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.
Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by windword
So being unconscious and unaware is now a parameter for deciding death for a life? So can we kill people in their sleep? How about mentally disabled? Severe learning difficulties?
What is the difference? And at what point in your opinion do you find the cut off point for babies then? When do they become conscious and aware?
Oh and what is "viable"? Viable for what?edit on 8-4-2012 by mee30 because: (no reason given)
Plato records that Socrates and Glaucon taught that for the supposed
good of society, women over 40 years old who conceived children must abort the child before
birth or expose it to death after birth:
, Hippocrates advised a girl, believed to be in the sixth day of her pregnancy to abort the seed by leaping so that her heels touch her buttocks. He claimed that after her seventh leap, the seed fell down with a noise:
“It was in the following way that I came to see a six-day-old embryo. A kinswomen of mine owned a very
valuable danseuse, whom she employed as a prostitute. It was important that this girl should not become
pregnant and therefore lose her value. Now this girl had heard the sort of thing women say to each other
– that when a woman is going to conceive, the seed remains inside her and does not fall out. She digested
this information, and kept a watch. One day she noticed that the seed had not come out again. She told
her mistress and the story came to me. When I heard it, I told her to jump up and down, touching her
buttocks with her heels at each leap. After she had done this no more than seven times, there was a noise,
the seed fell out on the ground, and the girl looked at it in great surprise…It was round, and red, and
within the membrane could be seen thick white fibres, surrounded by a thick red serum; while on the
outer surface of the membrane were clots of blood.”
In the above, Hippocrates speaks approvingly of abortion, prostitution and his relative
using a girl as a prostitute to make money.
In his Aphorisms, Hippocrates also advised that abortion can be obtained by bloodletting:
Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by windword
Many people feel very strongly about the issue of abortion, and once they make up their minds they rarely change their opinion. If you are undecided and/or open-minded, check out this page and this site for more information about abortion, including images and a description of medical procedures.
Just try to keep an open mind not for my sake but for your children's sake and your children's children's sake.
Do you want your children having abortions? I know I don't. And if you don't have children think about your family.
Do you want your family members having abortions or would you rather them give up your relative to a family that want's a child.
In my mind this is greed at it's worst.
Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by windword
So I ask you once again (because you still haven't told me)... When is a person, a person? What is a person anyway? I'm a human being...
There are also adult human beings that display the characteristics you're talking about, so should they be killed, if you know they become a burden or something?
I don't care about the debates that have happened throughout the ages or what some book or other says, I care about the debate we're having now!
Again, what is "viable"? And what are we human beings supposed to be viable for? Who decided?
Originally posted by LaborofLove
reply to post by windword
There are two oaths - the really old version and the modern version - refering to the modern version; doctors TODAY take the oath declaring they will preserve life.
I don't believe anything in the koran, so that makes no difference in my life.
en.wikipedia.org...
A widely used modern version of the traditional oath was penned in 1964 by Dr. Louis Lasagna, former Principal of the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences and Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University:[8]
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
I guess your morals and my morals are totally different. Crime against humanity to let a child naturally be born. Your so far from the truth.
An achievement you say. This is why people should oppose womens rights. Because women have a choice, and they are making the wrong one when they kill a living baby inside of them.
WE NEED EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL INCLUDING OUR UNBORN BROTHERS AND SISTERS NOT JUST WOMEN!
Women are tricked into believing what you just said.
It does much more mental and physical harm to a women IMO by terminating there baby rather then them just having it.
Hey maybe not in the short term, But in the long term I can almost say it's 100%.
I do like this debate , we might be getting somewhere as a human race because of it.edit on 8-4-2012 by yoyoyoyo because: (no reason given)