Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

reply to post by kevinunknown


Shut the $%#@ up...

nuff said

reply to post by MindSpin


So my friend had a choice to not get raped? She got an abortion. Unfortunatly this tragedy happens to many women everywhere in the world. She wasn't financially ready for a child. She wasn't emotionally ready for a child. She didn't take BC pills. Why? Because she wasn't sexually active. She was in college studying to be a nurse at the time. She never once asked for what happened. Yes my sweethearts rapist is in jail now. I think people need to be very careful with certain things they say. Maybe it is because you are behind a computer and do not have to confront the other person. I've never had anyone give her anykind of issue about what happened because they realize it isn't their business. Either that or I would rip your throat out.

reply to post by kevinunknown


"I should start by saying I am very much anti-abortion, I can see very few instances where abortion can be justified, in fact almost none. I should start by saying I am very much anti-abortion, I can see very few instances where abortion can be justified, in fact almost none. "

Good for you, now don't have any... and be my guest at convincing all those in your sphere of influence, or who value your opinion, against having any. Good luck with that too, I sincerely hope you can go out and prevent dozens and dozens of abortions.

.. then maybe focus on the atrocity of both US political partys funding retroactive abortions !!.. just the other day obama himself authorized, via 'drone' strike, 7 retroactive abortions in North Waziristan.. SEVEN innocent grown babies, guilty of nothing but wanting to be born, were retroactively aborted!!

They could have been adopted by loving "non terrorist" parents.. drone strike retroactive abortions are not "choices"!!.. they're innocent hairy children!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

So the question is (i think) whether a fetus feels pain, emotion and basically has conciousness, would you agree?

The only question I am concerned about is "When does human LIFE begin".

I don't care about conciousness since it is a concept that is open to many interpretations.

Biological process of life on the other hand...is not. As I stated before, the biological process of life follows the same basic steps across living organisms.

The only common trait I can see is cell division. Rocks cells don't divide....plants do. Iron cells don't divide...animals do. Not all life is concious...so I don't find that to be a good measurment of when "life" begins.

If you care to dispute that claim...feel free to do so, I have offered it up a few times already and no one is taking a whack at it.


I will answer your other questiions...but I don't see them as relevant because I don't agree with your premise that "consciousness" is the best measurement for life.

the next logical question is to ask where conciousness comes from, defining this will allow us to judge whether an abortion is right or wrong and at what time is it right or wrong. Would you agree to this?

No, like I said....consciousness does not denote life. Life is a biological process...not a mental process. If you are going to use consciousness as your measurment...when does the life of a plant begin???

Would you accept the brain is the organ from which conciousness is created?

I don't know. Honestly I don't know...there are many theories on this. We are afterall on ATS...so near death and out of body experiences where people can describe things they should not be able to come to mind when attempting to answer this question.

I would be willing to say that it definately plays a large part...I can't say for sure that is is "created" in the brain.

This is why I don't see this as a good measure...because it isn't purely scientific.

I hope this clarifies my position so that we can go forward with a better idea of what is being said. If you want to clarify your own position we can go from there as maybe i have misunderstoof what you were claiming.

My position is clear.

Life is a purely biological process. It has a starting point and an ending point. In my opinion, The starting point of life is not an arbitrary date when some bodily function starts working at x week of development. The starting point in the biological process of human life is the same as any other living thing. When the sperm fertilizes the egg and cells begin dividing. I think we can both agree that the ending point is "death"...which is when cells stop dividing. Now anywhere between the starting point and the ending point is "LIFE". In my opinion, if another human ends that process of LIFE, it is murder. So this is why I view abortion as murder.

That is it...that is my whole position. Short and sweet, plain and simple.

If you would like to dispute anything in that very short paragraph...I would welcome it.

Originally posted by LoverBoy
reply to post by MindSpin

 

So my friend had a choice to not get raped? She got an abortion. Unfortunatly this tragedy happens to many women everywhere in the world. She wasn't financially ready for a child. She wasn't emotionally ready for a child. She didn't take BC pills. Why? Because she wasn't sexually active. She was in college studying to be a nurse at the time. She never once asked for what happened. Yes my sweethearts rapist is in jail now. I think people need to be very careful with certain things they say. Maybe it is because you are behind a computer and do not have to confront the other person. I've never had anyone give her anykind of issue about what happened because they realize it isn't their business. Either that or I would rip your throat out.

I am very sorry your friend got raped.

But we all know...two wrongs don't make a right.

The unborn child was innocent, it had no choice in the rape or in it's death. There is always the option of adoption if she wasn't ready emotionally or financially.


Tell me this...how did the abortion affect your friend??? Does she ever think about the child? Does she ever wonder if it was a boy or a girl? Does she ever wonder what it's voice would sound like or what color hair it would have? What would they be when they grew up?

You can't tell me that the abortion didn't have it's own psychological affects on her. So now she has the psychological affects of being raped, along with the psychological affects of knowing for the rest of her life that she terminated the life of an innocent unborn child that had no blame at all in her rape.

Like I said...I'm sorry that your friend got raped. But my thoughts are with the child that never even had a chance at life. I'm sorry...but I still don't think abortion is the correct solution in that situation...like I said...two wrongs don't make a right.

That is my opinion...

And as for rape not being a valid reason for abortion, I'm sorry but that is frankly disgusting...Those who hold that opinion are, in my opinion, the lowest of the low.

So a rape victim has the child, the rapist, the child's father requests permission to see the child, and going along with your argument, rights of the child etc of course they should see their father. The evil barsteward then rapes his child, he is a rapist after all, and that is acceptable to you?

Originally posted by destination now
And as for rape not being a valid reason for abortion, I'm sorry but that is frankly disgusting...Those who hold that opinion are, in my opinion, the lowest of the low.

So a rape victim has the child, the rapist, the child's father requests permission to see the child, and going along with your argument, rights of the child etc of course they should see their father. The evil barsteward then rapes his child, he is a rapist after all, and that is acceptable to you?

Why is the rapist not in jail in your scenario???

Sorry..punishing (killing) the innocent unborn child for the crimes of the father is not a valid reason in my book. Call me all the names you want...I can take it.

reply to post by MindSpin


People do get out of jail, and rapists don't often get very long sentences anyway. Remember that child is there for it's natural lifespan, maybe by the time the child is 6 or 8 yrs old their "father" will be out and I don't think for one minute that you are considering the child in this scenario. Who is their father? What is their father? Not a nice thing for a child to grow up with.

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by MindSpin

 

People do get out of jail, and rapists don't often get very long sentences anyway. Remember that child is there for it's natural lifespan, maybe by the time the child is 6 or 8 yrs old their "father" will be out and I don't think for one minute that you are considering the child in this scenario. Who is their father? What is their father? Not a nice thing for a child to grow up with.

And then that person is labled a sex offender for life and would never be granted custody or unsupervised visitation of the child.

It's a nice story to try to get emotional responses...but not reality.

reply to post by MindSpin

So where are those sources??? I like facts and sources. Forgive me if I don't just trust you.

Consciousness (or better, sentience) = presence of brain waves (just to be sure, not all electrical potentials in neurons are brain waves). Brain waves appear around 22 weeks of development (there is a rather widespread lie by prolifers that they appear after 40-80 days, but its false.)

eileen.250x.com...
tigtogblog.blogspot.com...

Ive had an embryology course last semester, and thats what we were told there too.

What about children born brain damage that never have very high brian function??? Are their lives not as important as people with fully functioning brains???

Lack of higher brain activity (brain waves) is the medical definition of death. So children without it are proclaimed dead (stillborn). Not all brain damage causes death (lack of all brain waves).

Do you see what happens when you make silly illogical claims???

Just as death of a person is defined as irrevesrible dissapearence of brain waves, the beginning of a person should be defined as first sustained appearance of them. Seems very logical to me.

Are you saying bacteria aren't alive???

Life without sentience or consciousness does not need to be protected as persons, otherwise killing bacteria would be murder.

Can we agree on that? That "intelligence" and "conciousness" aren't purely scientific concepts? There is a lot of philosophy and psychology involved in those concepts.

Consciousness is purely scientific concept, as everything in the natural world is. Psychology, neurology, anthropology and sociology are sciences dealing with it.

reply to post by MindSpin


So the child then goes through life without a father, or knowing that they cannot see their father because he is a rapist. Lovely conversation piece for birthday parties etc. And don't forget it is a no win situation, the child (and everyone else) is either kept in the dark about the father's identity and well I suppose people could just assume the mother is a woman of loose morals who didn't care who she slept with, or they know the truth and believe me, the damage that would do to a child would be unimaginable.

In the words of the late, great Bill Hicks:-

If you're so pro-life, do me a favour: don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries. Read more: www.brainyquote.com...

Just out of curiosity, where do all you pro lifers stand on stem cell research?

Originally posted by MindSpin
The only question I am concerned about is "When does human LIFE begin".

I don't care about conciousness since it is a concept that is open to many interpretations.

Well i think this is actually where we have been arguing cross purposes and the confusion has seeped in which has lead to some unproductive exchanges. I consider the beginning of conciousness in a fetus to be life but you prefer the strict biological use of the word life.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Biological process of life on the other hand...is not. As I stated before, the biological process of life follows the same basic steps across living organisms.

The only common trait I can see is cell division. Rocks cells don't divide....plants do. Iron cells don't divide...animals do. Not all life is concious...so I don't find that to be a good measurment of when "life" begins.

If you care to dispute that claim...feel free to do so, I have offered it up a few times already and no one is taking a whack at it.

No i'm not disputing anything here, biologically life begins when cell meets egg, that's a biological fact, the cell develops and undergoes mitosis, this is unquestionably life in a strict biological sense. However i think humans are unique as we are self aware to a high degree and therefore we must use a different measuring stick than the strict biological definition of life.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I will answer your other questiions...but I don't see them as relevant because I don't agree with your premise that "consciousness" is the best measurement for life.

I understand now where you are coming from and you are correct that the rest of my questions are not relevant to you if you don't agree with the initial premise that the start of conciousness should be the cut off for abortion.

Originally posted by MindSpin
No, like I said....consciousness does not denote life. Life is a biological process...not a mental process. If you are going to use consciousness as your measurment...when does the life of a plant begin???

When i speak of life i am talking about the human experience. Remember life has a number of meanings, it has the strict biological meaning, which appears to be how you are using it and the more elaborate term denoting the sum of a human beings experiences or the legal definition of course.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I don't know. Honestly I don't know...there are many theories on this. We are afterall on ATS...so near death and out of body experiences where people can describe things they should not be able to come to mind when attempting to answer this question.

I would be willing to say that it definately plays a large part...I can't say for sure that is is "created" in the brain.

This is why I don't see this as a good measure...because it isn't purely scientific.

This absolutely clears up why we were at odds, i was taking your using the word of life as the more broad term instead of the strict biological term. As i'm an atheist it is very easy for me to consider the brain as the seat of conciousness and therefore a good measure of when life begins, again using the more broad meaning of life. I would point out there is no evidence for any afterlife and the OBE's have also been explained away, to the point we can now induce them using magnetic stimulation.

Originally posted by MindSpin

My position is clear.

Life is a purely biological process. It has a starting point and an ending point. In my opinion, The starting point of life is not an arbitrary date when some bodily function starts working at x week of development. The starting point in the biological process of human life is the same as any other living thing. When the sperm fertilizes the egg and cells begin dividing. I think we can both agree that the ending point is "death"...which is when cells stop dividing. Now anywhere between the starting point and the ending point is "LIFE". In my opinion, if another human ends that process of LIFE, it is murder. So this is why I view abortion as murder.

That is it...that is my whole position. Short and sweet, plain and simple.

If you would like to dispute anything in that very short paragraph...I would welcome it.

Your position, like mine got lost because were were interpreting the word life in different ways. You were using it in it's correct definition of strict biological terms and i was using it in an equally correct way but more under the heading of law i suppose.

So from here i think we are better suited to continue as we are both clearer on each others position. I understand now you weren't twisting my words, you simply misinterpreted my use of the word life, which i am happy to admit was my fault. Equally i misunderstood your use of it.

So we come to when life begins, in a biological sense you cannot be argued with, sperm meets egg, i won't bother arguing that because it's 100% correct. However i do disagree that this is a good reason to outlaw abortion as i don't see any real difference between a small clump of cells undergoing mitosis from the result of a sperm meeting an egg, and a cancerous mass. Many pregnancies self abort, sperm has met egg and yet they fail early. If we are to accept that this is a new life using your strict biological view then surely we should hold a service for every spontaneous abortion. I'm not exaggerating for effect with this. If you honestly believe that when a sperm meets egg then it's a human being and should not be aborted in a clinic, then if it self aborts surely that would require some form of mourning.

This to me is not good enough as a definition and so i use conciousness as my benchmark, from there my earlier argument about the brain applies, which i know you disagree with. You might consider it arbritary but i consider it deadly serious.

Still i'm happy we cleared the confusion.

reply to post by MindSpin


Who are you to tell me she has psychological issues from the abortion? She is relieved she doesn't have to see a part of the rapist everyday which would remind her of him. And you want to know how she really feels? She feels relieved, and much happier without the burden she never asked for. Like you said, the unborn child.

reply to post by MindSpin


He is serving 8 years he will be out at 36

reply to post by MindSpin


Justify why we should protect unsentient human life, but not other unsentient and even sentient (animals) life, without bringing in speciecism or slippery slope logical fallacy.

reply to post by Maslo

Consciousness (or better, sentience) = presence of brain waves (just to be sure, not all electrical potentials in neurons are brain waves). Brain waves appear around 22 weeks of development (there is a rather widespread lie by prolifers that they appear after 40-80 days, but its false.)

That is all fine...except he was talking about "emotion"...not sure how you measure emotion. I agree with sentience and brain waves being developed at that time...it just simply doesn't matter to me...because I don't use sentience to define life.

I'll ask you the same I asked everyone else...is a plant alive? Is a plant sentient?

Lack of higher brain activity (brain waves) is the medical definition of death. So children without it are proclaimed dead (stillborn). Not all brain damage causes death (lack of all brain waves).

That just isn't true. It is true they call that "brain dead"...but not medically dead. To declare someone medically dead, they have to wait until the heart and sometimes lungs stop functioning. Even then I think they have to wait a certain amount of time (2 minutes maybe) before they actually declare the person dead.

Here are some true "medical definitions" of death.

www.medterms.com...

Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Death
Definition
Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing

I'll agree that ther are definitions of "brain death" out there...which in some cases for legal and organ donor issues is used. But in general, this is the definition of death that is used.

Just as death of a person is defined as irrevesrible dissapearence of brain waves, the beginning of a person should be defined first as sustained appearance of them. Seems very logical to me.

But it's not defined as that...so not very logical to me.

Life without sentience or consciousness does not need to be protected as persons, otherwise killing bacteria would be murder.

Is killing a fish murder? A deer?

Are these animals not conscious???

Consciousness is a poor measurement of life...it just isn't scientifically accurate. Using the purely biological process of life IS accurate...why are you all refusing to use it??? I have yet to hear one good reason as to why the biological definition of life is not accurate.

Consciousness is purely scientific concept, as everything in the natural world is. Psychology, neurology, anthropology and sociology are sciences dealing with it.

Consciousness is a human concept...as is religion...is religion a scientific concept???

Psychology and sociology are not hard sciences...they are "social" sciences.

Neurology is a medical practice.

Now Biology...that IS A PURE SCIENCE. Why not use it to define life??? Please someone answer this for me.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by gr82m8okdok

 

The same as all paedophilia and its wrong and not uniquely catholic. All paedophiles just be brought to justice regardless of their religion, religion should have nothing to do with it. You are clearly just attempting to provoke me, its not going to work.

Your OP and most definitely your subject line were extremely provocative, so I'm afraid this is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You can't go in all guns blazing with such a ridiculously over the top subject line that has total intent to wind people up, and not expect retaliation.

The fact that you choose to pick your arguments when responding too means you ignore the well structured and thought out replies that you have no answers to, in favour of the shorter ones that tend to shoot from the hip.

You clearly posted this to get a rise out of people, you've got 20+ pages.

Well done. Mission complete. To my mind, it is the worst kind of trolling. OTT OP, choosing the arguments to respond to thereafter. It's like the answer to the question nobody asked.

You can now go and think of your next baseless argument to spew out onto here.

reply to post by destination now

So the child then goes through life without a father, or knowing that they cannot see their father because he is a rapist.

Oh...right...didn't think about that.

So if a kid doesn't have a father...or can't see his father because he is a criminal...the kid is better off dead

Of course...why didn't I think of that???

reply to post by jrmcleod


So you focused on one word and prejudged me forgetting the rest of the post.

I do support life, the "mother's" life and her own choices about her own body. If she was raped then why should anyone care for the rapists child. In fact, I support that decision cause a rape is provoked out of the rapist's need for control, or urge to procreate when they normally wouldn't have a chance in our society to. So a rape baby is a product of evil in my eyes.
As for mothers that risk themselves to give birth. If given the choice ahead of time with full knowledge of giving birth killing them, then isn't it pro-life for them to survive instead of the child. Or it could be just called survival instead of pro-life.

As for your comment about me not being blessed with a child. No I am not. At least entirely. I have a friend who's husband died in iraq and I was named god-father by him. He and I were highschool pals, me and his wife really good friends, I love that little girl and she adores me. I don't want to step in and marry my friend nor do I want to be a full time dad. But I do take care of them and make sure that my friend's family is safe, sustained, and guarded.
Do I want my own child in the future. That's not what I should think about first. A child, sex, all that, not in my interests of just getting it on for my pleasure or to procreate as soon as possible. I have experienced love in the past. She moved to be with her family. I'm willing to wait for love and the right girl that is just not mushy romance but also compliments me as much as I would her, augmenting both of our lives. I find that, the "soul-mate" as some would call it, I'd be happy with that before thinking about having kids.

Tumor was what I was using to describe rape babies and life risk babies for the most part. If the mother wants to birth either and it is her choice, I won't argue it.

As I said I'd rather see the option of abortion on the table rather then not. Women have the right to make a choice. And it should be supported so it is done in a more healthy way for the lady then old times or by illegal means.