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.

 

Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons to ‘Fulfill T

page: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
references from the Church


Catholic Church Clear on When Human Life Begins
Most Rev. Glen John Provost, D.D.
Bishop of Lake Charles, Louisiana
2. To answer a question such as when does life begin, science gives us a quite adequate answer; according to one prominent embryology text, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, by Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persuad (7th Edition; Publ. Saunders, p. 16), ‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual’’; if he were alive today, St. Augustine would agree, because St. Augustine believed that there was no ‘‘disjunction’’ in what was known by faith and reason (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1981 ed., vol. 5, p. 808, ‘‘St. Augustine’’ on ‘‘Faith and Reason’’); life begins at conception; no doubt St. Augustine would have marveled at a uterine ultrasound and what it reveals about a human in the womb;
3. The teaching that life in the womb is sacred has been consistently taught by the Church from the beginning and is reflected in the opposition of the Church for twenty centuries to abortion; please consult the oldest catechism instruction of the Church, outside the Sacred Scriptures, called the Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles from the First Century A.D.; it reads as follows: ‘‘Do not kill a fetus by abortion, or commit infanticide’’ (Didache, 2:2); also, noted patristic scholars are in agreement that St. Augustine probably knew the Didache and may have used it as a source in writing his own First Catechetical Instruction.




www.priestsforlife.org...


The question of viability is another story


The debate on when life becomes viable outside of the womb is the next crossing point. Many in the pro-choice camp claim that no life is human until it is born. May we then ask, what kind of life is there prior to birth? Is it non-human life? The claim that human life doesn’t “happen” until birth is not scientific or logical.

www.examiner.com...




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
I applaud Obama for coming out, especially during an election cycle, to preserve the "right to choose" of women! OP, I couldn't disagree with you more. No one is trying to take away your right to give birth.

OP, you are looking at the world through rosey colored glasses. Not all women will make good moms, or will become better people for having given birth.


...and conversely it appears you are looking at the world through a crystal ball where you apparently know things before they happen. Perhaps there are women who would have become better women, people, moms, because they had children. Guess we'll never know....



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


not even a 9 month baby in the womb cries, so no zygote would cry, but if you are asking the scientific evaluation of a zygote, in time it will become a human, no tumor will ever become a human in the same amount of time, so that is the difference. Can the government force a woman to carry a child for nine months? no. Does any government have the moral right to kill a zygote? no. Both sides have a point, labour is intensive, but life is precious. The whole abortion issue is meant to divide and be divisive, rather than finding common ground like establishing extenuating circumstances as to when abortion is reasonable, and viewing all life as precious, from zygote to human. Instead, the right wants no abortions ever, the left wantd aboryions for all. No middle ground, thus no solution.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
On a certain moral level, it always seems that poor and uneducated catch the worst par of unwanted pregnancy.

I think of all the "State Owned" kids in foster care or adopted out to less than ideal families and wonder what their life will be like. Many of the kids are on some type of psychotropic drugs, have addiction issues, emotional issues for a long time.

Sure there are successful children of adoption and such, but a LOT of the trouble is highly disproportionate.

Is it "moral" to have this cycle continue?

Education is the key. I think teen and young adults should have a class with a full rundown of the costs, what you go through, the lack of sleep, the total INVESTMENT of your health involved with having a baby before you're ready.

You can't legislate behavior based on millions of years of activity....sex.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas

That argument is a fallacy.

When someone makes the decision to harm a pregnant woman thus killing her unborn child , they have deprived her of her CHOICE to carry the baby to full term or not. That's why the penalty for such a crime or act makes sense. The odds are if a woman is pregnant and knows it, she wants to keep it.

Ron Paul uses the same argument. Problem is, it's illogical.


Prima facie, your argument seems to be valid for a pro-choice stance. However, if it is decided that that 'life' begins at conception, then I would argue that she most certainly does not have any choice in the matter. We afford all humans their natural rights, and to allow that woman to end that life would be allowing her to deprive that human of his/her's natural rights.

Regardless, I was trying to argue the point of 'punishment being proportional to the crime'. If it's a matter of depriving someone of their freedom of choice, then how would that criminal deserve a murder sentence?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by CaptainIraq
 


By that same logic, must not we also permit mothers to murder their children after they exit the womb with no consequences?


Once a citizen is born in the US, it is a citizen with all the rights provided to all of us. Killing a born person would be murder.

Careful there, according to the constitution our natural rights (life) are given for being human beings, not US citizens.


Originally posted by PaxVeritas

Education is the key. I think teen and young adults should have a class with a full rundown of the costs, what you go through, the lack of sleep, the total INVESTMENT of your health involved with having a baby before you're ready.

You can't legislate behavior based on millions of years of activity....sex.


This I agree with 100%.
edit on 24-1-2012 by CaptainIraq because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
All of these people in the thread mocking the idea of no mention of contraception.

Yet when condoms for free are offered to young people that are going to have sex, suddenly they scream that the government is trying to encourage young people to have sex.

This is a no win.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 



Agreed there should be a middle ground. But both sides are equally fanatical about it.

I think abortion to a degree is 'acceptable'. But to state that ALL abortion should be illegal is madness. A society like ours to adjust to such a law????

There would be Millions of women and girls in prison the first 5 years of such a law, or dead, or damaged from back illegal abortions, or suicidal, etc. And would we have an "Abortion Gestapo" to enforce these laws?

It's a horrible idea. Pure madness.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Haven't read the whole thread, nor have I the wherewithal to do so.

Having said that....

The government has no right to grant us rights; rights given to us, or rather are endowed by whatever means necessary upon us at birth... or so says our Constitution... and maybe not in those exact words but the meaning is there.


With regards to Roe/v/Wade- fine. Women can have abortions. I'm okay with that- that's their choice. What I'm not okay with is that men can't have abortions. If the woman chooses to keep the child, the father is forced to care for it and denied his right to choose.

I often hear the cliche' "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," but isn't the reverse also true?

Way to go PrzOb.


edit on 1/24/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
When does human life begin? I would say that strictly biologically speaking, conception is the right answer.

But I dont care about any life, human or non-human, if it is non-sentient. Why should killing human embryos or braindead humans be morally wrong? It is no more wrong than killing a plant or a tree.

Human life has little value. Only human beings (with properties of mind) have value.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
It should be legal. We have enough children that arent taken care of in this country, do we really need more running around? These fetuses are aborted because they are not wanted, plain and simple.

Yes, i realize that the people who get an abortion were being irresponsible in not using protection, (except of course cases of rape and genuine accidents, which is why the option should be there) but it seems to me that the real problem is lack of education on the subject. Free contraceptives nationwide would help a great deal also. Prevention is the key, not eliminating options once it is too late.

Making abortion illegal will not fix the problems we have. People will continue to have sex without protection and have children that they are not ready or willing to take care of. A large portion of these children will grow up with one parent, possibly on some kind of government assistance and will not be living a good life. The rest will risk getting sketchy abortions in other countries or by back alley doctors in this country. It is an ugly scenario, uglier that aborting a lump of tissue that will eventually be a person.

Just to be clear, I dont think abortion should be used as often as it does nor do i think late term abortions should be legal (only in certain extreme cases where the mothers life is at stake). It is a procedure that is abused too much but like i said, education can go a long way in preventing it from happening.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You are conflating two different questions...

(1) When does "life" begin..

(2) When does "human life" begin..

Cells replicating? what about Tumor?

Cells replicating with genetic instructions? We grow ears and other human tissues in labs..

Niether would qualify as a "person" by most definitions.

To have an honest debate we need to define what constitutes "personhood" or "human life".



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


How about the forming of a zygote, or maybe blastula?
And that doesn't happen often in a lab, save for the purpose of artificial insemination.


edit on 1/24/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
Careful there, according to the constitution our natural rights (life) are given for being human beings, not US citizens.


Show me where the Constitution talks about "Human Beings" or "natural rights". It talks about people and persons.

Searchable Constitution

The Legal Definition of Person



An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I love how liberals maintain that it's a woman's 'right' to make 'choices' about her own body. I agree, but they need to go back a step or two when the woman made a 'choice' to have unprotected sex.

So, they're free to make the choice... as long as it's the choice YOU want them to make?



Killing unborn babies is a crime, not a choice.


Um... no it's not a crime. It's legal.
It's called abortion and it's a medical procedure.


Ah, so the choice YOU want them to make is right, and mine is wrong? Hypocrite.

And you're just clueless about what life is. I wonder what you'd say if you mother had aborted you. Oh, that's right, you'd be dead - after you were alive in her womb.

And frankly I am tired of hearing liberals use the same crutch over and over: It's LEGAL, it's LEGAL.

Roe v. Wade should be overturned if for nothing else but to shut you up.



edit on 24-1-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Legal definition of death routinely used in hospitals is brain death. It makes sense for legal definition of the beginning of life to be based on the state of the brain, too.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Ah, so the choice YOU want them to make is right, and mine is wrong?


No. I don't care what choice they make.
I'm not judging their choice, you are.


I wonder what you'd say if you mother had aborted you.


Probably not much.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
The fact is that if we are to grow as a species, then we must undertake a more responsible reproduction program. Right now, Row vs. Wade is in effect mainly for political purposes as it is brought up every 4 years or election cycle. However, it makes much more sense to develop a medical way of suppressing the ability to conceive until such time as individuals or couples can demonstrate an ability to raise a child.


Oh I agree - - don't want to go too far off topic though.

I'd say religion is probably a much bigger factor against any reasonable plan - - then politics.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Legal definition of death routinely used in hospitals is brain death. It makes sense for legal definition of the beginning of life to be based on the state of the brain, too.


The Patriot Act makes a lot of unsavory assertions, and it's "legal". It doesn't make it right.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Trying to debate abortion with liberals is like trying to beg a shark not to eat you when you're bleeding in the ocean. It's hard when there is no conscience to appeal to.



edit on 24-1-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I love how liberals maintain that it's a woman's 'right' to make 'choices' about her own body. I agree, but they need to go back a step or two when the woman made a 'choice' to have unprotected sex.

So, they're free to make the choice... as long as it's the choice YOU want them to make?



Killing unborn babies is a crime, not a choice.


Um... no it's not a crime. It's legal.
It's called abortion and it's a medical procedure.


Ah, so the choice YOU want them to make is right, and mine is wrong? Hypocrite.

And you're just clueless about what life is. I wonder what you'd say if you mother had aborted you. Oh, that's right, you'd be dead - after you were alive in her womb.

And frankly I am tired of hearing liberals use the same crutch over and over: It's LEGAL, it's LEGAL.

Roe v. Wade should be overturned if for nothing else but to shut you up.



edit on 24-1-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


Why does someone who is Pro Choice have to be "liberal"?

And you would want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned just so you can shut up an anonymous poster on the other end of the internet?

You say "alive in her womb". It does sound emotional but what is "alive".

What is the litmus for this term 'alive'? Something that can't eat, breathe, think, decide, move, without a 'host' to attach to? Is that what constitutes a 'person' or 'human'.

If so, that's a very shoddy benchmark.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join