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.

 

Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Please show me which part of my logic you find "messed up"


I just said it. The part where you think fertilized eggs can be afforded the same rights as the rest of us.

Am I wrong? This isn't your positions? You don't believe fertilized eggs should be afforded the same rights as human beings? Let me know, because if your argument is that abortion is no different from murdering actual born babies, I'd be curious as to how you wouldn't define fertilized eggs as one in the same.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Once again.......


Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into
existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a
second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of
events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic
development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm
or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific
evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the
life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of
conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life
or of human embryos.

bdfund.org...
Not a word about "beliefs" in there.

So, if I am correct, you believe that when an abortion occurs then a humans life has not been taken away?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Not a word about "beliefs" in there


It is a belief. While human life may begin development from conception, it doesn't automatically mean it's a human being from that very start. Human life doesn't necessarily automatically mean human being. The circumstances facing fertilized eggs are vastly different from those facing human beings. Fertilized eggs may have the potential to develop into fully grown human beings, but half the time they don't and they naturally abort, sometimes without the mother even knowing.

If a fertilized egg aborts, you're not going to have the police investigating the matter in the same capacity as that of a dead person. You're not going to have authorities monitoring women ensuring they don't drink as to "harm" the womb of a baby. There are various circumstances, factors, surrounding fertilized eggs, where you can't treat them as one in the same as human beings because, simply, they aren't human beings, they aren't person(s).

You can sit here and wave your morality and ethics around and call fertilized eggs human beings but this is all you can do at the end of the day. There's no consensus that they are human beings in the scientific community, and their circumstances deem it impossible to treat them and legally grant them the same rights as human beings.


So, if I am correct, you believe that when an abortion occurs then a humans life has not been taken away?


of course human life is taken away, human life doesn't automatically mean human being, they aren't necessarily one in the same. Semen contains human life, a piece of your hair contains human life.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Thought, this is my first post, jump in.Pro Life, pretty self explanatory.Pro Choice not so much.Even without government involvemnt, I always have a choice.Women should remember that.I say call Pro Choice I have the ability to end a new life before birth.Puts it in a different perspective.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

There's no consensus that they are human beings in the scientific community, and their circumstances deem it impossible to treat them and legally grant them the same rights as human beings.

Again........

Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.”

bdfund.org...
Hmmmm... still nothing about beliefs.

And y'all think my logic is screwed up

My turn

You can sit here and wave your morality and ethics around and call fertilized eggs human beings but this is all you can do at the end of the day. There's no consensus that they are human beings in the scientific community, and their circumstances deem it impossible to treat them and legally grant them the same rights as human beings.


You are putting words in my mouth again. If you would like to continue this debate please do not do this again.
I have not stated anything like this in this thread.
What I said is that a life was taken, it does not exist because the actions of the mother. ALL true facts.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Any particular reason why you are quoting a document published by a Catholic ethics institute? Seems not only biased but disingenuous.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Any particular reason why you are quoting a document published by a Catholic ethics institute? Seems not only biased but disingenuous.

Really? Attack the source huh?
hmmm.... Perhaps this would be more to your liking.

Here is a startling revelation: I am a mother of two and a woman who earlier in her life had an abortion. I am unapologetically pro-choice. And I know life *begins* at conception (which itself is the product of a complex process), because I kinda already knew that having a child required, as a first step, the successful integration of a sperm and an egg, or fertilization.

In other words, "life" begins at conception, if by "life," we mean the essential starting place of a potential human being. Neither my 16-year-old daughter nor my 13-year-old son would be here if they were not first conceived, if the fertilized eggs had not gone through the process of cell division, successfully implanted in my uterus and developed into healthy embryos, and subsequently gone successfully through the many other phases of development leading to their births.

www.rhrealitycheck.org...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Any particular reason why you are quoting a document published by a Catholic ethics institute? Seems not only biased but disingenuous.

I don't know where the other quotes are coming from, however, I learned that when a sperm and egg come together and are implanted into my uterus and continue to grow.That is pregnancy.If implanted into my fallopian tube that is ectopic. now what exactly am I choosing?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzersbride
 


Totally off topic,
HELLO Mrs. Beez.
Glad you joined us here on ATS. Welcome and enjoy!!!
On topic
I agree that about "pro choice", it is a terrible and insensitive term.
Quad

p.s. You wouldn't happen to have any of that baked chicken left, would you?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
You keep on referring us to an article where it states that human life begins at conception, and I keep on reminding you that human life doesn't automatically mean human being. If you can point to a part of the article where it specifically defines a fertilized egg as an actual human being, I'd be interested.


Originally posted by Quadrivium
You are putting words in my mouth again.


If I am incorrectly stating your position then why aren't you simply telling us where I got your position wrong? You keep on telling me that "I'm putting words in your mouth", yet you continue to argue the very position I see you continue taking.

Is your position not in the view that fertilized eggs are human beings? Is this not what you're saying?
Is your position not to grant rights to fertilized eggs in the same way as human beings?

These aren't your positions you argue, right? These are just words I'm putting in your mouth? Correct me here, because when a person tells me that aborting a fertilized egg is the same as murdering babies, I have a really hard time understanding how that position doesn't apply to the argument of "personhood" and fertilized eggs.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You keep on referring us to an article where it states that human life begins at conception, and I keep on reminding you that human life doesn't automatically mean human being. If you can point to a part of the article where it specifically defines a fertilized egg as an actual human being, I'd be interested.

Again....................FOR THE THIRD TIME!

Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.”

bdfund.org...




If I am incorrectly stating your position then why aren't you simply telling us where I got your position wrong? You keep on telling me that "I'm putting words in your mouth", yet you continue to argue the very position I see you continue taking.

Is your position not in the view that fertilized eggs are human beings? Is this not what you're saying?
Is your position not to grant rights to fertilized eggs in the same way as human beings?

These aren't your positions you argue, right? These are just words I'm putting in your mouth? Correct me here, because when a person tells me that aborting a fertilized egg is the same as murdering babies, I have a really hard time understanding how that position doesn't apply to the argument of "personhood" and fertilized eggs.

SG, If you have a question about one of my POST then just ASK already.
I have already stated that a human life has been taken away when a mother has an abortion, you agreed to this.

of course human life is taken away
www.abovetopsecret.com...
What more are you looking for?
edit on 8-11-2012 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


If you want to present a source about science it is probably best to get one that isn't published by a religious institute.

But going with the source you provided.


Pregnancy begins at implantation. Human life has to begin with conception, but conception is not the same thing as pregnancy, the latter of which reason, science, and medical evidence agree begins when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo. Fertilized eggs take between six to 12 days to implant in the uterine lining. There simply is no pregnancy until this happens, which is why any method that prevents fertilization or implantation can not cause an abortion. A large share of fertilized eggs never successfully implant to establish a pregnancy: Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully impant and end in spontaneous miscarriage (and before a woman even knows she is pregnant) because of insufficient hormone levels or an non-viable egg or for some other reason.


That seems pretty decisive to me that you can't really say life starts at conception but at implantation.

Did you continue to read the article or did you stop at only the parts that suited you? Because they go on to say this:


Anti-choicers are, of course, against both birth control and emergency contraception, which they attack by confusing conception with "personhood," and then misrepresenting the mechanisms of action of contraception and the medical definition of pregnancy to blur the lines between contraception and abortion. By endlessly repeating "life begins at conception," anti-choicers, "egged on," if you will, by the USCCB and fundamentalist evangelicals, are trying to simultaneously sow confusion about when pregnancy begins and how birth control works to declare a fertilized egg to be a person. This is a precursor to promoting their goals of eliminating both contraception and abortion, making abortion the equivalent of murder, and by extension, controlling women's bodies and their economic and social choices.


Your own evidence proves you wrong. How appropriate it comes from a website called Reality Check. Didn't get yours checked, did you?
edit on 11/8/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzersbride
 


Funny you should mention that.

About 10-15 years ago my aunt had her fallopian tubes tied because she didn't want to have anymore kids. A couple of years after the procedure my aunt suddenly started to have severe pain in her abdomen and they rushed her to the hospital.

She was pregnant.

The fertilized egg had attached to her fallopian tube and had they not caught it any sooner they might have ruptured and died.

She was a staunch Pro-Lifer until this. Now she is Pro-Choice because of what she experienced.

So you do make a choice but sometimes they come from real places not just opinions.
edit on 11/8/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 



What?

Come now MR. MonkeyFishFrog,
YOU had a Problem with MY original source. I think you said it......

Seems not only biased but disingenuous.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You did not like my source so I gave you one that was, from your comments in other post, more to your liking.
It is from a biased PRO CHOICE site, and even it states.............

Here is a startling revelation: I am a mother of two and a woman who earlier in her life had an abortion. I am unapologetically pro-choice. And I know life *begins* at conception (which itself is the product of a complex process), because I kinda already knew that having a child required, as a first step, the successful integration of a sperm and an egg, or fertilization.

In other words, "life" begins at conception, if by "life," we mean the essential starting place of a potential human being. Neither my 16-year-old daughter nor my 13-year-old son would be here if they were not first conceived, if the fertilized eggs had not gone through the process of cell division, successfully implanted in my uterus and developed into healthy embryos, and subsequently gone successfully through the many other phases of development leading to their births.
www.rhrealitycheck.org...

Yes I read it. I posted from it though because It states the same thing as the other source I posted. It is a biased pro choice site which states LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
That my dear Mr. Monkeyfishfrog is the point I was making. Reality check indeed

Quad



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by beezzersbride
 


Funny you should mention that.

About 10-15 years ago my aunt had her fallopian tubes tied because she didn't want to have anymore kids. A couple of years after the procedure my aunt suddenly started to have severe pain in her abdomen and they rushed her to the hospital.

Rhetoric aside, I am sorry to hear that about your aunt, from what I understand, that can be really painful.



So you do make a choice but sometimes they come from real places not just opinions.
edit on 11/8/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)
Amen brother,
Quad



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


And I just showed how you misrepresent your sources again and again which eliminates your credibility.

Here is something to chew on. Cancer is life. It is living cells that replicates just like an embryo to grow. It uses its "mother" for nutrients to keep on growing. It doesn't know what it is doing, it is just doing what it was always meant to and that is its form of life. So why are we allowed to remove these from our bodies? They are essentially alive. Has the same awareness as a fetus which is none. It may not have a heart beat but it has DNA which is a trait shared by all life.

Life is life. What matters is establishing personhood which no group has a consensus on. The only group that is truly heavily invested in exploring that is Philosophy with the ontological argument.

If you want a protect all life stance than you have to protect even the parasites and cancers of the world. Who will speak for them if not you?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by beezzersbride
 


Funny you should mention that.

About 10-15 years ago my aunt had her fallopian tubes tied because she didn't want to have anymore kids. A couple of years after the procedure my aunt suddenly started to have severe pain in her abdomen and they rushed her to the hospital.

Rhetoric aside, I am sorry to hear that about your aunt, from what I understand, that can be really painful.



So you do make a choice but sometimes they come from real places not just opinions.
edit on 11/8/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)
Amen brother,
Quad


It really scared her knowing how close she was to possibly dying. She also admitted she wasn't concerned with the embryo beyond getting it out of her.

It went beyond just the risk. She got a crash course experience of having something inside of you that you did not want but had also taken extreme measures to prevent from ever happening. Yet here she was, pregnant, despite everything she had done.

There are some Pro-Life groups who would view even what my aunt did as an atrocity and murder. I'm glad I still have her in my life.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 
Incredible fail, Mr. Monkeyfishfrog
Read the part I posted from the site. Later it does talk about what you posted but what else would you expect from a biased PRO choice site???
As for cancer being the same as a baby.........................Well there is some REALLY screwed up logic.
If a child is aborted then a human life is taken away.
If cancer is "aborted"/taken out, then most likely, a human life is extended.
No Where near the same Mr. Monkeyfishfrog.

On a totally irrelevant side note, did you know that I almost changed my screen name to Elkopotimus?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Thanks all for your replies on my humble thread, and am honored to have learn so much from you all, and hope that you will all carry, share and discuss your thoughts and rationale amongst family, relatives and friends, to find a solution to this thread's issue, so that we may all progress and evolve..

As for those who got their posts strickened off, I humbly apologize and if I had the power, I would return those points to you if the insignificant nobody me could. Moderators do what they had to do, to keep this great site of free speech responsibly civil to one another, and is my hope that we all will follow the T&C as we are all but guests to this site.

There is a difference between sentient life and microbial life that both gnostics and atheists, or those whom find comfort in our limited knowledge of science can agree upon.

We humans are not created and meant as microbial life, forever destined to play within protoplasmic pools.

For the religious faithfuls, we sentient beings - humans, are created, with a destiny planned - to the stars. No microbial life can do that on their own without sentient help, something that even science can agree.

Life truly begins at conception, and as human lives, we humans do have a responsiblity as we had been given free will and grow into sentient beings.


edit on 8-11-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Seeker...........................That was great!!


I have never heard the topic of abortion put like that before. It was touching, refreshing and true. I thank you sir, you just made my day a little brighter
Quad




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join