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.

 

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Regardless, the choice to abort should always be up to the to-be mother, not anyone else. It is her body, and while you can argue that the fetus has a life of its own, the fetus is a parasite feeding off of its host until birth; the host has every right to rid itself of the parasite if it chooses to do so. I disagree with infanticide, for the most part. For example, if a baby is born with a heap of disabilities and will probably not live a "normal" life, then perhaps infanticide is better than the misery which the parents and the child will undergo over the years.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Most abortions are not because of rape. However, in countries that don't normally allow abortions, or didn't in the past, the issues of people needing them due to health reasons, rape or incest did exist. And were brought up in many newspapers and publications.

In addition, if you were to picture a world health organization or health care, and such countries as Africa, or even Middle East, where children are forced into marriages and basically we in the west don't consider child hood sex to be consentual, or the horrible abuses that are happening world wide, I'm not sure those stats would not change.

Im sure its only Western Nations that have lower stats for rape or health issues. If this was world wide, with world wide rights of equality to all people, and services, then there is alot of abuse of children and girls and women going on.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I am really getting disgusted with all the bull# opinion, and my idea, and my belief, dictating what other members of the HUMAN RACE should do.
First, if a human being wants to abort their baby because of whatever reasons, what business is it of yours, your community, your county, your state, and even, and much less, your central REPUBLIC government?
FFS get real…Human beings have, (in my opinion) every one of us, (human beings) an innate understanding of basic right and wrong.
The basics being:

• Don’t Kill other human beings
• Don’t steal from other human beings


Of course human beings live in communities, districts, counties, states, countries etc... And it is of course understandable that these divisions in groups of human beings will develop habits, common beliefs, cultures, and ideals that represent the common human being within these said divisions in groups.
It is obvious in the various denominations of organized religion and regional segregation s of large groups of human beings, (countries, and nations).
Blinding obvious is only the DIVISIONS! Human are humans, some will like this and some will like that. That is, and must remain, every human beings choice of their own. PERIOD!
And those human beings who are commonly described today as deviant, unusual, strange, and a common stream of contemporary adjectives, Bla bla bla…, (and new 21st century psychiatric and pediatric diagnoses) should be allowed to be, as they feel they should be, adhering of course to the basic moral set as described above.
Understanding that certain streets, blocks, subdivisions, towns, … will of course want all those human beings within said divisions to abide by, adhere, follow the common structure of all the various divisions, too numerous to get into detail about here.
But you say, “I don’t want to live next to a ________________”, and the majority of those around you may feel the same. As well as you have every right to feel so.
But no human being has the right to say what another human being can, or can’t do.
But a human being can go to a place where they feel like they are being supported with their own belief systems, morals etc… That is given to them by nature, (two legs, etc…).

There will always of course be exceptions, but wouldn’t you rather decide that at home within your own close community of human beings….?

Nuff said,
Love



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Originally posted by Lysergic
Eugenics is alive an well


Maybe not such a bad thing considering we've made natural selection void.


I find the dog eat dog social darwinists primitive.

Natural selection is not what earth tests are about.

In earth tests we are above the channel/realm of predator and animal kingdom.

But we have black squares and white squares in our bodies and world, and we're being tested. Earth is a library that shows us predators and cooperation/love equality.

It resembles the game snakes and ladders.

Dog eat doggers are going down the snakes tale and need to stop.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 





It is her body, and while you can argue that the fetus has a life of its own, the fetus is a parasite feeding off of its host until birth; the host has every right to rid itself of the parasite if it chooses to do so.


Even assuming this is true, abortion is not the only way to end the pregnancy in later stages. So there is really no way to justify abortion until birth, and if you try, it will only lead to a conclusion similar to what these experts came to.
edit on 29/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by blueorder
 


Regardless, the choice to abort should always be up to the to-be mother, not anyone else. It is her body, and while you can argue that the fetus has a life of its own, the fetus is a parasite feeding off of its host until birth; the host has every right to rid itself of the parasite if it chooses to do so. I disagree with infanticide, for the most part. For example, if a baby is born with a heap of disabilities and will probably not live a "normal" life, then perhaps infanticide is better than the misery which the parents and the child will undergo over the years.



Regardless nothing of the sort.

The mother is a "host" and the unborn baby is a "parasite", maybe in your freakaziod black and white world, not in mine, capiche


I will vehemently oppose this holocaust



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



you are darting off into rather ever more vague tangents ever far removed from the issue at hand- some of the issues are worth discussing on their own, but the link is rather vague in respect of the discussion we are having



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I must send an email to the nearest maternity hospital advising them to address all expectant mothers as "hosts" and their unborn babies as "parasites"


I must also contact some women who have lost babies during pregnancy and say, "why so upset, sure it was a parasite"


Jog on



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say


www.telegraph.co.uk

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal so
(visit the link for the full news article)



When I first saw this I thought this might be another tiresome thread by an anti-abortionist, but I read the article. I am appalled that people would equate killing a newborn baby with abortion. They are NOT the same thing and here is the reason why:

The soul does not enter the body until the baby draws its first breath.
When a person dies, the soul leaves the body with the last breath.

The reason why some people have memories of what was happening to their parents (especially the mother) before they were actually born -- is because the soul is called when conception happens and the soul hovers around the parents, waiting to enter the body with the first breath when the infant is born.

The unborn fetus is NOT ensouled. A newborn infant, if it has drawn its first breath, is ensouled.

These "ethicists" sound like Nazis.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AuranVector
 



how do you KNOW that the soul does not exist until the first breath ffs



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


No it isn't. Eugenics is very alive in the science community. States in the USA were force sterilizing people up until 1974. The people that were sterilized were usually poor and minorities.



There are a bunch of these creepy propaganda films out there. One shows killing a full grown baby because it is retarded but I can't find it off hand.




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



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Not exactly. Some might think natural selection and social darwinism or jungle rules are a good reason for allowing handicapped babies to be murdered.

It depends on whether your an animal or a decent loving being. All of life is spiritual.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by AuranVector
 



how do you KNOW that the soul does not exist until the first breath ffs


This is ancient occult knowledge.

Even Paramhansa Yogananda mentioned it in his first edition of his "Autobiography."

The soul pre-exists birth. I believe in reincarnation.
edit on 29-2-2012 by AuranVector because: add postscript



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Have you people learned nothing?

Abortion debates lead no where, just a bunch of ignorant people on both sides spewing their own idealistic garbage and telling others how to live their lives.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Grow up.
edit on 00/00/0000 by ka119 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


So people having their own beliefs isn't being "grown up"?


And this thread isn't really about abortion. It's about killing full term delivered babies.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Laokin
 


No it isn't. Eugenics is very alive in the science community. States in the USA were force sterilizing people up until 1974.


Indeed. The whole "eugenics=hitler/nazis" meme is a modern invention (1980 and after). During and after WW2, Hitler and nazis were opposed NOT because they practiced or promoted eugenics, eugenics was mainstream and uncontroversial at that time. They were opposed because of killing people in concentration camps, starting the war and other atrocities.

I think there is nothing wrong with eugenics itself, if its practiced without breaching basic human rights, and its voluntary.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


This isnt about abortion. Its the next step, they've expressed murdering new borns as a kind of abortion. They will face Mom soon enough, thats all I can say, so its time for them to step down from their outrageously high paid corrupted positions, and not speak things that ,to me, should give them visits from the police and perhaps an investigation into their laboratories and practices, because that kind of lack of respect for life to me is almost probable cause for seeing if anyone around them needs help.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Well Eugenics isn't even a science, its not based on anything other than human delusion. No human is genetically superior to another, which is what the basis of Eugenics is. Plus as you can see, even if it were true, it cannot be trusted. It lead to forced sterilization, the holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide.

That is millions of people dead due to a BUNK "science".

When you start telling humans they are genetically superior to one another they start doing crazy things. Elitism is a horrible thing, and that is all Eugenics advocates.
edit on 29-2-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Honestly abortion is a very tricky question for me.

I think the logical conclusion they reached in the paper is sound in that there is little difference between especially a late term abortion and a 'post birth abortion' in that a baby does not posses a complex consciousness any more than a late term foetus does.

However consider this. The argument here is because their level of intelligence is not that of a fully conscious human that the right to life is removed. The big big problem with that logic is that we consider things a hell of a lot smarter than human infants to not have a right to life. Pigs , monkeys, dolphins. All of these have intelligence comparable to a 3 year old human or higher but we do not afford them a right to life, and make delicious sandwiches out of one of them. So if we start sliding down the right to life slope you could make the argument that kids can be aborted at least 3 years after birth because we deny a right to life for all those animals of a similar intelligence. I don't think anyone wants to live in that world.

I also have deep reservations about abortions past a certain point, but in honesty i am not sure where that point lies, but i am pretty sure it is earlier than abortion currently allows. I think some of the ideas on the subject, like it being ok at a point where the foetus cannot feel pain are theoretically very muddy water for me. Not having a capacity to feel pain does not preclude the possibility that the foetal brain is processing information even internally. I would really like to see and read a lot of serious science on it.


If you asked me what my 'ideal solution' was i would say a combination of three things.

1 The in development sub dermal contraceptive implant. This could not be forced any more than a vaccination but would be heavily encouraged for any girl from puberty on. If a similar male contraceptive implant can be developed ditto for that. Some ... institutions have a great dislike of contraceptives and abortion, but given that use of the former prevents the latter i would hope they will be more reasonable about it as time goes on.

2 Pump money into research of pregnancy detection delivery systems for those who refuse option 1. These systems currently detect hormones in urine or blood which can deliver a positive result in as little as a week after conception. Build the technology straight into peoples lives in a way in which they would be exposed to it daily normally, maybe have a strip of material built directly into toilet paper which will give a colour change indication after contact with urine. This could bring pregnancy detection down to 2-3 weeks tops. I cannot tell you when a foetus starts to think even in a basic way, but i can tell you it cannot think without a brain, and the cluster of cells that precedes the brain does not even exist until 5 weeks in. Since we have built a society in which it is ok to turn off life support on someone who is brain dead, it will be hard for an ethics argument to be made as to why you cannot terminate an embryo which has yet to develop a brain. The other plus of this is that the abortion would be chemical which is non invasive.

Between 1 and 2, the need for an abortion which would still be an ethical issue would hopefully drop to pretty much zero. The obvious exception is cases where there is a complication during the pregnancy which puts the life of the mother at risk. I don't think any mother would want to have to do it, but if carrying to term presents serious risk of death for the mother it is hard to make a case for how she can or should be forced to.

3 Push more money into artificial womb research. The tech is already being developed but there are still a few hurdles before it becomes a reality. If we can get that technology to market it may provide a welcome alternative to abortion when the mothers life is at risk or for situations where someone slips through the net of implanted contraceptives and early detection and chemical abortion before the development of the foetal brain.


1 and 3 rely on tech that is a few years and maybe 10 years down the line respectively, but there is no reason 2 could not be pushed aggressively today.


I know it is not a perfect solution, but I think a lot more people might be happier with it than the current situation.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

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)
This is a typical American attitude toward everything. If it feels good do it, Right?? Unreal. What the hell is there to be happy about? What kind of person would be happy to kill their child??? I get so sick of hearing the rape scenario too, every time this subject is brought up people immediately cop out with the "what if she was raped" argument. Pathetic excuse.




top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join