It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

No I'm not taking a side one way or another on abortion.
I'm trying to stay neutral, or play devils advocate for both sides.

I have no arguments for or against.
I'm just pointing out your arguments and comparisons are more philosophical than tied into reality.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:47 PM
It was only a matter of time before we reached the crux of the matter.

Here we have the true 'disconnect' between those who use the metaphysical as justification for a position; and those who refuse to accept that anything so 'subjective' should be a matter of codified law, or material policy.

We can accept that people are free to believe what they will; but not that any such belief should carry the power to affect those who don't share the belief.

Thus the subject becomes fair game for those 'intelligentsia' who live in the rarefied world of academia.

Strictly speaking this is no stretch of logic. But the premise is that there is a "human" value to the tissue exuded by the female as a result of impregnation. The variable is "when" is that true - and when is it not.

I understand long-standing doctrines and articles of faith that complicate the matter - but they are not part of the discussion because of the fact that they are not universally accepted.

Therefore; this argument of 'propriety' can only be resolved by a) compromise - a political ugliness that simply circumvents the problem for expedience; or b) a 'ruling' by a commonly held authority.

Somehow, neither seems like a viable way to solve the matter.

I still think that my earlier observation regarding the title of the material is noteworthy - so I'll repeat it:

What is the difference between the title as it stands and "Abortion is no different than killing babies?"

I think the authors tipped their 'social-engineering' hand by the choice of title... what do you think?

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:51 PM
If a fetus , i dont care if it is a bunch of cells , is your baby and it is a life whether you like it or not. It could be a zygote and it is still your baby whether you like it or not.

Saying abortion isnt murder is a scape goat for all those babies the mothers murdered (excluded medical conditions - that's between them and God).

Unless the woman is raped or the baby had some kind of terrible illness (or the mother having problems) its murder , congratulations on killing your baby. Good job.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:05 PM
An intellectual exercise:

So there are exceptions to the sanctity of life?

Rape, Illness, danger to the mother... these circumstances render the "would be" human devoid of the protection we offer all other humans?

You see - that's the trap - the exceptions....

I'm not purposefully trying to be unreasonable, although it may seem that way, I am trying to say that we have to admit to ourselves that our 'exceptions' are expedient contrivances... just as any excuses to abort otherwise can be called.

If there is no black and white about abortion, then there isn't any way to make a definitive rule.

But even more distressing to passionate zealots, if a person is free to do as they will with their own body, one has to admit the argument is academic anyway... we have no say in the personal decision of someone with whom we have no connection.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Lysergic
Eugenics is alive an well

As it should be.
Letting a seriously disabled baby live is Abuse of a high order.
I don't get why some of you people think that life in a broken body is so great.
You wouldn't do it to a dog, why to a human.
Project yourself into one of those defective bodies and tell me how you like it.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:20 PM
This is actually why I oppose abortion, even though I'm an agnostic.

From a general principle, how IS abortion any different from infanticide? Before we had the medical technology to kill babies in the womb easily, infanticide was a common practice, and I'm sure the same arguments used to justify abortion were used to justify killing infants.

Also how can we be SO SURE the unborn have no consciousness or don't feel pain?

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:23 PM

Originally posted by gecrazy
reply to post by Unity_99

I just don't get why people think abortion is wrong. yes i do believe that your killing a living being ,but what if that person became pregnant by someone who raped her? I think everybody should have the right to have an abortion. And be happy

edit on 29-2-2012 by gecrazy because: (no reason given)

You really think abortion will make a woman happier if she's raped? Actually, a lot of rape victims have healed emotionally because they gave birth. It's an incredibly victorious thing, to do something so good after having such a bad thing done to you. It would depend on the woman but I think for many women it would give them the boost in self esteem they so greatly need. Generally speaking abortion just makes the rape victim even more depressed as it's a trauma that arguably exceeds the rape itself in many cases. If she doesn't want to be a mother she can give it up for adoption.

With that sad, if it's clear the rape victim is suicidal and she wants an abortion, maybe she should be able to get one. Or if having a baby would be a risk to her health/life (in that case whether the baby's father is a rapist or not).
edit on 1-3-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by gecrazy

I find our laws in Canada far more balanced. They are "restricted", for the most part at least, to the first trimester, ie body forming. The brain and consciousness takes leaps and bounds from about 12 weeks on, I would say 10-12 weeks, and there is even some indication earlier from some the more recent articles.

So the earlier the better. So basically, 6 weeks is ideal.

Once consciousness is developing then there is two people at stake, not just one, and another in development, but two, with one dependent on the other.

Here in Canada, its paid for, you can go in and get it done early.

I'm not anti abortion nor pro open wide ones, and I don't consider abortions a form of birth control. But that is a very complex issue.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

I really don't have a problem with it being done early, except maybe on the level of pure principle. I think abortion should be legal, but done early and also I hate the idea of pregnancy being trivialised as a binary 'choice'.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:45 PM
I made a similar argument a few weeks ago.

Now the whole consciousness debate. Exactly when does a fetus develop a consciousness? Some will say "well you don't remember anything from when you were in the womb!"

Well I say I don't remember anything when I was 0-4(rough estimation) was I okay to kill then because I wasn't developing memories? The whole thing is babies our cute, stupid, helpless little creatures who a parrot can outsmart and fetus are not so cute. No their impersonal, not even really there. We think of the developing child(as in fetus) as something that is coming not something that is physically here most of the time.

Well it seems not even the cuteness factor of those babies is going to save them now.

Ehhh, got laugh at the dark stuff in life.

Anyways I don't think these guys meant what they said, but posed the question as a thinking exercise. If they did mean it I would have to say they are horrible. However the question has brought up interesting points and debate in the thread.
edit on 3/1/2012 by Mcupobob because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:27 PM
I disagree with the crackpots who will probably use this as ammo in their attempts to control what women do with their own bodies, and I disagree even more with abortion being akin to infanticide.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by technical difficulties

That's why I think this article is a plant.
I think it was planted to anger the pro-life side into doing or saying something stupid.

The whole article just felt off while reading it.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by technical difficulties

That's why I think this article is a plant.
I think it was planted to anger the pro-life side into doing or saying something stupid.

The whole article just felt off while reading it.

It does almost seem that way. They have a good point, however I think if that was their intent, it was incredibly tasteless.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Is this a joke? Abortion is the killing of babies.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:42 PM
From the point of conception, the living being is complete in all respects. All that is needed is nutrients and time for growth. This new human life continues in it's unique form till death. To allow any living being to be exterminated during that period is murder. That IS NOT a religious observation. It IS scientific fact and legal conclusion.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Taupin Desciple

I think, as opposed to "getting" a life, he is interested in preserving it


With the great blessing comes great responsibilities, not just a subjective notion of "rights"

So you believe in slavery.
Forcing a woman to remain pregnant is slavery...
She must remain a slave to meet YOUR expectations; & YOUR idea of morality.
And as the unwanted, unloved, uncared for child grows up---WHERE ARE YOU????

People like you should find something to do other than minding someone else's business.

Not one of you has ever said just exactly how abortion for women unknown to you affects your life and/or those of your family.
Why do less people in the world bother you?

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:48 PM
Things like this never make sense to me.....People are sending death threats to the author of the article? Really?? Isn't that going against their beliefs about killing humans in general? Hypocrites

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by BetterCallSaul

Hmmmmm . . . it depends on what you are calling


Babies show a decided preference for

--Mom's voice

--the music mom listened to during the pregnancy


That's some kind of MEMORY.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by OhZone

Forcing a woman to remain pregnant is slavery...

Only if she was first forced to have sex. If the sex wasn't forced then pregnancy is an assumed risk of said decision.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by AuranVector


Colton Burpo would FIERCELY disagree with you.

During his trip to Heaven during his way overdue appendicitus operation . . .

he met his older sister--still born at such an early age, the parents did not know her sex. They had never talked to anyone about it. Certainly Colton had never heard of her.

All the other kids looked like their Dad with dad's hair. The still-born daughter looked like Mom with Mom's hair. That really touched the mother when Colton told her. 3155&keywords=HEAVEN+IS+FOR+REAL+BURPO&ie=UTF8&qid=1330646360&rnid=618072011

Seems to me abundant evidence like Colton's affirms that your assumptions are quite wrong on the matter.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by AuranVector

It appears that staunch anti-abortion types have no interest in providing quality of life to unwanted babies that didn't have to be born.

Outrageously WRONG.

Christians against abortions have done the most by far with pregnancy centers; adoption agencies; adoption help; foster care help etc. etc. etc.

Checking out the facts before making such rash statements might well leave one looking less uninformed.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in