This is from Christianity Today, just pointing that there are Pro-Life Atheists for purely Scientific Moral Reasons: "Monica Snyder gave up her childhood faith. But she never stopped being pro-life. She opposes abortion for different reasons than her Catholic parents. Snyder doesn’t believe fetuses are made in the image of God. She doesn’t think they have eternal souls. Though her arguments differ, as an atheist with a master’s degree in forensic science from the University of California, Davis, her conclusions are the same: Human life begins with the zygote, and abortion is almost always wrong."

Bucky, there are 4 major ideologies in the world as a whole: (1) Christianity, (2) Islam, (3) Hinduism, and (4) Atheism. The views of Pro-Life Christians on the Abortion issue, clearly stated in the Didache, as the Lord's Teaching to the heathen through His 12 Apostles, and which guided Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, for nearly 2000 years, until the 1970s, are too well known to bear repeating. Let's come to Hinduism next. Wiki says this: "Some Hindu scriptures assert that "abortion is a worse sin than killing one's parents"; Islam has some slight differences, but it is similar: "In Shia Islam, abortion is "forbidden after implantation of the fertilised ovum." Together, the first 3 ideologies represent roughly 75% of the world's population.

And, ever hear the saying, "Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead/Departed". I believe you're a former Catholic yourself (correct me if I'm wrong) based on some things you've said elsewhere, so you'd understand why that is. We are talking of a Near-Universal Moral Consensus that Abortion was wrong in major different civilizations, from America and Europe to the Middle East to India to elsewhere - before the rise of Communism, Atheism and modern pro-choicers. So, in light of that, while it's true that, in the last 50 years, there have been and are many pro-choicers today, in light of the historical consensus, in light of the fact that there are now strong pro-life movements everywhere, including among the young, that may not mean very much, and quite soon. We will see how things go: and btw, another point is worth noting - nations that promote more or less unlimited abortion generally have poor demographics, low fertility rates, and so the future of abortionist ideology is not good for that reason also.

Yes, we are aware there are different people today, with influence first from Marxist, and now liberal Western culture, who interpret traditional moral and religious teaching in a liberal way; but we will see how things turn as more and more people understand all of cultural, moral, religious and scientific reasons why Abortion is wrong - including that Atheist with a master's degree I mentioned above.

As for US law, I will note the US declaration of Independence speaks of God-Given human rights as a self-evident Moral Truth. God-Given human rights begin to exist when life itself begins to exist. But, it is now scientifically known - it may not have been known them - life begins at Conception. Therefore, God-given human rights begin to exist at conception. Many roads lead to the same conclusion, because the conclusion is true. When you see Pythagoras Theorem for e.g. or any axiom proved in multiple independent ways, it increases the confidence in the strength of the conclusion. The same is true of moral conclusions.

Now, as a practical matter, not only this or that person, but even I, a Pro-Lifer, and I think many other Pro-Lifers too, are in favor of making exceptions for now, for rape, incest etc. Since 2 BN roughly have been killed in 50 years, that's roughly 40 MN children a year. I'm in favor of anything that saves lives, while in time, especially as more scientific discoveries are made, and it becomes more and more clear Life begins at Conception - and it's also quite possible it may be shown children in the womb can feel pain even earlier than believed right now; see below - in time, the consensus will form for democratic pro-life action, just like the Abolitionist movement gradually gained strength.  

[Source, Wiki: "As recently as 1999, it was widely believed by medical professionals that babies could not feel pain until they were a year old, but today it is believed newborns and likely even fetuses beyond a certain age can experience pain."]

In time, Moral Truth prevails over Moral Error. It did on slavery and racism and eugenics and many other evils, and it will do so on abortion.

Angrboda: just a quick word to you, if you deny all human beings have all human rights, you lose the basis for saying many things are wrong that we would both otherwise affirm. In fact, any sub-section of humanity could then be denied human rights, either the young, or the old, or children below say, 3 years, or the aged near death, or this or that gender, or race, etc. Because Rights are Natural, either all human beings have rights, or no human being has rights. Human Beings have Natural Human Rights, i.e. by Nature of being human. The moment you say all those who are human beings by nature need not have all the human rights that flow from that nature legally recognized in law, you open a Pandora's Box. Any and every form of discrimination or denial of human rights to a particular few arbitrarily deemed as "sub-human non persons" would be possible.

What are your thoughts on that paper I mentioned arguing for "Post Birth Abortion"?

A person can whatever opinion s/he wants on the subject. It's when others tell you that you have to believe as they do that the real issue presents itself.

@Nishant Xavier

Quote:As for US law, I will note the US declaration of Independence speaks of God-Given human rights as a self-evident Moral Truth. 

The US Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law. It isn't binding - it's an exercise in rhetoric. Peruse the US Constitution and tell me how many times it mentions God and moral truth.

Boru

Quote:As for US law, I will note the US declaration of Independence speaks of God-Given human rights as a self-evident Moral Truth. 

That's not a legal document and many US laws are definitely contrary to the bible.

(July 11, 2023 at 10:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 11, 2023 at 9:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @Neo-Scholastic


Ontologically, every cell in every human being is a human being, because - with cloning technology - ever cell is a potential human.

When I discard my fingernail clippings, is that killing a baby? What if I spit on the sidewalk - should I face a murder charge for cell in that blob of spittle? Suppose someone cremates a deceased loved one…are you prepared to claim that they’ve committed trillions of baby-murders? Sheesh.

Boru

Well first,...there is a difference between a human being and being human, is there not?

Ontologically? No.

Boru

(July 11, 2023 at 11:34 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: And, ever hear the saying, "Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead/Departed". I believe you're a former Catholic yourself (correct me if I'm wrong) based on some things you've said elsewhere, so you'd understand why that is.

Yeah, talk about tradition... Banning abortion is just another way for the Catholic Church to torture women in their long tradition of torturing women.

(July 11, 2023 at 9:07 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 10, 2023 at 7:24 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Terminology:
Up to the 9th week the correct term is "embryo", after that "fetus". Your feeble attempt to poison any discussion right away by throwing in the incorrect term "baby" is telling, about you,

And term human being applies to all stages of development be it an embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, or adult. Each is ontologically a human being. So really, there is no escaping the fact that abortion is the voluntary termination of a human life. You may be okay with that and there may be reasons to justify such violence, but at least own up to it. 

Where did i deny that abortiom ends a human life?
I objected to manipulative speech by using the term "baby" for fetuses and embryos.
Ergo, i have nothing to own up to, but i am demanding either 
#1 a quote where i denied that abortion is voluntary termination of life
or
#2 your apology

Oh, and NX still rambles on about fetuses with human rights, but evades to give a direct answer to what the punishment of murdering fetuses should be. The least evasive answer you can get from him is "women are also victims ob abortion(ism)". If i was a fetus i would not be happy about the lack of empathy from NX´ side for me, my human rights, my right to live and his blatant disinterest to investigate my murder and punishment of the responsible(s).

If life begins at conception and a fertilized ovum has all the rights of a human being, why does adulthood commence (most countries) at 18 years instead of 17 years and 3 months?

Boru

Let me quote some parallels from Christian History, this time the Very Gradual Abolition of (Post-Birth) Infanticide. From Wiki: "The Íslendingabók, the main source for the early history of Iceland, recounts that on the Conversion of Iceland to Christianity in 1000 it was provided – in order to make the transition more palatable to Pagans – that "the old laws allowing exposure of newborn children will remain in force". However, this provision – among other concessions made at the time to the Pagans – was abolished some years later." People do not rise from decades of moral error to Moral Perfection immediately. It is a gradual and slow process, and one must be patient. Yet, as Consciences today virtually universally (those few exceptions like the Paper I mentioned notwithstanding), recognize that Infanticide is wrong, gradually Conscience, weaned off moral error by degrees, comes to accept the requirements of Moral Truth.

The article continues: "Christianity explicitly rejects infanticide. The Teachings of the Apostles or Didache said "thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born".[55] The Epistle of Barnabas stated an identical command, both thus conflating abortion and infanticide.[56]". That's correct in essence - at least Wiki gets some things right. However, those liberal Wiki editors who added this should note that there is no "conflation" - abortion and infanticide are both wrong, and unconditional acceptance of the one leads in time to accetance of the other, as we're already seeing in the modern age in that Paper I mentioned, arguing for "Post Birth Abortion" i.e. Infanticide, from the acceptance of abortion etc.

Another example: In Mexico, before the Mother of God, as Our Lady of Gaudalupe appeared to St. Juan Diego, the Mexican people, being misled to pagan or polytheistic errors, used to worship snakes and sacrifice children to these idols/gods. On Mexico, Wiki says with a source in the same article: "Bernal Díaz recounted that, after landing on the Veracruz coast, they came across a temple dedicated to Tezcatlipoca. "That day they had sacrificed two boys, cutting open their chests and offering their blood and hearts to that accursed idol".[121]" But scarcely did the Mother of God appear, and nearly some 10 MN Mexicans happily entered the Catholic Church, Christianity triumphed, and pagan idolatrous infanticide subsided.

All these are historical facts. Those who investigate them with an open mind will see the effects that did happen required a Proportionate Cause.

Of this event, a Jesuit Priest, Fr. Anticoli, S.J. wrote: ""Who will not recognize the Spirit of God in moving so many millions to enter the kingdom of Christ, and when we consider that there occurred no portent or other supernatural event ... to attract such multitudes, other than the apparitions of the Virgin [of Gaudalupe], we may state with assurance that it was the Vision of the Queen of the Apostles that called the [Mexican] Indians to the Faith." Btw, around this time, in Europe, Calvin was preaching his false doctrine of Cessationism, a false religios teaching or heresy that all Miracles had ceased with the Apostolic Age. The Mother of God refuted that opinion also, with Her Apparition in Gaudalupe, and also, those who study the Image of Guadalupe even today can see it has Miraculous Properties. It has helped even Atheistic Scientists become Catholic Christian.

Anyway, was abolishing infanticide in Iceland and Mexico a good thing? Because it happened in phases, and the Consciences of people gradually were enlightened about the Truth, and then came to recognize the necessary obligations of Conscience, would it have been better for it never to have happened at all? If saving a single life, like pulling a child out of a burning building is heroic, and this will be recognized by our Atheistic Friends, then how much greater and more heroic is it to save a 1000 or a Million lives? And if, in some concrete circumstances, out of 100 lives, it is possible to save only 90 lives, let's say because of democratic constraints and requisite consensus, it is much better to do that than do nothing.

We will be patient. Lincoln was on Abolition of Slavery, and we are Lincolnian on this issue. Consciences must change in time to recognize Truth.