Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[ImmortalFlame]

For an example, you want me to pay extra taxes to house convicted murderers for years and years, instead of executing them and reducing the tax burden.

Actually, the cost of death row inmates is significantly higher than regular inmates, and when you factor in legal costs (because cases which seek the death pentalty always require extremely high levels of judicial oversight, review and numerous appeals), the average cost of an individual sentenced to the death pentalty is A LOT more than an individual sentenced to life in prison.

So, your argument actually works in reverse. Why should we pay more money just because you want the state to kill people?

But, even if this were not so, please think carefully about your argument. You are literally saying that you'd rather people were killed, if it saved you a small amount of money.

I wonder what Jesus would have said about that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We both have multiple positions that demand other sacrifice themselves for satisfying our beliefs.

Sure. The difference between us is that when I argue for an imposition on someone else, I don't pretend that it's a self-sacrifice on my part.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

There are many ways to "tackle the issue." The anti-choice movement only seems to be interested in the ones that involve harm, shame, or some aspect of punishment.

It is the pro-choice activists who are only interested in the ways that harm the unborn child, shame those who value human life and want to punish the innocent simply because their existence is an inconvenience.

We need to focus on personal accountability - that answering irresponsibility with even more irresponsibility is not the answer - and that inconvenient (and incontrovertible) science is still science and it matters.

Don't presume to tell me what I mean.

It doesn't matter what you meant - objective reality dictates that only biological women can get pregnant - and when they give birth they are called mothers.

Rather than trying to impose your anti-trans attitudes on me, maybe stop and reflect on just how deep one's misogyny would have to go to for you to take issue with me calling someone you consider to be a woman a person.

That's the thing about "anti-trans attitudes" - the goalpost keeps moving. It always happens with these leftist agendas.

It's a free country - if someone wants to claim that they are members of the opposite sex and want to be treated as such - that's no skin off my teeth - I may even use their preferred pronouns as long as they aren't being a d*ck about it.

That used to be enough.

But now we have the activists who claim that that is not enough - they believe they have the right to compel speech - and I understand that "woke-ism" is a war against objective reality - and the battles are fought with words.

So - no - I reject your attempt to indoctrinate me and others with you use of the term "pregnant person" - and will use woman to refer to person who can become pregnant and then mother when she gives birth (as opposed to "birthing person").

Throughout all human history - biological women were those who got pregnant and gave birth - and biological men are those who impregnated the biological women - that's objective reality.

Nothing has changed in that regard.

It's not hate to point that out- the need for me to do it is ridiculous though.

It is not misogyny to deny your attempts to brainwash others - but I understand that that ad hominem is a "go-to" for activists on the left.

It is objective reality.

And my saying so in no way denies anyone the right to live their lives the way they want - so it is not anti-trans.

Take of your brownshirt - cause you're looking like a Nazi.

I consider the term "person" to include women. If you don't, ask yourself why.

Did your gender studies professor teach you that illogical leap?

Human's ability to get pregnant and give birth is specific to only the one biological sex.

I understand that a question about "mode of transportation" or something like that could lead to many answers - but who among the human race can be impregnated and eventually give birth has only the one answer - women - who then become mothers.

No need to confuse people by saying "mode of transportation" when you could just say "car".

And my saying "car" as opposed to "mode of transportation" doesn't mean that I don't consider a car to be a mode of transportation.

I'm just not intentionally trying to be obtuse in order to advance my political agenda.

Every

pregnant person's life is at risk.

Every person's life is at risk simply for living.

I'm much more likely to be killed by another person than I am to kill myself - so I should be justified in killing other people - to prevent them from killing me.

In many countries, the odds of a woman dying of pregnancy- or childbirth- related causes is higher than the odds of a soldier in wartime dying in the war.

"In many countries" - nice - you know there is no oxygen on the moon - everyone that tries to breathe up there asphyxiates - we should advocate that people starting wearing space suits on Earth to help us prevent that from happening here.

Even in a supposedly first-world country like the US, the maternal mortality rate is 17 deaths for every 100,000 live births... and that rate rises to 42 per 100,000 live births when the pregnant person is black.

So we are dealing with .017% and .042% of live births.

And how were these numbers measured?

Is this like blaming jogging when a fat guy dies? Or blaming cars when you were the one driving drunk?

This is not just a matter of these dramatic scenes where a doctor decides that there's something wrong with the pregnancy and an abortion is medically necessary. Even a "routine" childbirth with no particular warning signs has a non-negligible risk of killing the pregnant person.

We should ban all food because we might accidentally choke on it.

Or at least relabel all foods as "choking hazards" to help us justify why we are peddling this idea to minorities in our efforts to eradicate them.

 

[Valjean]

It is the pro-choice activists who are only interested in the ways that harm the unborn child, shame those who value human life and want to punish the innocent simply because their existence is an inconvenience.

Nobody wishes to harm an unborn child, or even a fœtus. Abortion is a way of preventing a woman and child living lives of poverty and misery, it gives a woman a chance in life.

Unborn child? Is a fœtus a child?
What qualities of human life confer moral consideration? Does a fœtus exhibit these?

Punish? How can one punish a thing unaware of it's punishment? What would the punishment be intended to achieve? Punishing an unconscious thing is like 'punishing' a rock.

You seem to be attributing malevolence to abortion supporters. Stop fooling yourself There is none. Support for abortion is done for benevolent reasons.

We need to focus on personal accountability - that answering irresponsibility with even more irresponsibility is not the answer - and that inconvenient (and incontrovertible) science is still science and it matters.

I'm all for personal responsibility. For example, if a soldier kills civilians, his captain cannot take the sin upon himself, only one person was believed able to do that -- and he was crucified long ago.
The soldier is detested of God and condemned to Hell. His sin is upon himself.

But abortion? Whom does one sin against? A fœtus has no claim to moral consideration. It is not a person.

It doesn't matter what you meant - objective reality dictates that only biological women can get pregnant - and when they give birth they are called mothers.

Not seeing your point -- clarify?

That's the thing about "anti-trans attitudes" - the goalpost keeps moving. It always happens with these leftist agendas.

Isn't a "leftist agenda" identical to the values expounded by Christ? The Beatitudes sound a lot like Hippie values from the '60s.

Throughout all human history - biological women were those who got pregnant and gave birth - and biological men are those who impregnated the biological women - that's objective reality.

Obviously, but again, I'm not following. What's your point?

Nothing has changed in that regard.

Noöne's claiming it has, but, again, I'm not getting your point.

Take of your brownshirt - cause you're looking like a Nazi.

This you'll have to explain. The brownshirts were authoritarian, right-wing thugs. Are you accusing someone of hateful violence?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure. The difference between us is that when I argue for an imposition on someone else, I don't pretend that it's a self-sacrifice on my part.

Another difference I'm looking for common areas of agreement, not the smallest things I can harp on.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, the cost of death row inmates is significantly higher than regular inmates, and when you factor in legal costs (because cases which seek the death pentalty always require extremely high levels of judicial oversight, review and numerous appeals), the average cost of an individual sentenced to the death pentalty is A LOT more than an individual sentenced to life in prison.

So, your argument actually works in reverse. Why should we pay more money just because you want the state to kill people?

But, even if this were not so, please think carefully about your argument. You are literally saying that you'd rather people were killed, if it saved you a small amount of money.

I wonder what Jesus would have said about that?

Executing them (obeying God, reducing the crime rate) and lowering taxes (when God is obeyed, wealth flows).

 

[BilliardsBall]

And a woman can choose not to remain pregnant or give birth.


It is not the child's choice to make. A person who needs an organ to live cannot "choose" to take any organ from any individual in order to do so.


This is a pretty silly argument for very obvious reasons. People don't abort just because they want to kill the child. They abort because they don't want to go through the process of pregnancy and childbirth (or, because they are unprepared or unwilling to raise a child).

Killing an autonomous person whose continued life does not rely on the continuous consent to access of another person's organs and the sacrifice of their bodily autonomy is not the same thing as killing a foetus.

I recommend not taking a chance when you know the baby feels pain (early) has life (immediately), etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Executing them (obeying God, reducing the crime rate) and lowering taxes (when God is obeyed, wealth flows).

More assertions that can't be demonstrated, while ignoring the reality of the point being made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Executing them (obeying God, reducing the crime rate) and lowering taxes (when God is obeyed, wealth flows).

When I was a teenager, the Natural Law party was active in federal politics here. One of the planks in their platform was to get a large group of "yogic flyers" doing their thing in Ottawa. They said that this would create a "barrier of positive energy" around Canada, which would eliminate the need for our military, which would in turn allow them to balance the budget.

I have to say... of all the ways one could do a get-rich-quick scheme involving magical thinking, I sure like "do silly jumping until war is obsolete" much better than "execute people until we win God's favour."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Executing them (obeying God, reducing the crime rate)

Capital punishment has no proven effect on crime rate.

and lowering taxes (when God is obeyed, wealth flows).

Did you even read my post?

I just explained that capital punishment costs taxpayers MORE than life imprisonment. It RAISES taxes, it doesn't lower them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I recommend not taking a chance when you know the baby feels pain (early) has life (immediately), etc.

Not taking WHAT chance?

People in a burning building also have life and feel pain. Does that mean you are justified forcing people to go in and rescue them?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is the pro-choice activists who are only interested in the ways that harm the unborn child, shame those who value human life and want to punish the innocent simply because their existence is an inconvenience.

You have a very bizarre way with words that allows you to construct a record-making number of strawmen in a very short space of time. Let's look at those:

1) Nobody is arguing in favour of "harming unborn children". We are arguing in favour of a person's right to bodily autonomy.

2) We do not "shame those who value human life". We also value human life. What we have is a largely philosophical difference regarding the import of bodily autonomy vs. right to life, the significance and personhood of a foetus, and/or the morality of aborting a foetus vs. forcing people by law to remain pregnant and give birth against their will. Both sides value life, we just disagree on specifics.

3) Nobody wants to "punish the innocent". This is honestly the most bizarre statement you can make with regards to abortion. No person has an abortion to "punish" the unborn child. That is literally no different to saying that refusing to donate your organ to a dying person is "punishing" them. It's just plain silly, and not a reasonable characterization.

4) Pregnancy and childbirth are not simply an "inconvenience", and you must have tremendous contempt for your own mother if that's all you think it was. If I drove into you with my car and injured you to an extent that you found it more difficult to move for several weeks, had to live with extensive scarring, and missed out on several weeks of work, I doubt you'd describe the damage I'd caused as a mere "inconvenience". And pregnancy and childbirth carry significantly more consequences than this - even if the one carrying the child doesn't even decide to raise it, or even if the foetus becomes non-viable late on in the pregnancy and has to be aborted anyway. Pregnancy and childbirth can have a multitude of physical, biological and psychological effects on people, especially on people who do not feel able or ready (for whatever reason) to carry and give birth to (much less raise) a child. I have witnessed the effects of post-partum depression on a person, and I have seen someone kill themselves because of it. Describing all of this as "inconvenience" displays not only a detachment from reality, but a total disregard and contempt for people.

If you want to debate this subject honestly, deal with the moral reality. Don't defer to ridiculous strawmen and emotive rhetoric.

Now, state your case as to why you believe it is moral for the state to force people to remain pregnant and give birth against their will, and why you think it is okay to force people to use their own organs to support the lives of others who use them without consent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

More assertions that can't be demonstrated, while ignoring the reality of the point being made.

It is eminently demonstrable that when a murderer is executed, that person can never kill again. It is likewise demonstrable that not capturing and holding a serial killer usually leads to recidivist killings. If every murderer died instantly upon their first killing, the crime rate would be lowered for murder.

Executions are demonstrably less costly than 9 years or more on the Row.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When I was a teenager, the Natural Law party was active in federal politics here. One of the planks in their platform was to get a large group of "yogic flyers" doing their thing in Ottawa. They said that this would create a "barrier of positive energy" around Canada, which would eliminate the need for our military, which would in turn allow them to balance the budget.

I have to say... of all the ways one could do a get-rich-quick scheme involving magical thinking, I sure like "do silly jumping until war is obsolete" much better than "execute people until we win God's favour."

Of the 613 Bible laws in the Penteteuch, over 200 have direct health benefit and most of the others, obvious indirect benefit.

If every murderer died instantly after their first or only killing, most people--logical people--would feel safer in terms of deterrent and actual murder numbers for mass killings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Capital punishment has no proven effect on crime rate.


Did you even read my post?

I just explained that capital punishment costs taxpayers MORE than life imprisonment. It RAISES taxes, it doesn't lower them.

A murder who is executed will NEVER murder another person. Deterrence is another matter--although in countries where executions are prompt, there are definitely lower crime rates.

If an execution happens promptly, it will cost less than a nine-year stay on the Row, certainly. You are arguing my point for me--that long appeals processes and endless issues make a long stay in prison costly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of the 613 Bible laws in the Penteteuch, over 200 have direct health benefit and most of the others, obvious indirect benefit.

If every murderer died instantly after their first or only killing, most people--logical people--would feel safer in terms of deterrent and actual murder numbers for mass killings.

I'm sure it's all true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not taking WHAT chance?

People in a burning building also have life and feel pain. Does that mean you are justified forcing people to go in and rescue them?

Not taking the chance of killing a living person. For example, people were comfortable (if one can use that word) aborting a baby at X weeks, until preemies in NICUs were viable at X-Y weeks.

It is not justified to force an adult to make a choice where they risk their lives (unless that is a career commitment like first responder or soldier). It IS justified to disallow adults from killing children. I am FOR the choice of abortion for ectopic pregnancies and other situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. I am against "I just don't feel up to it" equals kill it or "Who knows if I can afford this baby" equals can't do adoption.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A murder who is executed will NEVER murder another person. Deterrence is another matter--although in countries where executions are prompt, there are definitely lower crime rates.

If an execution happens promptly, it will cost less than a nine-year stay on the Row, certainly. You are arguing my point for me--that long appeals processes and endless issues make a long stay in prison costly.

The long appeals process helps (imperfectly) to prevent innocent people from being executed for crimes they didn't commit.

FYI: when you take positions like this, it makes it completely obvious that preventing the death of innocent life really isn't your concern, which makes it even harder to believe you when you say that it's what's motivating your position on abortion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A murder who is executed will NEVER murder another person.

Same as a murderer who is locked away for life. So why go to the extra expense of killing them? Are you just THAT bloodthirsty?

Deterrence is another matter--although in countries where executions are prompt, there are definitely lower crime rates.

I would like to see some stats to support this.

If an execution happens promptly, it will cost less than a nine-year stay on the Row, certainly. You are arguing my point for me--that long appeals processes and endless issues make a long stay in prison costly.

It also prevents lots of innocent people being murdered by the state. There are around fifty death row exonerations a year in the USA. Without anl lengthy appeals process in place, a lot of those innocent people would have been killed by the state.

What you are saying right now is that you would rather kill more people, even if it lead to innocent people being killed, if it meant you paid less taxes.

Again, what do you think Jesus would say to that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am against "I just don't feel up to it" equals kill it or "Who knows if I can afford this baby" equals can't do adoption.

You also seem to be against the idea of providing supports so that "I just don't feel up to it" becomes "now I feel like I can have a child" or so that "who knows if I can afford this baby?" becomes "now I can afford this baby."