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.
Originally posted by 11235813213455
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455
Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?
Quite the contrary..
I'm more concerned about what >harm< people do in their lifetime. Why abort the innocent before they have proven who they are? We should be aborting those that would be causing us harm. Does a baby do harm?
Now the complicated part is ... What is the definition of harm? Is what I would consider harm be what you consider harm?
edit on 27-10-2012 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)
The question should not be if a developing Fetus is alive because it is...the real question is at what point does a clump of cells turn into a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING!
Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by SplitInfinity
The question should not be if a developing Fetus is alive because it is...the real question is at what point does a clump of cells turn into a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING!
Well, congratulations! By determining that life is not life until the person becomes a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING you have determined your own acceptable criteria for ending it. This makes you an ethicist as well.
So why would a bacteria be considered life on Mars and a heartbeat NOT considered life on Earth?
edit on 10/27/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by selfharmonise
I like that scientists have the freedom to discuss and publish ideas like this - no matter how abhorrent they might be.
Rationally - they are correct. If society contends that abortion is acceptable, then infanticide should also be allowed. I can see how they follow that rational thought path - an infant cannot survive without the intervention and care of a parent....so following that...we should be allowed to dispose of youngsters up to the age of 16!
Rationally, they are correct. But just because they have thought of it...doesnt mean they actually really believe it.
This is an exercise in logic, that's designed to make us think.
If you read to the bottom of the article before you get too outraged - he makes a good point.
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.” Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.” He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
I am not taking the article seriously - it is designed to make us question our paradoxical morality...and it has achieved its aim.
edit on 26-10-2012 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)
What you are suggesting is that killing in or out of the womb can be justifed based on subjective live quality ideas. We could then means test life on one side of the womb or another.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455
Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock
I believe you have made a complete error of analogy and association with your reply. It seems you and others are equating the Death of any aspect of development of a Fetus as well as the beginning basic Clump of Dividing Cells which cannot be labeled a fetus as the same thing as Aborting a Fetus that is in it's last Trimester.
This has neither LOGIC to it nor does it have equal value of Moral Potential.
We KILL many things on a daily basis. We eat...we kill insects, rodents, fish, cattle...the list goes on. The Killing of a Clump of Cells via either abortion or Plan B or the Morning After Pill has no LOGICAL VALUE EQUAL IN MORALITY with anything greater than any other life form lacking SENTIENCE.
Your only argument is POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. But if a Fertilized Egg that cannot implant itself into the uterine wall is lost due to using THE MORNING AFTER PILL...it has no more MORAL ISSUE than BILLIONS of SPERM AND HUMAN EGG CELLS which are lost in a FERTILITY CLINIC.
You reply and argument have no logical basis or veracity of being MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE. Such ability to prevent Impregnation is a very important step to lower the number of Abortions. Split Infinity
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by saintinwaiting
I don't think there is anyone who really would disagree with your statement but we need to deal with the REALITIES. There will always be conditions where an Abortion is warranted as well as the possible best course of action. I find it sheer IDIOCY for anyone to place a 10 day old clump of Cells value above the value of the Woman's Life that is Impregnated.
To state that the Clump of Cells existence is of Greater Value over the Woman's Life is not only Selfish Conceptual Idealism but even worse...PURE IGNORANCE. What do you say to an Pregnant 11 Year Old who has been Raped by her Father? Do you tell her SHE MUST HAVE THE BABY? Or do we not prefer compassion and abort the Fetus.
Such decisions can be made much easier if that 11 year old was able to be educated to the fact that the SIMPLE TAKING OF A PILL shortly after being RAPED will eliminate the possibility of becoming PREGNANT. Here is where one side of this Heart Tearing Debate has become Hopelessly intractable and in my opinion...EVIL in it's inability to consider the VICTIM.
Split Infinity
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock
Let me ask you this then...do you object to the BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs which are discarded at a Fertility Clinic? Do you find this Morally Objectionable? Split Infinity
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock
You did not answer my question...if you would please? Split Infinity
Well that sort of thing happens in nature. Females lose many many fertilized eggs every year through natural causes. But we need to start form the other end. Lets talk 2 year old children and down.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock
Your answer has nothing to do nor can it be applied to my question in any way. Nor can the association used as your condition to find my question possibly Morally Objectionable apply by any Logical Concept.
I am asking you only this...Fertility Clinics destroy BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs during the process of getting several eggs ready for implantation for a couple to have a Baby that they have not been able to conceive.
Now I ask you ONLY THIS...Do you find the destruction of all those BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs OBJECTIONABLE?
Split Infinity
Originally posted by Logarock
What you are suggesting is that killing in or out of the womb can be justified based on subjective live quality ideas. We could then means test life on one side of the womb or another.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455
Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?