It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:14 AM
First, I would like to state I'm not religious nor do i believe in souls in the traditional sense. Also I would like to say you stated your arguments very well. Obviously though, I disagree with your opinion on the subject. Genocide isn't really the term I would use for abortion, but (i don't know the statistics) many unborn people are terminated, murdered if you must, every year. This disgusts my entire being. The worst part of it is (again sorry don't know exact statistics) the majority of abortions happen because of fear of people knowing, laziness, fear of wasting their own life, pressure from their partner, and other selfish and irrelevant issues. I just can't get over it, and none of the pro-abortion arguments can change my mind.
Most people who argue for abortion think they are "pro-choice". This is false. I am pro-choice. Though when someone engages in intercourse a choice is consciously or sub-consciously made to create life. Everyone old enough to do it willingly knows this. Once conceived it is the unborn's body in question, single celled to complex, not the would be mother's.
Now to address your argument that a sperm is alive and so in my case I should be against masturbation and contraception I must say your thinking is a little flawed. A sperms life span is limited even before being ejected. Thus, even though 99.99999999%(rough estimate) will not successfully fertilize an egg no matter which direction they are released in they all live full sperm lives.
One seemingly valid opinion of "pro-choicers" is that the world is overpopulated. I tend to agree with this, but i would no sooner agree with mass murder of the already born then abortion. If you see this as a problem you should advocate tying and sniping of things, or just good ole fashion contraception. I, myself, use the tried and true pull out method because condoms don't work for me and me and my partner are monogamous.(sorry for over-informing) If i were too late and one of my swimmers made it I would gladly take responsibility for the choice I made. If for some reason my girlfriend, she wouldn't, got an abortion I would gladly accept responsibility for my actions by going to prison, because the doctor would be aborted and the clinic would be no more.
Now there are a few cases in which abortion is .....for lack of a better term right now ...acceptable. Rape of course happens without the choice that i mentioned earlier. Its has to be very traumatic and I can understand not wanting to carry let alone raise the product of it. In the case of the abortion though, the rapist should be charged with murder. Also, when there are problems that pose serious and imminent risks to the mother abortion should be considered. Other then these adoption should be the only option for any reluctant mother.

Of course these are my opinions and I wrote them as such. I mean no offense to anyone. I don't believe anyone who ever had an abortion is a murderer per say ......just tragically misinformed

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:16 AM
Here is some critical thinking for you to ponder in this debate. In order for abortion to be permissible, you must define the "viability" of life based upon location.

Let me explain...

We all won't argue that those walking and productive in society are viable human lives, so what is the primary difference between you and me and the fetus? Location.

We are outside of the womb and the fetus is inside.
We have the same genetic makeup....we have the same will to live....but you and I can speak in our defense....the fetus simply can't.

So answer me this question..."If a baby in its mothers arms is a viable human life, why isn't that same baby a few months earlier located in her womb?"

I'll take this one more step....if you answer because it can survive without the assistance of the umbilical cord and that biological connection to its mother is no longer necessary, then what about those who are alive with the assistance of life support machines?

Does a person connected to a respirator any less human because they have a tube assisting them in their breathing?
These are very basic and I think very simple questions to think about when dealing with the moral ground for abortion.
That fetus is a human life, no matter how you argue against it, it is....just as human as you and me.

So, now understanding it ok to abort it?

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by Rockstrongo37

That I agree with. The outside viability argument simply does not cut it. How should dependence on someone, especially when the dependent person simply cannot live independently even if it wanted to, justify murder?

The brain/mind argument is far better.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Ariel

Well that sort of puts the kybosh on God being the all knowing, omnipotent being does it not? Why would that soul's only chance be with a host who was unwilling for whatever reason, to give birth to it? Surely God would have known from the outset that this would be the result, if the unborn soul's life path, lessons etc had been decided in advance, then it doesn't seem like the work of someone with an intentional plan.

This is the issue with the God element, on the one hand, we have the above, emotive, God had a plan for that unborn soul and now that cannot happen, but on the other, if God can do that amount of planning, then surely part of the plan would be that the child would be born, and if God knows the outcome of every situtation at the outset, then he'd know also that in the case where a woman gets pregnant in impossible circumstances, that the child never would be born.

And I was always led to believe that God's plans were always adhered to, even when bad things happen, oh well it's part of the plan to get me to where I need to be, so in that vein, it must be assumed that abortion is also part of God's plans.

Keeping in mind again that we really have no way to know, it might be that we have the freewill to either choose to cooperate with God's plan or not (just as we have freewill about what we choose as our ultimate destination after life). If a person chooses against this plan for an unborn soul, maybe an alternative plan for those living--a plan without that life--goes into effect. Or maybe as you said, that child does get born as someone else. Maybe even, in the best case scenario, to that same family under better circumstances that time around. We don't know. We can't know what would have happened, or what the alternative ends up being.

But abortion destroys that particular life.

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

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by Maslo

Well the brain/mind argument still cannot justify the moral acceptability for abortion. There are those alive today with very little brain function that live, breath, exist.

So with that point of view, then productivity and contribution of the person to society is a factor.

We simply cannot use this argument to the right to live for the individual, if you decide to go down that road we will follow in the footsteps of men such as Hitler and Stalin.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:34 AM
You just keep telling yourself that shill. You are so transparent. Murder is killing a life, any life for any reason. We murder to eat, to cloth ourselves and to stay warm. It should be done with a reverence and humility but admitted to also. You don't want to admit your crime against life. I readily admit mine and take full responsibility. I'm sorry for all harm I have caused to the born and unborn. I make no excuse. Some live some die. I kill to live. All else does also. A flower takes from the earth and deprives a weed. A weed takes from an insect. We all take but the reason people murder their unborn is because they come from a philosophy of lack. Their is not enough of this or that. History says that has never been the case or only when people won't change/move. Ex. There are job shortages in areas and sectors of the economy in the country but people are not willing to move/train where jobs are and that is why they stay unemployed. If people would realize there is enough(resources) space and food and energy for 50 billion of us(thats a fact, look it up) then we would not murder our own children. You are sick in your soul to even encourage murder of a human being(or are you so far gone you are one of the ones that compare us to a virus; LOL). Isn't there enough death already?

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by Rockstrongo37

Well the brain/mind argument still cannot justify the moral acceptability for abortion. There are those alive today with very little brain function that live, breath, exist.

Key word is very little. These people are in persistent vegetative state, where some remnants of higher brain/mind remain. Even under these conditions, there is a controversy whether they can be killed or not. Embryo and early foetus has no higher brain function, this condition is equivalent to brain death. Brain dead patients are routinely disconnected from life support and their organs reused, even if they could live on life support often indefinitely.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by byteshertz

I appreciate your post and respect your ability to think about the topic of abortion in a critical manner. For the purpose of full disclosure, I am strongly opposed to abortion. You make a compelling argument, but I disagree with a lot of it. I believe in God but I am not religious because I consider religion to be synonymous with enslavement. One point you bring up, and it's a great question, is when is the soul created, and I have no answer for that. I have always believed that life begins when the heart starts beating, which if I remember correctly is right around 22 weeks. It is my opinion that if a woman has an abortion before the heart starts beating then it is not murder. The only problem with that is that the vast majority of women don't find out that they are pregnant until well after the heart has started beating. To me abortion has become the answer or solution to someone acting irresponsibly. It has become a matter of convenience. I believe in personal responsibility, and with that comes dealing with the consequences of your actions. If a woman can't afford to provide for a child, then that woman should take any measure necessary to prevent pregnancy. I believe that adoption is always a much better alternative than abortion. I am well aware that there are many children that never get adopted as it is, but that is another problem that can be discussed in a different forum. I come from a very religious family, and I have never heard the argument that you make in regards to masturbation. I have always heard that it is wrong because it is lustful and because of that it is a sin. It is also considered adultery if you go by the biblical definition of the word. Having said that, is it wrong for a Christian man to masturbate if said man is thinking about his wife? For my sake I sure hope not! Anyway... I have an 18 month old son and my wife is currently pregnant with twins, so my point of view is more than likely different than someone that has not experienced the miracle that is child birth. When I look at the ultrasound I see a baby human being, the only difference is that it is inside the womb instead of outside in the world. To me there is no difference. I can talk to my wife's stomach and the baby will start moving and kicking in response, so to me that is one life acknowledging the presence of another, even if one of them has no understanding of what they are acknowledging.

Some people will argue that a fetus is dependent on the mother for sustenance and survival via the umbilical cord, and therefore is part of the mothers body. When the umbilical cord is cut after birth then the baby is fully viable, but is that really the case? Even after birth a baby is still 100% dependent on someone else for sustenance and survival, the only difference is that it now comes from a breast, bottle or a spoon. In regards to handicapped or severely deformed babies... I don't think that it is our place to determine if they should live or not. In regards to rape/incest... I see and understand the point that you make, and I have actually been on the fence about this specific topic for a long time, but lately I have concluded that life is life, and it is not our responsibility to determine the outcome regardless of the circumstances in which it was created. I will admit that it is easy for me to say that having never experienced rape or incest. I try to think about how I would feel if my wife were raped and became pregnant as a result (I know that is terrible, but necessary in order to find empathy) Would I keep that child? I would like to say that I would be strong enough to stick to my convictions and principals, because ultimately it isn't the baby's fault that it is a result of a rape, but would I want to live the rest of my life with my family and a child that was a result of such an atrocious event? I hope that I am never faced with that situation, because I truly won't know the answer to that question unless I am. Again, good post and good topic for conversation.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by byteshertz

The DNA argument

Many of us are used to thinking of DNA as this unchanging programming that governs all our body’s responses for the rest of our lives. In essence, certain things about our DNA are unlikely to change, ever. But there are a number of outside things that could result in minor DNA change. Source
With this argument when we created a zygote with 48 chromosomes we say life was created.
But life can not be defined by our DNA because as shown above our DNA changes - does this mean when it changes we cease to exist?
Or is human life defined by having 46 chromosomes - if that is the case what about the people with fewer or greater chromosomes?
If life is defined as just having chromosomes then the sperm also has a life.

Not sure why you had to create a whole other thread...but oh well.

I think your argument fails don't make much of a case as to WHY human life doesn't start with the complete DNA.

I'll tell you my position here, as I did in the other thread, and you can dispute it if you want...or you can ignore it as you did in the other thread.

Human Life is a purely BIOLOGICAL process, nothing more, nothing less. This Biological process has a clearly defined beginning point and ending point. The beginning point is when the human sperm fertilizes the human egg and creates a COMPLETE and UNIQUE DNA and CELL DIVISION begins. The ending point is when this cell division ceases.

That's it...short and simple. It is the EXACT SAME PROCESS for every "living" organism on the planet.

Let's look at your attempts to discard this argument and quickly throw it aside (btw, this section of your thread should of been the majority of your post since it is the only one that deals with SCIENCE, but you choose to deal with the topics that are easier to disprove...RELIGION....same old playbook).


Many of us are used to thinking of DNA as this unchanging programming that governs all our body’s responses for the rest of our lives. In essence, certain things about our DNA are unlikely to change, ever. But there are a number of outside things that could result in minor DNA change.

This is obviously where you ripped off your idea from (WORD FOR WORD)...with a quick google search of "can DNA change" and clicked the first topic available. Your credibility is

But let's look at this "argument"...I don't understand your reasoning. Yes...DNA can change...very tiny changes...mutations...this doesn't make someone non-human. It doesn't make them a different person. No where in my position on the biological process does it rely on DNA staying constant. This is a weak attempt at trying to outright dismiss the biological position of life.

On to your next "argument" against DNA.

"Or is human life defined by having 46 chromosomes "

No, at least not in my position. Only COMPLETE HUMAN DNA which allows for the beginning of cell division. Again, as many pro-choice people are going to an EXTREME example for your justification. You are talking about rare ABNORMALITIES. Nature isn't will find abnormalities...doesn't mean the person isn't human.

I mean really sounds like you are trying to say people with Down's Syndrom who are missing a chromosone are non-human...that is sick.

So there are your two very weak arguments to dismiss DNA....DNA might change and DNA has abnormalities. I don't see how that invalidates ANYTHING in my position. I'll repeat it for you...please refute it.

Human Life is a purely BIOLOGICAL process, nothing more, nothing less. This Biological process has a clearly defined beginning point and ending point. The beginning point is when the human sperm fertilizes the human egg and creates a COMPLETE and UNIQUE DNA and CELL DIVISION begins. The ending point is when this cell division ceases.

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

EDIT: WOW...I was going through some of your other "arguments"...and looks like you plagarised most if not all of your entire thread. No sources...nothing...just passing them off as your own ideas. What a shameful thing to do. PURE COPY/PASTE...not even inserting some of your own thought into some of the ripped off pieces.
edit on 25-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by Rockstrongo37

Well said!

Just because a human life happens to be very early in the process of physical and mental development, this does not make the case to justify putting an end to his or her development. The "mind argument" certainly would lead to widespread disagreement about what theoretical level of brain development would have to be reached before a new life would be considered developed enough that it would be wrong to kill them. It's like the 'when does the soul enter the body' argument, or the 'when is this new life considered a person' argument.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Ariel because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by byteshertz

Are you serious? you have not even presented an argument, you have simply quoted people saying that


Considering the fact that you plagarised most of your really shouldn't talk.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by captaintyinknots

Just saw your reply. Actually, that part of my post wasn't so much interpretations as discussing the ideas brought up in the original post, which introduced the topic of God and the soul. That others who don't hold a belief in God probably wont' find that part of the issue relevant to them, isn't the issue or the REAL thing.

But regardless of what a person believes or doesn't believe in terms of religion, or what might or might not happen to a soul following abortion, the real thing IS that abortion ends that life, and all that it would have been.

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

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:40 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by Sunlionspirit

and yes I mean dirty hands, like rape hands, because people have nothing to do into or whatever about the womb of a woman

Well reproduction takes two people and the man should be responsible as well and part of the decision making, He must consider what the woman wants and if she is comfortable with the child or not, All i have posted on this thread are my own opinions and as i stated earlier I would take any measure possible to ensure the well upbringing of the child. I have not said I will put her on a chain but as far as I'm concerned I stop living for myself when my children will be born and I will work towards raising them and ensuring they have a bright future and all the love in the world I can be able to give them. This does not mean i support abortion but it takes two people to make the decision and not only the woman, Unless she is single or divorced.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:48 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:10 PM
Life is not easily defined.

Biologists often define a "living thing" as a mixture of some (or all) of the following characteristics:

1. Is capable of reproduction
2. Responds to stimuli
3. Metabolizes in order to remain
4. Has a capacity for growth
5. Maintains homeostasis

The problem is that certain "non-living" things possess some, or all, of the following characteristics. (Fire, for example.)

We all have to make judgment calls regarding this issue, and we can't simply "rely on the facts". Facts cannot define life, or should I feel bad about "killing" that campfire?

I believe that abortion is wrong. Furthermore, it appears that the vast majority of abortions in the United States have absolutely nothing to do with rape or health risks. Yes, I understand that these circumstances do account for a small portion of abortions in this country, but nothing to justify the slaughter of over 1 million children per year.

I believe and have faith in God. If my wife was raped, and she became pregnant from it, then I pray that we would find the strength to love that child with the love of Jesus. Adoption would be a last resort, but we would never take away something so precious. That is God's business. I do my very best to leave it to Him.

Nevertheless, like I said, these are complex issues. No easy answers.


posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:26 PM
I've never understood why abortion is legal and accepted in todays society! it is completely wrong and was only legalised for ethnic cleansing of the western world,so yes it is genocide.
I believe that women have rights whether to have children or not but children are not just put into a woman's womb by accident....... they are put there through the actions of a man and a woman,so if a man and a woman(especially a woman)doesn't want a child then they should not go through with the natural procedure that leads to children being concieved.Having unprotected sex and thinking that everything will be ok is like putting a gun to someones head,shooting and killing them and then saying ''well i didn't know that would happen but its not my fault''.
People need to think before they act and then everyone is a winner.

Since when was it ok for people to go through with something like concieving life and then say ''no i've changed my mind! let me have the right to kill what my actions have created''?

We as humans can only tolerant so much and abortion is crossing the line.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Viking9019 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by foreshadower99
I agree that a fetus does not have a soul. A soul is the inner energy of the body that cannot be destroyed or created, I believe we recieve this around the ages 3-5 in which we do not have memories of the past day or before once we obtain the soul. Im soon going to make a very large thread on our existance and will hopefully enlighten people to wake up and see the true reality. But above all else well put together no one has the right to control our lives if we decide to do what is right for us then its not for others to decide because we can only express ourselves in our own way not others.

So your saying that when you recieve your soul at ages 3-5ish you then begin to have memories??? If this is the case then please explain a couple of things for me.

1. I can remember when i was 18months old.
2. My son is 20 months old and can remember far too many things to list, and if i'm understanding you post correctly he doesnt have a soul yet?

I'm not saying your wrong, i just think your thoughts are flawed.

To the OP, i dont disagree entirely with abortion, i just think the timeline should be cut. I think 24weeks is far far too long to wait, 24 weeks is a baby, not a fetus. Anyways thats not the point of your OP!

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:11 PM
pro-lifers are hilarious. Here is a quote:

When is human life detectable?

Sperm and egg cells are very much human and alive yet pro-lifers do not consider them persons. So this causes such pro-lifers start clarifying:

Pro-lifers then say life starts with unique dna.

What about proposed cloning technology which has the ability to create people with the same dna as their source (not unique dna)?
What about human Hela cultures which have unique DNA?

So pro-lifers then say life starts with unique dna and has the ability to develop into a human being.

The ability to develop into a human being is irrelevant, since future cloning technologies and current IVF technology can create fertilized eggs.

So pro-lifers then say life starts with unique dna and has the ability to develop into a human being and it has to be a natural process.

This also fails for the previous reason.


Pro-lifers should start protesting outside IVF clinics, however this guys is on the right track if one adheres to the pro-life philosophy of personhood from conception:

He wants to investigate women who miscarriage for possible foul play. . . last I checked abortion was legal.

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:15 PM
Everyone on both threads can argue until they're blue in the face (or numb in the fingers) but this won't change either side's opinion. This is the same for most controversial topics.

You can educate people but you can't force them to learn. They have to come to conclusions themselves. If someone wants to be ignorant and ignore well proven ideas, then that's their loss--not yours.

I get very upset when I see protesters outside of abortion clinics... I think it is beyond FOUL to judge someone when one has no idea of their personal circumstances. The same is true in any case. But me stopping my car to argue with them does nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Educate and ellucidate then walk away.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in