Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
#76

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 01:27 PM)1Sam15 Wrote:
(01-18-2024, 01:11 PM)SteveII Wrote: Life begins at first breath is an absurd position contrary to all of the science.


Of course the fetus has rights.  The standard argument for abortion, technically, is that those rights are subordinated to the mother's: nearly all jurisdictions in the entire world recognize the end of that subordination at some point way before birth. So in practice, all across the world, for a certain amount of time (or under certain conditions--like the life of the mother), we allow the fetus' rights to be subordinated to the mother's. Then at some point, not. Why (really...answer the question)?

It would seem then that the debate about rights is much more nuanced that you think it is.

Your talk about men is a red herring. The idea that we have to allow the killing of unborn human beings because of pragmatic reasons is hardly a good basis for a morality and the reasoning is clearly a slippery slope to all kinds of other objectionable outcomes: should we kill sick people, dementia patients, just old people, handicapped, special needs?

Does the soul of the aborted fetus go straight to heaven, never having to be judged?


You guys should have made the abortion fear story having the mother and baby being eternally tortured. 

A pathway to heaven with no strings attched is a perfect reason for Xian mothers having more abortions for the babies soul.

@SteveII

Still have me on ignore Steve?
Reply
#77

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 02:06 PM)SteveII Wrote: Upon conception, a new entity with all the information needed to live to a ripe old age, is created. This is the only non-arbitrary point, the point at which a human begins their development, that the new entity should be considered a person and have rights.

This is inaccurate most human embryo are not viable after conception and die. Less than half of all feconded ovuls turn into babies and, sadly some of those babies will not survive more than a few days in agony after being born as they do not have what it takes to live to a ripe old age. That's just completely inaccurate.

Quote:Which brings up what is a human right. Your analogy of a 17 year old and 18 year old is not, well, analogous. The rights we grant an 18 year old are based in civil law and are not the same kind of basic human rights we are talking about (the right to life). A basic human right is different in kind to other rights because they are based solely on the fact that you are a human being. The objection to abortion is an objection to a carve-out of those rights we assume in every other case.

You should read John Locke again or the declaration of human rights. Voting rights are basic human rights as are variety of other political and civil rights like freedom of religion or right to equality. A right to life is not worth more than a right to vote; Locke even justify war and rebellion against a government should it deprive it's population from voting. If denial of right to vote justify violence and death of other humans; it's a fundamental right. The idea of human rights would reject the humanity of a life in which other rights would be denied. It suffice not to live to be human; it requires humanity.

Quote:Personhood is a philosophical question and NOT a scientific one.

Indeed, but like all philosophical question, it can be informed by scientific fact. Sciences cannot make moral pronouncement on it's own like "abortion is wrong" or even "human life is precious". What I can say philosophically is that causing  humans to suffer is wrong and a fetus prior to the 24 week of gestation, having no consciousness of its own, cannot suffer while a woman can suffer from a pregnancy in many horrible ways. Thus, allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy is the path that lessen the most human suffering; prohibiting abortions by force of law is increasing suffering and thus immoral.

Quote:That is very unscientific of you. The scientific trajectory of a human being is well-documented. There is nothing to add to the handful of cells except nourishment and care to get a 90 year old man. Comparing it to another organ is a category error.

The question is should we add care and nourishment? Can we force someone to, at great pain to them, add this nourishment and time. A cell is not a 90 years old man. By the same logic I could say that the only thing seperating a 90 years old man from humus is a couple more decade thus the old man should be considered humus. The transformation of the man in Humus is even more inevitable than a embryo's transformation into a baby let alone a 90 years old person. I somehow think that you would consider absurd the idea of equating a 90 years old man to a cadavre and treat it as such simply because, in due time, without any effort, the old man will be a cadavre. Rights and protections are not granted on the basis of what you will have or might have as traits or capacities, but what you currently display (with some arbitrary distinctions to facilitate the institutionalization and enforcement of those rights and protections)
The following 4 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Mathilda, Deesse23, adey67, pattylt
Reply
#78

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 02:08 PM)SteveII Wrote: It is nonsense that you have to have religious reasons to be pro-life. There are entire pro-life organizations that identify themselves as secularist and believe abortion to be immoral.
There's a long list of immoral things that are not illegal.  Still waiting to hear whether you'll personally strap women to gurneys, sniff out the preggers ones, run down providers, and pay for the whole bit.

I suspect you tend to imagine more victims of this fantasy than just the girl in question in the officer you would demand do all this filthy shit for you, in the taxpayers who would pay.
The following 3 users Like Rhythmcs's post:
  • epronovost, Deesse23, pattylt
Reply
#79

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 02:51 PM)Mathilda Wrote:
(01-17-2024, 08:44 PM)SteveII Wrote: You are not characterizing it correctly. The unborn has rights, they are just subordinated to the mother's for some finite period of time. In fact, in many jurisdictions, a murder of a pregnant women will get you a double murder charge.

Do the unborn have rights?

Do they have equal rights?

I ask because Forced Birthers are also generally less willing to afford equal rights to the foetus once it's born, often because of how it developed in the womb.

Yes, unborn have rights. Abortion in most of the world is limited at some point--recognizing a right to life starting at some point. If the right is recognized at some point then it is quite legitimate to argue why there is an arbitrary point.

Since there is a dependency on the mother for life, one obvious exception to the right to life would be for the life of the mother. So, no, they are not exactly equal.

Regarding your last statement...I suppose you are referring to ensuring the well-being of unwanted babies. That's not a right's issue. That fact that you think this lends weight to the argument indicates that we should allow for pragmatic reasons for killing human beings. That is a very slippery slope when defining a framework of intrinsic rights--don't you think?
Reply
#80

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 02:52 PM)Mathilda Wrote:
(01-17-2024, 08:54 PM)SteveII Wrote: An fetus is a separate human being and comparing it to an organ is a result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda.

If it was a separate human being it could live independently of the mother.

That's defies reason and science. Being a separate human being is an established scientific fact, not a location or dependency question. You are special pleading the connection to make your point when in every other case we consider the baby distinct. As I said before, in many jurisdictions, killing a pregnant women will get you a double-murder charge.
Reply
#81

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
Hey coward, answer the fucking question!
Reply
#82

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
Steve has everyone on ignore with the exception of a few.
Reply
#83

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 02:18 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-17-2024, 11:45 PM)Dānu Wrote: He says while making an arbitrary line where those rights are granted.

Conception is not arbitrary. In fact, it and birth are the only non-arbitrary points.

Of course it's arbitrary. There are a million changes that occur that begin before conception and end at death of an organism. To elevate one of those sets of changes above the others is arbitrary. It's not arbitrary that a specific change occurs at that point as that change is specific. But it is arbitrary to say that the specific change in question is in any way more or less significant than any other. You've been drinking your own kool-aid. It used to be that people thought that the end of puberty was the end of significant changes to an individual. Now that's recognized as just one of many periods in life when development occurs. The reason you think conception and birth are not arbitrary boundaries is because they are easy boundaries to identify. But being easy to identify doesn't have any relationship to significance. That's a form of Moore's naturalistic fallacy. Associating a property that isn't relevant to the question as the relevant property.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 4 users Like Dānu's post:
  • airportkid, epronovost, pattylt, Mathilda
Reply
#84

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 03:48 PM)SteveII Wrote: Being a separate human being is an established scientific fact, not a location or dependency question.

I am curious of that claim. Do you have any authoritative source on that? It seems fairly ridiculous to consider a fetus a separate human being if it cannot be separated from their mother. It's certainly distinct, but "separate" seems the wrong term to describe their situation.
The following 2 users Like epronovost's post:
  • pattylt, Mathilda
Reply
#85

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
Is defying reason and science...bad...or something? Tell me more about the mud man and the rib woman and the dragon and the night of the living dead and the once and future king.
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • 1Sam15
Reply
#86

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 03:06 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(01-18-2024, 02:06 PM)SteveII Wrote: Upon conception, a new entity with all the information needed to live to a ripe old age, is created. This is the only non-arbitrary point, the point at which a human begins their development, that the new entity should be considered a person and have rights.

This is inaccurate most human embryo are not viable after conception and die. Less than half of all feconded ovuls turn into babies and, sadly some of those babies will not survive more than a few days in agony after being born as they do not have what it takes to live to a ripe old age. That's just completely inaccurate.

I said that the new entity had all the information needed in response to the idea that it was the same a kidney. At most, your point gives us another non-arbitrary point to consider: implantation. But that seems to be a distinction without much of a difference when talking about abortion. It would be relevant to a discussion on the morality of creating embryos in the lab.

Quote:
Quote:Which brings up what is a human right. Your analogy of a 17 year old and 18 year old is not, well, analogous. The rights we grant an 18 year old are based in civil law and are not the same kind of basic human rights we are talking about (the right to life). A basic human right is different in kind to other rights because they are based solely on the fact that you are a human being. The objection to abortion is an objection to a carve-out of those rights we assume in every other case.

You should read John Locke again or the declaration of human rights. Voting rights are basic human rights as are variety of other political and civil rights like freedom of religion or right to equality. A right to life is not worth more than a right to vote; Locke even justify war and rebellion against a government should it deprive it's population from voting. If denial of right to vote justify violence and death of other humans; it's a fundamental right. The idea of human rights would reject the humanity of a life in which other rights would be denied. It suffice not to live to be human; it requires humanity.

Then I disagree with Locke. A right to life seems more basic than a right to vote. For example, we take away one of those rights of common convicted felons--so apparently we have ranked them.

Quote:
Quote:Personhood is a philosophical question and NOT a scientific one.

Indeed, but like all philosophical question, it can be informed by scientific fact. Sciences cannot make moral pronouncement on it's own like "abortion is wrong" or even "human life is precious". What I can say philosophically is that causing  humans to suffer is wrong is wrong and a fetus prior to the 24 week of gestation, having no consciousness of its own, cannot suffer while a woman can suffer from a pregnancy in many horrible ways. Thus, allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy is the path that lessen the most human suffering.

I think I have been clear that my view is informed by science. The womb is not a black box anymore. It is interesting that what motivated the pro-life movement more than any single thing was the invention of the sonogram. Once you saw what was happening, you can't hide from it anymore.

I think your suffering argument suffers (ironically) from the fact that it is well-known how pregnancies happen. There is more than just a little agency here. There are two people: 1 that made a choice and the other that did not. Lastly, be careful of the pragmatic arguments like well-being of one of the parties. That is a slippery slope morally.

Quote:
Quote:That is very unscientific of you. The scientific trajectory of a human being is well-documented. There is nothing to add to the handful of cells except nourishment and care to get a 90 year old man. Comparing it to another organ is a category error.

The question is should we add care and nourishment? Can we force someone to, at great pain to them, add this nourishment and time. A cell is not a 90 years old man. By the same logic I could say that the only thing separating a 90 years old man from humus is a couple more decade thus the old man should be considered humus. The transformation of the man in Humus is even more inevitable than a embryo's transformation into a baby.

You enforce care and nourishment in your view too! You think that abortions should be limited after advanced characteristics develop. The third trimester baby still needs care an nourishment to continue to naturally develop. In fact, your view forces the mother though the most traumatic and dangerous part: giving birth. I don't think you realize how arbitrary the line is that you have drawn. The truly consistent view is that a mother should have the right to kill the unborn human being right up until birth. But this is very objectionable to almost all of us across the world. Why really?
Reply
#87

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 04:12 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(01-18-2024, 02:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: Conception is not arbitrary. In fact, it and birth are the only non-arbitrary points.

Of course it's arbitrary.  There are a million changes that occur that begin before conception and end at death of an organism.  To elevate one of those sets of changes above the others is arbitrary.  It's not arbitrary that a specific change occurs at that point as that change is specific.  But it is arbitrary to say that the specific change in question is in any way more or less significant than any other.  You've been drinking your own kool-aid.  It used to be that people thought that the end of puberty was the end of significant changes to an individual.  Now that's recognized as just one of many periods in life when development occurs.  The reason you think conception and birth are not arbitrary boundaries is because they are easy boundaries to identify.  But being easy to identify doesn't have any relationship to significance.  That's a form of Moore's naturalistic fallacy.  Associating a property that isn't relevant to the question as the relevant property.

Then I can solve that by saying conception is the least-arbitrary point when considering a line to confer intrinsic rights. It is the first point at which the entity in question begins to exist separate from its constituent parts.
Reply
#88

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
It's an interesting observation on the inconsistency of many pro-life people that they insist that the coming together of the 23 chromosomes in the egg and the 23 chromosomes in the sperm to create an entity with 46 chromosomes is the defining characteristic of a human being, yet in the case of Kate Cox, the woman who was denied an abortion in Texas, her fetus actually had 47 chromosomes, not 46. Pro-lifers still considered her fetus a human being regardless of the number of chromosomes it had. The argument for chromosomes is little more than an argument of convenience, a branching off of the fallacious inference I pointed out previously as an example of the naturalistic fallacy. It is conception which pro-life people are identifying, and then claiming that some other thing associated with conception is the relevant property when it's not what they actually think.

It's also worth noting that if someone is incarcerated for life as a result of murdering someone, we would not be allowed to take their sperm or eggs and do with them as we wish, not because by having 46 chromosomes they are part of a human being, but rather because of other principles of organization and identity which determine what is or isn't a human being. The question of the number of chromosomes a cell has doesn't seem to matter then. But for the supposed reason that it's the number of chromosomes changing from 23 to 46, that is considered the relevant criteria for identifying humanness in the case of abortion. That's because it's a canard. What really is being identified is conception. Does anyone actually believe that pro-life people would change their position if the number of chromosomes before and after conception were the same? Of course not.

Plausibly, we could create a human being out of almost any cell in the human body (possibly excepting the female's eggs, as the resulting individual would have two Y chromosomes). The sperm's 23 chromosomes could be cloned and combined to create the requisite 46 chromosomes. Given the right conditions, it's plausible that this could be done with any cell in the human body. Yet if this fact is pointed out to a pro-life person, they will just switch from whatever properties they had previously identified as critical to including one or more that excludes this scenario, probably that it's not 'natural' -- which would send the argument down a rabbit hole of what that means and which has no bottom.

It's abundantly clear from the arguments that pro-lifers make that to them, conception is the most important dividing line, and they will adjust their arguments to reach the desired conclusion that this arbitrary choice is in some clearly identifiable way based upon a deeper principle. But it's not. They're just engaged in creating question begging arguments in order to give their views the veneer of scientific, objective, reason.

ETA: And I hadn't read Steve's post immediately prior to this when I wrote this. Here we see the game being played, as Steve simply adopts a set of criteria that aligns with conception. It's just bullshit.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 4 users Like Dānu's post:
  • epronovost, airportkid, Deesse23, Mathilda
Reply
#89

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 05:19 PM)SteveII Wrote: I said that the new entity had all the information needed in response to the idea that it was the same a kidney.

The cell in your kidneys contain a full set of your DNA with all the information to "build" your entire body. We could clone you with a single cell if we truly wished to do so. It's within our capacity right now.

Quote:You should read John Locke again or the declaration of human rights. Voting rights are basic human rights as are variety of other political and civil rights Then I disagree with Locke. A right to life seems more basic than a right to vote. For example, we take away one of those rights of common convicted felons--so apparently we have ranked them.

In my country felons and prisonners do vote. If you don't believe in human rights that's fair, but don't appeal to them whenever they are useful to your design. I would like to note that in the case of felons and prisonners, one could make the argument that their rights were removed from them following a free trial and in response to a crime they have commited. It's not arbitrary. I think that States that prevent felons and prisonners from voting are breaching fundamental rights and are deeply, morally wrong.

Quote:I think I have been clear that my view is informed by science. The womb is not a black box anymore. It is interesting that what motivated the pro-life movement more than any single thing was the invention of the sonogram. Once you saw what was happening, you can't hide from it anymore.

This is inaccurate. Abortion became legal in most democratic countries after the invention of the sonogram and the push for abortion rights is almost simultaneous with the wide use of the sonogram. Historically, this hypothesis is almost demanted. The "pro-life" movement is overwhelmingly animated and motivated by religiously held patriarchal beliefs. Secular and anti-abortion activists are a rarity. Note that one can be opposed to abortion, but not anti-abortion too. Many people who would never have an abortion are fine with other people choosing differently from them too.

Quote:I think your suffering argument suffers (ironically) from the fact that it is well-known how pregnancies happen.

People having sex doesn't mean they want to be pregnant. It's possible, even rather easy, for a fertile man and woman to have sex without it resulting in pregnancy. It would be akin to saying that because you played football you wanted to have a concussion and thus no medical treatment for concussion should be made available to you even if they are within our medical knowledge.

Quote:You enforce care and nourishment in your view too! You think that abortions should be limited after advanced characteristics develop.

Here is the kicker my dear Steve, while it's perfectly legal and free for a woman to have an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy in my country, there are next to no elective abortion and very few medical necessity abortion at that point. The reason is actually quite simple. If you make abortion legal, free and easily accessible to women on demand, they do not wait 6 months to get an abortion. This is simply stupid. The overwhelming majority of elective abortion occur before the end of the 3rd month of pregnancy and the reason why elective late abortion exist is due to lack of services or community pressure against abortions. The procedure is also so much more simple and less invasive prior to the 16th week of pregnancy too. Forbidding elective abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy is thus completely useless. 

I would also like to note that you can safely trigger childbirth at that point since the fetus is viable so you do not need to enfore care and nourishment from the mother either. If she doesn't want to be pregnant and does not want to raise a child, we can interrupt the pregnancy and abandon the baby safely without need for an abortion.
The following 3 users Like epronovost's post:
  • pattylt, Mathilda, Szuchow
Reply
#90

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
I think it's a tragedy every time a woman has to abort her fetus. I think the mothers usually feel the same way. It's awful!

But abortion is a personal choice and oftentimes a choice made for medical reasons or out of desperation. 

It baffles me that not every single anti-choice advocate out there isn't personally investing in medical advances or support to help raise these babies. Maybe if we had 15 million newly minted scientists instead of 15 million highly religious people who devalue science and learning, we might be preventing the conditions that force mothers to need abortions in the first place. 

Maybe instead of 50 million people who rage at women for having to make gut wrenching choices most of them probably don't even want to make, we have 50 million people contributing to ways to support all these babies so they can grow up to be healthy, productive people.
The following 6 users Like Aliza's post:
  • airportkid, Dānu, Deesse23, pattylt, epronovost, Mathilda
Reply
#91

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
Slippery moral slopes, eh? Just how much small government would we have to shove up some girls uterus so that we can drown her in a bathtub?
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#92

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 05:43 PM)epronovost Wrote: [quote="SteveII" pid='415855' dateline='1705598375']
I said that the new entity had all the information needed in response to the idea that it was the same a kidney.

The cell in your kidneys contain a full set of your DNA with all the information to "build" your entire body. We could clone you with a single cell if we truly wished to do so. It's within our capacity right now.
[quote]

 Oh god please NOOOOO !!! One is more than enough.
The whole point of having cake is to eat it Cake_Feast
Reply
#93

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 05:36 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-18-2024, 04:12 PM)Dānu Wrote: Of course it's arbitrary.  There are a million changes that occur that begin before conception and end at death of an organism.  To elevate one of those sets of changes above the others is arbitrary.  It's not arbitrary that a specific change occurs at that point as that change is specific.  But it is arbitrary to say that the specific change in question is in any way more or less significant than any other.  You've been drinking your own kool-aid.  It used to be that people thought that the end of puberty was the end of significant changes to an individual.  Now that's recognized as just one of many periods in life when development occurs.  The reason you think conception and birth are not arbitrary boundaries is because they are easy boundaries to identify.  But being easy to identify doesn't have any relationship to significance.  That's a form of Moore's naturalistic fallacy.  Associating a property that isn't relevant to the question as the relevant property.

Then I can solve that by saying conception is the least-arbitrary point when considering a line to confer intrinsic rights. It is the first point at which the entity in question begins to exist separate from its constituent parts.

What is this "confer intrinsic rights" business? How does one determine whether something does or does not have an intrinsic right? Let me offer you a hypothetical. Suppose all life on earth has been killed, save for one 19-year-old girl / woman. Now suppose that I'm an alien from another planet. Explain to me how I, hypothetically, would determine which rights this entity has, and which of those rights are intrinsic?
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Mathilda
Reply
#94

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
Steve, I assume you are ok with the morning after pill since it stops conception. Conception isn’t a point in time or some line. It’s a process of DNA unwinding and then recombining with another strand of single DNA. This process takes several days and if interrupted, no human exists until it’s been recombined. Of course, the next steps are the travel down the fallopian tube and completing implantation which doesn’t happen almost as often as it does.

I understand your position. I disagree with it. It’s a Christian viewpoint and certainly not Jewish…I don’t know other religions position. Secular pro life orgs are small and actually insignificant. All pro life is based on the unique position of humans and I don’t consider humans as a higher more special life than many other animals that are on the cusp of conscious thought. We really aren’t that special…it’s thousands of years of religious thought that makes us so damn important.

I’m also comfortable with a 24 week limit except for medical reasons…since after 24 weeks it’s only for medical reasons anyway. Oh, I’m sure there’s some rare case where a 26 week pregnant mom ask for an abortion. There’s always that one case….

You consider the right to life to take precedence over the woman’s body autonomy. I think the opposite. Nothing, including some right to life of a fetus takes precedent over my own body.
The following 3 users Like pattylt's post:
  • epronovost, adey67, Mathilda
Reply
#95

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
So tedious. Let's assume that unborn babbies are human beings, and that they have rights, and the rights begin at conception, and what the hell, that abortion is immoral.

All our work is still ahead of us in trying to explain why abortion should be criminalized.

All of our work is behind us in demonstrating how wrong our lost friend was and steve continues to be.
The following 3 users Like Rhythmcs's post:
  • Deesse23, pattylt, epronovost
Reply
#96

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 02:08 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-18-2024, 12:04 AM)mordant Wrote: Yes, in fact I had started to mention that in my post but just couldn't be arsed to go over it all again. My fundagelical brother would just keep repeating every aphorism that proceedeth out of the mouth of Reagan and every GOP asshole subsequent to him. They are all just on auto-play.

It is nonsense that you have to have religious reasons to be pro-life. There are entire pro-life organizations that identify themselves as secularist and believe abortion to be immoral.

Then you know what, Stevie-poo?  Those motherfuckers SHOULD NOT HAVE ABORTIONS.

They should also keep their fucking opinions to themselves unless they want to take responsibility for raising an unwanted child until it is 18.... or 35.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • adey67, Szuchow
Reply
#97

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 06:45 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: So tedious.  Let's assume that unborn babbies are human beings, and that they have rights, and the rights begin at conception, and what the hell, that abortion is immoral.  

All our work is still ahead of us in trying to explain why abortion should be criminalized.

I am still waiting for an answer to what the punishment should be for the crime of abortion. If the fetus is a human being with (all/equal) human rights, then the punishment for intentionally ending this human life should be.......?
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 3 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • adey67, Mathilda, Szuchow
Reply
#98

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
Murder, as reich wing states are making plainly explicit in their culture war scheme. At least they have the courage of their convictions. Steve seems content to bullshit random atheists online.
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#99

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
That's what bullshitters do.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God
(01-18-2024, 03:42 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-18-2024, 02:51 PM)Mathilda Wrote: Do the unborn have rights?

Do they have equal rights?

Yes, unborn have rights. Abortion in most of the world is limited at some point--recognizing a right to life starting at some point. If the right is recognized at some point then it is quite legitimate to argue why there is an arbitrary point.

Since there is a dependency on the mother for life, one obvious exception to the right to life would be for the life of the mother. So, no, they are not exactly equal.

Actually I'm wanting you to acknowledge that it's not about whether the foetus has rights or not and at what point they kick in. But that society, and Forced Birthers in particular, don't afford rights equally. So it's actually a question of who has body autonomy and when. Why should a non sentient foetus have more rights than a mother?



(01-18-2024, 03:42 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-18-2024, 02:51 PM)Mathilda Wrote: I ask because Forced Birthers are also generally less willing to afford equal rights to the foetus once it's born, often because of how it developed in the womb.

Regarding your last statement...I suppose you are referring to ensuring the well-being of unwanted babies. That's not a right's issue. That fact that you think this lends weight to the argument indicates that we should allow for pragmatic reasons for killing human beings. That is a very slippery slope when defining a framework of intrinsic rights--don't you think?

No. That's not what I meant.

Innate characteristics that develop while a foetus, e.g. being a woman or gay, can mean you have fewer rights as an adult. So Forced Birthers also need to explain, what is so special about being a foetus relative to the rest its human life?

As far as I can see it's not a moral argument human rights, but an ideological argument to force the birth rate higher for other reasons (e.g. religious, pro-capitalism, exceptionalism, racist white replacement conspiracy theories etc)
The following 5 users Like Mathilda's post:
  • pattylt, epronovost, Minimalist, Szuchow, Deesse23
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)