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

reply to post by MindSpin


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the post you should actually take the time to read and check out the links to. That is my argument. And I stand by it. I wish I had the time to say more, but I had already written a whole lot out and lost it.

By law, a abortion is only allowed up to 12 weeks, at most...and before that a baby doesn't even have a heart beat!! But why bother with facts if you can mislead the gullible, right?

Originally posted by geekyone

Originally posted by UncleVinny
A fetus (in my mind, anyway) becomes a person when a soul enters the body, which us generally just a few days before birth.

So a baby that is born a month early has no soul?

Many believe the non physical "energy being" "spirit/soul" hovers in-sync with the physical human "suit" - - - but does not join with or fully enter the physical until after it is functioning in the physical world.

Many believe "spirit" (energy being) is our true nature - - - and that physical is only one experience we can choose.

I don't need any LOLs - - - I am simply responding with information to answer your question.

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
reply to post by MindSpin

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the post you should actually take the time to read and check out the links to. That is my argument. And I stand by it. I wish I had the time to say more, but I had already written a whole lot out and lost it.

So your argument is....why bring a child into the world if it MAY have a bad life.

I'd like to ask you if you think people are psychic and can foresee the childs life???

I already addressed this argument earlier in the thread...I'll just repeat my reply.



It is better to give a child a chance at life.

Not everyone is a victim of their environment...good can come from bad.

Plus, no one knows what a childs life will be...no one can see the future. To make such a claim as "this child would live a life of misery" is illogical.

If you disagree with any of the above...please point out my flaws. I'll list out my points to make it eaiser.

- It is better to give a child a chance than to kill it before it even does

- Not everyone is a victim of their environment. Good can come from bad.

- No one knows the future or would be able to tell the quality of a childs life.

A must read
must read

right or wrong it happens! and one day we may not have a choice.

Originally posted by theshot
A must read
must read

right or wrong it happens! and one day we may not have a choice.

I happen to agree with John Holdren.

Of course no one wants to agree with what seems extreme - - but in my opinion we are there.

He is a completely EVIL negative being, I can't call him human. NOT ON MY WATCH. Everyone counts, and I'm so happy I'm a single mother, and babies need their mothers. NO ONE OWNS ANYONE. YOU AND YOU WOMB ARE NOT SLAVES.

He should be in prison for promoting CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!

Originally posted by Unity_99
He is a completely EVIL negative being, I can't call him human. NOT ON MY WATCH. Everyone counts, and I'm so happy I'm a single mother, and babies need their mothers. NO ONE OWNS ANYONE. YOU AND YOU WOMB ARE NOT SLAVES.

He should be in prison for promoting CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!

It is called HARSH REALITY in the physical world.

Burying ones head in the sand solves nothing.

reply to post by MindSpin


"- It is better to give a child a chance than to kill it before it even does"

Well the first flaw in your argument is that you are referring to an embryo as a child...
Secondly yes I do believe that if the woman giving life to that future child doesn't want it NO ONE should be able to tell her she must have it.
Is it better to risk more dumpster babies than to let a woman make her own choice?
Who are you to say that someone else can't choose?!
Is it better to force someone to keep a baby who may drink or do drugs throughout the pregnancy?
Is it better to risk the death of a child once born than to remove an EMBRYO.
HUGE difference there. Do your research. I'm not saying everyone should be able to change their mind at any point during their pregnancy, and there are certainly regulations for that, but if you don't want a kid from the start, take care of the issue on time and don't risk ruining an innocent human beings life.

"- Not everyone is a victim of their environment. Good can come from bad."

An unwanted baby is already at higher potential to fall victim to many different negative factors besides their environment. Many studies show that how much a baby is loved when in the womb actually makes a huge impact as well.
Of course not everyone is a victim of their environment. Some people are born into bliss and go astray. But if you've already got the probability weighing heavily on one end why force another human being to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and bring a baby into that situation. No one is winning in this feeble attempt to give every fertilized egg a chance. It is illogical and contradictory. Everything is life, everything has the potential to evolve into higher consciousness. A mosquito is alive but we kill it. Plants are alive. EVERYTHING IS LIFE. I can't state that enough. Are you saying we shouldn't mow the lawn, kill any insects, eat meat? Even if you are vegan you're killing life since all plants are alive. All your cells are alive, but they die on a daily basis too. We evolved from the tiniest living things to being the conscious human beings that we are today. Are you really saying don't kill ANYTHING? Because everything is alive and everything has potential.

"- No one knows the future or would be able to tell the quality of a childs life. "

No kidding, we don't know what the future holds, all we can do is to take what information we have in the present to make the most informed choices for the future. Which is why this issue is not black and white. The women who are choosing to abort their pregnancies are looking at their life situations, their health, their goals and aspirations and making the most informed decisions they can based on what information they have before them. All probability exists, so are we just supposed to let anything and everything happen simply because it "could" be good. Everything could be good and everything could be bad. Part of being conscious and living is to be able to weigh these options, analyze the probability based on the present and act with the best intentions.

I'll leave you with this video which I think analyzes it quite well:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by 22ndsecond

Well the first flaw in your argument is that you are referring to an embryo as a child...
Secondly yes I do believe that if the woman giving life to that future child doesn't want it NO ONE should be able to tell her she must have it.
Is it better to risk more dumpster babies than to let a woman make her own choice?
Who are you to say that someone else can't choose?!
Is it better to force someone to keep a baby who may drink or do drugs throughout the pregnancy?
Is it better to risk the death of a child once born than to remove an EMBRYO.
HUGE difference there. Do your research. I'm not saying everyone should be able to change their mind at any point during their pregnancy, and there are certainly regulations for that, but if you don't want a kid from the start, take care of the issue on time and don't risk ruining an innocent human beings life.

Ok...it is better to allow a human life to have a chance than kill it. (semantics is a weak argument)

If you disagree that it is a human life...you are going to have to dispute established biology.

Who am I to tell a women she must feed her kids everyday??? Your argument is invalid, because you only allow it for the very very early development for human life. You wouldn't excuse this behavior at any other point in human development.

If a women drinks or does drugs during her pregnancy, she should be punished just as if she gave a newborn infant drugs or alcohol.

There should never be dumpster babies...people can legally drop off babies at a hospital with no questions asked.

You seem to only want to protect human life at certain levels of development...I am more complete in my view that I want to protect all stages of devlopment.

An unwanted baby is already at higher potential to fall victim to many different negative factors besides their environment. Many studies show that how much a baby is loved when in the womb actually makes a huge impact as well.
Of course not everyone is a victim of their environment. Some people are born into bliss and go astray. But if you've already got the probability weighing heavily on one end why force another human being to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and bring a baby into that situation. No one is winning in this feeble attempt to give every fertilized egg a chance. It is illogical and contradictory. Everything is life, everything has the potential to evolve into higher consciousness. A mosquito is alive but we kill it. Plants are alive. EVERYTHING IS LIFE. I can't state that enough. Are you saying we shouldn't mow the lawn, kill any insects, eat meat? Even if you are vegan you're killing life since all plants are alive. All your cells are alive, but they die on a daily basis too. We evolved from the tiniest living things to being the conscious human beings that we are today. Are you really saying don't kill ANYTHING? Because everything is alive and everything has potential.

"Of course not everyone is a victim of their environment."

That is all I needed to know...everything else you say is conjecture and irrelevant.

I know everything is life...if you bothered to read any of this thread you would understand I make it very clear I am only concerned about protecting human life. That is what most of our laws do now anyway. Abortion is strictly an age (developmental stage) descrimination law. It says if you aren't developed up to X point...you can be killed. That my friend is a very slippery slope.

No where have I ever said don't kill anything...I am saying don't kill anything human that is not "you" (I'm perfectly fine with suicide).

No kidding, we don't know what the future holds

That's all I need to hear.

all we can do is to take what information we have in the present to make the most informed choices for the future. Which is why this issue is not black and white. The women who are choosing to abort their pregnancies are looking at their life situations, their health, their goals and aspirations and making the most informed decisions they can based on what information they have before them.

What of the case where a baby is born severly retarded, with no signs previously during ultrasounds??? Does the mother have the right to weigh the options and decide that this child won't have a perfect life...that it will probably have a very difficult and maybe even painfull life...and then decide if she should kill it?

Based on your "logic" of us just using the information available to us to make the "best decision"...this scenario should be fine in your book.

I'll leave you with this video which I think analyzes it quite well

I stopped watching when they brought up "Morality" (first 10 seconds or so).

If you want to have a philosophical discussion about Morality and abortion...please go have it with someone coming from another philosophical stand point...I suggest a religious person to have your discussion with. You will both be using philosophy and personal subjectivity.

I am coming from a purely scientific stand point. The biological process of life.

reply to post by MindSpin


I find it a waste of my time to debate with someone who uses phrases such as "that's all I need to hear" and "I stopped watching at..."
For a "scientific" point of view you sure pick you facts selectively.

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
reply to post by MindSpin

 

I find it a waste of my time to debate with someone who uses phrases such as "that's all I need to hear" and "I stopped watching at..."
For a "scientific" point of view you sure pick you facts selectively.

Um... I stopped listening to you at "I find it a waste of my time to debate with someone who uses phrases such as..."

Aren't you doing the same thing as MindSpin?!

Originally posted by geekyone

Originally posted by OhZone

I'd like to know how he concluded that the fetus has a right to enslave its host.

He obviously believes in Slavery.
Since he gives her no alternative, this is Enforced Slavery, which is an act of Violence.
He violates her human rights.
And it is a violation of International Law.

Oh my, the world truly has gone mad.
However did we get to the point where a pregnant woman is some one who has been enslaved by an alien host?

I didn't say "alien host".
Reread the sentence.

reply to post by Cuervo


I'm just saying I'm moving on from this if he's going to dismiss most of my points.

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by OhZone
One issue that has been sidestepped by all the pro-lifers...
That of enforced pregnancy.

Blame biology...not me. I'm sorry the poor poor women were born women and thus tasked with carrying offspring.

This isn't an equality issue that should be solved through legislation by legalizing the murdering of babies.

If a women doesn't want to be "enslaved" by a fetus...if she feels that strongly about it...then she is free to go get her tubes tied or a hysterectomy. She can solve it herself if she feels so strongly about the possibility of being "enslaved".

Likewise this issue should not be forbidden by legislation preventing a woman from having sovereign rights over her own body.
Most doctors will not do Tubal Ligation on young women.
Do you even know what a hysterectomy is? If you are indeed in a medical field you should. Therefore your statement is really out of order.
I think all males should have vasectomies that are reversible. When they are ready to be fathers they can be repaired. Much easier than trying similar on the woman.

reply to post by 22ndsecond


If you are doing a long post, it is wise to do so in your word program, then copy and paste it.
That way you will never lose it.

reply to post by OhZone


Thanks, you're right, I'm pretty new to posting on here. I'll do that from now on.

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
reply to post by MindSpin

 

I find it a waste of my time to debate with someone who uses phrases such as "that's all I need to hear" and "I stopped watching at..."
For a "scientific" point of view you sure pick you facts selectively.

So you dismiss all my other points and questions...lol.

If you don't want to answer the tough questions I presented you...fine.

Have a good day.

reply to post by OhZone


I believe (and forgive me if I am wrong) that MindSpin is simply exaggerating how some women may feel about a growing baby inside of their bodies (when referring to an "alien host").
The point is that if any woman ever gets to the point that they feel they are being "enslaved" by their fetus, then perhaps they should not get pregnant at all, ever (and the best way to do this would be to get tubal ligation) (a hysterectomy will have many other effects, namely the reduction of hormonal levels, that would be unnecessary if the only purpose is to prevent pregnancy).
If a woman ever felt that they were being "enslaved" by their fetus, then they may feel the same about being "enslaved" by their children, and this would not be a condition that would encourage good parenthood.
Saying that men would have to get a reversible vasectomy would not necessarily be a surefire way of preventing pregnancy, considering that men (and women) lie. It is not outside of a man's nature to lie to get sex from a woman. Therefore, if the woman wanted to be sure that she would not get pregnant (considering that it will be her body that carries the baby for 9 months or her making the unilateral decision to abort), it would only make logical sense for the woman to opt to receive tubal ligation.
Also, although I know that this is a question of child support rather than abortion, the two are more related than a first glance would suggest. Would you mind answering my question, OhZone? I would just like to hear other's opinions on this matter. I believe I posed the question in page 56 or 57, as my first post. Thank You.

reply to post by OhZone

Likewise this issue should not be forbidden by legislation preventing a woman from having sovereign rights over her own body.
Most doctors will not do Tubal Ligation on young women.
Do you even know what a hysterectomy is? If you are indeed in a medical field you should. Therefore your statement is really out of order.
I think all males should have vasectomies that are reversible. When they are ready to be fathers they can be repaired. Much easier than trying similar on the woman.

She can do whatever she wants to her OWN body. The fetus is a distinct human life that is not part of her OWN body...the DNA is unique.


So you only want men to have to take action...and yet is the women that can get pregnant


And I never said I was "IN" the medical field...I said I work with the medical field...not a medical professional myself.