Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God

[epronovost]

Men? I know more pro-life women than men!  Gallup reports only 55% of women consider themselves pro-choice while 41% consider themselves pro-life. That is not that far off. Men are more evenly split. So who are these men that are telling women what they can and can't decide?

Dude, do you know math? That's a gap of 14%. This is enormous in politics. If it weren't for men the idea of running on a "pro-life" idea would be considered complete political suicide. It's even worst if you add people who think it should be legal under certain circumstances and under any circumstances. That raises the number to 85% of women. Only a tiny minority of rabid women are opposed to abortions and if you look at men it's about the same percentage. The only difference is that men favor much more heavily restrictions on abortion. Very few people think that abortions should be illegal or illegal in most circumstances.

I personally think that these category are fundamentally flawed since "under certain circumstances" could equally mean very restrictive circumstances like only in case of danger to the mother's health and no other reason to the highly discussed, but completely useless restriction like "until the 21st week of gestation or in case of danger to the mother's health".

[SteveII]

 An unborn baby is a member of the human race--scientifically and philosophically.

I disagree. An unborn baby is a oxymoron since a baby is by necessity born; you might as well have an intact ruin at that point. That's the scientific definition of baby. A fetus is a human "in construction" and just like a school in construction is not a school even though there is a plan for it, so it goes for a fetus. You said it yourself, what is valuable in humans is their humanity not their genetic material and their flesh and bones. Fetuses do not possess humanity despite being human because unlike babies they have no consciousness.

You are not correct here. How many millions of times per day are women asked "when is the baby due" or say "the baby is the size of a peach" or "the baby just kicked" or "the baby is pressing on my bladder"?  In a scientific or medical journal, it would be correct to use fetus. Or, to dehumanize the unborn baby. None of those apply to me.

[Minimalist]

And until the "baby" pops out of the hole it remains merely a fetus, idiot.

Leave it to you to make the stupidest possible argument.

Just be honest, Stevie.  Admit that you are a mysogynistic asshole who thinks women are nothing but sperm receptacles for men.  In that you are just like your fucking 'god.'

[no one]

"Thinks" is a tad strong for little stevieboi. We all know it has never had a single original thought. It can recite, quote, and sometimes even mimic an actual thought producing hooman, but its 0.00000002 watt bulb is overwhelmed just breathing.

[SteveII]

I will reply to many of the posts where a discussion was already underway, but I will be sending them to a new thread I created for this topic:

I wrote out a complete argument with many related thoughts that will help clarify my positions.

[SteveII]

deleted

[epronovost]

You are not correct here. How many millions of times per day are women asked "when is the baby due" or say "the baby is the size of a peach" or "the baby just kicked" or "the baby is pressing on my bladder"?  In a scientific or medical journal, it would be correct to use fetus. Or, to dehumanize the unborn baby. None of those apply to me.

"When is the baby due" could imply that whatever it is right now is not a baby else the answer would it's already a baby. Also for the others, it implies that the fetus is actually desired and thus considered as a baby by their parents even though it's not one at the moment. The term "baby" here is used to humanize the fetus a bit like how you will here people referring to their pets as "their child" and them as "parents" even though they know there is a big difference between a pet and a human. I don't think you will find many women who genuinely believe a fetus is basically just like a baby, but inside them instead of outside unless they have terrible sexual and science education that didn't cover human reproduction and development stages properly. A fetus, especially in it's earlier stages of development is not at all like a baby. 

You can absolutely use the term unborn baby to describe someone else's fetus or when discussing fetuses in the abstract (as in a conversation not referring to any specific fetus or pregnant woman), but it does make you sound rather ridiculous in such context. It would be like referring to me as a "dearest child" because my mother still perceives me as her dearest child. That she does it is perfectly sensible; she's my mother after all. But, if you were to do it, it would be rather creepy if not insulting since I am an adult well into my thirties even though it's technically accurate to describe me as the dear child of my mother. In a conversation with an expectant mother, it's certainly advised to humanize the fetus and refer to them as a baby or an "unborn" to share in the enthusiasm and joy of the person. But, this behavior doesn't allow the fetus to transcend it's nature in any way though and this becomes key when discussing abortions. Fetuses are not babies; implying that they are the same would be deluded.   

Of course, from a scientifical point of view, as you noted, the term unborn baby is a contradiction in terms. On this we can perfectly agree.

[Chas]

Well Dave took his playthings and left this site a couple of weeks ago but I hadn't seen that he conflated abortion with denying "the inherent and infinite worth of all human beings". Abortion is just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". One can have very humanistic sentiments and still support abortion as an unfortunate option that we sometimes have to use.

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

You clearly are unclear about the argument, and biology.
\
A clump of cells without a brain or a nervous system is not a human being. It is, in fact, a fetus and has no rights, because it is not a person.
So, if you disagree with that, then it is just a disagreement about definitions.

[Chas]

“The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.“

I agree the unborn are human.  What they are NOT is a person and have no rights until they are born.  If you wish to forbid abortion upon yourself, that’s fine.  Abortions aren’t forced (except by some men when it’s inconvenient for them).  No one has the right to declare that someone else may not have one…no matter how much you dislike their decision.

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.

Any rights you believe exist are subordinate until viability, or at least until there is a brain and nervous system. I don't believe a fetus has any rights until such time.

[Cavebear]

Natural law is a theological construct.  Yes, it’s been used in some court cases but it is defined by religious beliefs.  Some animals are capable of expelling their fetus during famines and droughts…natural law ignores this.  Same with homosexual acts amongst some species of animals.  Again, natural law ignores this, too.  Natural law is basically defined as what my religion considers normal.  I reject natural law as religions define it.

While Christianity may have propelled Natural Law Concepts onto the western world, they are not necessarily Christian.  Natural Law is fundamentally a philosophy about what is considered inherent to human nature and the universal principles that can be discerned through reason. In a secular context, Natural Law is grounded in an understanding of human beings as possessing certain qualities and capacities—such as rationality, sociability, and a tendency towards certain goods (e.g., life, knowledge, and sociability)—which can be objectively observed and do not depend on religious belief for their justification. Secular proponents of Natural Law argue that moral truths are discoverable through the use of reason alone, and thus, the principles derived from it can be applied universally, forming a basis for secular ethics and law.

Wikipedia has a pretty straightforward article.

Choosing their circumstances?  A woman seeking an abortion is rejecting the pregnancy.  Typical male centered logic..”we had unprotected sex thus, she chose to get pregnant”?  Agreeing to sex and agreeing to pregnancy are separate issues now that women have a bit more control over their reproduction ability.  The problem is, it isn’t 100% and men often lie to get sex.

I didn't say they chose to be pregnant. I said their choices were responsible for them being pregnant. That is not the same thing and is relevant to the question of morality in taking the life of another human being who had absolutely no choice in their circumstance. Perhaps you would have an argument if becoming pregnant involved no choices whatsoever.  

I’d like to point out that almost 50% of abortions are on women that already have children.  They obviously didn’t want this one.  My favorite statistic is that Catholics make up ~25% of the population and also about ~25% of abortions…the most pro life religion and yet their women consistently get abortions at the same rate.  These women aren’t accepting their circumstances even though they believe (or are suppose to) that it’s a horrendous sin.

Why are men trying to tell women what they can and can’t do to their bodies?  This should be entirely in a woman’s sphere.  I’d love to have women decide mens autonomy…wouldn’t that be fun!

Men? I know more pro-life women than men!  Gallup reports only 55% of women consider themselves pro-choice while 41% consider themselves pro-life. That is not that far off. Men are more evenly split. So who are these men that are telling women what they can and can't decide?

I think that women should control their own bodies. Deciding to become pregnant, deciding not to, becoming pregnant deliberately or not, choosing to stay pregnant, and chanbging their minds about it (for medical, psychological, or financial reasons). Pregnancy is physically difficult, dangerous, and birth is painful. And some developing babies have no hope of survival.

But there are the men, too. I sometimes read advice columns in the newspaper (weird habit mostly for laughter at "really stupid people"). But some are them are from men who say that they wanted to raise children and the girlfriend said the same before marriage. And then (as a wife) changed her mind. She has a right to, but that is hard on the husband who was expecting to help raise children.

[brewerb]

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.

Any rights you believe exist are subordinate until viability, or at least until there is a brain and nervous system.  I don't believe a fetus has any rights until such time.

I would have stopped at viability but tomato/potato.

[Mathilda]

So, if you disagree with that, then it is just a disagreement about definitions.

It always comes down to a disagreement about definitions because the theist is equivocating.

[Rhythmcs]

@Cavebear

That's what divorce is for..but wouldn't you know it, the forced birthers want to get rid of no fault divorce too. This forms the basis of the forced birth kobayashi maru. If your wife comes home pregnant with another mans mixed race child, and you're legally compelled to deliver and then support the child, what do you do?

(spoiler: attempt to overthrow the government)