Pro-life atheists

[The Valkyrie]

So now you are claiming abortion is ok as long as we remove the fetus and leave it to die on a hosptial table?

A boy is hit by a car and cannot be saved. He will surely die. Is it morally okay to kill that boy and harvest his organs to save another boy? Or does morality demand you don't harm the boy and wait until he dies to harvest the organs?

I am of the mind that you wait until the boy dies and that it would be wrong to kill him even though he will surely die.

If the baby is a threat to the mother, and the only way to countermand that threat is to remove it from the womb, then remove it from the womb and let nature takes it course. Killing it so you don't have to care for it while nature takes its course is barbaric.

Really bad comparison. The boy hit by a car continuing to live is not an immediate threat to the life of someone else.

[Losty]

Heywood why is this so hard to understand?? They needed to get the fetus out immediately to save the mother. There was no time to stand around and wait for her cervix to dilate.

[One Above All]

A copout is avoiding commitment or responsibility. Your position isn't a committed position. You position is an attempt to absolve yourself from the moral culpability of being part of that group which clamors, "yes it is okay to kill that human being".

Now there's a justification. It's completely wrong, but it's a start.
I never said it was right. In fact, I specifically said that, while it was justified, the justification didn't make it right. I am committed to my position. I preserve life as much as I can by helping animals (people included; yes, people are animals). I have rescued people, dogs, and even insects (yes, insects are alive too). In fact, my second highest moral law is to preserve life at all costs. The third is free will, and the first is not relevant to this discussion.
However, to impose my moral code onto others would be, in itself, immoral. Free will/Freedom of choice/Whatever you want to call it, should be our top priority when debating and deciding what others can and can't do. Think about, for example, someone who wants a tattoo. Should they do it? No. It will most likely ruin their chances of ever getting a proper job, if it's somewhere visible. But can they do it? Do they have the freedom to do it? Yes, because it is their choice. You don't get to decide what they do with their bodies.
Pregnant women who want an abortion are similar, but different in that they are affecting a second life form (by ending it) directly, even though it is inside their bodies and technically is a part of their bodies... No, wait... that's just it. It is a part of their bodies. It is, for all intents and purposes, theirs. To oppose abortion is not to be "pro-life". It is to be a "forced birther". Because women and fetuses (especially if the mother doesn't want her child; I'll expand on this after this paragraph) are put in danger before, during, and after labor. This link: http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_mat...llness/en/ tells us of newborn babies who die. This link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth#Prevalence tells us of stillbirths (note the "one every 20 minutes" stat for the USA alone), which are psychologically devastating to the mother. And this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_de...bal_Trends tells us of mothers who die as a result of labor.
If the mother does not want her child, what makes you think giving birth to it will make her love it? She won't give it up for adoption, due to social stigma that forced birthers enforce. She will keep it, mistreat it (since they don't want it) and, eventually, kill it. If she does give it up for adoption, there's still this little disease known as "postpartum depression" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_depression). It can affect women who give birth, regardless of what they do with the baby, and women who miscarriage, and can be fatal to baby (if the mother keeps it) and mother. There's also postpartum psychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_psychosis), which is rarer, but still too common for my liking.

Satisfied?

[Heywood]

A boy is hit by a car and cannot be saved. He will surely die. Is it morally okay to kill that boy and harvest his organs to save another boy? Or does morality demand you don't harm the boy and wait until he dies to harvest the organs?

I am of the mind that you wait until the boy dies and that it would be wrong to kill him even though he will surely die.

If the baby is a threat to the mother, and the only way to countermand that threat is to remove it from the womb, then remove it from the womb and let nature takes it course. Killing it so you don't have to care for it while nature takes its course is barbaric.

Really bad comparison. The boy hit by a car continuing to live is not an immediate threat to the life of someone else.

Its not a comparison, It is an example to show that there is a difference between being killed and dying. It is my position that it is almost always wrong to kill human beings. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[The Valkyrie]

Really bad comparison. The boy hit by a car continuing to live is not an immediate threat to the life of someone else.

Its not a comparison, It is an example to show that there is a difference between being killed and dying. It is my position that it is almost always wrong to kill human beings. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And it's my position that:

1. Your definition of what constitutes a human being is based on your own opinion and not accepted medical fact.
2. A living, breathing person should always be given priority over a fetus - a POTENTIAL human - especially before the age of viability
3. That after viability, removing a fetus that is a danger to its mother and letting "nature take its course" - especially when that course is a slow, agonising death - is itself barbaric.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[Losty]

Really bad comparison. The boy hit by a car continuing to live is not an immediate threat to the life of someone else.

Its not a comparison, It is an example to show that there is a difference between being killed and dying. It is my position that it is almost always wrong to kill human beings. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Maybe because in this situation the woman would have died if the fetus wasn't killed.

If you know that's true, just ignore this response and pretend not to see it. That's what you like to do when you're proven wrong.

[Heywood]

However, to impose my moral code onto others would be, in itself, immoral. Free will/Freedom of choice/Whatever you want to call it, should be our top priority when debating and deciding what others can and can't do. Think about, for example, someone who wants a tattoo. Should they do it? No. It will most likely ruin their chances of ever getting a proper job, if it's somewhere visible. But can they do it? Do they have the freedom to do it? Yes, because it is their choice. You don't get to decide what they do with their bodies.
Pregnant women who want an abortion are similar, but different in that they are affecting a second life form (by ending it) directly, even though it is inside their bodies and technically is a part of their bodies... No, wait... that's just it. It is a part of their bodies. It is, for all intents and purposes, theirs. To oppose abortion is not to be "pro-life". It is to be a "forced birther". Because women and fetuses (especially if the mother doesn't want her child; I'll expand on this after this paragraph) are put in danger before, during, and after labor. This link: http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_mat...llness/en/ tells us of newborn babies who die. This link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth#Prevalence tells us of stillbirths (note the "one every 20 minutes" stat for the USA alone), which are psychologically devastating to the mother. And this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_de...bal_Trends tells us of mothers who die as a result of labor.
If the mother does not want her child, what makes you think giving birth to it will make her love it? She won't give it up for adoption, due to social stigma that forced birthers enforce. She will keep it, mistreat it (since they don't want it) and, eventually, kill it. If she does give it up for adoption, there's still this little disease known as "postpartum depression" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_depression). It can affect women who give birth, regardless of what they do with the baby, and women who miscarriage, and can be fatal to baby (if the mother keeps it) and mother. There's also postpartum psychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_psychosis), which is rarer, but still too common for my liking.

Satisfied?

You're rationalizing your copout.

The position that it is immoral for you to impose your moral code on others is untenable. If others thought it was morally acceptable to shoot gingers, would you not speak out against the shooting of gingers? Of course you would. But if your actions are consistent with your stated beliefs....you would remain silent. You would do nothing to stop them from shooting gingers because to do so would be an act of imposing your morality upon them. You are not pro-life. You are afraid of telling others they are doing wrong.

[Losty]

You're rationalizing your copout.

The position that it is immoral for you to impose your moral code on others is untenable. If others thought it was morally acceptable to shoot gingers, would you not speak out against the shooting of gingers? Of course you would. But if your actions are consistent with your stated beliefs....you would remain silent. You would do nothing to stop them from shooting gingers because to do so would be an act of imposing your morality upon them. You are not pro-life. You are afraid of telling others they are doing wrong.

I would not attempt to stop someone from shooting a ginger if that ginger was living inside their body.

[One Above All]

You're rationalizing your copout.

I take it that's a "no" to the question at the end of my post then.

The position that it is immoral for you to impose your moral code on others is untenable.

Then provide an argument against it. Go ahead. I'll wait.

If others thought it was morally acceptable to shoot gingers, would you not speak out against the shooting of gingers? Of course you would. But if your actions are consistent with your stated beliefs....you would remain silent. You would do nothing to stop them from shooting gingers because to do so would be an act of imposing your morality upon them.

Wrong, because their actions would be taking away the gingers' free will in a manner that could be avoided. The fact that you can't (or won't) understand my position doesn't make it a copout, or untenable, or wrong.

You are not pro-life. You are afraid of telling others they are doing wrong.

I don't post much on this forum, so I'll let that one slide.
I am not afraid of telling others they are "doing wrong". I am telling you, right now, that you are "doing wrong". In fact, that's what I've been doing since I first responded to your response to my post.

I don't see a debunk of my tattoo analogy, nor my logic regarding the fact that fetus and mother are one. Am I to think that you accept those arguments as valid, but don't want to appear "weak" or whatever?

[Heywood]

Its not a comparison, It is an example to show that there is a difference between being killed and dying. It is my position that it is almost always wrong to kill human beings. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And it's my position that:

1. Your definition of what constitutes a human being is based on your own opinion and not accepted medical fact.
2. A living, breathing person should always be given priority over a fetus - a POTENTIAL human - especially before the age of viability
3. That after viability, removing a fetus that is a danger to its mother and letting "nature take its course" - especially when that course is a slow, agonising death - is itself barbaric.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

1. What constitutes a human being is not a medical fact but rather a fact of biology. A zygote is an organism. It is the starting point in the life cycle of every human being. It is a human being. Pretending that fact of nature doesn't exist isn't going to make it go away. Abortion is the act of one human being killing another....usually for reasons of convenience.

2. You do not take this position. You take the position that only the mother has the right to life and that the fetus has no rights whatsoever.

3. To be consistent in this position requires you to advocate euthanizing anyone who is terminal who can't speak for themselves.