Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[ImmortalFlame]

Taking innocent life for the sake of convenience is murder.

Your right to full use of your own body is not "convenience". If I need to remove your leg because I needed the muscle and tissue from it to save the life of a child, I don't think you'd be arguing that I was justified in stealing your leg to save an innocent life at the cost of the "convenience" of having two legs.

Seriously, people who say that pregnancy and childbirth is just an "inconcenience" have no grip on reality. They would never describe any other major operation that way.

Why do we get angry and disgusted when someone kills their own children? That is their child in there, created by God for them.

It is their body, and they get to decide who gets to use it. You are arguing that it is morally acceptable for the state to decide to force women by law to incubate and give birth to human beings against their will. This is why you constantly have to talk about "convenience", because you are unwilling to acknowledge the reality of what you are actually arguing for. And you have never once disagreed with my assessment that there are SOME cases in which ending an innocent life can be justified, so the only way you can create a special case for pregnancy is by downplaying its effects and calling it a matter of "convenience".

You have had children, so you know for a fact that this argument is nonsense. You know that pregnancy and childbirth is not a mere "inconvenience", so stop pretending it is. Everybody here knows what pregnancy entails.

This really only boils down to one, simple question:

Are you or are you not against the right to use your own body?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I suspect you never really thought about these things, and probably know little or nothing about them.
What's familiar to you seems reasonable. What's unfamiliar seems to be nonsense. These opinions on evolution and animal rights are based on feelings and religious teachings, not facts or knowledge.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about these things. I've had extensive conversations with animal rightists about them.
I know more about animals and thier habits than most, BTW.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The mother is not killing a baby. This is a simplistic assessment..

The baby is alive before being aborted and dead after. Yes it's pretty simple.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How are you defining "murder?" I thought murder was illegal killing.
If it's any killing of a human being, are members of the military murderers?

Killing in self defense or defense of others vs killing a helpless baby? C'mon, get real. The difference is obvious.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Usually I oppose the use of false language as propaganda but in your case it seems the propaganda got to your head and messed up your thinking.
So let me (as a non native speaker) teach you a bit of English.

Embryo: developing multicellular life. In humans the stage of embryo ends at 9 weeks pregnancy and the developing body is called a fetus.
(For the following terms I limit myself to the human variants.)
Fetus: developing human being from about 9th week pregnancy until birth.
Baby: from birth until about age 2
Infant: other word for baby
Child: Young human. Multiple ranges (all beginning at birth) depending on use. For legal consideration from birth until legal adulthood. (18 in most countries.)

You have mixed these up in your posts which led to false conclusions. Going on.

Person: legal term. A human being from birth 'till death. Target of Human Rights.
Murder: legal term. Unlawful, premeditated killing of a person.

Not knowing the common use and legal meaning of above terms has led you to many false conclusion, namely

Note that in the legal definition it doesn't specify "innocent". You are not allowed to kill a guilty person as a citizen. That would be murder.
Note that the legal definition specifies "person". You are allowed to kill animals for food production. That would not be murder.

Now, the legal definition is murky as "unlawful" killing depends on the local laws. In civilized countries killing is only lawful to prevent imminent danger to others. Here a person has the unalienable Human Right to life. In lesser civilized countries the Right to Life is alienable as it can be taken away by a judge and jury, thus making executions lawful killing.

A whole lot of words to justify the murder of an innocent child. A person doesn't begin at birth. He's not a frog or a squirrel or a chicken in the womb. I was me from the moment of conception. My DNA never belonged to any other creature.
You can dance around it all you want, but all your justifications are just nonsense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Seriously, people who say that pregnancy and childbirth is just an "inconcenience" have no grip on reality. They would never

Birth isn't an operation...it's a natural process.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It is their body, and they get to decide who gets to use it. You are arguing that it is morally acceptable for the state to decide to force women by law to incubate and give birth to human beings against their will.

It is their body, and they get to decide who gets to use it.

So I can kill some one for causing me to work hard, in your fantasy world. Because that uses up my body and may even cause me to die prematurely. A woman's body is literally designed to grow and give birth to children. To argue that they can take a life to prevent that from happening is absurd. I guess I would be justified in killing the owner of the store that makes me pay for food because it means I have to work for a living which breaks down my body.
Your justifications are lame.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you believe the state has the right to determine who deserves to die, and the right to force women to give birth against their will.

The rights are undergirded by the scriptures.

Murderers = deserve to die

Babies = deserve to live

Your reversal of these basics is troubling to me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you are not pro life (which was the original question you tried to deflect) because you don't care about the life of the delinquent. You are, at most, pro innocence.

But since you are now the fourth to not see hypocrisy in the different treatment of the cases, I feel better about my different treatment. It seems to come down to a value judgement. We value life and liberty, you value innocence and conformity.

I value liberty for non-felons, say, non-murderers.

I value liberty and life for babies.

You are reversing these two for some reason.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Birth isn't an operation...it's a natural process.

In the vast majority of cases, it's both. Regardless, it's an incredibly painful, costly, impactful and potentially deadly natural process.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So I can kill some one for causing me to work hard, in your fantasy world. Because that uses up my body and may even cause me to die prematurely

No, because that is not an imposition on your bodily autonomy. You are still using YOUR body.

You are really struggling to grasp this concept.

A woman's body is literally designed to grow and give birth to children. To argue that they can take a life to prevent that from happening is absurd.

And yet I bet you would argue that, if I came at you with a knife, it would be absurd for you not to defend yourself, even if it meant killing me. And, for all you know, the damage I could have done to you may have been significantly less than the damage done to a woman's body by pregnancy and childbirth.

What is absurd is to suggest that you have a right to force people by law to use their own body and organs to support the life of another. That is still an argument you have yet to defend.

I guess I would be justified in killing the owner of the store that makes me pay for food because it means I have to work for a living which breaks down my body.
Your justifications are lame.

What's "lame" are you ridiculous non-sequiturs. You clearly don't understand what bodily autonomy means if you think my argument justifies killing shop owners.

Please try harder in future.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The rights are undergirded by the scriptures.

Murderers = deserve to die

Babies = deserve to live

Your reversal of these basics is troubling to me.

It's not about what people deserve (although I'm fairly certain your scripture is very clear about who is allowed to judge whom, and it's not you). It's about what the power of the state should be and where their influence should lie.

I believe the state should not be allowed to violate the bodily autonomy of its citizens, such as by forcing them to remain pregnant or give birth against their will. Hence, I am pro abortion.

I also believe the state has no right to determine who deserves to die, or to operate a system which dictates which individual citizens are deserving of death. Hence, I am anti capital punishment.

So, I guess that means you think the state has the right to force women to give birth and kill the citizens it deems to be worth killing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's not about what people deserve (although I'm fairly certain your scripture is very clear about who is allowed to judge whom, and it's not you). It's about what the power of the state should be and where their influence should lie.

I believe the state should not be allowed to violate the bodily autonomy of its citizens, such as by forcing them to remain pregnant or give birth against their will. Hence, I am pro abortion.

I also believe the state has no right to determine who deserves to die, or to operate a system which dictates which individual citizens are deserving of death. Hence, I am anti capital punishment.

So, I guess that means you think the state has the right to force women to give birth and kill the citizens it deems to be worth killing.

While there is much room for approaching government with libertarian aims, from the standpoint of the Bible, must governments are intrusive. Where the government aligns with biblical justice and mercy, the nation and people flourish.

 

[Heyo]

A whole lot of words to justify the murder of an innocent child. A person doesn't begin at birth. He's not a frog or a squirrel or a chicken in the womb. I was me from the moment of conception. My DNA never belonged to any other creature.
You can dance around it all you want, but all your justifications are just nonsense.

Those aren't my justifications. It's the law.
I get that you don't like it, but ignoring it is just living in a fantasy world (and that attitude will probably land you in jail). It also makes it harder for you to communicate when you aren't talking the language of those who you want to convince. Nothing of what you said would convince someone undecided on the issue. You are preaching to the quire.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Those aren't my justifications. It's the law.
I get that you don't like it, but ignoring it is just living in a fantasy world (and that attitude will probably land you in jail). It also makes it harder for you to communicate when you aren't talking the language of those who you want to convince. Nothing of what you said would convince someone undecided on the issue. You are preaching to the quire.

Which is why the law needs changed. We call the unborn " your baby" when we are talking to an excited expecting mother and call him or her " the fetus" when we are talking to someone that may want to get rid of him. Anyone can see the inconsistency.

 

[Heyo]

I value liberty for non-felons, say, non-murderers.

That is the definition of hypocrisy, applying different measures.

I value liberty and life for babies.

So do I. No different measure by me.

You are reversing these two for some reason.

Let's say we have reverse opinions, that leaves open who is doing the reversing. (I think it's you but that depends on the baseline.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

While there is much room for approaching government with libertarian aims, from the standpoint of the Bible, must governments are intrusive. Where the government aligns with biblical justice and mercy, the nation and people flourish.

This is a bit of a sidestep, but at least you acknowledged my point.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And yet I bet you would argue that, if I came at you with a knife, it would be absurd for you not to defend yourself, even if it meant killing me. And, for all you know, the damage I could have done to you may have been significantly less than the damage done to a woman's body by pregnancy and childbirth.

Ok the analogies just got dumber. Someone deliberately trying to kill me compared to an innocent, helpless baby who can have no such thing as intentions to do anything but live.
Try to stick with the actual topic, not make silly analogies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok the analogies just got dumber. Someone deliberately trying to kill me

Stop right there. I didn't say I was trying to kill you in the analogy. I just said I was coming at you with a knife. I could just be injuring you in some way.

In either case, you would still support the right to defend yourself in such an instance, even possibly with deadly force, correct?

compared to an innocent, helpless baby who can have no such thing as intentions to do anything but live.

Their existence is predicated on the continual consent of the mother to use their own body, and inflict on them tremendous physical damage and strain. A woman should have the right to terminate that child rather than go through that process. It's not about what the child deserves, it's about a choice to protect the body of the mother from going through a process they do not consent to.

You, apparently, don't care either about the wellbeing of the mother or the issue of consent. Once again, it really bares repeating:

You believe it is justified for the state to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.

Try to stick with the actual topic, not make silly analogies.

Try engaging with my actual arguments, rather than posturing.

 

[Heyo]

Stop right there. I didn't say I was trying to kill you in the analogy. I just said I was coming at you with a knife. I could just be injuring you in some way.

@Wildswanderer

@ImmortalFlame, Wildswanderer is right in this case, the analogy isn't best fitting to the case in discussion. May I help with a hypothetical solution: Let's say there is a medical procedure to connect a fetus to the bloodstream of a body and implant it into any body, male or female. (I've read the scrotum is able to stretch as wide as to contain a 9th month fetus.)
@Wildswanderer, would you support a law that forces a man to carry a fetus to term if the woman is unwilling to do so? Do you think such a law would have much support with your fellow male anti abortionists?