Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[BilliardsBall]

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".


Not while that baby is still a foetus.


The point.

" . . . 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 . . . " does not equal BABY HAS DIED DUE TO MURDER.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

" . . . 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 . . . " does not equal BABY HAS DIED DUE TO MURDER.

A person has a right to use of their own body, and nobody can force them to use that body to incubate or support another, even if doing so would save a life.

You need to get over killing babies. Bodily autonomy trumps right to life, every time.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Rubbish
Are you saying that virtually all of Europe are defending murderers?

I don't know the state of Europe - but if they are defending the life of a murderer - whose right to life is now forfeit due to the life they have taken - then they are defending murder.

It would be akin to arguing that a thief should be able to keep what they have stolen - that would be defending theft.

I am not saying, let them back on the streets; I'm saying lock them up maybe without parole in some cases.

So they get free room and board that the families of the victims would be forced to pay for?

As long as murderers live they will be a potential threat to others and the families of the victims will not know peace.

I do not promote abortion, I just say it has to be left as a option of last resort.

Last resort of what?

Because if you are claiming that the pregnancy is a danger to the life of the mother - then we may have some common ground.

Generally speaking - Christians like freedom and to protect the lives and livelihood of the innocent.

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.

I haven't met a Christian who doesn't know what a condom is.

It is possible to preach abstinence and sex only within marriage - and still know what a condom is.

There is no reason that contraception should be free. It is a product. Products cost money. I don't want to pay for other people's contraceptives.

Planned Parenthood is evil. We need to get their dirty money out of politics. I don't want my tax dollars going toward killing babies or indoctrinating our youth.

Christians are all about welfare and helping others - so I don't know why you assume they wouldn't want to help single mothers.

And one of the best ways to help single mothers - and their children - is to put their babies up for adoption - not kill them.

 

[Altfish]

I don't know the state of Europe - but if they are defending the life of a murderer - whose right to life is now forfeit due to the life they have taken - then they are defending murder.

It would be akin to arguing that a thief should be able to keep what they have stolen - that would be defending theft.

So they get free room and board that the families of the victims would be forced to pay for?

As long as murderers live they will be a potential threat to others and the families of the victims will not know peace.

Last resort of what?

Because if you are claiming that the pregnancy is a danger to the life of the mother - then we may have some common ground.

Generally speaking - Christians like freedom and to protect the lives and livelihood of the innocent.

I haven't met a Christian who doesn't know what a condom is.

It is possible to preach abstinence and sex only within marriage - and still know what a condom is.

There is no reason that contraception should be free. It is a product. Products cost money. I don't want to pay for other people's contraceptives.

Planned Parenthood is evil. We need to get their dirty money out of politics. I don't want my tax dollars going toward killing babies or indoctrinating our youth.

Christians are all about welfare and helping others - so I don't know why you assume they wouldn't want to help single mothers.

And one of the best ways to help single mothers - and their children - is to put their babies up for adoption - not kill them.

Unbelievable - you haven't understood a word that I have said.

You have no understanding of punishment. Not murdering a murderer but locking them up for life is an alternative punishment.
You do not understand pregnancy and mental problems that can arise.

I too like freedom.

You know what a condom is!! Great, do you know about the pill, the coil, etc. Do you agree they should be available free of charge?
No, you don't but you want to punish those who don't use them.
"Planned Parenthood is evil" - that says it all. In the UK we call it a Family Planning Clinic, they are highly respected.

Christians are not about welfare - they pretend to be but don't think outside the box.
There would be less single mothers if they could get contraceptives for free.
Notice, there is no talk about single fathers.

Education, you suggest sex only within marriage - welcome to the 18th Century.


Is it any wonder that religion is dying out - join the 21st Century

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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.

Did the thief steal someone's life?

Did the thief steal someone's literal future?

If the State allowed thieves to keep the things that they have stolen - then I would argue that the State was defending theft.

Since murderers take the life and future of their victims - as well as any and all opportunities that the victim's friends and family would have had to interact with the victim - then the murderer should not have life or a future.

If you believe that a murderer should be spared - you are defending murder.

If you believe that a thief should not be allowed to keep the things that they have stolen - then you should not defend the life and future of murderers.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did the thief steal someone's life?

Did the thief steal someone's literal future?

If the State allowed thieves to keep the things that they have stolen - then I would argue that the State was defending theft.

A murder can't give back what they took. Nothing is given back by killing them. Something else is just taken away.

In any case, my argument was with your logic. Do you or do you not understand that opposing the death penalty, even for murderers, is not "defending murder"?

Since murderers take the life and future of their victims - as well as any and all opportunities that the victim's friends and family would have had to interact with the victim - then the murderer should not have life or a future.

This is like arguing that, if somebody stabs you, the best punishment for them is to be stabbed. It makes no sense. It is every bit as effective (and cheaper) to lock them away for life, and that carries significantly less risk of the state killing an innocent person.

If you believe that a murderer should be spared - you are defending murder.

Again, no. No more than you're defending theft by believing thieves shouldn't be executed. It is quite possible to believe that it is wrong to commit murder while also believing it is wrong for the state to determine which of its citizens deserve to be executed.

If you believe that a thief should not be allowed to keep the things that they have stolen - then you should not defend the life and future of murderers.

See above. Thieves aren't punished by being forced to give things back. They serve jail time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A person has a right to use of their own body, and nobody can force them to use that body to incubate or support another, even if doing so would save a life.

You need to get over killing babies. Bodily autonomy trumps right to life, every time.

I'm walking down the street when someone stops me from passing, they want to hand me some literature. I kill them because "Bodily autonomy trumps right to life, every time".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm walking down the street when someone stops me from passing, they want to hand me some literature. I kill them because "Bodily autonomy trumps right to life, every time".

Someone stopping you in the street is not an infringement of your bodily autonomy.

I suggest you look up what "bodily autonomy" means.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Someone stopping you in the street is not an infringement of your bodily autonomy.

I suggest you look up what "bodily autonomy" means.

I'm sorry, but I've held too many precious babies to take even a small chance to terminate a life.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

A murder can't give back what they took.

Irrelevant.

If a thief cannot return exactly what they have stolen - then they should offer an equivalent. Such as money.

The only thing a murderer can offer in the form of restitution is their own life.

Nothing is given back by killing them. Something else is just taken away.

What does anyone gain from forcing the tax payer to pay for the murderer while they are in prison?

All leaving a murderer alive does is drain resources, prevent friends and family of victim peace of mind and make any prison they enter less safe for the other inmates.

No one gains anything.

In any case, my argument was with your logic. Do you or do you not understand that opposing the death penalty, even for murderers, is not "defending murder"?

No - it is.

I also believe that all rapists should either be executed or castrated - and I would argue that anyone who believes otherwise is pro-rape.

Someone who crosses the line - either to murder or rape - will forever be a threat to others and they lose the right to life.

This is like arguing that, if somebody stabs you, the best punishment for them is to be stabbed.

Not at all - because the method of execution is irrelevant.

If I were in an active-stabber situation - I would try my best to run away and get help - as anyone should because no amount of Jason Bourne movies is going to help me overcome that.

If - however - I don't have that option - there is no where to run or there are other potential victims in play - I would do everything in my power to neutralize the threat - even if it meant taking the life of the active-stabber.

If the active-stabber survives the encounter - I would do everything in my power to make sure they are apprehended by the proper authorities.

Then - I would do everything in my power to make sure they are convicted of attempted murder and I would advocate that they be executed.

Attempted murderers are practically no different from murderers - besides being lousy at the whole murder thing - and I believe that they have lost the right to life.

It makes no sense. It is every bit as effective (and cheaper) to lock them away for life, and that carries significantly less risk of the state killing an innocent person.

Nothing is cheaper than a bullet to the head.

Any and all murders would need to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as to which is more effective - being locked away or being executed - I propose a nation-wide experiment where we make it so that any murderer proven to have committed murder on an "odd day" (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday) be sentenced to life in prison and any murderer proven to have committed murder on an "even day" (Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday) be executed.

Which days of the week do you believe most - if not all - of the murders would start taking place?

Execution is cheaper and is a much more effective deterrent.

And the argument about not killing innocents is a good one - but more an argument for reforming our legal system.

Lawyers get away which way too much in this country and if execution is the only way we deal with murderers - I think we will see a huge change in how they operate.

Again, no. No more than you're defending theft by believing thieves shouldn't be executed.

As I told you before - that is not comparable.

I am advocating that the punishment should fit the crime.

Since thieves do not steal lives - their lives should not be taken.

You believing that a murderer should keep their life is no different than believing that a thief should be able to keep what they have stolen.

It is quite possible to believe that it is wrong to commit murder while also believing it is wrong for the state to determine which of its citizens deserve to be executed.

I also do not believe the "State" should make that determination - but rather the facts as presented in a court of law.

See above. Thieves aren't punished by being forced to give things back. They serve jail time.

No - thieves are almost always required to pay back what they have stolen - it's called restitution.

On top of jail time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant.

If a thief cannot return exactly what they have stolen - then they should offer an equivalent. Such as money.

The only thing a murderer can offer in the form of restitution is their own life.

What does anyone gain from forcing the tax payer to pay for the murderer while they are in prison?

All leaving a murderer alive does is drain resources, prevent friends and family of victim peace of mind and make any prison they enter less safe for the other inmates.

No one gains anything.

No - it is.

I also believe that all rapists should either be executed or castrated - and I would argue that anyone who believes otherwise is pro-rape.

Someone who crosses the line - either to murder or rape - will forever be a threat to others and they lose the right to life.

Not at all - because the method of execution is irrelevant.

If I were in an active-stabber situation - I would try my best to run away and get help - as anyone should because no amount of Jason Bourne movies is going to help me overcome that.

If - however - I don't have that option - there is no where to run or there are other potential victims in play - I would do everything in my power to neutralize the threat - even if it meant taking the life of the active-stabber.

If the active-stabber survives the encounter - I would do everything in my power to make sure they are apprehended by the proper authorities.

Then - I would do everything in my power to make sure they are convicted of attempted murder and I would advocate that they be executed.

Attempted murderers are practically no different from murderers - besides being lousy at the whole murder thing - and I believe that they have lost the right to life.

Nothing is cheaper than a bullet to the head.

Any and all murders would need to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as to which is more effective - being locked away or being executed - I propose a nation-wide experiment where we make it so that any murderer proven to have committed murder on an "odd day" (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday) be sentenced to life in prison and any murderer proven to have committed murder on an "even day" (Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday) be executed.

Which days of the week do you believe most - if not all - of the murders would start taking place?

Execution is cheaper and is a much more effective deterrent.

And the argument about not killing innocents is a good one - but more an argument for reforming our legal system.

Lawyers get away which way too much in this country and if execution is the only way we deal with murderers - I think we will see a huge change in how they operate.

As I told you before - that is not comparable.

I am advocating that the punishment should fit the crime.

Since thieves do not steal lives - their lives should not be taken.

You believing that a murderer should keep their life is no different than believing that a thief should be able to keep what they have stolen.

I also do not believe the "State" should make that determination - but rather the facts as presented in a court of law.

No - thieves are almost always required to pay back what they have stolen - it's called restitution.

On top of jail time.

I know too many that have fallen on the wrong side of the law. Very few thieves are required to pay for what they get caught stealing. That only tends to happen in minor cases and is done to avoid prosecution. As to your extreme measures against rapist you should realize that you are apt to allow far more rapists to get off. Most people are not stupid and they realize that for such extreme punishment extremely strong evidence would be needed. Right now there are rape cases where the victim has admitted lying. They are a very small minority but how many innocent men are you willing to punish unjustly?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sorry, but I've held too many precious babies to take even a small chance to terminate a life.

Then don't.

But the fact that you personally wouldn't is not a good excuse to use the law to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will. I, personally, have seen the dramatic benefits of organ donation in turning around and saving the lives of people (including children), but I would never in a million years support a mandate that people should be forced to donate their organs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Irrelevant.

No, its entirely relevant. If you define justice as giving back what is taken, then you cannot justify killing a murderer because that isn't "giving back" anything, it's just taking another thing away.

If a thief cannot return exactly what they have stolen - then they should offer an equivalent. Such as money.

The only thing a murderer can offer in the form of restitution is their own life.

You seem very confused. Do you not understand that ending a life is not actually "offering" anything? Nobody gains anything in recompense. Another life is just lost.

This is not difficult to grasp.

What does anyone gain from forcing the tax payer to pay for the murderer while they are in prison?

Firstly, on average, the death penalty costs taxpayers more.

Secondly, everybody benefits from a government and legal system that cannot force death upon its citizens.

All leaving a murderer alive does is drain resources, prevent friends and family of victim peace of mind and make any prison they enter less safe for the other inmates.

This is just blatantly not true. There are entire organizations set up by the friends and families of murder victims who advoate for the abolition of the death penalty. And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that locking murderers up makes prisons less safe - dangerous inmates have always been seperated from other inmates. It has never been an issue.

No one gains anything.

Except for all the people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. They gain a lot.

No - it is.

Then you're completely unreasonable.

I also believe that all rapists should either be executed or castrated - and I would argue that anyone who believes otherwise is pro-rape.

Then you're even more unreasonable.

Someone who crosses the line - either to murder or rape - will forever be a threat to others and they lose the right to life.

Until you convict the wrong person. Then suddenly "losing the right to life" is no longer a thing. It's just a case of the state deciding you never had a right to begin with.

Not at all - because the method of execution is irrelevant.

That wasn't the point I was making.

If I were in an active-stabber situation - I would try my best to run away and get help - as anyone should because no amount of Jason Bourne movies is going to help me overcome that.

If - however - I don't have that option - there is no where to run or there are other potential victims in play - I would do everything in my power to neutralize the threat - even if it meant taking the life of the active-stabber.

If the active-stabber survives the encounter - I would do everything in my power to make sure they are apprehended by the proper authorities.

Then - I would do everything in my power to make sure they are convicted of attempted murder and I would advocate that they be executed.

Attempted murderers are practically no different from murderers - besides being lousy at the whole murder thing - and I believe that they have lost the right to life.

So, you have gone from "murderers lose their right to life" to "murderers and rapists lose their right to life" to "murderers, rapists and attempted murderers lose their right to life". Do you have any idea of the slippery slope you're on? You no longer have to even demonstrate that a person acually killed people in order to justify a mandate for the state to kill them - you just need to demonstrate an ATTEMPT to end their life.

Imagine the same scenario you just envisioned, only now you successfully defended yourself and apprehended the attacker. The police then arrive and arrest you. Turns out the attacker is from a wealthy family, and they want to charge YOU with attempted murder. Being poor, you can't pay for a decent legal defense and the police don't believe your story. You are sentenced to death for attempted murder.

Justice?

Nothing is cheaper than a bullet to the head.

Except you're forgetting about the appeals process, which necessarily can take decades. If you believe in not killing innocent people, you need a lengthy (and very costly) appeals process in place.

Any and all murders would need to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which is still a flawed system, subject to inaccuracy, exaggeration, circumstance and corruption. Something being DETERMINED in court cannot be considered innately an undeniable fact.

And as to which is more effective - being locked away or being executed - I propose a nation-wide experiment where we make it so that any murderer proven to have committed murder on an "odd day" (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday) be sentenced to life in prison and any murderer proven to have committed murder on an "even day" (Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday) be executed.

Okay, we're just going to end our discussion there.

Sentencing people to death purely because of the DAY they were convicted (just for an "experiment", no less) is utterly and flagrantly repulsive and immoral, and demonstrates that you are not an advocate for justice.

You're just an advocate for murder.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

" . . . 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 . . . " does not equal BABY HAS DIED DUE TO MURDER.

Pretty loose with your use of both "baby" and "murder" there, bub.

Are there any other contexts where you think bodily autonomy doesn't matter? Or are you only willing to disregard this right when it comes to women?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Last resort of what?

Because if you are claiming that the pregnancy is a danger to the life of the mother - then we may have some common ground.

Every pregnancy is a danger to the life of the pregnant person.

When it becomes clear that the only thing that would save the life of a pregnant person is an abortion, it's often too late to save their life.

What these "for the life of the mother" exceptions do is tell a doctor in the middle of a crisis situation that, if they perform an abortion, if a prosecutor can find an expert witness willing to say "*I* could have saved her life without an abortion," the doctor will be charged with a crime.

IOW, you've created a situation where doctors will be motivated *not* to abort even if it is the best - or only - course of action medically.

The whole point of these exceptions is to pay lip-service to some of the very real harms that anti-choice laws cause, so I assume you acknowledge those harms. So if you really do think that the lives of pregnant people are worth protecting, come up with something that actually protects their lives.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Pretty loose with your use of both "baby" and "murder" there, bub.

Are there any other contexts where you think bodily autonomy doesn't matter? Or are you only willing to disregard this right when it comes to women?

If you or I must cut off a hand to save another's life, we should do so.

LOVE is the order here--it comes from the relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then don't.

But the fact that you personally wouldn't is not a good excuse to use the law to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will. I, personally, have seen the dramatic benefits of organ donation in turning around and saving the lives of people (including children), but I would never in a million years support a mandate that people should be forced to donate their organs.

If you can cut off your hand to save my life, would you do it? Say, to prevent me from being crushed by a crane or elevator?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you or I must cut off a hand to save another's life, we should do so.

Against the will of the person losing their hand?

Again: we're talking about a human right. Is there any other context where you would compel someone by force of law to have their bodily autonomy violated, or is your position as misogynistic as it seems?

LOVE is the order here--it comes from the relationship with Jesus Christ.

If you think that denying someone a right we even grant to corpses is in keeping with "love," then you have a very twisted view of what love is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you can cut off your hand to save my life, would you do it? Say, to prevent me from being crushed by a crane or elevator?

For the analogy to work, WE would be cutting off YOUR hand. And we'd be doing it against your will.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you can cut off your hand to save my life, would you do it? Say, to prevent me from being crushed by a crane or elevator?

I'm not sure. I may do.

But whether or not an individual WOULD do such a thing is not really relevant. We may both agree that cutting off your own hand to save another person's life is a very nice thing to do, much like running into a burning building to save someone from a fire, or donating an organ to save someone dying from illness. These are certainly brave and noble things to do.

But that these things are good things to do is not the position you are arguing for. What you have to argue in favour of is FORCING SOMEONE BY LAW into cutting off their own hand in order to save the life of another. You have to argue not only that it is morally good for someone to run into a burning building to save a life, but that they should be PENALIZED BY LAW for NOT running into a building. You are arguing not that simply donating an organ is a good thing, you are arguing that it is morally justified to FORCE PEOPLE to donate organs against their will.

Would you agree with that?