On 8/27/15 1:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/27/2015 9:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.



I am not questioning the right of a woman to abort an unwanted
pregnancy. I *am* questioning the conventional wisdom as to when "life"
begins. We've used a scientific/medical definition for many years that
takes the edge off the idea that a life is being taken.
The scientific/medical opinion is changing, although the legal has not.

Personally, I am pro-life but can understand circumstances that dictate
an abortion. I am completely against abortions "for convenience".


Remember, every sperm is sacred.