Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 32
25
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tk2dsky
 


Yes, it is.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Using contraception is an ACTIVE deed done to negate the possibility of future person appearing, which would otherwise most probably appear (if contraception was not used).

Having abortion is an ACTIVE deed done to negate the possibility of future person appearing, which would otherwise most probably appear (if abortion was not done).

No difference between the two from this POV. Even omission bias fallacy (claiming that active killing of life is worse than passive killing, which is acceptable - I dont agree with that) wont help here, since both actions are active, and done with intent to negate the future person.

edit on 31/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
No difference between the two from this POV. Even omission bias fallacy (claiming that active killing of life is worse than passive killing, which is acceptable - I dont agree with that) wont help here, since both actions are active, and done with intent to negate the future person.



Traditionally, before we had the means to control or interrupt ovulation, only abortifacients were available, and without exception, each and every culture possessed plant based methods to encourage the shedding of the endometrial lining, and with it, the developing fetus. Almost without exception, those methods carry with them the risk of 'over-bleeding' which could, and can, lead to the death of the woman if used incorrectly and without supervision. Childbirth is incredibly difficult in humans, and the methods that have ensured our survival as a species, have essentially included preventing pregnancies that endangered the life or health of mothers. Since women have been (until very recently) excluded, often forcibly, from the medical profession, we have created a world where potential life is more valuable than existing life, which is singularly absurd. Why care for what we already have when we can replace it with something new? Isn't that just about everything that is #ed up about the world we live in?

How fortunate that we have started to regain her-story...I don't need contraception, I know precisely when I am ovulating, and know the days that I should avoid intercourse (should the opportunity present itself that is), sure it has taken me many years to understand my body in this way, but then I was working in the dark and alone. Had I been welcomed into woman-hood, this knowledge would have been given to me to help me in that transition. Abortion is not the same as interupting ovulation. Abortion can be an emotionally detrimental experience for a women, and can cause long-term damage to a woman's fertility and overall health if it occurs at a late stage, or even if handled badly. We need to educate and nurture young women to take control of their own fertility, and abortion should only be a last resort when all else fails. It should always be available, but we have moved on, and the combination pill (in my opinion) is by far the kindest method to all concerned, and further it serves to prolong the life of women, as ovulation in itself is a energy intensive and in some ways, physically detrimental process within the body.

Abortion isn't prevention per se, it is a 'cure'. And no matter how insignificant that that mouldy looking bit of tissue that they scrape out is, it can still leave the woman with a sense of guilt and mourning that few men will ever be capable of understanding, and should be avoided at all costs.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 
The woman has the egg, the man has the sperm. At no time during copulation does the egg leave the womans body. Where as the man's sperm does..Got my point yet? Wear a condom & let the women decide for themselves....

It must suck to be you! It must suck to be your female friends even more.... If I were you you I'd talk to someone about that vagina envy thing you have going on...It's a little weird.
edit on 31-1-2012 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-1-2012 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by openyourmind1262
 





The woman has the egg, the man has the sperm. At no time during copulation does the egg leave the womans body. Where as the man's sperm does..Got my point yet? Wear a condom & let the women decide for themselves....


It takes two to tango. and it leaves when its born. lol.

Woman doesn't get to decide alone unless she was raped. Get the point? Two people decide to have sex, two people decide. One person decided to have sex? The one without the choice decides.




It must suck to be you! It must suck to be your female friends even more.... If I were you you I'd talk to someone about that vagina envy thing you have going on...It's a little weird.


I'd say it's pathetic that you'd have to say that when you don't know me, nor my friends of either gender..and those whom don't know their gender.

I'd say you're pathetic, have no case, don't like that, so you resort to crude sexual innuendo and insult, as if it matters to someone like me.

You resort to the same bs people always do.

Don't like Obama? must be racist.

Don't like the war? must be a communist.

Don't like abortion? Must want a vagina?

LOLWHAT?

Do yourself your own favor and stop assuming things. It only makes you look like an ignorant emotional wreck.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: Le Spelling
edit on 31-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 

Who even denies that life begins at conception anymore? No one. The debate centers around personhood. Is a fetus a person?
For those who are pro-life and insist that the fetus is a person and therefore has rights, the Bible in Genesis says that Adam wasn't even alive until God breathed into him the breath of life.
Now, to go even further, those who claim that God weeps over aborted children, let's remember that 'he' commanded the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child in the lands of their enemies. There is no place in the Bible that specifically mentions abortion as an 'abomination' or religious crime. IN fact is shows that it's a minor issue.


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.




The Bible tells us in Exodus 4 if two men fight, and one hits another and kills him, the killer must be executed. If they hit a pregnant woman (this is the literal translation of the Hebrew) and kill her, it is also a capital crime. If the woman is not hurt, but the fetuses (plural in the original Hebrew) are lost (literally "and her children went out"), then the killer must pay a monetary fine. It is not a capital crime. This establishes the principle that a person does not become a person until birth for killing a fetus is not a capital crime. This is true even if the fetuses were twins (fetuses in plural). When we think first-degree murder as a capital crime, we must not think that abortion is the same type of thing. It is very wrong to say, as some do, the widespread practice of abortion is like a Holocaust. Read more: www.city-data.com...

Let me say that I understand both sides of the issue, but I refuse to mandate my opinion either way, on anyone else.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Franco8274
 


Someone didn't read their bible.

It's actually in exodus 21. And if you read the WHOLE part:




And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,


So yea, it does say it is a human life.

Furthermore, fruit, in this case, literally means person. In the Bible, there is the soul, the spirit, and the flesh. This probably comes from an Egyptian dialect of understanding the human being.

The soul is the self, the spirit is their life, and the flesh is the temple. Fruits come from the spirit. Ergo, it is person hood, in a literal sense.



Oh and as for slaughter, it was war.

One thing the Bible makes clear: In war, you slaughter your enemy. Care for those whom surrender and survive your war, but in war, you slaughter your enemy. No rules, no regulations, no crimes. Just slaughter them until they are gone and undone. And at the end of the day, that IS what war is.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Life does not begin at fertilization. The process of life only begins when the embryo takes its first heartbeat by itself based upon the internal mechanics of the embryo's brain where the said DNA sequencing has been passed to the embryo from the mother that signals the brain of the embryo to make its first heartbeat. After that the embryo's heartbeat continues to add blood into its systems until the brain is developed enough to take over the basic functions of creating a hearbeat.

Life is not life until it takes its first heartbeat. Prior to the above the mother's brain is responsible for orginizing the cells within the embryo that build the nervous system to the point stated above.

Thought or life is not present until the ability of the embryo to take a breath on its own is present which is about the fourth week of gestation.

Before the fourth week the embryo is just a mass of developing cells without the ability to reason logically, create and emotion etc. They are cells that have the potential of becoming life.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


There has to be rules in war otherwise atrocities like rape will ensue. I served in the Marine Corps and can tell that such a mentality would lead you to being shot at the first chance a superior had.

Without rules in a war the war will rage on because of your actions against your enemies.

The days of total destruction during war times went out after World War II where hundreds of millions were killed based upon your called of ethics called Genocide.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DrysonB
 





There has to be rules in war otherwise atrocities like rape will ensue. I served in the Marine Corps and can tell that such a mentality would lead you to being shot at the first chance a superior had.


You shoot rapists. But occupation isn't war. It's clean up.

In war, civilians are an afterthought. It's great if you don't kill them, but if they are happily supporting a nazi-like government, they die with their leaders.




The days of total destruction during war times went out after World War II where hundreds of millions were killed based upon your called of ethics called Genocide.


Genocide is basically what war is. War is reserved for when a people become so unimaginably corrupted that it is better if they are erased then allowed to keep living. World War 2 was the last instance of this. And we did commit genocide against the Germans and Japanese. Because they had done it first. After what Japan had done in China and Germany had done in Europe, wholesale genocide against their people was the only thing left. I shed no tears for those lost in such wars.



Without rules in a war the war will rage on because of your actions against your enemies.


Not if you completely destroy your enemy.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DrysonB
 


Cells have "heartbeats". Just done with microbial and micro pressure changes.

The cells are alive. Just because they don't fulfill your subjective definition doesn't make them not alive.

Besides, the heart can be replaced by a machine. It's not important.

Life begins at conception. Because that's when unique genome starts to be read by cells and produce a being.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Ultimately its up to what SOCIETY wants. So whether you think it is right wrong, or whatever, whatever society deems right is what will prevail. I have a strong feeling that society won't air on the side of pro - life.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You'd think that, but whenever I see a free flow of informed people, they tend to favor a pro life view that understands the issue of rape and life threatening pregnancies.

At the end of the day, people get pissed off when they see other people killing someone just because they don't want the responsibilities.

Anyone can have empathy for a rape victim or someone who may die. I don't know many people whom have empathy for a women who was a retard and didn't have protected sex. I certainly don't.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DrysonB
 


The brain of the mother does not guide the development of an embryo.
The embryo can take its breath very late in the gestation (in the third trimester), and it does not correlate to "thought". Nor heartbeat correlates to thought.
The embryo is just a mass of developing cells without the ability to reason logically, create and emotion not until 4th week, but until 20th week, when brainwaves first appear.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You'd think that, but whenever I see a free flow of informed people, they tend to favor a pro life view that understands the issue of rape and life threatening pregnancies.

At the end of the day, people get pissed off when they see other people killing someone just because they don't want the responsibilities.

Anyone can have empathy for a rape victim or someone who may die. I don't know many people whom have empathy for a women who was a retard and didn't have protected sex. I certainly don't.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


I don't either, but I sure have empathy for the kid who now has to be raised by her. He doesn't have a chance in the world.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I don't see why. This archaic belief that a broken home guarantees a broken child is just that. Archaic.
Plenty of the worse of humanity came from healthy households, and plenty of the best of humanity came from the worse households.

This isn't 1956. Just because you don't have a pretty mommy in a dress and a hansom daddy in a suit doesn't mean you're not going to succeed.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I don't see why. This archaic belief that a broken home guarantees a broken child is just that. Archaic.
Plenty of the worse of humanity came from healthy households, and plenty of the best of humanity came from the worse households.

This isn't 1956. Just because you don't have a pretty mommy in a dress and a hansom daddy in a suit doesn't mean you're not going to succeed.


I agree, but take a drug mom, or alcholic parents, whatever, research shows that this leads to their kids following in the same steps. Thats just the way it is. I don't want to live in a world full of idiots anymore we need to step up, and just letting all these people popping out kids and saying screw it whatever happens happens is not a good thing. No a broken home doesn't gurantee a broken child, it is just highly probable.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Well here's a revelation.

You don't get to commit murder just because you don't like someone or their culture.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You didn't answer my questions. You just avoided the subject. I ask again:


Why do you contradict yourself with aborting a rape fetus? Isn't that a person, too, according to your standards? What makes a rape fetus different than others? If abortion is wrong in all other cases because it's 'murdering a person', is a rape fetus not a person?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


I answered it.






top topics



 
25
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join