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: 27
25
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


Fertilization is not the beginning of new human life. There are many factors that could mitigate this, natural or not.
It is the potential for human life, it certainly begins to grow while supported. But it is not yet human life.

You should read your evidence, as the paragraph you posted clearly states that this question is not for Science. If science cannot answer a question, then it is not fact. Any further conclusions drawn are pure opinion.




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


The potential is all that really matters, for the experience of "life" as a "human" really doesn't begin at birth. We sort of just manifest into a consciousness over several years of observation, mimicry, and learning. This hits a high point a few years after birth, towards which is the time a child first realizes himself as an individual.


Therefore potential is what matters, because the rights of a human being cannot be extended to all age groups based purely on their life as a human. They are, after all, overwhelmingly parasitic in nature for quite some time.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
This comes down to, to what extent does law allow us to govern ourselves. The word "abortion" sparks many fires in this day. Also, keep in mind all of the factors that constitute how we govern our own affairs daily. Note, that everyone is not like you. Everyone has different degrees of social, economic, and cultural status. Note, that we are a product of the two before us. They are product of the two before them, and so on.

Making abortions illegal ignores those different degrees of social, economic, and cultural status within the group identity.
edit on 28-1-2012 by voicefromtheages because: Syntax



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


From a purely scientific stand point, no it doesn't. Religiously, I don't believe potential matters either. What decides when you have a soul? Surely God doesn't assign a soul just because you have a single dividing cell inside of your body. If that were true then every time you scratch your arm, you shed hundreds and thousands of potentials.


Following my logic, if there is a god, has he not already foreseen an abortion and already planned accordingly. Why is it that the child cannot wait? There is certainly bound to be a better time and place for an un-expecting mother to pursue her pregnancy later in life, as she becomes more capable.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 





From a purely scientific stand point, no it doesn't. Religiously, I don't believe potential matters either. What decides when you have a soul? Surely God doesn't assign a soul just because you have a single dividing cell inside of your body. If that were true then every time you scratch your arm, you shed hundreds and thousands of potentials.


Woah there. You're going into a lot of things that are common beliefs but not necessarily true.

First of all, every cell has a function. Cells and genes are like people and memes. Each has its assigned task, job, production/consumption, etc etc. The cells you scratch off are not the same cells as a newly fertilized egg. The skin cells are usually dead if the get scratched off too. Their potential is only to die, or become cancerous, really.

It's the difference between cutting down a tree to kill someone, and the wind doing it. One is willing matter to destroy, the other is just a random event.

To that end, if you are going to argue about God and his designs, why would he make such an ultra-reinforced prison for the embryo then? If it didn't have a soul and wasn't important, then the body would certainly not be so highly designed to protect such a small thing.

Of course, if we go into scientific areas, if wasn't designed. It adapted to deal with high mortality rates and social elements of the species.

Potential also is very much so important in scientific matters. All life revolves around potential. If a gene has no potential, it's either stripped down for a buffer gene to prevent mutation of other genes, or lost entirely. If a member of a species has no potential, it is killed. If a species has no potential, it is destroyed.




Following my logic, if there is a god, has he not already foreseen an abortion and already planned accordingly. Why is it that the child cannot wait? There is certainly bound to be a better time and place for an un-expecting mother to pursue her pregnancy later in life, as she becomes more capable.


If there really is a God, he doesn't have a single plan. He has many, for each mistake you make, including killing something he created.

Why would God allow that life to be created if he wanted you to destroy it? Seems totally pointless.

God wouldn't create something that has no point to its existence.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: Le Spelling



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by voicefromtheages
 


There are plenty of things that we homogenize culturally. I see no reason why the value of life shouldn't be one.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by voicefromtheages

Making abortions illegal ignores those different degrees of social, economic, and cultural status within the group identity.
edit on 28-1-2012 by voicefromtheages because: Syntax


So people from different social, economic and cultural levels should have the law applied differently than others?

No. No-one should be exempt or gain special favours under the law.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by paxnatus
 


Fertilization is not the beginning of new human life. There are many factors that could mitigate this, natural or not.
It is the potential for human life, it certainly begins to grow while supported. But it is not yet human life.

You should read your evidence, as the paragraph you posted clearly states that this question is not for Science. If science cannot answer a question, then it is not fact. Any further conclusions drawn are pure opinion.


The paragraph also clearly states that the question is about the soul, not about when life begins. To which scientific discipline would you refer me on matters of the soul? What science is behind your opinions in opposition to the "paragraph" you didn't like?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


No scientific discipline can provide evidence of the soul. Perhaps Psychology could provide the logic to how humans conceive such a thing. When we state human life, we will have different definitions. However, stating human life begins at fertilization is opinion and not fact. As for us to consider something human, it would need a brain, and at fertilization it does not have such a thing. Yes, it will likely develop one should the pregnancy progress. However, we cannot force our opinions on the concept of human life upon a woman, without proving it.

If you want proof against this concept, then I cannot prove a negative. I've sat through at least two years of biology classes now, some devoted to human development and I have yet to hear the theory of when life begins. As it is, it will remain undecided. Any organizations attempting to state when the human life begins will only be stating their opinion of when life begins, and not something that has been determined by fact.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Indeed, it does seem pointless. The many variables I introduced are why we should not bring religious thinking into legislating abortion. Because given everything within the context of religion, it seems a silly task to try and interpret what "God" really wanted.

Of course I don't recognize the existence of any sort of god, so such is rather pointless to me. I believe women should be able to have an abortion before any major development begins, or if health concerns arise.

It's a much simpler task to leave the gods out of this discussion, as every woman or girl seeking to have an abortion isn't going to be some godless, amoral harlot. It seems like for most it would be an incredibly hard decision to make, and the religious folk do no favors in swaying opinion.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


No conception. Because a fertilized egg can't grow into an embryo without implantation. It begins at implantation.
There really isn't any arguing it. Conception is the religious crowds argument, but until implantation there is no chance at life. A girl isn't even pregnant until implantation.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Wrong.....go on the website. Black genocide.com and read about Margaret Sanger and her eugenics views.

And while you are at....everyone on this post should look at the pictures of these " sacs of cells" and " parasites" as you call them. See what a 6 week old valueless blob really looks like after the "medical procedure".



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


biology.clc.uc.edu...


If an egg is fertilized, fertilization occurs in the far end of the Fallopian tube near the ovary, and as the embryo travels down the tube, cell division starts. By the time it reaches the uterus (about a week later), it is a “hollow ball” or blastocyst, which has about 100 cells. The embryo, specifically the placenta, starts producing hormones which prevent the corpus luteum from disintegrating, and hormones from the corpus luteum maintain the endometrium until the placenta is large enough to secrete more hormones on its own. Note that whereas contraceptives, as their name suggests, prevent conception (union of egg and sperm to form a new person), intrauterine devices (IUDs) as well as “morning after” pills and some other drugs, including Depo-Provera, work to prevent implantation of the week-old, genetically-unique, growing embryo thereby causing it to die, and thus are abortifacients.


Is this enough to warrant a revision of your position or is there more to it than what is here?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
If you want to split hairs, sperm cells are one celled living creatures and, therefore, every time a guy masturbates, he's killing thousands of them.


Actually a single tablespoon of human sperm contains billions of sperm, or potential human beings. When sperm enter a woman's body they are assaulted with a barrage of defenses meant to kill and destroy the sperm. Weak sperm die quickly and only the toughest, most suitable sperm make it to the egg, and only one enters. The human body produces genocide against hundreds of millions or even billions of sperm even through conventional sex.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


So you would think it a hard decision, and yet every year millions of abortions happen. So either people are idiots, don't learn, or both.

You cannot entrust the value of human life to the mob. They would devour themselves.

Laws exist to value human life. Educated people come and discuss and look at the data, and they make the laws.

I've shown you the data. I can show you more. You can look at it if you wish, toss it out, accept it, etc etc.


I've been arguing a secular pro life stance for roughly 4 years now. It started as a purely moral challenge when I became an atheist. Even though I no longer am an atheist, the challenge remained. Just for the sake of knowing if there was a scientific secular way to be pro life. To me, there is.

After watching it for a while now, I've come to the simple conclusion that most people are idiots when it comes to the issue. They're either repeating the same lies they've been told from either the pro life or the pro choice group, and they're just fighting a fight that's designed to distract from a real data at hand.


At the end of the day, you are given a choice. Have sex responsibly, or accept the consequences. I do not see why women should have the right to erase their mistakes. I do not see why men should have something they can force a women to do to erase their mistakes. I do not see why these mistakes must be destroyed by careless people.

There exists conditions when it is understandable why it is needed. Near death, for example. Or rape. I cannot, nor will I accept that there is, a logical reason why a human being should have the right to kill another human being just because that human being is viewed as rejected. Rejection is not justification for destruction.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

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

edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: Le Spelling



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Ah.......but you omitted the rest of the sentence and in turn changed the American Bioethics Advisory Commissionmeaning of
the paragraph.


The science is there and has been there for about 150 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 human life.


Pax
edit on 1/29/2012 by paxnatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
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)


I am not aware of any works of Dawkins which would attempt to break the fact-value distinction, and success. Do you mean Richard Dawkins, or some other Dawkins?

There have been recent attempts to derive values (morality) from science by Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape), but after further consideration, I dont think he conclusively proved his theory, altrough I tend to agree with it.
But since his theory is specifically based on valuing sentience (utilitarianism), it cannot be used to justify abortion ban (or protect non-sentient life for that matter, which is considered a thing in his theory). According to his derivation, science leads to the conclusion that abortion is moral.

Care to point me which works do you think satisfactory break the fact-value distinction and derive oughts from facts?


edit on 29/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Haploid humans do not have a potential to turn into an adult in the future? Why do you discriminate haploid humans? They are human (they are not dogs...), and alive (they are not dead..), and have the same potential, therefore they should be protected!
Stop masturbation!



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
After 27 pages of this there is really only one question that keeps bothering me.
How many of you are men?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by troubleshooter
 



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

There is no such thing as 100% sure contraception except hysterectomy or vacectomy...
...so 'unprotected sex' is still relative.




top topics



 
25
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join