Now what a story this is! ..what a doctor said infront of an abortion

page: 5
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Natame
Ok im sorry but i guess i have issues with this... a womans body is hers and hers alone. I have had three wonderful children and i know i would never have aborted them. But i also believe a woman has the right to choose her fate. I do understand the fact that a baby once conceived is alive. But knowing that there is alot of different reasons that a woman could or would want to terminate that said pregnancy is her CHOICE. I would never dictate to anyone that wanted to have a tattoo or plastic surgery, to have a cancer removed or life threatening surgery..Your body belongs to you... only you have that choice to do what you will with it.



So let's see you are equating getting a tattoo with abortion , wow I thought have heard it all when trying to justify the murder of an innocent child, but lady you take the cake . I feel sorry for your children, I can. See you now mommy has an errand to do let's see should I get a tattoo or an abortion today may bee if you ever have this choice to make you can get a tattoo of a torn apart fetus to remind you of the murder you would commit.




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Noey777
 


On certain levels we should take joy that we are simple animals. When I know of someone who agrees with/practices abortion without particular and consecrated consideration while also highly valuing the mating process on both physical and spiritual levels, I think "better for my kids to move ahead in the world."

On certain levels we should take joy that we are children of God. When I know of someone who disagrees with another and expresses such contention through condemnation, I think "there goes another illusion for atheists to stand on."



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Natame
Ok im sorry but i guess i have issues with this... a womans body is hers and hers alone. I have had three wonderful children and i know i would never have aborted them. But i also believe a woman has the right to choose her fate. I do understand the fact that a baby once conceived is alive. But knowing that there is alot of different reasons that a woman could or would want to terminate that said pregnancy is her CHOICE. I would never dictate to anyone that wanted to have a tattoo or plastic surgery, to have a cancer removed or life threatening surgery..Your body belongs to you... only you have that choice to do what you will with it.


Uh hello? The woman chose her fate when she decided to ##SNIP## Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Ofcourse you should be made to suffer the consequences of your actions. There are plenty of sexual alternatives that do not involve a male reproductive organ. I realize this may be crude but it is true. The same for any man that engages in sexual relations with a woman and she ends up pregnant, he took the risk he should be made to pay the consequences. You learn nothing from your past mistakes when you can just run to the doc's office and buy a morning after pill, or a month later have the baby's brain sucked out with a vacuum hose.

Want to see what an aborted baby looks like? See this link.

www.bing.com...

Think the baby feels pain? Can you be absolutely 100% sure of that? No you can't, so why kill a baby? Murder is murder, even if it is a life within your own body that life within your own body is not your body, it is another person's body. Just because the scene of the crime is inside your body doesn't mean it is right.
edit on 9-11-2011 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




Correlation doesn't imply causation.


Only when you have possible alternative cause or can rule out the causation by logic. If not, correlation implies causation. In fact, all we can observe are just correlations.





However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are not always correct because there are other possibilities, as explained later in this article.

Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[1] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:[4]
"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."




If you were correct, and material brain was all that there is to mind, any other system of equal complexity would exhibit a similar characteristic. As it is, they do not. This is your evidence that something more is necessary.


How do you know? Do we have a system of similar complexity to compare?
Also, not all complexities are equal, its the way brain is complex that is important.



My point is that you justified killing unborn babies prior to a certain threshold because they didn't have fully functioning brains, and you used that to argue that they are not conscious. Do you still defend this idea?


Yes. Brains undeveloped/damaged beyond some level cannot be sentient, or contain mind.



Enough. According to this criteria then, you must be ok with the killing of MCS patients, or people in coma or vegetative states, as they don't meet your criteria of sentience. Are you?


People in coma still have a mind inside, encoded in the neural network, its just "paused". They can thus recover, and their mind, still existing in this form, must be protected. If they cannot, then yes, kill them and harvest their organs for others, since they are just empty vessels now, the mind information is lost.

Fetuses do not have mind at all, not even paused mind, until it develops for the first time.



No. I am implying that if you like utilitarianism because if advances something that Christianity already did two thousand years ago, then utilitarianism is useless. Why should I move from Christianity to Utilitarianism if I will just keep doing what I already am doing? What good did it do? None since nothing changed.


Because christian moral system, while often coming to good conclusions, has wrong motivation for them (divine command theory), and thus requires the existence of a deity, specifically christian god, and other unnecessary baggage to be valid. Utilitarianism requires just sentient beings.
And modern christian moral system sometimes also comes to bad conclusions, such as in case of abortions, cloning, ESC therapy, homosexuals etc.. Utilitarianism is superior in these cases.



No, they weren't. Sorry, but you don't know more about my religion than I do.


en.wikipedia.org...



All actions have consequences. Pretending they do not exist do not change this fact. If you are incorrect, you just sanctioned the death of 1.2 million human beings, yearly. In fact, you would have actively fought for the right of people to kill 1.2 million human beings yearly. If "sad" is the emotion that such evokes on you, I fear what kind of atrocity you must support in order to cause you to feel either regret or guilty.


If I had acted according to best available information at the time, and moral judgement. The alternative is not to make moral decisions at all.



There are no moral consequences for allowing life to run its course. People are born naturally and die naturally, and there are no moral considerations on such events. However, killing people is wrong.


Omission bias logical fallacy + naturalistic fallacy. Just because some course of action is more passive and more natural than the alternative, does not make it better.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


So its not about children, you want to ban abortion just to punish sexually irresponsible women? You actually admit this is your motivation for it?
And I thought the "conservatives just want to punish women" was just a stereotype..



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Natame
Ok im sorry but i guess i have issues with this... a womans body is hers and hers alone. I have had three wonderful children and i know i would never have aborted them. But i also believe a woman has the right to choose her fate. I do understand the fact that a baby once conceived is alive. But knowing that there is alot of different reasons that a woman could or would want to terminate that said pregnancy is her CHOICE. I would never dictate to anyone that wanted to have a tattoo or plastic surgery, to have a cancer removed or life threatening surgery..Your body belongs to you... only you have that choice to do what you will with it.


Uh hello? The woman chose her fate when she decided to ##SNIP## Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Ofcourse you should be made to suffer the consequences of your actions. There are plenty of sexual alternatives that do not involve a male reproductive organ. I realize this may be crude but it is true. The same for any man that engages in sexual relations with a woman and she ends up pregnant, he took the risk he should be made to pay the consequences. You learn nothing from your past mistakes when you can just run to the doc's office and buy a morning after pill, or a month later have the baby's brain sucked out with a vacuum hose.

Want to see what an aborted baby looks like? See this link.

www.bing.com...

Think the baby feels pain? Can you be absolutely 100% sure of that? No you can't, so why kill a baby? Murder is murder, even if it is a life within your own body that life within your own body is not your body, it is another person's body. Just because the scene of the crime is inside your body doesn't mean it is right.
edit on 9-11-2011 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


Oh right, so just because i excersice my beliefs and right to free speech in a civil manner by providing valid points of discussion the ATS police jump on my back and accuse me of being uncivil. Wow.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I understand the point the doctor was trying to make!

We need to bring back post-birth abortions, like the romans had back in the day.


Seriously though...
Fetuses aren't people

Seems like people in Mississippi, of all states!, disagree with you people.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


So what was the end result? Did the one child in her arms die or what?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Super64PR
 


Ok you made a point, so when a higher lifeform then ourselves came along they have the right to exterminate us, right?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Eggs and Sperm are not fertilized. When they meet, the egg is fertilized and life (growth, expansion, evolution) begins. Thats why abortions are considered killing.

People want to make claims about how developed a child is in terms of when its right to kill it. Well, an infant is stupider than a dog. We have no problem putting down dogs when they get sick, but we would never do this just because we couldnt afford it anymore. We would adopt it to someone. Whats the difference between killing a dog we can't afford or killing an infant we cant afford or killing a month old embryo we cant afford?

Its not propaganda but a real question. Why do we draw the moral line of what constitutes killing at one stage of LIFE but not another? Why is it only life when its intelligent?

Oh thats right, because this is the narrow point of view of humans and this is why we are destroying the world. We are superior life forms and the earth is ours to rape and pillage as we see fit.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventhdoor
 


Along those lines. A tumor is alive, so is a parasite. When we amputate a limb, we are killing millions of developing cells and sacrificing them for the good of the remaining host. We intentionally target and kill millions of fat cells every chance we get. Each of them is just as alive as those first few splitting cells of an embryo.

So, you might get blasted for your views, but it is a legitimate question.

An embryo is not all that biologically different than a tumor or a parasite is it? Especially in the cases where it is endangering the life of the mother.

"Where" exactly are we alive? If we could amputate a head to save a body would we do it? We make artificial hearts, and some people have no pulse afterwards. Are they alive? Are the brainwaves the key? If so, what about random misfiring brainwaves and a beating heart? Alive or not? Heart and Lung machines, etc., etc.

It seems we need to define just what part of "life" it is that is precious, and where does it reside in the body.
edit on 9-11-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


stupid.

absolutely stupid.

you kiss jesus with that bs mouth?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

An embryo is not all that biologically different than a tumor or a parasite is it? Especially in the cases where it is endangering the life of the mother.



Hmm.. interesting question. You don't know the answer? It is perfectly obvious that a human embryo contains all the "parts" of a, guess what, human being. A tumor does not. A fertilized human egg will develop into a full sized adult human, with proper care. The first part of the care and development happens to take place in the womb.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
Eggs and Sperm are not fertilized. When they meet, the egg is fertilized and life (growth, expansion, evolution) begins. Thats why abortions are considered killing.



It's funny how the same people, who consider abortions as killing, are perfectly fine killing deer and other wildlife...

guess what? That deer was made with eggs and sperm as well.

As Dostoevsky said, "If childbirth is a miracle, then flies being born are a miracle as well."



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Presumably the pro-lifers will be present every time a woman has a late heavy period most of which are known to be natural abortions.

"Natural abortions".......freaking hell, this means God allows such things (if you believe in God).

Hang on surely that means...........face slap!
edit on 9/11/11 by malcr because: one to on



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
It's obvious neither side is going to win over the other with threads like these.

However, I can't believe anyone WOULD EVER value the life of a deer ^ or an ant or any other animal the same as human.

Is that a joke?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DeusVult
 


I agree, the human embryo is different, but how do we define it.

If a doctor could save the life of a human by performing an amputation above the brain stem, would we let him? All the primary motor functions could be operational from the stem, but the higher thought would be gone. We could save 80% of the body with the amputation. We wouldn't hesitate to remove some feet or an arm in the same situation.

So, can we determine that the source of "life" is in our brain? If so, how do we define it? And if there is some pattern of electrical activity that does define "life," then we should be able to identify that in a fetus at some point right?

What if we can also detect that particular pattern in a dog, or a dolphin? Would they then afford the same rights as humans?

What about a tree? I read some studies that the electrical activity of certain trees goes off the charts when another tree is cut down. Is that a consciousness?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Super64PR
Does this mean, that when people practice safe sex for example... I kill millions of 'half' babies?

Until the 'baby' is more than organised cells, I don't believe it constitutes as a full human lifeform. When you wash your face, you're killing millions of germs. Those too are only organised cells. But you don't worry about that I'm sure.

When you get a cold and your body fights off the germs, your body is killing millions of germ cells and yet I'm sure you feel good once you've gotten over a cold.

You'll probably say, that the germs cannot grow into a sentient lifeform though. That's okay though, let use this example.

Are you vegetarian? If not, then you don't mind having sentient, self-aware animals being killed so you can eat. If you are vegetarian, then you probably don't think like this when you kill a wasp or a other insects.

Ultimately, regardless of your beliefs... we're all hypocrites at some point along the line, so we just have to deal with it.
edit on 9-11-2011 by Super64PR because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-11-2011 by Super64PR because: (no reason given)


Exactly, pro-lifers want to keep making "personhood" earlier and earlier.


Would you consider spermicide to be a fetus HOLOCAUST??

Pretty soon we'll consider life as beginning with dinner and a movie. Or how bout a wink?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
That was a clever story,thankyou, well worth a star and flag.
and no doubt all the abuse you will get from everyone who disagrees.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
If life begins a conception then why don't Christian (in particular) have "conception day" instead of birthday? I guess that would mean that everyone would know they had (dare I say it) SEX .... OMG!





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join