"180" Movie - A Few Minutes that may change your mind about Abortion

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by mileysubet

 

The problem is that no one really knows the answer to these questions. That is what the disagreement is about.

Even if we can't know 100% when a baby really develops consciousness, there are certain tests that let us measure the development of the brain and the brain activity, which can help determine if consciousness exists. That is how we can determine a rough time-frame for when the child should be aborted, but after that I would say it's immoral because the baby might possibly be a conscious being.

Your avatar is intriguing; an attractive animated female with one breast, holding a golden apple and a back ground of particles associated with a particle collider.

Your idea of abortion is just as intriguing, you state scientific facts while still referring to morals, which are usually based in religion, a duality indeed.

reply to post by SubAce

with all due respect, what does Hitler or the presumption that anyone had prior knowledge of his potential existence have to do with your thread title, your video or your opinion of the topic matter?

what if the child i aborted was the Anti-Christ ?? does that justify my decision any greater?
what if my son would have been POTUS one day, does that make my decision less worthy?
believe me, questions such as these are pondered before such acts are decided upon, shame on you for thinking or implying they aren't. could you be any more shallow?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by SubAce

 

Question: when is it ok to kill a baby in the womb?

Answer: any time before the baby develops consciousness.

Even before consciousness, it's still a baby! Life begins at conception... period. But hey, tell yourself whatever you need to buddy

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I'm sorry but a egg growing in your stomach is NOT a life. It is NOT a baby. Not until it takes a breathe!
I mean, it’s just sperm that has matured.. that’s all it is at this stage.
We don’t dish out punishments for people killing sperm, I mean after all its alive isn’t it?

Actually when the sperm enters the egg there is something that happens called conception. And the egg stops being an egg and becomes a new human life with its own unique DNA. Everything that the full-grown man or woman that is started there is already down in writing, and at that instant the cells begin to divide and multiply and the new human life, using the instructions of its DNA forms.

Even in the nation of Israel a person who caused an abortion of an unborn human child was sentenced to death. That is where we get the term "eye for eye, soul for soul":


(Exodus 21:22-25) 22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.


In God's eyes the taking of an unborn human's life is the taking of a human soul. And justice requires that whoever murdered that unborn human must themselves forfeit their own life.

Originally posted by SubAce
Hello. This is my first thread on AboveTopSecret. I've been here a couple of years but only recently registered. I did not know I could not make a thread until 20 posts, but after about a month I've reached the threshold.

Many people have friends or family who are pro-choice. Perhaps some of you here reading this are as well. Many of you who are and those who you know who are pro-choice have no moral backing for their standing, but rather have it because of what they have been trained to believe because of society in general. I've did a search for this video and could not find a thread about it, so I am sorry if there is one already, I couldn't find it, and certainly didn't see it.

Here is a wonderful documentary that is a must see in my opinion for everyone that may really open your eyes about what abortion really is:

This video is ridiculous. The guy with the mic is using all sorts of illogical thought traps tricking people into changing their minds.


Here is a pic of hitler, would you kill him?
Me: Yes.
Here is a pic of Hitlers mom pregnant with Hitler, would you kill her?
Me: No.
Why?
Me: We can't predict the future, and we wouldn't have the benefit of hindsight. Nobody should be punished for something they are unable to control. Only Adolf himself is responsible for his actions, like the rest of man.


Do you value life?
Me: Yes
Would you drive the dozer?
No.
Kill them with the machine gun or get shot, what do you do?
Me: Pretend that I'm going with the option of killing them until I have the machine gun, then I kill hitler for making the proposition.

Is it a baby in the womb?
Me:No, it's the beginning stages of a fetus that was formally an embrio, that was formerly an egg and a sperm before they join.

When does life start?
Me: There is no answer to that other than "Always." Life is not something that isn't and then is, it's a persistence. The sperm is "alive." The egg is "alive." The natural disposing of eggs and sperm is equal to abortion.

It should totally remain a choice, because the ethics behind it are propaganda. Every time you have sex and don't conceive you kill something that was alive. Every time a woman menstruates, she kills something that was alive.

We kill flies, we kill buffalo, we kill pigs, we kill dogs, we kill chickens, we kill plants, we kill each other in war.

Killing sentient intelligent self aware beings is immoral unless it's killing for sustenance. Killing cell tissue before it grows into a sentient intelligent self aware being is not. It's akin to jerking off, which is akin to the natural female menstruation cycle. Which is akin to stepping on an ant or swatting a fly.

Now I'll use the same kind of thought trap he used in the video.


If abortion is bad because it's killing a life that could have been, then how is that different than choosing not to reproduce?

The answer is it's not. It's the same exact thing.

Ultimately those who have abortions are choosing not to reproduce. That is all. No different than a man who never impregnates a women, because he killed millions or trillions of potential babies that could of lived a great life, but didn't because he was "selfish" and chose not to reproduce.


Anybody who is pro-life is just uneducated. Simple.


The reciprocation to this argument is very interesting also.

If someone is in an accident and becomes brain dead, do we pull the cord and let them die, or do they rot in the bed for 20 years?

Pull the plug, duh. It's not life if you aren't sentient. A fetus in the womb is the same thing. It's incomplete and cannot function therefor; it cannot be sentient, it is only a collection of living tissue with the potential to grow into a sentient being. Ending it before it becomes sentient is not immoral.

If it was, you'd all be going to hell for all the pointless life you've taken. Flies, spiders, cock roaches, dogs, cats, etc infinity.

Not a single person alive is not responsible for the death of a living creature. We've all killed something that was living before.

Oh w8, it's a FLY HOLOCOST!

WTF is wrong with you people?

Originally posted by SubAce

Originally posted by Still

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Some people believe that being pro choice is being on the side of freedom. But I can't understand how an act of violence, killing a human being could be comsidered a precious right.
Not to mention people's cavalier attitude towards accepting abortion diminishes all value of life.

edit on 16-2-2012 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

How many unwanted children have you adopted so far and how many more do you plan on adopting? You would be amazed at how cruel some people can be by simply bringing a life into this world.

Still, it is not your right to take someone else's life because they might suffer. And even many people who are alive and suffer prefer to have life. Just because people commit suicide doesn't mean they are poor or neglected. Many rich and famous people who have everything take their lives every day. And there are very poor and
neglected people, whom you may deem unfit to live, that cherish and love their life.

so, you've established your opinion. What makes you think that gives you the right to force that opinion upon others?

reply to post by Bone75


Science AND the supreme court disagree with you. But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself, buddy.

reply to post by SubAce


It is not a human life any more than sperm is a human life.

Here in WA we had a car accident a few years back that JUST got settled in court.
The driver a woman of car 1 was pregnant.
The driver a man of car 2 was drunk
The court ruled that the death of her unborn baby is not murder as it was not a life.
The same applies to abortions.

The second that baby is born its a human life.
Every minute up until then it is not.
Im afriad science trumps religion every single time ESPECIALLY when your talking about life.

Originally posted by Laokin
If abortion is bad because it's killing a life that could of been, than how is that different than choosing not to reproduce.)

An unborn human child is a life that IS not that will be. One can choose not to have a child, that is true, but you have done nothing wrong deciding not to use your procreative powers you were endowed with to have offspring. But once you have sexual relations and the woman is impregnated (this is how pregnancy happens) a new human life is formed. DNA from both the parents are fused and a new life with its own unique qualities from both parents is formed. And although you may not see the full results of that union for another 20 or so years, everything that new human life is and will be is already written down in the DNA code or the book of life that guides and directs the new lifeforms throughout the rest of its life. From your height, to your hair color, to the color of your eyes, the size of your nose and other body parts, all of it has already been decided at that moment of conception when that life is formed.

Human life is above and more precious than animal life and plant life. It may be easier to justify murder by making man like an animal or a vegetable in your mind, but that is all it is an unjust justification created in your mind.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by SubAce

 

Question: when is it ok to kill a baby in the womb?

Answer: any time before the baby develops consciousness.

If you think the moment the egg and sperm fuse that Human consciousness is spawned, you are just naive.

can you tell me the exact moment when a baby develops consciousness? or are you going to blow up the building even if you havent checked to see if people are inside?

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsso, you've established your opinion. What makes you think that gives you the right to force that opinion upon others?

I did not realize I was forcing anyone to believe something they didn't want to. If I did I apologize. I intentionally have never thought of doing such a thing. Are you sure you understand me? Or are you being a troll? I haven't quite got you figured out yet.

reply to post by SubAce

wait just a cotton-pickin minute ... since when do "rights" apply ??

Still, it is not your right to take someone else's life because they might suffer.

if the animals of our kingdom are born with the right to feast upon their young, guess what ?? so are we.

if the animals of our kingdom (of which we belong) have the right to systematically destroy the weaker of their species, so do we.

not suggesting either of the above however, this is where everyone gets confused, rights are inherent, natural and self-evident, not assigned.

the right to an abortion is also, natural, self-evident and inherent to our existence.
hence, choice is the only answer.

Originally posted by SubAce


If you haven't thought about it yet, think about it now. You do realize that you just recognized the fact you killed a human being that was not born? That means Hitler was alive even while he was not breathing air, in the protection of his mother's womb.

Actually your thought experiment does nothing to prove that Hitler was alive in his womb...it is only a theoritical question, and could just as easily be asked about killing Hitler's mother and father...You could use the same argument to suggest that killing Hitler's mother and father, before they even met would be evidence that he was 'alive' before he was even conveived!

In truth, in both the circumstance of him being a fetus in the womb, and before his parents met...you would only be dealing with killing the potential of Hitler.....

And for the record, I wouldn't kill Hitler in the womb...I believe that his evil was a product of the times, and his environment...if Hitler had not come to power, who's to say someone worse would not have taken his place....Perhaps someone a bit brighter, and a bit more menacing, that would have actually been capable of winning the war. Hitler failed.....That's good enough for me. Why risk someone worse coming to power that may have won?

reply to post by SubAce


If this video was any good it would only be 180 seconds long.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder


Here's something else to consider: if the current rate of population growth (1.1% per annum), it will only be another 500 years before we have over 1 and a half trillion people on this planet, because the effect is compounding. Imagine if every single pregnant women was forced to have her child, that rate of growth would dramatically increase and the population would increase out of control so quickly. You may think China's one-child policy is simply unfair and cruel, but they are smart enough to realize their population was getting out of control, they realize that their country can only fit so many people on it, and they realize a land packed to the brim with people simply sucks because no one has any space and everyone has to live in tiny rooms in a house with a bunch of other people. You all talk about morality and what's right for our species, but you constantly ignore the simple fact that if we allowed every single child to be born it would be the end of us.

What's stopping mankind from expanding into space and our surrounding planets? We don't have a population problem, what we have is a lack of organization and vision, neither of which is justification for killing babies.

reply to post by SubAce


Your entire last post was blatantly false. None of the things you describe are "decided" ans conception, and there is absolutely NO evidence to back that up. Height, weight, nose etc are as influenced by societal factors as anything else.

Why is it that the anti-abortion side of this argument has to make up their own 'facts'?

reply to post by SubAce

ahhhhh, i see the diversionary tactics have worked well with you ...

Human life is above and more precious than animal life and plant life. It may be easier to justify murder by making man like an animal or a vegetable in your mind, but that is all it is an unjust justification created in your mind.

the animal kingdom is something we are a PART of, not superior to, you really need to get over yourself.
thanks for the banter, i hope one day you find some balance in your life.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SubAce

 

wait just a cotton-pickin minute ... since when do "rights" apply ??

Still, it is not your right to take someone else's life because they might suffer.

if the animals of our kingdom are born with the right to feast upon their young, guess what ?? so are we.

if the animals of our kingdom (of which we belong) have the right to systematically destroy the weaker of their species, so do we.

not suggesting either of the above however, this is where everyone gets confused, rights are inherent, natural and self-evident, not assigned.

the right to an abortion is also, natural, self-evident and inherent to our existence.
hence, choice is the only answer.

Thank you for this well thought-out opinion. I respect it. May you be judged accordingly just as you spoke it.

reply to post by SubAce


I have a wonderful, wonderful idea: Why not worry about something that affects YOU for a change?

And while we're on the subject of morals, how about those future Christian soldiers?

If life is so #ing precious, then why do we need war?

Originally posted by SubAce

Originally posted by Laokin
If abortion is bad because it's killing a life that could of been, than how is that different than choosing not to reproduce.)

An unborn human child is a life that IS not that will be. One can choose not to have a child, that is true, but you have done nothing wrong deciding not to use your procreative powers you were endowed with to have offspring. But once you have sexual relations and the woman is impregnated (this is how pregnancy happens) a new human life is formed. DNA from both the parents are fused and a new life with its own unique qualities from both parents is formed. And although you may not see the full results of that union for another 20 or so years, everything that new human life is and will be is already written down in the DNA code or the book of life that guides and directs the new lifeforms throughout the rest of its life. From your height, to your hair color, to the color of your eyes, the size of your nose and other body parts, all of it has already been decided at that moment of conception when that life is formed.

Human life is above and more precious than animal life and plant life. It may be easier to justify murder by making man like an animal or a vegetable in your mind, but that is all it is an unjust justification created in your mind.

edit on 16-2-2012 by SubAce because: (no reason given)

Not it's not, you wrongly think that we are superior from animals just because we can build things. If animals are inferior to people, then why do you presume I felt just as hurt when my dog died, as I did my grand father? If I gave you a gun and said shoot your dog, and he'll be eaten in china, and I'll pay you a million, I'd bet you still wouldn't shoot your dog. Because it's a member of your family. Don't be stupid.

You just wrongly assume we are superior in order to justify the fact that we EAT them. So tell me, which is superior, a puppy or an alligator? Or are ALL animals equally inferior to us? I'm not making justifications, clearly you are. I am totally concious of the fact that every time I have a steak I'm eating a murdered cow, that should otherwise be grazing with it's herd, yet it's in my belly. And no, I don't feel bad, why? Because SUSTENANCE IS REQUIRED. In order to sustain life, we have to eat. In order to eat, things MUST die. It's not immoral to murder when it's for required sustenance. Not because we are "superior."

Furthermore, it's illegal to murder an animal in most states if you don't do it mercifully and eat it. Otherwise you're going to prison for 10 years on an animal cruelty charge. Hilarious that animals are so inferior to people, that we jail people for the same amount of time for unjustly murdering them.

Humans ARE animals, how else can you explain the mass murdering of entire civilizations over a difference of opinion? I think if anything we are INFERIOR to animals, because we should know better, yet we turn a blind eye and say "Into Iraq!!!! Bin Laden blew up the towers so everyone in his nation and surrounding nations shall be forever tortured and bombed as pay back for the loss of our people!!!!!"

Two wrongs DON'T make a right, yet -- all you people who are pro-life seem to be equally pro-war, being totally a-okay with the thought and concept of sending humans that we breed to kill other humans that are bred in the same exact manner, for no reason. Over 99% of the people who died in the war on terror weren't even part of the terror, they were casualties of war.

Saying animals are inferior to people is the same argument as saying "Whites" are superior to "Blacks." There is no basis in your argument. It's an irrational unjustified statement that you use to attempt to rationalize your hatred/carelessness about the race/species in question.

Also, the DNA that fuses exists before it fuses, it's also already alive, so how exactly does the fusion of DNA and mDNA change anything when they exist just the same before fusion? Also they are just as much alive....

The only answer is it doesn't.

It's not like sperm is dead. It's not like the Egg is dead. So why when the sperm enters the egg do people get uppity when you kill it? It was already alive before. So why do you only care about life once it fuses?



You aren't changing anything about the ingredients, you are just putting them together. Wasting 1 ingredient is the same as pulling the plug on a pair of fused ingredients. It essentially stops all potential combinations of that DNA from existing.


So, say you have a sister, and I meet her, and I don't impregnate her, I just killed the would be life of my dna and her mdna. The same as if I pulled the plug after they fused.

I.E.

And apple pie is crust and apples. The apple pie is still very much the ingredients that made it, and no more than the result of their mix.

Also, sperm is alive. Eggs are alive. Life doesn't "start" in the womb. It always WAS in the ovaries, and it always WAS in the testicles.

Mixing them and letting it grow produces a person. Not until the person is sentient is it immoral to kill them, for they are only a concoction of cells and DNA. The "blueprint" as you call it, is totally random. It's just the specifics of which parts of DNA got paired, nothing more, nothing less.

Sentience is established ~3 months.

This is a matter of education, not opinion, not philosophy.