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.

 

I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

page: 17
51
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


I disagree. I think it's best to err on the side of the rights of the living, breathing, ambulant, person whose life will be impacted by a forced birth of an unwanted child.

When is something considered alive? A woman's egg, before fertilization is alive. Sperm is alive. There is no magical moment when life starts. Life is transformed through fertilization. There is nothing sacred or holy about biology.

A woman's choice to not be pregnant can start with contraception. Some of the most common methods of contraception have a fail safe of making the uterus inhospitable, making it impossible for the fertilized egg to implant. The pro-life community would like us to call this murder.

Is an embryo more alive than a fertilized egg? Is a fetus more alive than an embryo?




posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


My stance is that a woman's body is hers to do with as she sees fit. If she doesn't want something in her body, she should have the legal right to have it removed. Period. Now, if the fetus is non-viable, it means the procedure is an abortion (even though you could theoretically "deliver" it). If the fetus is viable, it means the procedure is delivery (induced if necessary). Regardless, I don't believe you should force a woman to use her body as a life support system against her will. Artificial wombs move up the viability date, which allows for a delivery -- that's all.


I understand this is your stance, as its pretty much the standard stance for pro-choice. That said, I am trying to understand the "why." More specifically, the quantifiable justification for what may be the murder of a living being. Both sides in this debate seem to clearly claim a fetus either is a living being, or is not. However, I have yet to see objective evidence either way.


If it's okay to force a woman to carry a fetus until it is viable, then we can start forcing people to do all sorts of things to their body "for the good" of someone or something else. Should we force someone to give up a kidney to save someone else's life? Should we force someone to give up some of their bone marrow to keep someone else from dying? Sometimes people die, because they didn't have the available bone marrow. Is that considered murder? Should the viable bone marrow donor be charged with murder because they didn't want to put their body through the procedure? Is this potential bone marrow donor selfish? Maybe - but do we have the legal right to legislate and force unselfishness, even if it means someone else's death?


I understand how you can justify these statements with the concept of a fetus not being an equal life-form. However, I have yet to see actual objective evidence of when something gains the right-to-life. Meaning, when did you gain the rights "that a woman's body is hers to do with as she sees fit." At what exact point were those rights obtained, and more importantly, why?

If those rights are obtained at the moment of conception, which is a possibility until science advances in its understanding, then comparing abortion to any of the things you mentioned are a bit of a moot point. Simply put, it would be comparing apples to oranges.

I am not stating there is a specific time when those rights are obtained. Honestly, when we start answering questions like that at our current developmental stage, we are dealing more with philosophy than science. In that way, why are we using philosophy to deal with matters of life and death rather than science?

There really isnt hard ground for either side to stand on in this respect. However, if those life-rights are obtained at conception, which has not been determined objectively or scientifically, then I still feel it is better to err on the side of caution. Even if that means facing hard truths about what we might be doing, collectively, as a species.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


I disagree. I think it's best to err on the side of the rights of the living, breathing, ambulant, person whose life will be impacted by a forced birth of an unwanted child.

When is something considered alive? A woman's egg, before fertilization is alive. Sperm is alive. There is no magical moment when life starts. Life is transformed through fertilization. There is nothing sacred or holy about biology.

A woman's choice to not be pregnant can start with contraception. Some of the most common methods of contraception have a fail safe of making the uterus inhospitable, making it impossible for the fertilized egg to implant. The pro-life community would like us to call this murder.

Is an embryo more alive than a fertilized egg? Is a fetus more alive than an embryo?


You are using an extreme to justify a general procedure. I am asking questions and trying to understand, instead of vehemently asserting that others should see it my way. I am on the fence on this issue, which not many people are. For my own life, I am pro-life because of the consequences of being wrong. It is a unique situation wherein the mother has their life threatened by the baby/fetus/mass of cells (whatever you want to call "it"). That is not the situation I am specifically trying to understand.

I have been using a lot of different words, but the overall point is; At what point does something obtain what many consider to be inalienable rights?

I would have trouble answering the last questions you ask, since I am not sure there are varying degrees of being "alive." The pertinent point is; what is it, exactly, that determines what living things have rights and which living things do not? And more specifically, what is the objective, quantified data that bolsters the assertion?
edit on 17-9-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 




I have been using a lot of different words, but the overall point is; At what point does something obtain what many consider to be inalienable rights?


According to the US Constitution, inalienable rights are granted to "persons born". The right to NOT be pregnant is applicable upon sexual maturity.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by Serdgiam
 




I have been using a lot of different words, but the overall point is; At what point does something obtain what many consider to be inalienable rights?


According to the US Constitution, inalienable rights are granted to "persons born". The right to NOT be pregnant is applicable upon sexual maturity.


Can't really argue that, can you. You're much better at this than I am (but I keep trying).


According to the Constitution, a non-viable fetus does not have an inalienable right to life. Sounds pretty logical to me. It makes even more sense when you consider that even the Church agrees that it's okay to perform a medical procedure that will mean certain death to the fetus, in order to save the mother. Until the baby is born, the mother's needs come first. After the baby is born, their rights are equal.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
This is the most difficult thread I have yet to encounter here on ATS, but I feel that I must weigh in by way of a very uncomfortable comparison. In China women are forced to kill their babies in the womb, and oftentimes out of the womb - as in partial birth abortion and infanticide. In the United States women kill their children in these horrid ways 'voluntarily' by means of twisted language and a severely convoluted moral logic created by the abortion rights people who call it a 'woman's right to choose' known more briefly as "choice."

Their guilt in the matter can be somewhat mitigated due to the fact that American women have been subjected to extreme pressure (peer and otherwise) by daily exposure to a tremendous social barrage of "Culture of Death" propaganda by means of "social networks"



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by YodHeVauHe
 




So, in a sense they too (like their counterparts in China) are being subjected to a form of socially programmed coercion which - in effect, though not by government edict - forces them to kill their children as well, but (and its a big 'but') these women do have an intellect and a free will so they must be held morally accountable (now or later), because, in the strict moral sense, they are still disposing of their children 'voluntarily.'


Who, or what is going to hold these women morally accountable?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


You know, I don't think it even matters whether the fetus is an "actual life" or not.

It doesn't?? I guess I know what side of the fence you're on.


A baby already born is an actual life

So is the fetus that's growing and living.


, and if the mother decides she can't or won't take care of it, she can have it removed from her home. It will be put somewhere else and get care from someone else. It might not get good care in this other place, but the point is, the woman has the right to give up all responsibility of the child.

Yes but the woman does not have the right to kill it in order to get rid of it.


If the woman wants the fetus taken out of her body, and she doesn't want the responsibility for it anymore, she has that right.

Why should she have the right to trump another living humans rights?? Why should her inconvenience trump murder?


Let's say the woman who is 6 weeks pregnant says I don't want this in my body, and the doctor removes the fetus intact and alive from the woman's body. It is now no longer the woman's responsibility, correct? Obviously the fetus will die outside the womb, but that's not the woman's responsibility, the doctor now has it.


Yes because the woman has transferred the responsibility to the doctor. Like adoption the mother transfers responsibility to another person(s). When a woman is pregnant she cannot transfer responsibility for the health and well being of the growing human fetus.
edit on 17-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by YodHeVauHe
 



That was a very thought provoking post.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 





When it came down to it, I asked myself; "What if I am wrong?"


It is a good question to ask oneself.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:



Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….


www.naapc.org...

Please look at the list of experts and their credentials and their testimony.



Dr. Shettles states, I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.





Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”




Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

libertytoall

Why should she have the right to trump another living humans rights?? Why should her inconvenience trump murder?


Because inalienable rights don't start until after you are born. The woman has already been born, so her rights trump the fetus'. Even the Church agrees that a medical procedure that means certain death for the fetus should be allowed, to save the mother. What if it was a situation where you could save one or the other, but not both?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
embryology textbooks are unanimous: life begins at fertilization.

January 13, 2013 3:25 am
Life begins at conception, science teaches
liveactionnews.org...


As we can see, embryology textbooks are unanimous: life begins at fertilization. And the life that begins is not simply a continuation of the life of the sperm or egg cell. Rather, it is the life of a distinct, unique, new individual which has never existed before in history and will never exist again. Nothing will be added to the new organism except nutrition, and it will continue to grow and develop until death occurs due to injury or illness.


I am telling you right now, eventually science will prove abortion is the termination of human life.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The American Practice of Lebensunwertes Leben / Life Unworthy Of Life

You have no idea how much our society has been influences by this.

en.wikipedia.org...

Our knowledge has increased vastly since those days and since the time of Roe vs wade.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

stormdancer777
embryology textbooks are unanimous: life begins at fertilization.


ABSOLUTLEY FALSE!


January 13, 2013 3:25 am
Life begins at conception, science teaches
liveactionnews.org...


As we can see, embryology textbooks are unanimous: life begins at fertilization. And the life that begins is not simply a continuation of the life of the sperm or egg cell. Rather, it is the life of a distinct, unique, new individual which has never existed before in history and will never exist again. Nothing will be added to the new organism except nutrition, and it will continue to grow and develop until death occurs due to injury or illness.


This a typical intellectually dishonest tactic of the pro-life community.



I started having a very cordial conversation with a couple of (very cute!) pro-lifers when one of them makes the astounding claim that “Every biologist would agree absolutely that life begins at conception”. I let it pass and then I call her on it after she says it a couple more times. Eventually she explains that she’s very confident in this statement because their ‘executive director” always says it, and claims that if someone proves him wrong he’ll eat the paper it’s written on.

Easy. I sent back a quick reply…I daresay that no competent biologist would take the position that these anti-choicers claim is universal among us.

Life does not begin at conception.

It’s an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it’s definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it.
scienceblogs.com...


There no such thing as a "life fairy" that suddenly bestows life on an otherwise lifeless thing.



This video, a Yale lecture on Biology and the History of Abortion, explains the error of this "life begins at conception" postulate within the first few minutes. Life is a cycle, with no start point. Fertilization is merely an event in the cycle.



edit on 17-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Human life begins at conception. This is a spiritual and scientific fact. Whoever denies this absolute truth is in spiritual denial and doesn't know the fundamentals of the science of human biology.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


What Church are you referring to?

I am sure you're NOT talking about the True Church of Jesus Christ - the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the Roman Catholic Church. Praise God for the Catholic Church..............



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Instead of embracing the magic that is life, as new understanding through science and technology emerge, we diminish it.

The more science reveals the more awe-inspiring this new knowledge becomes, it doesn't lessen spirituality it only makes me that much more inspired, that each human being has purpose,

The farther we get away from the source, the less humane we become.
edit on 043030p://bTuesday2013 by stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

YodHeVauHe
reply to post by windword
 


Human life begins at conception.


Wrong.


This is a spiritual and scientific fact.


No it's not. It's neither scientific nor a spiritual fact. Do you think that the soul is created from sexual intercourse?

Christianity, as well as Judaism, are "first breath" religions:

God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.

Job 33:4-“The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Ezekiel 37: 5 “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live.



Whoever denies this absolute truth is in spiritual denial and doesn't know the fundamentals of the science of human biology.


No my dear, pick up a text book or enroll in a Biology 101 class at your local community college. Better yet, watch the video I posted earlier.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Windword, Windword, Windword......tsk..tsk..tisk
I believe you and I have had this discussion on another thread.
Life absolutely does begin at conception. A new human life with their own unique DNA. This "mass of cells" (as some refer to it) has neither the DNA of the Mother or the Father. IT IS A NEW HUMAN LIFE.
How can you continue to deny this?
As for the video, it is the same one you posted on another thread a year or so ago.
Perhaps YOU should pick up a text book or enroll a at community college for biology 101. At least find some new material.
Quad




top topics



 
51
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join