Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 7 posts - 196 through 202 (of 202 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #333352

    My personal favorite biological view of ‘life’ is the metabolic view (which is actually rejected less in the scientific community than the genetic view). The metabolic view is that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist…that the sperm and egg cells are units of life just like any other single or multicellular organism. Therefore, neither the joining of the egg and sperm nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life. This means that blowing your load is essentially abortion or as some on this thread might say…..’MURDER!!!!’. I’m a huge advocate of making male masturbation illegal. ;-)

    #333353

    Core_Models wrote >>
    If you took the fertilized egg and placed it on Mars, picked it up in a rover, it would be defined as “life on mars”. It is a biological organism at that point, and I haven’t seen any biologist who would define it differently. You can argue if its a person, life as defined by self sustaining, etc., but by the pure biological definition…its life. Not religious at all.

    There is no such thing as a ‘pure biological definition’ of life. There are many scientific definitions – i’ve illustrated 2 (genetic and metabolic)…there are many, many others.

    #333354

    spookygoddess78 wrote >>

    Core_Models wrote >>
    If you took the fertilized egg and placed it on Mars, picked it up in a rover, it would be defined as “life on mars”. It is a biological organism at that point, and I haven’t seen any biologist who would define it differently. You can argue if its a person, life as defined by self sustaining, etc., but by the pure biological definition…its life. Not religious at all.

    There is no such thing as a ‘pure biological definition’ of life. There are many scientific definitions – i’ve illustrated 2 (genetic and metabolic)…there are many, many others.

    Also, as illustrated by the metabolic view…that egg on mars wouldn’t even have to be fertilized. It would be life if it was just an egg or just a sperm.

    #333355

    wonky posts.

    #333356

    Also, as illustrated by the metabolic view…that egg on mars wouldn’t even have to be fertilized. It would be life if it was just an egg or just a sperm.

    But what would the pope say?

    #333357

    TaraK
    Participant

    Life is everywhere!

    Precious life on Mars …

    #333358

    berdawn
    Member

    Core_Models wrote >>
    Your quote was “Your central point that life begins at conception would be a religious argument. I think the pope uses that one for a lot of things, too.”
    Again…biologists also would consider the biological organism at conception life. Not just the pope. It isn’t a religious argument.

    biologists would also say the egg and the sperm are “life”. religion calls for “saving” some cells and not others.

Viewing 7 posts - 196 through 202 (of 202 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: