Definably not grumpy. perhaps not giving a flying flip about morals and emotions makes it seem like that.

Your chemicals aren't a life. And the gamble of a life being made is perfectly cur bed sufficiently for the protection available. Some would argue that the need for such massive protection says something about the type of people whom should be doing it. But all people have the right to have sex. Just realize that when a life gets created out of that, it's not your right to kill it just because its an inconvenience to your life style. Would we do the same for the many people around us whom are inconveniences? I know some would argue about non-living inconveniences. but they're not alive. And so irrelevant.

reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Stiiill not saying how. Still waiting.

reply to post by igor_ats
 


Realize your risk. If you have a very high chance of killing a bus load of kids, then no, you should not be driving. If there is a very low chance and you still do it, you get held responsible for it. There's the whole thing. You're responsible for your actions and you don't get to kill things in your way of your irresponsibility. Even when you are responsible and make a mistake, you still have to bare those consequences. People just know it was a mistake. You don't get to erase it, especially when it's another human.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


The fact is that along with the acceptance of abortion, we are much further along towards the definition of life worth saving as that belonging to those who are in power. Dehumanization is what it was always about. The people who worked so hard to make abortion acceptable are also the people who are responsible for the social changes that make so many babies unwanted. What's amazing to me is that they have convinced so many that such a despicable act is seen as a "right". Soon we will see abortion for adults who are deemed unnecessary, or who don't fit the glorious revolutionary standard for global citizens, which is most of us. Let's see how you like it when the target is yourself.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Here's the thing. Even at the point of formation of an amniotic sac, I do not believe that you are actually killing anything more than a parasitic conglomerate of cells. If I took out the amniotic sac, the cells within (which have started to differentiate that this point) would cease to replicate and develop. It is no more a living thing than is a virus - it is an obligate parasite with but the potential for life. It itself is not alive until it can survive without 100% dependence on a host (obviously a newborn has a certain level of dependence on their mother or what have you, but this is a far cry from 100% dependence, where a foetus cannot even use its own heart - assuming it has developed one - to pump its own blood, etc.). By your logic, every time a woman menstrates or a man ejaculates, they are murdering a potential child.

Many pregnancies don't even come to fruition. There are allsorts of complications that lead to miscarriage or still births. Even after birth, there's a chance the child won't even make it past so much as a week:. In any case, this is hardly the point of the debate. Abortion is a matter of choice. For many, the likely negative impact on the potential child and parents far outweighs any guilt felt by aborting it. Who are you to say that a woman should have to live with the ever present reminder of rape, incest or a future they'll never see? Do you think it's fair on the child that they should live with that guilt or the knowledge that their parents never wanted them? Adoption is hardly a cure all remedy either.

It is my opinion that people against the notion of choice in abortion are saddists by nature. You cannot condemn a person - potential or existent - to suffer because of your own opinions. Abortion is a responsible solution for many a victims who fall prey to an unfortunate role of the dice. Saying that they are wrong simply by having the audacity to have a choice is like saying it is person x's fault they were run over by a drunk driver after checking left, right and left again before crossing. It is ignorant and archaic.
edit on 26-2-2011 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


By the time a woman usually knows she is pregnant, it is NOT a little collection of cells as you think (You are a collection of cells for that matter), but usually she is 6-12 weeks pregnant. The baby has feet with toes, a functional central nervous system, etc....
I had an abortion, because I was poor. I wasn't a Christian but I still knew it was murder. I was too selfish to consider adoption. "Why should I let someone else have my precious baby, I'll just end it. It's just a blob of cells....." I ended up in the mental hospital for 6 months in all. They almost killed me with Haldol!
There are laws against rape. If the man rapes a woman and she gets pregnant, he has committed two crimes right there! Forcing her to have a baby implanted in her womb and rape.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


By the time a woman usually knows she is pregnant, it is NOT a little collection of cells as you think (You are a collection of cells for that matter), but usually she is 6-12 weeks pregnant. The baby has feet with toes, a functional central nervous system, etc....
I had an abortion, because I was poor. I wasn't a Christian but I still knew it was murder. I was too selfish to consider adoption. "Why should I let someone else have my precious baby, I'll just end it. It's just a blob of cells....." I ended up in the mental hospital for 6 months in all. They almost killed me with Haldol!
There are laws against rape. If the man rapes a woman and she gets pregnant, he has committed two crimes right there! Forcing her to have a baby implanted in her womb and rape.


So is the wood you use to build your house and the meat and vegetables you eat for dinner - to name a few. Doesn't make those things a fully functioning person, now does it? For your information, the formation of an amniotic sac occurs around day 23. The heart has formed around the same time, but the brain does not come into existence until around day 40 (and that's speculation) - even then, it's not until week 10 that neurons begin to multiply and the semblance of a nervous system is in place. By this stage, most people would know something is up; and in fact at week 10, abortion is illegal (to my knowledge).

Adoption has its affects on the psyche too. Do you think it would be easy to give up a child you've just given birth too? That's probably more difficult to do than is an abortion, in my opinion. Once you see the baby, your maternal instincts form a sentimental attachment to it. Giving it up after that would be much more difficult to comprehend than getting rid of a group of barely differentiated cells you can't see and have no desire to know.

Of course there are laws against rape, but why shouldn't the woman have the choice to get rid of the products of that? Why should she and her potential child, if it makes it through the pregnancy, have to go through that?
edit on 26-2-2011 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by igor_ats
 


Realize your risk. If you have a very high chance of killing a bus load of kids, then no, you should not be driving. If there is a very low chance and you still do it, you get held responsible for it. There's the whole thing. You're responsible for your actions and you don't get to kill things in your way of your irresponsibility. Even when you are responsible and make a mistake, you still have to bare those consequences. People just know it was a mistake. You don't get to erase it, especially when it's another human.


Just because something has a risk associated doesn't mean I have to go without rectifying any negative or unwanted consequences.

If I injure myself in a sporting event, I don't have to forego any medical assistance because I knew there was a risk.

Since creating a fertilized egg is neither illegal nor negligent no obligations can be derived from it. So you can continue about the "life" argument, but the reality is abortion is legal and so is emergency contraception. That you may wish that not be the case is neither here nor there to me. Perhaps you should protest outside an IVf clinic with all that "Life" in there being ignored.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 


Human rights extend to the unborn. Without it, we are going to see chimeras and frankenstein experiments very soon. What are the rights of a fetus grown in an artificial womb?
atheism.about.com...
[quote/] Some day - probably later rather than sooner, but you never really know - medical science will likely advance to the point where we can create artificial wombs. This would allow us to grow a fetus outside of the mother's body, either directly from fertilization or even perhaps after fertilization and after the fetus has spent some time in a natural womb.
We need to define humans NOW.


edit on 26-2-2011 by Clearskies because: spelling



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 


Why would conception need a rule? Killing the results of it do. We just differentiate age when there is no scientific reason to.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Precisely. Abortion is a temporary crime. Like slavery and racism, it has no reason to exist other than the need of one to control another. Artificial uterus will be the triumph of life, and ultimately there will be no logical reason to allow abortions.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Precisely. Abortion is a temporary crime. Like slavery and racism, it has no reason to exist other than the need of one to control another. Artificial uterus will be the triumph of life, and ultimately there will be no logical reason to allow abortions.


Perhaps you could elaborate on your perceived logic.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Here's a website with an interactive gestational development map. stoptheholocaust.com...

In America, abortions are legal until the 3rd trimester. 20 something weeks.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by igor_ats
 

Human rights extend to the unborn.


No rights that trump the womans.

In fact, last I heard no born human has rights pro-lifers want the unborn to have.


Originally posted by Clearskies
What are the rights of a fetus grown in an artificial womb?


Who knows.

Since there are no competing rights with a woman who wants an abortion i'd say it's a bit of a red herring.


Originally posted by Clearskies
Some day - probably later rather than sooner, but you never really know - medical science will likely advance to the point where we can create artificial wombs.


Good.

Perhaps then women can donate their unwanted fetus' and embryos to such a scheme. The scheme will entriely funded by pro-lifers of course since they're the ones pushing the agenda.


Originally posted by Clearskies
We need to define humans NOW.


Personhood is already defined.

All persons born. . .

And no person has the right to someones elses bodily resources. Even if they are responsible for that requirement in the first place. For example Shrimp Vs Mcfall states that no person is compelled to save the life of another through their own bodily resources.

The act of intercourse only benefited a fertilized egg by bringing it into existence, and fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, so no obligations of the actors can be derived from it (i.e. IVF clinics are under no obligation to store eggs indefinitely).

Even acts which are "bad" such as arson, which result in someone needing another's bodily resources (i.e. bone marrow) carry no obligations to donate such resources. If acts such as arson don't carry such obligations then neither does fertilization - IOW a womans body being the continual life support for an unwanted organism such as a z/e/f.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


How can you say you have a right to kill the unborn fetus when there will be sure fire ways to keep it alive without you?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Here's a website with an interactive gestational development map. stoptheholocaust.com...

In America, abortions are legal until the 3rd trimester. 20 something weeks.


Clearly unbiased source you got there i'm sure. I like the appeals to emotion at the top too.

Here is a good counter argument: www.huppi.com...

"
The pro-choice argument continues that a potential person is not an actual person. In other words, if A has the potential to become B, then it follows that A is not B. An acorn is not an oak tree.

Pro-life advocates attack this argument in three ways. The first is to publicize how quickly the embryo reaches its potential of a recognizably human form. Photographs of 8 to 12-week fetuses are crucial to their demonstrations. They emphasize -- with great exaggeration -- that the central nervous system begins working at 20 days, the heart at 24 days, and brainwaves at 43 days. What they don't tell you is that these are simply the first cells to maneuver themselves into place, and it will take months to construct these organs. Normally it takes until the 5th month of pregnancy before all the organs (except the brain and central nervous system) are completed, and by this time 99% of all abortions have already been performed. The brain and central nervous system are the fetus' most complex and longest running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy. Interestingly, it is not until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth. Although pro-life literature leaves the impression that the 8-week old fetus is marvelously complete, the fact is that it would die immediately upon premature birth, precisely due to its lack of completeness.

"



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join