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
A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Quote:Ugh. You conflate concepts so often. Scientifically, we have a new and separate human. This process is not a mystery. The DNA is unique and that DNA is human. 

Irrelevant a new combination of human DNA doesn't make it a full human being let alone grant it the right to live inside another human being.
The following 1 user Likes SaxonX's post:
  • brewerb
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 05:07 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-11-2024, 05:01 PM)SteveII Wrote: The time has past where I am "pushing" anything. Forget post #61 and the discussion on when life begins (either conception or implantation). I don't care what anyone thinks about that and should not have brought it up.

The claim I was reacting to was that the unborn are not human and some stupid notion that science supports that so that's why this grand narrative of bad motives is true.  The bar to show that that is nonsense is so low that almost any random link will do. The first NIH abstract was sufficient for my low bar and I should have just move on.

And still, you don't address why you're continuing to use the study.  You're just full of excuses.  Everytime I address you, a new one pops out.
Studies that don't even prove the central concept
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 05:01 PM)SteveII Wrote: The time has past where I am "pushing" anything. Forget post #61 and the discussion on when POTENTIAL life begins (either conception or implantation). I don't care what anyone thinks about that and should not have brought it up.

FTFY
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • 1Sam15
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 04:36 PM)SteveII Wrote: Ugh. You conflate concepts so often. Scientifically, we have a new and separate human. This process is not a mystery. The DNA is unique and that DNA is human. You have had the same DNA since day one in your mother's uterus.

Science doesn't address the notion of "separate human beings" in such a way and you should know it. Having a unique strand of human DNA doesn't mean you are a human being. You also have to be a distinct and separate organism for example; that's why clones (should we ever produce a human clone for some reason) and identical twins are two humans and not one despite having the same DNA because they are separate organism. Me and one of my lost cell of organs are not two individuals because one is not a complete organism either. A fetus, especially in it's early stages, is not a complete organism either. Science is rather prudent and silentious on the issue of identity.

Quote:Continuity of Identity

Here's the slight problem with this metaphysical usage. I can do it with something else namely your atoms and claim that you, like me are star dust because the atoms that compose our bodies from it's very beginning to the end were forged in a star and expelled from it at it's death. We are immortal for the atoms that composed our body are functionally immortal. They cannot be destroyed. The problem of continuity of identity is that identity is largely a social construct; we can chose to change how we frame ourselves and forge our identity very easily. Yes you could refer to "you" as an embryo or you could refer to "you" as your mind in which case it would be after your birth or you could refer to "you" as your very material substance as many astronomer are fond to do and in this case you are star dust. Your identity is complex, often fluid and multiple not singular and fixed.
The following 3 users Like epronovost's post:
  • SaxonX, Deesse23, Alan V
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
A fetus is not a separate person as it is totally dependent on the mother to survive, and unique DNA is irrelevant, as technically, cancer has unique DNA and no matter what potential state the fetus may achieve, it is also irrelevant as only it's current state is relevant. The same goes for its DNA. Being human, a clump of human cells is still a clump of cells. Also, the question of life is irrelevant, as there was no point in the process of its creation it was not alive. So nothing Steve has written here refutes anything.
The following 2 users Like SaxonX's post:
  • brewerb, Alan V
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
I think it's possible that evangelicals find the view that life begins at conception appealing because as a matter of psychology, they tend to have low tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Thus the view that things like people or universes or life itself have clean, discrete beginnings appeals to them because it reduces the anxiety which more ambiguous or complex conceptions have. But mereologically, these supposed beginnings are pure artifice. Just as there is no point at which an object becomes this or that, a long prehistory of the materials occurred without which the thing would not be. When does the car on an assembly line become a car, as opposed to a collection of parts? Attaching legs to a four legged chair, how many legs must be attached to consider it a full-fledged chair? Two? Three? Four? These type of questions make the type of people attracted to evangelicalism uncomfortable. So they try to insist that things have discrete stages, rather than being processes or things on a continuum. Thus, a human life has to have a specific point at which it begins, all evidence to the contrary. The universe had to begin at the big bang, and they'll cherry-pick sources all the doo-dah day long who frame it in the way they want. Life must have been created, because a process of evolution with no clear beginning is unthinkable. And species must fall into 'kinds', that human kind must begin at a certain point in history, and all other specimens before that are necessarily something else. And people must be either men or women, and their man-ness or woman-ness must have a clearly identifiable cause. Ideas that sex and sexuality exist on a continuum cannot be tolerated. But what is missing in all this is that these views are chosen by these people -- they don't fall out of nature as natural, objective facts; these views are political, dressed up to appear as facts. They are nothing of the sort.
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 8 users Like Dānu's post:
  • SaxonX, epronovost, pattylt, CapriMark1, Rhythmcs, brewerb, Alan V, mordant
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Quote:Continuity of Identity


Irrelevant. Any future potential state has zero impact on it's current state. A chuck of marble is not a Michelangelo even if it has potential to become one by the merit of being marble. It's not inevitable that fetus become a person if we simply leave it.
The following 1 user Likes SaxonX's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Steve's desperate question to pretend he's not siding with a group of dishonest ideologically motivated loons who simply want to roll the clock back on women's rights by bringing up irrelevant talking points is just sad.
The following 1 user Likes SaxonX's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(06-11-2024, 03:31 PM)SaxonX Wrote: It doesn't he just seems to like posing links to sound informed.

Just stop. The adults are talking.

Hey dick head @SteveII, why does your all knowing godthing force pregnancies on unfit or women who just don’t want a child?

Talk down to me sitting at the kiddy table with your answer, just this once, please.
The following 1 user Likes 1Sam15's post:
  • SaxonX
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 06:18 PM)1Sam15 Wrote:
(06-11-2024, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: Just stop. The adults are talking.

Hey dick head @SteveII, why does your all knowing godthing force pregnancies on unfit or women who just don’t want a child?

Talk down to me sitting at the kiddy table with your answer, just this once, please.

If he has no argument, he seems to resort to condescension. But that doesn't bug me, I'm used to dealing with arrogant people.
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 05:27 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(06-11-2024, 04:36 PM)SteveII Wrote: Ugh. You conflate concepts so often. Scientifically, we have a new and separate human. This process is not a mystery. The DNA is unique and that DNA is human. You have had the same DNA since day one in your mother's uterus.

Science doesn't address the notion of "separate human beings" in such a way and you should know it. Having a unique strand of human DNA doesn't mean you are a human being. You also have to be a distinct and separate organism for example; that's why clones (should we ever produce a human clone for some reason) and identical twins are two humans and not one despite having the same DNA because they are separate organism. Me and one of my lost cell of organs are not two individuals because one is not a complete organism either. A fetus, especially in it's early stages, is not a complete organism either. Science is rather prudent and silentious on the issue of identity.

Quote:Continuity of Identity

Here's the slight problem with this metaphysical usage. I can do it with something else namely your atoms and claim that you, like me are star dust because the atoms that compose our bodies from it's very beginning to the end were forged in a star and expelled from it at it's death. We are immortal for the atoms that composed our body are functionally immortal. They cannot be destroyed. The problem of continuity of identity is that identity is largely a social construct; we can chose to change how we frame ourselves and forge our identity very easily. Yes you could refer to "you" as an embryo or you could refer to "you" as your mind in which case it would be after your birth or you could refer to "you" as your very material substance as many astronomer are fond to do and in this case you are star dust. Your identity is complex, often fluid and multiple not singular and fixed.

I am not redefending my position after already having done so over 800 posts, so what does this have to do with the stupid narrative that pro-life people have various nefarious motives (many having to do with some oppression of women) and they are NOT motivated by simply a good faith belief that we should not kill the unborn? What you are missing entirely here is that I don't have to defend my position to show that that is stupid (technically full of fallacies, bad science, bad philosophy, bad metaphysics and bad assumptions). I can't imagine the train wreck of a syllogism that would be.

Perhaps I should be more explicit in what work my posts are doing and why I post and then resist arguing about them. All I have to do is show a good faith analysis of the facts for pro-life and I win. That's it.

What I refer to as the stupid narrative relies on assumptions about the motives of pro-life individuals. Such an argument is not deductive, as it does not follow strict logical premises leading to a guaranteed conclusion. Instead, it assumes that the negative motives of some individuals can be generalized to the entire pro-life position (a fallacy) that leads to uncertain premises.

If your premises are only possibly true and not definitively true, then you have not shown the pro-life position itself to be immoral. At most it means that only certain bad actors within the pro-life movement may be immoral, which undermines the high moral ground you believe you hold. Really, where is the smug moral superiority in saying "some pro-life people have bad motives, the rest don't."
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Steve, I think all of us are pro life, just not in the way you think matters. You are pro-birth, please get it right.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 4 users Like brewerb's post:
  • SaxonX, Alan V, pattylt, 1Sam15
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 06:57 PM)brewerb Wrote: Steve, I think all of us are pro life, just not in the way you think matters. You are pro-birth, please get it right.
More like forced birth
The following 5 users Like SaxonX's post:
  • brewerb, Alan V, pattylt, 1Sam15, Szuchow
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 06:52 PM)SteveII Wrote: What I refer to as the stupid narrative relies on assumptions about the motives of pro-life individuals. Such an argument is not deductive, as it does not follow strict logical premises leading to a guaranteed conclusion. Instead, it assumes that the negative motives of some individuals can be generalized to the entire pro-life position (a fallacy) that leads to uncertain premises.

I see where you might be mistaken. The argument that "pro-life" people are widely and in majority motivated by misogyny and desire to control women is not a deductive logic argument. It's an argument based on experience and the political motives and affiliation of such "pro-life" people. It's an empirical, not deductive logic argument thus it relies on inductive not deductive reasoning.
The following 3 users Like epronovost's post:
  • SaxonX, pattylt, Minimalist
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 07:14 PM)SaxonX Wrote:
(06-11-2024, 06:57 PM)brewerb Wrote: Steve, I think all of us are pro life, just not in the way you think matters. You are pro-birth, please get it right.
More like forced birth

Maybe. Now I've got 'Brave New World' stuck in my head. Where do you think Steve would fall, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon?
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • SaxonX
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Quote:What I refer to as the stupid narrative relies on assumptions about the motives of pro-life individuals. Such an argument is not deductive, as it does not follow strict logical premises leading to a guaranteed conclusion. Instead, it assumes that the negative motives of some individuals can be generalized to the entire pro-life position (a fallacy) that leads to uncertain premises.

It's deductive via my eyes, ears and ability to use those to observe the behavior of the majority or at the very least top figures within the forced birther movement and there almost universal misogyny (Rabid Anti Feminism), hypocrisy (How many have been caught having secretly having an abortion)   and inconsistency (You'll call it murder but you won't treat it like murder) and even after these things come to light there is almost never a shift away from people who do this. I would say that's deductive.
The following 3 users Like SaxonX's post:
  • pattylt, Szuchow, Deesse23
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 08:28 PM)SaxonX Wrote:
Quote:What I refer to as the stupid narrative relies on assumptions about the motives of pro-life individuals. Such an argument is not deductive, as it does not follow strict logical premises leading to a guaranteed conclusion. Instead, it assumes that the negative motives of some individuals can be generalized to the entire pro-life position (a fallacy) that leads to uncertain premises.

It's deductive via my eyes, ears and ability to use those to observe the behavior of the majority or at the very least top figures within the forced birther movement and there almost universal misogyny (Rabid Anti Feminism), hypocrisy (How many have been caught having secretly having an abortion)   and inconsistency (You'll call it murder but you won't treat it like murder) and even after these things come to light there is almost never a shift away from people who do this. I would say that's deductive.

That's actually inductive. You start from a specific (ex: pro-life people are religious and support the separate sphere ideology) to a general pro-life people are generally motivated by misogyny. Deductive reasoning is going from the general to the particular (ex: pro-life people are sexist thus they are against women having equal access to the same jobs, education and position as men). Note that both of my examples are not necessarily true, they are just example of two different logical processes.
The following 2 users Like epronovost's post:
  • pattylt, SaxonX
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
The antiabortion place the rights of the fetus above the woman.
The pro choice place the rights of the woman above the fetus.

I’m still scratching my head over why the fetus should have more rights than the woman when it’s only potentially a person and the woman is definitely a person. No one is forcing the woman to have an abortion she does not want.

My question is, should the men even be involved in this discussion? Sure, they can have an opinion but should men be allowed to vote on it? Dictate what the woman should or should not do? I feel the same about doctors that choose to perform abortions or not. Why should any non doctor decide whether a doctor does or doesn’t perform abortions? We don’t demand that doctors do or do not perform vasectomies. (I agree that it must be within the scope of the doctors training. I don’t want my ENT performing brain surgery)
The following 4 users Like pattylt's post:
  • SaxonX, brewerb, mordant, Alan V
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Why not? It's a human rights issue, not a girls thing™. Governments love intrusion - but I can think of all kinds of places I don't want uncle sam sticking a nitrile.
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • SaxonX
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 11:51 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: Why not?  It's a human rights issue, not a girls thing™.  Governments love intrusion - but I can think of all kinds of places I don't want uncle sam sticking a nitrile.

I don’t consider it a human rights issue regarding abortions.  It’s a medical issue between a doctor and the woman.  The males aren’t consulted on how to treat breast cancer and the women aren’t consulted regarding prostrate issues.
The following 1 user Likes pattylt's post:
  • brewerb
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 01:35 PM)SteveII Wrote: @The Paladin 's argument is nothing more than a genetic fallacy (a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content).

My point in highlighting the history of conservative support for abortion isn't to invalidate the anti-abortion position (they actually do a fine job of that themselves), its to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the conservative movement.  Conservatives had to be brainwashed into believing it was this terrible, unforgivable thing that has zero tolerance and no exceptions.  This is just part of the overall shift in conservatives over the last 40 years toward more and more extreme social views.  Very soon you'll have regular people believing that contraception is an unforgivable sin as well.  The momentum is already building.
The following 1 user Likes The Paladin's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 05:31 PM)Dānu Wrote: I think it's possible that evangelicals find the view that life begins at conception appealing because as a matter of psychology, they tend to have low tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty.  Thus the view that things like people or universes or life itself have clean, discrete beginnings appeals to them because it reduces the anxiety which more ambiguous or complex conceptions have.  But mereologically, these supposed beginnings are pure artifice.  Just as there is no point at which an object becomes this or that, a long prehistory of the materials occurred without which the thing would not be.  When does the car on an assembly line become a car, as opposed to a collection of parts?  Attaching legs to a four legged chair, how many legs must be attached to consider it a full-fledged chair?  Two? Three?  Four?  These type of questions make the type of people attracted to evangelicalism uncomfortable.  So they try to insist that things have discrete stages, rather than being processes or things on a continuum.  Thus, a human life has to have a specific point at which it begins, all evidence to the contrary.  The universe had to begin at the big bang, and they'll cherry-pick sources all the doo-dah day long who frame it in the way they want.  Life must have been created, because a process of evolution with no clear beginning is unthinkable.  And species must fall into 'kinds', that human kind must begin at a certain point in history, and all other specimens before that are necessarily something else.  And people must be either men or women, and their man-ness or woman-ness must have a clearly identifiable cause.  Ideas that sex and sexuality exist on a continuum cannot be tolerated.  But what is missing in all this is that these views are chosen by these people -- they don't fall out of nature as natural, objective facts; these views are political, dressed up to appear as facts.  They are nothing of the sort.

Thoughtfully thought-provoking. I have two main reactions.

First, why is that limited to evangelicals? I would say that anyone of a conservative mindset (ideological, not political) would tend toward these positions. So it is clear what I am talking about:

Conservativism is adhering to a set of principles and beliefs that prioritize tradition, stability, and continuity within society. Conservatives emphasize the importance of maintaining established institutions, practices, and values. Conservatives are skeptical of progressive ideologies that seek to rapidly transform societal structures or norms. They tend to resist changes that they perceive as undermining traditional values or social order.

A favorite metaphor to illustrate conservativism is Chesterton's Fence, a principle articulated by the writer G.K. Chesterton. It suggests that one should not remove or alter an existing structure or institution without first understanding the reason for its existence. The metaphor comes from a scenario where someone encounters a fence across a road and proposes to remove it. Chesterton argues that before making such a change, one must understand why the fence was put there in the first place. The principle emphasizes the importance of understanding the purpose and function of existing systems and traditions before making changes, cautioning against hasty or uninformed reforms.

You're confusing the two because almost all evangelicals are conservatives. Additionally, many people who are labeled evangelicals (a theologically rich term) are only nominally religious, they are better described as conservatives.

Second (and related) is the idea of teleology. And because it has been pointed out recently that it is hard to keep up with the terminology:

Teleology is the philosophical study of purpose or design in natural phenomena. It comes from the Greek word "telos," meaning "end" or "goal." In a nutshell, teleology is the idea that things have an inherent purpose or end goal toward which they are directed. This concept is often used to explain natural processes, biological functions, and human actions by referring to their intended outcomes or purposes. For example, in biology, the heart's purpose is to pump blood, while in philosophy, teleology might explore the ultimate goals or purposes of human life and the universe.

It is related to conservativism because hundreds of thousands of years of brain formation and worldview thinking has always prioritized teleological observations and are foundational all kinds of categories of things--including institutions like marriage. So conservatives want to conserve it. All the things you mentioned (and many more) have teleological underpinnings:

Abortion: the "purpose or design" of a pregnancy is to bring about the life. Killing it is intuitively wrong unless you develop concepts to rationalize it like attaining "personhood is separate" or "bodily autonomy of the mother".

Transgender: teleologically, the "purpose or design" of genders is fixed and obviously complimentary and to insist otherwise is motivated by something entirely divorced from the natural world (definitionally). Transgender ideology elevates a sense of personal identity, rooted in one's internal feelings, to primacy--so identity becomes a purely self-generated, psychological construct--an inherently unstable foundation. Note the shift: conservative thinkers reject this shift, believing that internal feelings (especially of children) should not be given primacy over biological realities, nor should they exclude other sources of meaning, value, and identity, such as family, community, hobbies, and religion.

Man-ness or Woman-ness: gender roles did not develop in a vacuum. Biology and millennium of hard lives made decisions for people. The institution of marriage was critical to survival and progress. The modern world erased some of the reasons that were important in the past. We are now in a transition phase and there are new problems because we don't keep in mind Chesterton's fence. For example, the ill-effects of divorce or single-parent homes on children--which are by their nature, put future generations into a cycle extremely difficult to escape.

Lastly, don't make the mistake and think these issues are political. They are worldview issues. That's important because you don't solve worldview issue differences the same as you solve political differences.
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(Yesterday, 12:57 PM)SteveII Wrote: Teleology is the philosophical study of purpose or design in natural phenomena. It comes from the Greek word "telos," meaning "end" or "goal." In a nutshell, teleology is the idea that things have an inherent purpose or end goal toward which they are directed. This concept is often used to explain natural processes, biological functions, and human actions by referring to their intended outcomes or purposes. For example, in biology, the heart's purpose is to pump blood, while in philosophy, teleology might explore the ultimate goals or purposes of human life and the universe.

It is related to conservativism because hundreds of thousands of years of brain formation and worldview thinking has always prioritized teleological observations and are foundational all kinds of categories of things--including institutions like marriage. So conservatives want to conserve it. All the things you mentioned (and many more) have teleological underpinnings:

Ignoring the question of whether this is true or pertinent, as what is natural is not always right or good. It's not clear that our tendency to think in terms of teleological terms was designed for the purposes you're using it for. It's entirely possible that teleological thinking is a byproduct of theory of mind, the mental representation of others as having minds with drives, interests, goals, and so on. As such it would be at home predicting why John does X, but more akin to using a screwdriver for a hammer in the domains that you apply it to here. Returning to the question of correctness and utility, this is a bit of the naturalistic fallacy, that because it's natural, it's good. There was an experiment where they tested people's intuitive grasp of physics and it was found that many intuitively applied the Aristotlean principles of physics, which are woefully wrong. So teleology is a hard sell for many reasons, though I understand why you might find appealing to it useful. Additionally, one cannot ignore that, like anything else, people select things that work for them. Thus many Catholics cleave to Thomism less because it is fruitful in the modern sense but rather because it is fruitful for their purposes. So teleology may appeal to conservatives or evangelicals for the same reason that discrete beginnings and endings do, because it is useful in minimizing anxiety and cognitive dissonance. That would be a case of the cart leading the horse, wherein the result is determining the method or framework, rather than the reverse. Thus you'll find appeals to Natural Law at home within some groups, but totally absent in others.

Anyway, evangelicals came to mind, but I'm not singling them out other than that there does appear to be a correlation there. As I said, I think evangelicalism may appeal to a certain sort of person for whom this is descriptively true, not that it's necessarily descriptively true of all evangelicals. It's just a loose generalization. At this point, given that a certain strain of evangelical leadership has intentionally been manipulating evangelicals for their own gain, it's not clear that one can determine cause and effect here.
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:
  • SteveII, Alan V, pattylt, SaxonX
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(06-11-2024, 10:35 PM)pattylt Wrote: The antiabortion place the rights of the fetus above the woman.
The pro choice place the rights of the woman above the fetus.

I’m still scratching my head over why the fetus should have more rights than the woman when it’s only potentially a person and the woman is definitely a person.  No one is forcing the woman to have an abortion she does not want.

My question is, should the men even be involved in this discussion?  Sure, they can have an opinion but should men be allowed to vote on it?  Dictate what the woman should or should not do? I feel the same about doctors that choose to perform abortions or not.  Why should any non doctor decide whether a doctor does or doesn’t perform abortions? We don’t demand that doctors do or do not perform vasectomies. (I agree that it must be within the scope of the doctors training.  I don’t want my ENT performing brain surgery)

Your analysis would be right if it were NOT a moral issue. Pro-life does not see it as a right's issue, which is a political question. The argument is a moral one. Recognizing this is of utmost importance. The analysis is similar to whether it was immoral for the Germans to ignore Hitler's removal and eventual extermination of the Jews? The answer is yes. If one thinks it is immoral to kill unborn humans, it is required that they speak up or they are actually behaving immorally. This is a logical analysis that applies to anything you (or anyone) consider immoral too.

I'll say it another way. A person who thinks this is a rights issue entirely misses the point and all the political or pragmatic arguments you can muster are meaningless, certainly not convincing, and a waste of time.
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(Yesterday, 01:38 PM)SteveII Wrote: Your analysis would be right if it were NOT a moral issue. Pro-life does not see it as a right's issue, which is a political question. The argument is a moral one. Recognizing this is of utmost importance. The analysis is similar to whether it was immoral for the Germans to ignore Hitler's removal and eventual extermination of the Jews? .......

That wasn't a very good analogy as those Jews had rights and they were taken away.  So using your logic, it is a rights issue.
The following 1 user Likes CapriMark1's post:
  • SaxonX
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)