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: 7
79
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2


The genocide argument is not even close to accurate and not worth debating futher - we will leave it to a dictionary. Definition: Genocide: •systematic killing of a racial or cultural group


you might want to rethink the above statement(s).


The differential between the abortion ratio for black women and that for white women has increased from 2.0 in 1989 (the first year for which black and other races were reported separately) to 3.0 in 2000 (51). In addition, the abortion rate for black women has been approximately 3 times as high as that for white women (range: 2.6--3.1) since 1991 (the first year for which rates by race were published) (52). These rates by race are substantially lower than rates previously published by NCHS and suggest that the reporting areas for the 2000 report might not be fully representative of the U.S. black female population of reproductive age. Census Bureau estimates and birth certificate data indicate that the large majority of Hispanic women report themselves as white (7). Therefore, data for some white women actually represent Hispanic women.


Black Abortion Differentials

Genocide perpetrated on blacks via elective abortions



edit on 24-2-2011 by MMPI2 because:


Are you seeing a decrease of population in the black community? I am not. No one is forcing black women to get abortions.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
To the OP, you're sic, a person is born at conception. After conception a conscience effort takes place to end that life. Think about it.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ariel
 


I've often wondered if pregnant women were killed during the "great flood" in Noah's day, as I don't recall God making sure those women were allowed into the Ark.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


When God causes the "abortion" or "miscarriage", it's ok. It was an act of "nature".; never mind that the mom to be might be devastated over it. God never thought twice about taking innocent lives, and still doesn't. So why should we?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
To the OP, you're sic, a person is born at conception. After conception a conscience effort takes place to end that life. Think about it.


You might think it sick, but back alley abortions makes me just as sick.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
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 here...you 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).



First of all...YOU SHOULDN"T PLAGARISE.
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 sinking...fast.



I have put sources in where I took vast amounts of information - I forgot to credit the author when I took a paragraph you have pointed out - my mistake. I wrote this really late at night and it was a simple oversight. If you are worried only about me copying something word for word you are basically asking me to paraphrase things to make it look like my work - I am more than happy to use others idea's and show where I have obtained the information, again it was a mistake. I have not claimed I wrote everything here at any point - I have said what I am providing is the arguments I see supporting abortion.


www.wisegeek.com...

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.



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 do...you are going to an EXTREME example for your justification. You are talking about rare ABNORMALITIES. Nature isn't perfect...you will find abnormalities...doesn't mean the person isn't human.

I mean WOW...it 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)


You can continue to think what you like about me being "sick" but this is not actually my personal point of view. You judge ME for providing an argument for supporting abortion, how very open minded of you. MY personal view is that far too many abortions happen and the majority of them should not have taken place. But as is the point of the thread - where do we draw this magic line on life.

While I agree on first appearance we can say life starts when the unique DNA is first created. However further critical thinking lead me to the argument of identical twins - where they share the same DNA - a unique human life is not being created when the DNA is first created, so what is the point where the unique individual human life starts?

My argument on extra/fewer chromosomes was again not my personal belief and no where did I say that people with a different number of chromosomes were not human - SHAME, for twisting my words. I said "Or is human life defined by having 46 chromosomes - if that is the case what about the people with fewer or greater chromosomes? "
See how it is a question - I am asking people if they think people with down syndrom etc with a different number of chromosomes are human - and the answer ofcorse is yes they are, so that automatically dismisses and arguments to do with the number of chromosomes = a human life. Again SHAME for trying to use something posed as a question to get people to think to attempt to disgrace me as if it was my point of view. you claim "MOST" of my this OP was plagurised - that is simply not true, I didnt source some info and noticed this later but was unable to go back and edit my post because I had left it too late. I really struggled with the formatting and think I deleted some sources while I was fixing it. I was not trying to take credit for this thinking, I am presenting an argument that conflicts with my personal view that I think is very valid and is technically correct - that doesnt mean as a human I do not feel different.

The Question: When does a human life, the essance, the unique individual start
Again the DNA argument:.
We can not say life starts when the dna first merges because ----
Identical twins - where they share the same DNA - a unique human life is not being created
Number of chromosomes - Does not stand up because we know people with more or less are still unique human life's
The fact that DNA changes throughout our life, it may be small as you say but a change is a change.

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



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
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 this.....is it ok to abort it?


I am not going to bother to argue it - as your subconcious writting reveals in your last paragraph - your mind is made up, and nothing I can argue will convince you.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


When I say unique DNA...I am talking about unique to the mothers. I have to put in this language because some people like to try to claim that the fetus is just a part of the women's body. So by saying unique DNA, it prevents people from trying to call it a "growth" and part of her body.

Identical twins poses no problems to the Biological definition of the process of life. They still have DNA that is unique to the mothers, and their cells are still dividing. They will continue to divide until each one dies, which will most likely be at different times. No where am I saying that DNA makes one person "unique"...I am saying the formation of a complete DNA and the beginning of cell division marks the beginning of "LIFE".

Like I said...it is the same as any other living thing.

It doesn't matter if our DNA changes...no where in my argument or the definition of biological life does it say that this DNA must stay constant. The creation of the unique DNA and the beginning of cell division is the signal that new life has begun.


This really isn't disputed...go read any biology book...even most pro-choice people who are knowledgable in biology will agree that "LIFE" begins at conception...and then their argument shifts to "when is the fetus sentient" or "when is the fetus conscious"...because they know that they can no longer argue from a "when does life begin" position.


It's a scientific fact that you can mark exactly when life begins, you can do this for humans, dogs, cows, plants...you name it. You can continue to try to argue it...but you are going to fail...and you will eventually move your position to "sentience"...and that is when you have to abandon science and move to philosophy.

I'll stick with science.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

TO ALL THOSE WHO THINK I AM SICK

This thread was created to present an arument that I found to be technically correct and valid.

This argument actually conflicted with my personal point of view that the majority of abortion's are for the wrong reasons.

It is not my job to judge other circumstances to decide who is doing it for the right or wrong reason. Do you believe you have that insight and the right?

I have had posts of people labeling me sick and dispising me for simply pointing out the facts as I see them. I have attempted to keep my personal views out of this thread but it has not stopped the personal attacks and abuse from people judging me for looking at the other side of the coin - for denying ignorance.

You can judge me all you like, but the time will come when you are judged.


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



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Period
Abortion is one of the most, if not the most selfish act a human can commit.

OP......you organized your post very well, but you as well as ALL other human beings on earth, DO NOT KNOW when "life begins"
Its all a matter of opinion.
I think abortion is an atrocity. One of the many that are causing the downfall of the human race.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Infaticide is nothing new. It's been going on long before we were born, and will continue long after we're dead



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Serizawa
 



Don't make me laugh, Your opinions are not facts.

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


I did not notice the term "life" in any of the sources you quoted. It is true that a zygote is developing into a human baby. However, it is not alive because it is not biologically self sufficient to be able to sustain it's life. Many, many people overlook this simple fact.

Very premature babies are kept alive through technology and would die without the mechanisms that sustain it's life while the baby fully develops biologically. Once again we are back to the fact that biological self sufficiency is a prerequisite of life.
edit on 25-2-2011 by My_Reality because: ERROR



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I can agree that a new unique human cell exists when the DNA is merged - but is it a human life at this stage?
We must also consider that a zygote gives rise to both a human being and a placenta - it cant be both a human life and a placenta. Are we murderers when we throw the placenta away?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I can agree that a new unique human cell exists when the DNA is merged - but is it a human life at this stage?
We must also consider that a zygote gives rise to both a human being and a placenta - it cant be both a human life and a placenta. Are we murderers when we throw the placenta away?


What else would it be if not a human life??? It is "human"...we have already agreed to that...correct?

So if it isn't "alive"...the only to options is that it is dead or that it is inanimate. I don't think anyone would claim it is "dead"...and since the cells are actively dividing...you can't say it is inanimate.

So what exactly is it if you don't say it is alive.


The placenta is a funny organ...technically part of the mother, although made up of both mother and babies genes. A placenta will never develop into anything...it is a temporary organ that is used to sustain the baby in utero. So for those that use the argument that the mother sustains the baby....that is technically only "half" true


The only way you would think you are a murder when the placenta is discarded is if you think you are a murderer everytime you cut your fingernails, get a haircut, or have anything surgically removed.


None of this changes the fact that the biological process of life begins at conception.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I can agree that a new unique human cell exists when the DNA is merged - but is it a human life at this stage?
We must also consider that a zygote gives rise to both a human being and a placenta - it cant be both a human life and a placenta. Are we murderers when we throw the placenta away?


What else would it be if not a human life??? It is "human"...we have already agreed to that...correct?

So if it isn't "alive"...the only to options is that it is dead or that it is inanimate. I don't think anyone would claim it is "dead"...and since the cells are actively dividing...you can't say it is inanimate.

So what exactly is it if you don't say it is alive.


It is innate, it does not even have a heart, a brain or any sign of being any more alive than a tree - I can agree it is human but do not see anything to claim it is now a human life. An acorn is not an oak tree - although it posses the same DNA (Not my thought, i read the oak tree argument somewhere along the way)



None of this changes the fact that the biological process of life begins at conception.

And I agree with you, but that is not to say that the living human life begin's at conception. You have put together some great points and I feel we have generated a great argument showing both sides of the coin between us - but i feel we could be here all day and I do not have the time - but for now I think we must agree to disagree.
Great work, no hard feelings & good debate.
edit on 25-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I think abortion should be required.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by byteshertz
 

This really isn't disputed...go read any biology book...even most pro-choice people who are knowledgable in biology will agree that "LIFE" begins at conception...

Indeed, "human" and "alive" are not good enough qualifiers. See sperm and egg. Also see this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


and then their argument shifts to "when is the fetus sentient" or "when is the fetus conscious"...because they know that they can no longer argue from a "when does life begin" position.


Except human and alive are not good enough qualifiers, neither is Unique DNA as the link above shows.


What else would it be if not a human life??? It is "human"...we have already agreed to that...correct?

Why should we grant personhood to sperms and eggs? They're both human and alive right? As for the unique DNA angle see previous link.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
One thing that I think we can all agree upon, is that none of us is absolutely sure. We don't KNOW for a FACT that abortion is or is not killing a human life/baby. Although I would rather not be for abortion. Cause if some day with more advanced technology we find out for a fact that abortion is killing and taking away a human life, well the everyone who has ever gotten an abortion, no if ands or buts, will become unaware murderers out of ignorance, although murderers nonetheless. But if we find out for a fact that it is not murder and that no life was taken whatsoever, then everything is and will be good. I'm hoping for the later but the first one is still probable. Overall lesson: Be ready for the consequences of your actions or don't commit the action in the first place.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It might sound cold, but is 'when life begins' really all that relevant? Isn't it more of an issue about discerning when the procedure is necessary and when it is not? People don't like the idea but then it comes down to the reality of life which isn't always so 'ideal'.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The creator of the universe says He hates hands that shed innocent blood. There's a lot of puffed up heathens on this website, I don't care what you think of me. Think of what the Big guy thinks of your filthy righteousness.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join