Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

  1. #46
    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 Ground&Pound View Post
    Spider,
    I still maintain that the fetus / clump of cells stage is scientifically a human life.
    That's a matter of philosophy, not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    What is the jr high definition of an organism?
    Made of cells, does respiration, has a metabolism, has a life span, grows & develops etc.
    The clump of cells meets all of these requirements of a living organism.
    It is an organism with the potential to become a human being. It is not a human being (again, the acorn/oak tree analogy).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    You say an acorn is not an oak tree.
    Yet by law, processing marijuana seeds is a crime. Apparently, the clump of cells in the seed are viewed the same as the adult version of the plant.

    When returning to the US from a foreign country , customs asks if you are bringing any seeds into the country. Again, the clump of cells is considered the same as the adult version.

    And as I said before, destroying a clump of bald eagle cells inside of an egg is certainly illegal..

    So, in the case of plants and animals, a clump of cells is considered a member of the species. However in humans, a clump of cells is just a clump of cells.
    The laws you cite are not because of what those things are, but because of what they have the potential to become. There's a big difference in my opinion, and that is the crux of our disagreement.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  2. #47

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    I understand that it comes down to a matter of opinion of whether or not an embryo should be given the same rights as a fully developed member of its species.

    I'm saying that US laws are hypocritical on this matter.

    If I were an anti-abortion lawyer, I'd try to argue this point.






    How can the law allow the killing of one but not the other?

  3. #48
    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 Ground&Pound View Post
    How can the law allow the killing of one but not the other?

    Because one is not considered to be a human being and the other will become a member of an endangered species (I don't really know the reason, but if it's protected just because it's a national symbol, that's ridiculous).

    Eagle eggs are protected to preserve the species, not because the egg is considered equivalent to an eagle. An anti-abortion stance seeks to protect the fetus because of what it is (a human organism in your words), not what it will become.
    Last edited by Spider; 07-18-2009 at 12:05 PM.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  4. #49

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    So you are saying that the eagle embryo is protected to benefit the entire species, not necessarily because the individual has a right to live?

    I'm leaving home for a few days... I'll think this over.

  5. #50
    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 Ground&Pound View Post
    So you are saying that the eagle embryo is protected to benefit the entire species, not necessarily because the individual has a right to live?

    I'm leaving home for a few days... I'll think this over.
    Exactly! And the marijuana seeds are illegal because they have the potential to become a controlled substance, not because they have any harmful properties on their own.

    Have a good trip.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  6. #51

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    This is what sucks about the abortion debate. So much hinges on a philosophical/spiritual question: when does a fetus become a human being? Until we can answer that question (and I don't know if that will ever be possible) the debate will be fraught with uncertainty.

    I'm reminded of the "House" episode where Dr. House states (paraphrasing) that birth is a nice, simple dividing line that makes things easy legally but makes little difference morally. I also have the uneasy feeling that I've made this same post before on another thread. Oh well.

    PS I read recently that the Bald Eagle was taken of the endangered species list. This has, of course, nothing to do with abortion but it is nice to see an environmental sucess in this day and age/

  7. #52
    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 arm-spin View Post
    This is what sucks about the abortion debate. So much hinges on a philosophical/spiritual question: when does a fetus become a human being? Until we can answer that question (and I don't know if that will ever be possible) the debate will be fraught with uncertainty.
    Yes. As I said earlier, the extremes are obvious to me, but the middle ground is tough. An important factor for me is suffering. I believe in limiting suffering and pain (even though I am a dentist ;-)) and I am a very strong proponent of euthanasia when a situation is hopeless and pain is uncontrollable. If I knew at what point a fetus feels pain and processes it consciously as we do, it might help define that middle area for me.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  8. #53

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Sidebar on euthanasia: I wonder what percentage of people who would like to be euthanized are physically unable to kill themselves? I haven't thought about the issue of euthanasia much, but it seems to me that if someone commits suicide in order to end their own suffering that this prevents other people from committing the morally questionable act of ending a life.

  9. #54
    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 arm-spin View Post
    Sidebar on euthanasia: I wonder what percentage of people who would like to be euthanized are physically unable to kill themselves? I haven't thought about the issue of euthanasia much, but it seems to me that if someone commits suicide in order to end their own suffering that this prevents other people from committing the morally questionable act of ending a life.
    The title of this thread is "Anti-abortion on non-religious grounds." I think that religion is even more the basis of opposition to euthanasia than it is to abortion. You know, the "only God can decide when we should die." [Unless it's war or capitol punishment]

    But to respond to your point, I can think of no worse fate than to want to end your life and be physically unable to do so, and no kinder act than to help such a person.
    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
  •