Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 54

Thread: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

  1. #19
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    I tend to lean anti-abortion, however religion has nothing to do with it.

    I think that scientifically, an embryo with its own unique set of DNA is a human life. I most certainly think that a fetus with a beating heart is a human being.

    Destroying either, in my scientific opinion, would constitute ending a human life.

    It is against the law to shot a bald eagle and it is also illegal to steal bald eagle eggs from a nest.

    However, I make exceptions for rape, incest, and if the mother?s life is in danger.
    I suspect this has been brought up several times but...... basically you are okay with ending human life if rape and incest are involved. I can see the rationale for a "life for a life" if mom is in danger - those "who lives" decisions are made all the time. But the rape and incest? If one is pro-life or anti-abortion.... how do you rationalize that argument? They get a death sentence because they were conceived by rape or incest? How does that work?
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  2. #20
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    I suspect this has been brought up several times but...... basically you are okay with ending human life if rape and incest are involved. I can see the rationale for a "life for a life" if mom is in danger - those "who lives" decisions are made all the time. But the rape and incest? If one is pro-life or anti-abortion.... how do you rationalize that argument? They get a death sentence because they were conceived by rape or incest? How does that work?

    i agree with abortion in the case of rape or incest. One because of the mental stress that rape has on a person is multiplied by the knowledge they are carrying their rapist child. This could be not only harmful to the mother during pregnancy but it could also lead to suicide or murder suicide after the child is born. There is no way to predict how the mother will react to the child. Second a rape victim did not ask for the child. She did not oblige any sexual contact therefore she is not responsible for the outcome of the situation. A women should not be forced to fulfill an obligation she did not ask for. Then you have the possibility that the rapist had some diseases or was a drug addict.

    In the case of incest, I will assume it was not fully consensual sex wither. I am assuming that the female was manipulated by an authority figure and essentially raped. Along with that the fact that incest causes birth defects and mental issues.

  3. #21
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    i agree with abortion in the case of rape or incest. One because of the mental stress that rape has on a person is multiplied by the knowledge they are carrying their rapist child. This could be not only harmful to the mother during pregnancy but it could also lead to suicide or murder suicide after the child is born. There is no way to predict how the mother will react to the child. Second a rape victim did not ask for the child. She did not oblige any sexual contact therefore she is not responsible for the outcome of the situation. A women should not be forced to fulfill an obligation she did not ask for. Then you have the possibility that the rapist had some diseases or was a drug addict.

    In the case of incest, I will assume it was not fully consensual sex wither. I am assuming that the female was manipulated by an authority figure and essentially raped. Along with that the fact that incest causes birth defects and mental issues.
    It's still a life under the definition that people who are pro-life use. All the exceptions do is set the bar higher than I would as a pro-choice person.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  4. #22

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Well put by Ulgy. I agree.

    Sully,
    It would take more time than I have to counter all of your points. Most of them I already addressed.

    Let's focus on this one...
    you wrote
    "You should be able to physically remove a fetus/embryo/baby from the mother at any point. If the fetus/embryo/baby can live detached from the mother then it shouldn't be killed, if it can't then it can't."

    As medicine advances, the survival rate of premature babies is going up and up. Most likely, technology will advance to the point where the premature survival threshold goes beyond the age of legal abortion as is exists today. Then what? Are you suggesting any baby that can't check itself out of NICU can be left to die?

    And one more thought... do you realize that when you call a fetus a parasite that you are admitting that it is a living organism? What genus and species do these parasites belong? Answer: Homo sapiens

  5. #23
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    Well put by Ulgy. I agree.

    Sully,
    It would take more time than I have to counter all of your points. Most of them I already addressed.

    Let's focus on this one...
    you wrote
    "You should be able to physically remove a fetus/embryo/baby from the mother at any point. If the fetus/embryo/baby can live detached from the mother then it shouldn't be killed, if it can't then it can't."

    As medicine advances, the survival rate of premature babies is going up and up. Most likely, technology will advance to the point where the premature survival threshold goes beyond the age of legal abortion as is exists today. Then what? Are you suggesting any baby that can't check itself out of NICU can be left to die?

    And on more thought... do you realize that when you call a fetus a parasite that you are admitting that it is a living organism? What genus and species do these parasites belong? Answer: Homo sapiens
    Samething I posted to Ugly.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  6. #24
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Sgallan makes a good point which has not yet been answered. If a fetus is considered a human being with the right to life, why would it ever be okay to destroy it - rape, incest or whatever?

    Viability outside the womb is meaningless and only clouds the issue. To me, the issue of abortion is very simple, yet very difficult. A fertilized ovum moments after conception is no more than a clump of dividing cells. It is as much a person as an acorn is an oak tree, and I would have no qualms about destroying it mechanically or chemically. A fetus in the ninth month is indistinguishable from a newborn infant and has the right to protection under the law. Where along this development continuum does the clump of cells become a person? That's the difficult part.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  7. #25

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    As medicine advances, the survival rate of premature babies is going up and up. Most likely, technology will advance to the point where the premature survival threshold goes beyond the age of legal abortion as is exists today. Then what? Are you suggesting any baby that can't check itself out of NICU can be left to die?
    If a fetus/embryo/baby can survive outside the womb (with any amount of medical intervention) then by all means, take the fetus/embryo/baby out of the mother and keep it alive.

    My points is that the fetus/embryo/baby might have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use another person's organs without the concent of that person (the same way I don't have a right to use your kidneys).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    And one more thought... do you realize that when you call a fetus a parasite that you are admitting that it is a living organism? What genus and species do these parasites belong? Answer: Homo sapiens
    No arguement here.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  8. #26
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    Sgallan makes a good point which has not yet been answered. If a fetus is considered a human being with the right to life, why would it ever be okay to destroy it - rape, incest or whatever?

    Viability outside the womb is meaningless and only clouds the issue. To me, the issue of abortion is very simple, yet very difficult. A fertilized ovum moments after conception is no more than a clump of dividing cells. It is as much a person as an acorn is an oak tree, and I would have no qualms about destroying it mechanically or chemically. A fetus in the ninth month is indistinguishable from a newborn infant and has the right to protection under the law. Where along this development continuum does the clump of cells become a person? That's the difficult part.

    How do you feel about a person being charged with double homicide when a fetus is involved?

    Clearly there have got to be allowances IMO. As I have stated before abortion as a form of birth control is wrong.

    I dont have all the answers just an opinion because there is no answer one way or the other that is appealing to everyone.

  9. #27
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    How do you feel about a person being charged with double homicide when a fetus is involved?

    Clearly there have got to be allowances IMO. As I have stated before abortion as a form of birth control is wrong.

    I dont have all the answers just an opinion because there is no answer one way or the other that is appealing to everyone.
    If a fetus has reached the point in development where it is considered a human being (and I don't know where that is), then causing its death is homicide. I think abortion as a routine form of birth control is irresponsible, but I think it is better than having to carry an unwanted child to term. I have absolutely no problem with something like the morning after pill, however, because in my opinion, the cells being destroyed are a long way from being a human being with a right to life.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •