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.

 

A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

No. Siamese twins are individuals, therefore people. If one killed the other, it would be murder, by law. Murder is a legal term and abortion is legal, therefore NOT murder.



A fetus is not an individual?
It shares a blood supply with the mother. Not a brain.
It is just as individual as twins that share a liver or heart.




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[ Don't flatter yourself by thinking you have this all wrapped up.


I could give you the same advice.

By the way,
Siamese twins are conjoined and some share the same organs.
Would one tell the other, "You can't live without me so you are not a person. Therefore I can remove you and not be committing murder."

See,
Circular arguments never end and murder is forever.


You can't compare Siamese twins to a fertilized egg. Each Siamese twin COULD live without the other (although both twins could not live separately) , therefore they are each individual stand-alone people. The fertilized egg cannot live without its host - it is not yet an individual stand-alone person. If the host dies, the egg dies too. If either Siamese twin dies, the other twin could still live.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

No. Siamese twins are individuals, therefore people. If one killed the other, it would be murder, by law. Murder is a legal term and abortion is legal, therefore NOT murder.



A fetus is not an individual?
It shares a blood supply with the mother. Not a brain.
It is just as individual as twins that share a liver or heart.


Are you trying to suggest that a fetus is it's mother twin? Pfft.

Tell me, at what point do a woman's eggs stop being a part of her body?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   


Tell me, at what point do a woman's eggs stop being a part of her body?


Birth



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[ Don't flatter yourself by thinking you have this all wrapped up.


I could give you the same advice.

By the way,
Siamese twins are conjoined and some share the same organs.
Would one tell the other, "You can't live without me so you are not a person. Therefore I can remove you and not be committing murder."

See,
Circular arguments never end and murder is forever.


You can't compare Siamese twins to a fertilized egg. Each Siamese twin COULD live without the other (although both twins could not live separately) , therefore they are each individual stand-alone people. The fertilized egg cannot live without its host - it is not yet an individual stand-alone person. If the host dies, the egg dies too. If either Siamese twin dies, the other twin could still live.


So,
If you have a baby and it can't survive on it's own then it's not a person?
A new-born cannot live without intervention.
Is it not then a individual.
And on and on.

I get it.

Women have the right to kill an unborn child.

But they should at least face the fact that they are doing so instead of pretending otherwise with hair splitting and rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


What about a parasitic twin? It cannot think or feel just as a fertilized egg can't, so would you be against someone having surgery to remove one from their body? It's the same concept.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 





So, If you have a baby and it can't survive on it's own then it's not a person?


I'ts not an individual person, no.


A new-born cannot live without intervention. Is it not then a individual. And on and on.


Anyone, given the proper training, can take care of a newborn or even a premie, but only one person can carry that egg from fertilization to birth, and that's the mother.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Agarta

 




Something that was instilled in me, as I was growing up, is taking responsibility for my actions.


But you're not talking about YOUR actions. You're talking about other people's actions. One thing I've learned about accountability, it's something I do FOR me only. I cannot force other people to be accountable for their actions. It's each individual's choice.

Isn't that what a society is? Agreed upon balances? Laws created and punishments served. To be anything else would be anarchy would it not? Why is the subject of abortion above this? It is checks and balances or it is everyone doing as they please without any regards to anyone or anything else. Shall we simply abolish law and all have the complete freedom to do as we wish without repercussions for our actions? Shall we just throw out the archaic idea of respect? If a woman has the right to decide who lives and dies why not everyone? Is that balance within the law? I'm just confused I guess. It seems as though we, as a people, have forgotten that the children are our future and selfishness and greed has accelerated its destruction.



I believe in personal freedoms of ones body, but I also value life above all things so I restate that we, as a people, through responsibility to all life should find a happy medium and move on from this confrontation within society.


It is fine that you value life above all things. I watched my mother die an agonizing death by stretching her life out as long as absolutely possible. MY values may not match yours. I watched my cat get sicker and sicker to the point that she couldn't drag herself to the litterbox. I could have done tests and given her medication to keep her alive, but I chose to have her killed (euthanized). I do not value life above all things. Quality of life is more important to me.


Doesn't that lead to the need for medical advancements free in the interest of life quality? So many things have been pushed aside that could succeed in bettering the quality due to agendas and monetary limitations. I fully agree that the quality of life needs to be addressed no question or argument.




Sexual equality is just that, equality, and part of that is the mans right to create the life and therefore has the right to contest the abortion or birth.


I support a man's right to step away from the responsibility of a child that he didn't agree to have. In other words, the "male abortion". I do not, however support his right to to tell her she MUST have an abortion, only that he doesn't want the child. I support that and hope our laws do one day.
Agreed



I just think we, as a people, need to focus on finding another way rather than fighting with each other.

But I'm afraid the fighting would never end because one person believes ALL should act according to their beliefs, which is what we have now. I would NOT want my child to be raised in an artificial womb and the law forcing me to do so would be violating my person, IMO.
True and agreed it should not be mandatory. The choice remains to the woman as carry or not to carry. The artificial womb should always remain as an alternative to ensure the right of choice not to carry. A man puts it in the womb by choice(or the woman through insemination) he contractually gives the right to the woman to carry, so the choice should always remain the womans. Thank you for the links.



The problem is people applying their beliefs, values and morals to all other people. THAT is what causes the fights.

Unfortunately that is the price of Democracy and allowing lobbyists. Majority decides(or the politician the majority chose). Most people say that we do not live in a mob rule society, but in reality it is. It, imo, is just the way it is done that is flawed.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by badgerprints
 


What about a parasitic twin? It cannot think or feel just as a fertilized egg can't, so would you be against someone having surgery to remove one from their body? It's the same concept.



VERY good rebuttal.
That one leaves little wiggle room.
But you miss the point.
I'm not against a life saving intervention or the removal of a harmful pregnancy.
I'm not even against actual contraception in the form of a morning after pill.

I'm saying that the choice to abort a child is a decision to kill.
It's legal.
Nobody is going to arrest you or fine you.
Why are the pro abortionists so touchy about admitting that they are killing a baby?
It's not actually about the baby.
They've killed it.
It's gone, dead, swept under the rug.
Out with the trash like yesterdays leftovers.
Why the undying emotional need to convince others that it isn't ending a life?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I actually don't have agressive or malicious feelings toward women who find the need to get an abortion.
For most of them, I assume it isn't an easy thing to do or to live with.

My ex got pregnant with another mans child shortly after we were married. She was going to get an abortion to keep me from finding out because she thought I wouldn't want to be a father to that child.

Her best friend told me about it and I convinced her otherwise.

We had a baby girl.
I wasn't her father but I am her dad.
She's 21 years old in college now.
The marriage only lasted five years but the baby is now a beautiful woman who I love very much.
I hope she never has to make that decision.
If she ever does, I hope she understands what she is ending.

Have to get some things done.
Talk later.

edit on 5-7-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Is an abortion fund part of the government? No way! Ever since 1977, when the Hyde Amendment was first implemented, the federal government has refused to cover abortion in public insurance programs. Abortion funds exist to do what the federal government should do. Some abortion funds are part of larger organizations, like churches or clinics, but not one is part of the government. - See more at: www.fundabortionnow.org...


Something of note would be the operating budget of P.P. that has increased over 100million since 2009 to 2012, but services other than abortion have decreased in occurrence.

dailycaller.com...

You are obviously being disingenuous.





And for most women who don't wish to become pregnant, birth control is their choice. But again, saying how someone else SHOULD live their life is a position of applying your morals to another person. In an ideal world, people who did not wish to procreate would always use birth control and that birth control would be effective 100% of the time. But neither of these is true, because we do not live in an ideal world. Our existence is imperfect. We are imperfect. Birth control is imperfect. And yet, we all have to do the best we can with what we have.


Straw man arguments, cop-outs and excuses for why it should be a free. Your logic is flawed, as all birth control is like wearing a seat belt. You can still die in an auto accident even while wearing one, but the likelihood is greatly diminished. I'm curious what the rate of pregnancy for casual sex partners that use multiple forms of birth control is; i.e. the pill and a condom....most likely nil.



Now, it's gone beyond what other people SHOULD do, to what they MUST do... I think you're way over the line of sticking your nose in other people's lives. It's a COMMON behavior these days and what causes a LOT of the conflict. Ever heard of "Live and Let Live"?


It becomes the public's business when you make a personal decision but somehow feel that the public is responsible for fixing your mistakes. Again, your logic means that I should get free money to get rid of a tattoo I regret, or to repaint my house because I picked the wrong color. Even though I have plenty of options to prevent bad tattoos and ugly house paint colors I still made a conscious decision to go through with it.

Even more ironic is the fact that you used the phrase 'Live and let live.'



I have made no such demands. I don't know why you chose me to respond to, but you're not addressing anything I spoke about. If you want to discuss abortion funding, perhaps another thread is a good option.



It isn't specifically P.P. funding that irritates me, it is the fact that you are purposefully being obtuse. I just think that claiming that the public is indebted to women for an elective procedure is just a way to get around the whole 'personal accountability' thing. By stating that the public should fund it you are making a demand.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by badgerprints
 


What about a parasitic twin? It cannot think or feel just as a fertilized egg can't, so would you be against someone having surgery to remove one from their body? It's the same concept.



VERY good rebuttal.
That one leaves little wiggle room.
But you miss the point.
I'm not against a life saving intervention or the removal of a harmful pregnancy.
I'm not even against actual contraception in the form of a morning after pill.

I'm saying that the choice to abort a child is a decision to kill.
It's legal.
Nobody is going to arrest you or fine you.
Why are the pro abortionists so touchy about admitting that they are killing a baby?
It's not actually about the baby.
They've killed it.
It's gone, dead, swept under the rug.
Out with the trash like yesterdays leftovers.
Why the undying emotional need to convince others that it isn't ending a life?



Because almost all of us know that committing murder, intentionally killing another life, is wrong. 99% of women who sacrifice their unborn children would never intentionally kill another human being. It's why those who support abortion must redefine what constitutes life - then they never have to admit that they committed murder. The baby never changed, the definition of baby did.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Okay sure, I could agree that abortion is ending the potential for a full-fledged human. I still don't buy that an egg that has just been fertilized is a full-fledged human, any more than I think a few multiplied cells in a chicken egg is a full-fledged chicken. A new-born baby IS a full-fledged human, even if it can't feed itself. There are adults that can't feed themselves, and they are full-fledged humans.

The parasitic twin IS a good argument, except that the parasitic twin never has the potential to become a full-fledged human - a fertilized egg does have that potential. My argument is that ending the "potential" for a full-fledged human is not the same as ending the life of a full-fledged human.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


What about the hospital bill that comes with bringing a baby to term? It can cost anywhere from $3,500 to $9,000 just to give birth to a baby.

If a woman does not want to have a baby, she should not be forced to foot the bill for said baby, and that's not even including the pain she will go through while having it. It's her body, it should be her choice no matter what.

I personally don't think a fetus can think or feel because it hasn't fully developed a brain yet. A brain is needed to be a living, breathing creature.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   


My position is that abortion and contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs should be illegal. I think its murder and it should be stopped.
reply to post by Bone75
 




I agree too...If women can spread their legs for men that they do not consider worthy enough to have a baby with and have sex with men that they are not married to then why suffer an egg for something the gross women did with the gross man I say we start locking up those vile skanky lose women. Then after they give birth to the unwanted baby we sell baby to highest bidder and before we release the skanky lose women we sterilize her and carve a scarlet letter onto her forehead so men can now know who they can have reckless sex with, and not to worry about planting their seed in her belly....because she is sterile and obviously enjoys sex with any man.




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by badgerprints
 


What about the hospital bill that comes with bringing a baby to term? It can cost anywhere from $3,500 to $9,000 just to give birth to a baby.

If a woman does not want to have a baby, she should not be forced to foot the bill for said baby, and that's not even including the pain she will go through while having it. It's her body, it should be her choice no matter what.

I personally don't think a fetus can think or feel because it hasn't fully developed a brain yet. A brain is needed to be a living, breathing creature.


Well,
If you read my last post, you will see that I am aware of those particular issues.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shells4u



My position is that abortion and contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs should be illegal. I think its murder and it should be stopped.
reply to post by Bone75
 


I agree too...If women can spread their legs for men that they do not consider worthy enough to have a baby with and have sex with men that they are not married to then why suffer an egg for something the gross women did with the gross man I say we start locking up those vile skanky lose women. Then after they give birth to the unwanted baby we sell baby to highest bidder and before we release the skanky lose women we sterilize her and carve a scarlet letter onto her forehead so men can now know who they can have reckless sex with, and not to worry about planting their seed in her belly....because she is sterile and obviously enjoys sex with any man.



I noticed how you didn't mention any sort of punishment for the man.

Because of the high level of stupidity in that post im going to assume you were being sarcastic.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by shells4u
 


A little vicious aren't we?

Incidentally this also happens females who have been with man for the first time. So they all aren't necessarily skanky h o's. Just victims of circumstance.

Are you against abortion because it murders the fetus, or is it because you don't like skanky h o's?

I am a little confused because you sound a little angry over this subject.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 

They were not married the act is immoral therefore the female is immorale lock her up sell baby carve letter onto her fore head and sterilize the skank. Yes I am obviously being sarcastic....The OP's subject about the egg issue is over the top so I replied with an over the top response...I guess this sort of topic enrages something inside me and well...especially the contraceptive harming eggs.....really



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shells4u
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 

They were not married the act is immoral therefore the female is immorale lock her up sell baby carve letter onto her fore head and sterilize the skank. Yes I am obviously being sarcastic....The OP's subject about the egg issue is over the top so I replied with an over the top response...I guess this sort of topic enrages something inside me and well...especially the contraceptive harming eggs.....really


Hey, I advocate forced vasectomies for all boys before the age of puberty. They can only be reversed after age 21, and only after they prove they are really ready to have a kid. If it's okay to force the women to have babies they don't want, it's okay to force vasectomies on males.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join