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 is not what people think it is. It's not about women's rights. It is from it's inception a means to kill the black population of America.
Tw0Sides
So people supporting Gay Rights, are all for Abortion ?
beezzer
I found it ironic that gay rights supporters spoke of the rights of the individual, yet those self-same people disregarded the rights of the unborn individual.
I think you got a Candidate for Dumbest Reply of the Month there Beez.
But I'll play your "Game of Ironic" a bit.
I find it Ironic that the Same People who are Anti-Choice, Want to eliminate Support Payments and Funding for those who need help raising these children.
The Anti-Choice crowd get all teary eyed when they are Fetuses , but when they are born...
"You on your own B****h "
windword
reply to post by Serdgiam
Basing legislation on science and fact is a lofty goal, indeed. Alas, I don't see such ideology as forthcoming any time soon. As long as we have states like Texas, that forbid the use of the word "evolution" in K-12 textbooks, and lobbies to include creationism in it's curriculum; as long as you have states that force doctors to lie to or omit critical information from pregnant mothers, legislators who insist that pseudo science and religious moral superiority should be considered as equal arguments in deciding legislation, that goal is, sadly, an illusive dream.
It is unclear what scientific facts you have brought up that pertain to what I am saying. In seeing the studies and data you are using to determine what is scientific fact and biological realities, I can try to see what you see.
As it stands, it seems to me that when we individually receive limited rights, and citizens rights, changes to fit whatever stage the science of medicine currently resides.
But, what are the possible endpoints? Where might our laws finally settle in around something that is static?
We are basically determining when a mass of cells receives certain rights, as well as why we set the requirements we do (which is where the science part comes in). A mass of cells with the genetics of a plant does not receive the same rights as a mass of cells with the genetics of a human. However, just having human DNA isnt considered enough, there are additional requirements that set a certain parameter. The question is, where should we set that parameter, and do we even have the understanding to appropriately do so at this level of scientific progress?
Too many possibilities remain for me, personally, to have an unwavering stance. As science and medicine progress, we may come to understand that that parameter should be set at conception because of new data and discoveries.
On the other hand, we may find that parameter should be set at not a specific time reference, but when that mass of cells makes its first "choice." Meaning, at the point that the mass of cells makes its first conscious movement as a specific lifeform, it then inherits the rights of that life form. That conscious movement could be a brain wave function, or movement of the mass of cells, etc. In the end, it could even be right about where it is now, except with more specifity.
In religious terms, it is essentially looking at when the spirit becomes bonded with the physical body (soul). I may be wrong on this, but I do not feel it is any more clear *exactly* when this "moment" happens in the religious arena than it is in the area of medicine.
I dont think we have the proper understanding to truly make factual assertions on what is a very important distinction.
windword
reply to post by Serdgiam
I didn't reply because I considered my silence to be an "agree to disagree" proposition. It wasn't my intent to blow off your post.
What kinds of studies and scientific facts would you like us to be exploring?
The US Constitution infers that mankind has inalienable rights. The 9th Amendment, I think, infers those rights are too many to enumerate.
I believe that we are endowed, as humans, with empirical autonomy, freedom of choice and free will. We give up certain rights in order to live in a compassionate and civilized society. Some of our rights may never realized by some, and some rights need to be fought for in order to be claimed.
What is static? we don't live in a static society.
That parameter must be determined by weighing the autonomy of the fully established human being and her rights, against biological reality. Is a woman compelled to reproduce simply based of her biology, or does she have the right to override biology and prevent conception? Are we condemned to biological fate?
If conception happens, and being a mother is the last thing that a woman wants to happen, is her biological mechanism more important than her emotional feelings?
What kind of data would convince you, or me, that conception is a sacred state of being?
Reflex and conscious choice are two very different things. I don't think that humans begin to make conscious choices until well into their post birth lives.
Personally, I don't think that ensoulment issues should really have anything to do with the abortion debate. If the unborn have a soul, it's up to "god" to deal with that. If it doesn't, then the issue is moot.
Which is why we should err on the side of the autonomous person and their rights.
ETA: For my own education, do you view these as your beliefs as part of a larger ideaology, as a general reality/truth that others have yet to accept, or just your opinion on the matter?
To be specific and avoid getting off track, I am attempting to discuss at which point those rights are given, and just as importantly, why.
We are not necessarily speaking about what rights are given, but when they are given and why.
If its just because it is an "inconvenience," then given the possibilities, the emotions are near the bottom of the list in a topic about science and what may be hard, difficult truth.
Thats the thing, isnt it? Most people dont even know what data could exist, much less how to go about it and implement it. I would kindly ask you what evidence would you accept?
windword
What kind of breaking news would you imagine could merge that would change a hard core pro-choicer like myself?
windword
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
Abortion is not what people think it is. It's not about women's rights. It is from it's inception a means to kill the black population of America.
You seem to think that abortion is a new invention, introduced to American society as a vehicle for progressive Nazism and bigotry. It's not. As long as there has been a sex drive, there have been abortions. Abortions have been used in all cultures for 10s of 1000s of years.
stormdancer777
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
OH I replied before I saw your post.
AS I have said abortion grew out of ignorance, one day science will have the answer.
However, don't be surprised if they come up with another solution to eradicate most of us.
www.dailymail.co.uk... html
edit on 103030p://bThursday2013 by stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)edit on 103030p://bThursday2013 by stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)
I wish those who don't care would just get sterilized and save themselves the trouble of pregnancy.