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.
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:
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.
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.
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)
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?
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]
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?
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.
None of this changes the fact that the biological process of life begins at conception.
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...
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.
What else would it be if not a human life??? It is "human"...we have already agreed to that...correct?