Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 54

Thread: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

  1. #1

    Default Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    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.

  2. #2
    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
    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.
    While I don't completely agree, I find this argument very reasonable (except the egg part). I appreciate that many conservative points of view are viable without a religious basis, and these should be seriously considered and debated by our lawmakers.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    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.
    But, even if that embryo is a human life, it's still a parasite and is dependent on another human being's internal organs to stay alive. I don't believe that the government should be able to require a person to share their organs with another person.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  4. #4
    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 FloggingSully View Post
    I don't believe that the government should be able to require a person to share their organs with another person.
    So should one conjoined twin who shares a heart with another be allowed to kill his brother?
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Not considering rape, that "parasite" was not acquired like the common cold.

    The mother should take some responsibility for human life in which she played a major role in creating.

  6. #6
    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

    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.
    Tissue cultures of heart cells can beat like a heart, but they are not embyos and have no potential for becoming embryos. A heartbeat is not a litmus test for a human being with a right to life.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    So should one conjoined twin who shares a heart with another be allowed to kill his brother?
    Maybe 'share' wasn't the right word, how about 'lend'?

    Neither of the conjoined twins are lending their heart to the other one, it's always been both of theirs.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Ground&Pound View Post
    The mother should take some responsibility for human life in which she played a major role in creating.
    I don't disagree about what she should do, I'm talking about what the government should/shouldn't force her to do.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Anti-abortion on non-relgious grounds

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    Tissue cultures of heart cells can beat like a heart, but they are not embyos and have no potential for becoming embryos. A heartbeat is not a litmus test for a human being with a right to life.
    I realize that I don't speak for the entire scientific community, but in my book a heartbeat = a life.

    Tissue cultures that were manipulated by man to grow in an artificial environment are not the same as a naturally conceived embryo inside of a woman's womb.

    The embryo, without human interference, will in most likelihood become a viable human being. The tissue sample will not.


    As far as I know, marijuana seeds are illegal to possess. They are not marijuana plants, but the contain an embryo of one. In this case embryo = life.

    The same with bald eagle eggs. embryo = life.

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
  •