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.

 

Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

page: 26
25
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Until you do, I will continue to say it.


Sure, but when you refuse to substantiate it, you are just making a fool out of yourself. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.




And you can go there, sit by the side lines, yell all you want about it, but clearly there are more people with this same belief every day.


Clearly not. I posted a statistics somewhere up in the thread which showed that the situation is unchanging in US society. Pro-life extremists are somewhere around 20 %, and I predict the number will go down as religiosity (one of the drives behind this stance) goes down in the future.




If it isn't unique, it deserves no "special" rights we give to humans over animals.


Again, in what way is it not "unique"? Playing with words again?




This is not reason enough, as it pure say-so on our own opinion.


Thats all we have got. Our opinions.




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by troubleshooter
 





If a man places his member in a woman's body without permission it is considered wrong... ...why is it ok for a man to tell a woman what can happen in her body without her permission?


Well your statement is false because its not one man. Its the community. The population.

Are you a socialist?


So let's just reword what you said to something more obvious.

If a man sticks a blade in your body without permission its considered wrong. Why is it wrong for a community to say the same after trial and voting?

It is wrong for a community to kill a person.


Because that's the way our government works. Society has the right to say something is wrong and has the right to say it should not happen.

A govenment only has the right to protect the individual from others including itself and other authorities.


If the community votes to stick a blade in a murderer, it's really no different than a community saying that a woman who is neither raped nor at risk of death should be forced to keep the choice she made in her actions to risk pregnancy in whatever she was doing

The government of my country is more enlightened than to 'stick a blade in a murderer'...
...and it is time yours gave up this barbaric practice.

A woman is a soveriegn individual who can only decide what happens within the domain of her own physiology.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by spinalremain
 

So you're a person.
I'm a person.
Hell, even corporations are "persons".

But the unborn aren't?

I beg to differ.



Corporations are not natural persons. Thats the type of person relevant for this discussions. And indeed, unborn (or early foetii definately) and braindead humans are not persons, nor should they be, IMHO.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Corporations are not natural persons. Thats the type of person relevant for this discussions. And indeed, unborn (or early foetii definately) and braindead humans are not persons, nor should they be, IMHO.


Brain dead

having irreversible loss of brain function as indicated by a persistent flat electroencephalogram; "was declared brain dead".

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An infant (prenate) does not suffer from any loss of function. As a matter of fact, "function" is developing all the time. Dendritic outgrowths are always forming, axons are growing, the development of the hypocampus, and dentate gyrus are developing along with the other areas/lobes as well. Neuro formation is a direct result of endocrinological expression and cell differentiation.

Your justification for killing gets weaker as this thread develops.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


According to the American Bioethics Advisory Commission, here are the facts that dispute your opinion.




The Beginning of Human Life

It is quite clear that what was known more than 100 years ago,even intuitively before that,is that the fusion of sperm and oocyte begins the life of a new individual human being. In Human Embryology the terms understood to be integral in the common sense language are: human,being,person, individual,human being,life and human life. Unfortunately, every one of those terms has been parsed and corrupted to mean something it is not.

For example,we have already examined the corruption of the term individual into individuation,but explained how this corruption is seriously flawed. But,there has been another problem created; that is: when the early embryo splits,does the soul also split? And,if until that time there has been no soul,how could there be a person?

First of all,this is a question not for science,but for theology or religion. The science is there and has been there for about 150the years. In fact,it ought to be clear by now that when human life begins has no relationship to religion at all!

In sum,virtually every human embryologist agrees that fertilization is the beginning of the new individual human life [10].

Sherlock Holmes said it best when addressing Dr. Watson: "It's elementary my dear Watson".

American Bioethics Advisory Commission

So you see we can argue opinions all day long, the scientific community supports that human life begins at fertilization, therefore having an abortion is destroying or killing a human being equal to murder.

Pax



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I have evidence. You willingly ignore it.


Pro life and pro choice are alternating more quickly. the derivative is increasing, yet the average location is the same. This is what happens on the forefront of an information explosion.

The human brain before the age of 4 simply mimics what it sees. Nothing special there. Dozens of species can do this.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


I am socialist in thinking. Nothing wrong with that. The country was founded on social values that could be called socialist, but with high sensitivity to individuality.

It is perfectly ok for a community to kill a person after a trial finds them guilty.

The government has the right to protect you from yourself at some points in time. Suicide bombers come to mind.



Barbaric principals? You can call them whatever you like. I call it the rule of law.



A woman is a soveriegn individual who can only decide what happens within the domain of her own physiology.


Then she should probably not have unprotected sex. Your body, your right. Your failure, your responsibility.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





An infant (prenate) does not suffer from any loss of function. As a matter of fact, "function" is developing all the time. Dendritic outgrowths are always forming, axons are growing, the development of the hypocampus, and dentate gyrus are developing along with the other areas/lobes as well. Neuro formation is a direct result of endocrinological expression and cell differentiation.


"Brain function" in this case means brainwaves. Electroencephalogram should have clued you in. Anyway, I am not claiming that foetus is braindead, which it is not, so be careful with the comparisons.



Your justification for killing gets weaker as this thread develops.


My justification is unshaken.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





The human brain before the age of 4 simply mimics what it sees. Nothing special there. Dozens of species can do this.


Millions of species have cells with DNA in it, so nothing special there on the double.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


There is something unique with cells that can successfully form an adult through their specific functions that have come about through evolution.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

"Brain function" in this case means brainwaves. Electroencephalogram should have clued you in. Anyway, I am not claiming that foetus is braindead, which it is not, so be careful with the comparisons.


And yet you wrote


Corporations are not natural persons. Thats the type of person relevant for this discussions. And indeed, unborn (or early foetii definately) and braindead humans are not persons, nor should they be, IMHO.


You lumped the two together.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo
 


There is something unique with cells that can successfully form an adult through their specific functions that have come about through evolution.


According to this logic, assuming they cannot form an adult (for example due to some congenital defect, or even any other reason), its all right to kill such children up to 4 years of age, they are not unique after all and not worthy of protection on their own, just because of what they are in the present. Great thinking there.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Maslo

"Brain function" in this case means brainwaves. Electroencephalogram should have clued you in. Anyway, I am not claiming that foetus is braindead, which it is not, so be careful with the comparisons.


And yet you wrote


Corporations are not natural persons. Thats the type of person relevant for this discussions. And indeed, unborn (or early foetii definately) and braindead humans are not persons, nor should they be, IMHO.


You lumped the two together.



Yes, but I claimed both are not persons, not that both are braindead.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You say they are not adult. You say they are not worthy. You say they should be killed.

You say this is good logic

You say.

Not I.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo
 


You say they are not adult. You say they are not worthy. You say they should be killed.

You say this is good logic

You say.

Not I.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


They are obviously not adult, and I am not the one who said that "cells that can form an adult" is in any way important. That was you.

I say whether they can form an adult human being in the future is absolutely irrelevant. I say small children have value because of their very existence in the present, irrelevant of their future or past. I say that even remotely comparing them to a bunch of human totipotent cells as an equal is a disgusting marginalisation of a worth of a human being. Thats what I say.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You say this.

Not I.


And for this reason, nothing you say is relevant.

For everything you say is your own convoluted opinion of your own self righteousness. The same problem you and I have always had. You are right because you say so. I am right because I have the data and the proofs.

Go put on a pope hat and found your own church. You're not going to get many to believe you any other way.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





The same problem you and I have always had. You are right because you say so. I am right because I have the data and the proofs.


Indeed, the same problem we always have. Your own inability to acknowledge that you have a moral opinion based on what you "feel" is right and it is no more objectively valid or proven than any other. Arguing with such intellectual dishonesty leads nowhere.

You should publish, because according to what you write here, you made a breakthrough in philosophy of remarkable magnitude..



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
It amazes me how much time you westerners have to fight over silly issues.
How many 'isms' and false 'phobias' you have created, i wonder...
You are always fighting over some 'rights' and 'choices'.
You never fight over 'duties' and 'responsibilities'.
So i ask, why are you so 'dutyphobic'??



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Why should I publish that which Dawkins already talks about?

I like Dawkins and the lot of modern day philosophers. They make it perfectly clear that science can prove what people claim only morality can.

Morality and logic are distinctive from each other, and logic is more important because logic is based off observable fact.

You can keep your morals. I'll side with the logical scientific side of things.

And that much, has already been published. Once again, you are just ignoring things that go against your own views. You're a dinosaur from another age. A dying one, thank God.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by deepankarm
 


Because we are free.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join