Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[ImmortalFlame]

@Wildswanderer

@ImmortalFlame, Wildswanderer is right in this case, the analogy isn't best fitting to the case in discussion.

The analogy I was using wasn't supposed to be directly analageous to abortion. It was supposed to illustrate a scenario in which killing someone can be justified.

 

[Heyo]

The analogy I was using wasn't supposed to be directly analageous to abortion. It was supposed to illustrate a scenario in which killing someone can be justified.

I don't think it got to him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think it got to him.

I'm not sure much will. But, we'll see how your argument does.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Notice how you change the words, to try to soften what is happening. It's not " terminate" it's "kill". And not a guilty human who means you harm, but a helpless baby. There's no worming your way out of this being state sanctioned murder.

 

[Wildswanderer]

@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?

Why would that make any sense when a woman is designed to carry a child inside her? This isn't a punishment. It's a blessing from God. I can hardly believe how people twist one of the most beautiful experiences on the face of the Earth, childbirth.
The only time I would approve of the child being aborted was if the mother was in immediate danger of death. My own mother delivered two children who had severe brain problems. One lived only a few days and the other a month or so. She cared for them, buried them, and then went on to have six healthy children.
But thosands of women kill their babies merely because they don't believe they have time to raise them. The world is upside down.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure much will. But, we'll see how your argument does.

Badly, as you suspected. But I guess he is only a danger to himself at this point. I wont put him on ignore yet but I'll bow out of this discussion. My work is done.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Poll: Atheists Overwhelmingly Oppose the Death Penalty; Most Christians Favor It

Not surprising really.

If you defend a murderer - you are not pro-life. You are pro-murder.

 

[Valjean]

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

So is an ovum. Does a woman abort each month? What confers special consideration on a zygote?
A fœtus is not a baby.

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

I'm not arguing about killing in defense of self or others. That hasn't been a military objective since WWII.
I don't see a fœtus in the same category as a helpless baby.

But we're quibbling over semantics, here.

I think the heart of the dispute is that you seem to base moral consideration solely on species, irrespective of the qualities that species exhibits which might confer a claim to said consideration, whereas I see moral consideration as revolving around self-interest and the qualities that confer such.

Question: What is it about H. sapiens that puts it in a unique moral category? What makes us the paragon of animals?

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.

"Innocent child" again.
"Person" ≠ frog, squirrel or chicken.
DNA → moral consideration.

Support your categories. Define your terms -- Justify your speciesism.

 

[Altfish]

If you defend a murderer - you are not pro-life. You are pro-murder.

When did i defend a murderer?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Notice how you change the words, to try to soften what is happening. It's not " terminate" it's "kill".

Again, this is nonsense. I have repeatedly used the word "kill", and the word "terminate" is hardly a "softer" word.

Please, I have been very open and direct with my language. I am not interested in word games, so don't needlessly accuse me of them.

And not a guilty human who means you harm, but a helpless baby.

The innocence or helplessness of the individual is not a concern when it comes to matters of bodily autonomy.

There's no worming your way out of this being state sanctioned murder.

Again, you seem confused. Nobody here has advocated for the state to decide who should be aborted. We advocate for an individual's right to not be forced to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.

You are the one arguing that the state should have the right to force pregnant people to remain pregnant and give birth against their will. When are you going to justify that?

I have been very clear here. I am super okay with killing babies as long as there is no alternative other than an infrigement upon the wellbeing and bodily autonomy of another. You are not going to convince me of your position by constantly appealing to dead kids. You have to justify why the state should have the right to force people to use their bodies to preserve the lives of others.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why would that make any sense when a woman is designed to carry a child inside her? This isn't a punishment. It's a blessing from God. I can hardly believe how people twist one of the most beautiful experiences on the face of the Earth, childbirth.
The only time I would approve of the child being aborted was if the mother was in immediate danger of death. My own mother delivered two children who had severe brain problems. One lived only a few days and the other a month or so. She cared for them, buried them, and then went on to have six healthy children.
But thosands of women kill their babies merely because they don't believe they have time to raise them. The world is upside down.

You didn't respond to Heyo's hypothetical. I am interested in your response to it as well, so I will repost it here:

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?

I would also add to the hypothetical that they could also carry out the same procedure if a woman is unable to carry a child to term, and eithet the child or mothet would otherwise die. In which case, do you think it would be justified for you to be forced to carry it instead, and should you be punished by law for refusing?

 

[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.

State or individual or Bible--the right to life should trump the right to convenience in most cases.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not pro-life.
So there's one piece of data counter to the OP's claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

State or individual or Bible--the right to life should trump the right to convenience in most cases.

It's not about "convenience", and I find it contemptible when people use that word in relation to the difficulties associated with pregnancy and childbirth. The right to full use of your own body, to remain unscarred, and to not have your body used by another is not "convenience".

 

[Wildswanderer]

Support your categories. Define your terms -- Justify your speciesism.

Do you eat? Then you kill animals and are a speciest, if that's even a word. Doesn't matter if you only eat plants you still cause the death of animals by doing so. So you justify your specieism first.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

When did i defend a murderer?

I did not claim that you did.

However - if you defend a murderer's right to life - you are defending murder.

Anyone who has decided to murder another has forfeited their right to life and should be removed.

The unborn have made no such decisions - they are blameless.

A Christian wanting a murderer to answer for their crimes is not "anti-life" - but "anti-murder".

A person wanting to defend the life of a murderer is not "pro-life" - but "pro-murder".

 

[Altfish]

I did not claim that you did.

However - if you defend a murderer's right to life - you are defending murder.

Anyone who has decided to murder another has forfeited their right to life and should be removed.

The unborn have made no such decisions - they are blameless.

A Christian wanting a murderer to answer for their crimes is not "anti-life" - but "anti-murder".

A person wanting to defend the life of a murderer is not "pro-life" - but "pro-murder".

Rubbish
Are you saying that virtually all of Europe are defending murderers?
I am not saying, let them back on the streets; I'm saying lock them up maybe without parole in some cases.
I do not promote abortion, I just say it has to be left as a option of last resort.
If Christians were promoting sex education, contraception free at source, Planned Parenthood, welfare for single mothers, help for the mothers, I could have some sympathy with your views.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's not about "convenience", and I find it contemptible when people use that word in relation to the difficulties associated with pregnancy and childbirth. The right to full use of your own body, to remain unscarred, and to not have your body used by another is not "convenience".

It is inconvenient to have a scar on one's abdomen.

It is murder to kill a human baby.

What have I missed, still?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is inconvenient to have a scar on one's abdomen.

You think that's all it is?

A baby grows in the womb for nine months, during which times the mother's back, legs, muscles and internal organs are all put under increasing pressure. Their abdomen becomes distended and they have to change the way they walk, and how much walking they can do. They have to stop working for a number of months both to give birth and recover from the procedure. If they have a c-section, they have to live with potentially extensive scarring and internal damage for life. If they do not, their vagina often tears, leading to excruciating pain which is suffered in front of a room of medical staff and other strangers. Beyond that, the impact both physically and psychologically can still linger, with post-partum deprression, stretch marks, muscle waste, etc. The impact of having a child can have a significant impact on a woman's job, her social life and her love life, even if she doesn't have to raise the child.

These things are not an "inconvenience".

It is murder to kill a human baby.

Not while that baby is still a foetus.

What have I missed, still?

The point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did not claim that you did.

However - if you defend a murderer's right to life - you are defending murder.

False.

If you believe it is wrong for the state to execute thieves, would it be fair for me to argue that you are "defending theft"?

This argument is obviously ridiculous. You can believe someone's actions are immoral while still also believing it is wrong for the state to execute them for it.