Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[ImmortalFlame]

Hilarious! I have been present at the birth of each of my children. The impact is invariably outweighed by the rewards. Most women will choose to give birth after seeing thier child on an ultrasound.

That is still their choice to make. Do you also agree that organ donation can be very rewarding, both for the organ donor and recipient? Would you therefore argue in favour of legally forcing people to donate organs?

The saving the mother myth for condoning abortion is a false one, because that's not done at an abortion clinic, and it's not what pro life people want outlawed.

What is done at an abortion clinic is a woman making a choice for her body and organs to not be used by another human being, and for her to not go through a lengthy, painful and impactful process that she doesn't want to go through for an outcome she doesn't want.

You are against that. You want to force people to use their bodies in ways they don't want for the benefit of others. That is what you advocate, not the saving of life. Because, if this were purely just about saving life, you would agree with me stealing your organs.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, I'm serious. What makes humans a special case? Is it only species that confers special rights on hominins? If so why?

Is this a religious thing?

If it is, most religions agree on it.
But if you are steeped in evolution and animal rights nonsense, that's your problem.

But I bet you would eat an animal if hungry enough.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are against that. You want to force people to use their bodies in ways they don't want for the benefit of others. That is what you advocate, not the saving of life. Because, if this were purely just about saving life, you would agree with me stealing your organs.

The two issues don't have anything in common, despite your desperate attempt.

The mother is killing a baby, not merely failing to save a stranger. If I killed a baby in front of you, I hope you would object. If I chose not to donate a kidney, you would probably not want me to be tried for murder.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The two issues don't have anything in common, despite your desperate attempt.

They are entirely related. You cannot force women to give birth without infringing on their right to bodily autonomy. You therefore believe it is justified to contravene people's right to bodily autonomy in order to save a life.

The mother is killing a baby, not merely failing to save a stranger.

That's irrelevant. The baby is a living thing whose existence is an imposition on the bodily autonomy of the mother. If the mother wishes to remove the baby from their body, thus killing it, they have the right to do that because nobody - baby, stranger or otherwise - has the right to the use of their organs other than her.

If I killed a baby in front of you, I hope you would object.

Sure. But what does that have to do with ending a pregnancy?

On the other hand, if the baby was connected to you against your will in such a way that the baby's life depended on you continuing to support it with your organs, and you had to do so for months, I would fully support your decision to kill that baby. Just as I would if it were an adult. Or an old person. Or an animal. Or a family member.

I would also support your decision to remain connected to them. Both are your choice to make. But to argue with your right to determine how to use your own body by forcing you to remain connected is morally absurd.

If I chose not to donate a kidney, you would probably not want me to be tried for murder.

Well, yes. But that's YOUR position. You believe that not willingly donating your organs, and in so doing ending a life, should be criminalized.

If you agree that not donating a kidney is okay, and that forcing someone to donate a kidney is wrong, then your position is not that life outweighs personal convenience and bodily autonomy - it's that women specifically shouldn't have the right to choose how to use their organs, which is a right we even afford to corpses.

You believe women should have less rights than corpses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But I bet you would eat an animal if hungry enough.

You'd probably eat a person, if hungry enough.

 

[Wildswanderer]

On the other hand, if the baby was connected to you against your will in such a way that the baby's life depended on you continuing to support it with your organs, and you had to do so for months, I would fully support your decision to kill that baby. Just as I would if it were an adult. Or an old person. Or an animal. Or a family member.

So I guess there goes grandma! If you have to take care of her and feed her, bang! Bullet to the Head will take care of that!

 

[Wildswanderer]

I would also support your decision to remain connected to them

Dang, I never chose any of my relatives... So if it comes down to having to support and feed them you're okay with me bopping them off?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So I guess there goes grandma! If you have to take care of her and feed her, bang! Bullet to the Head will take care of that!

So you don't understand the difference between looking after someone and someone using your organs?

So, you should be forced to donate your organs. Don't want to? Then, according to you, that is the same as killing your grandma.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dang, I never chose any of my relatives... So if it comes down to having to support and feed them you're okay with me bopping them off?

Misrepresenting me when I have made it painfully clear that the important issue is THEM USING YOUR ORGANS TO LIVE is blatantly dishonest.

Please respond to my actual arguments, not the ones you're making up.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you don't understand the difference between looking after someone and someone using your organs?

So, you should be forced to donate your organs. Don't want to? Then, according to you, that is the same as killing your grandma.

Using your organs? I never met a mother who looked at it that way, even if they had unplanned pregnancies. This is a life. If you can not understand that you are killing a human being, you are deliberately being dense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Using your organs? I never met a mother who looked at it that way, even if they had unplanned pregnancies. This is a life. If you can not understand that you are killing a human being, you are deliberately being dense.

Since I have stated from the start that abortion IS killing a human being, maybe I'm not the one being deliberately dense.

The point is that I believe it is okay to kill a human being if that human being is making an imposition on or threatening your life or bodily autonomy, and that it is morally wrong to force people to donate organs or use their bodies to incubate other humans against their will.

And yes, there are a lot of women - even mothers - who see it that way. Hence the widespread support for abortion rights.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hilarious! I have been present at the birth of each of my children. The impact is invariably outweighed by the rewards. Most women will choose to give birth after seeing thier child on an ultrasound.
The saving the mother myth for condoning abortion is a false one, because that's not done at an abortion clinic, and it's not what pro life people want outlawed.

Despite legislative pressure to defund hospitals that provide abortions, hospitals and generalized women's healthcare clinics preform half of abortions. Including all but the most complicated life saving surgeries. They will do, for example, ectopic pregnancies which is always life threatening.

Abortion clinics get as much traffic due to political bias from state and insurance reasons.

Further, women in abortion banned places have absolutely died from anti abortion pressure because doctors fearing repercussions didn't respond as quickly to emergency situations as they should have.

For me personally all pregnancies are life threatening so I won't be waiting for an ultrasound.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Since I have stated from the start that abortion IS killing a human being, maybe I'm not the one being deliberately dense.

The point is that I believe it is okay to kill a human being if that human being is making an imposition on or threatening your life or bodily autonomy, and that it is morally wrong to force people to donate organs or use their bodies to incubate other humans against their will.

And yes, there are a lot of women - even mothers - who see it that way. Hence the widespread support for abortion rights.

Well, you support murder then.
And most women don't get pregnant against their will. Most know sex can lead to pregnancy, so that argument doesn't work.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, you support murder then.

Is this the best level of argument you can come up with?

Surely you understand that not every instance of one human being consciously ending the life of another human being is murder.

And most women don't get pregnant against their will. Most know sex can lead to pregnancy, so that argument doesn't work.

I have no idea what argument you think I've made, since this is nowhere near to a response to any point I have made. The fact that sex can lead to pregnancy doesn't give you the right to force people to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.

I'll ask you again: respond to the arguments I am actually making, not the arguments you are just imagining.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Surely you understand that not every instance of one human being consciously ending the life of another human being is murder.

Taking innocent life for the sake of convenience is murder. Why do we get angry and disgusted when someone kills their own children? That is their child in there, created by God for them.

 

[Valjean]

If it is, most religions agree on it.
But if you are steeped in evolution and animal rights nonsense, that's your problem.

But I bet you would eat an animal if hungry enough.

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.

 

[Valjean]

The two issues don't have anything in common, despite your desperate attempt.

The mother is killing a baby, not merely failing to save a stranger. If I killed a baby in front of you, I hope you would object. If I chose not to donate a kidney, you would probably not want me to be tried for murder.

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

 

[Valjean]

Using your organs? I never met a mother who looked at it that way, even if they had unplanned pregnancies. This is a life. If you can not understand that you are killing a human being, you are deliberately being dense.

What are your objections to killing a human being, Wildswanderer, or a 'life', for that matter? What makes killing a human being wrong?
Have you really thought about it; about what specific qualities entitle a human to moral consideration but not a bovine?

Do you believe God created the Earth, with its plants and animals, for our benefit?

Wildswanderer said: ↑
Well, you support murder then.
And most women don't get pregnant against their will. Most know sex can lead to pregnancy, so that argument doesn't work.

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?

 

[Heyo]

But we extinguish life every day, and nobody bats an eye.
How is aborting a fœtus different from killing a chicken?

Bad analogy. Aborting a fetus is more like boiling an egg.

 

[Heyo]

Taking innocent life for the sake of convenience is murder. Why do we get angry and disgusted when someone kills their own children? That is their child in there, created by God for them.

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

Taking innocent life for the sake of convenience is murder.

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.