Abortion is love

[Longhorn]

If all lives were "given" the same value by some outside source, then it stands to reason that that source would give all lives the same amount of potential for survival....

All lives do have the same amount of potential for survival. From a worldly perspective, that potential is zero. Everything dies.

Well there's a disingenuous equivocation -_-

[Losty]

All lives do have the same amount of potential for survival. From a worldly perspective, that potential is zero. Everything dies.

Well there's a disingenuous equivocation -_-

That's really the best you can expect from alpha male.

[John V]

All lives do have the same amount of potential for survival. From a worldly perspective, that potential is zero. Everything dies.

Well there's a disingenuous equivocation -_-

Nope. The point is that atheists all too frequently compare apples to oranges by arguing against biblical principles, but doing so from an atheist perspective. You fail to think it through and note that, from a Biblical perspective - i.e. with an afterlife - we all have the same rate of survival - 100%.

[Longhorn]

Well there's a disingenuous equivocation -_-

Nope. The point is that atheists all too frequently compare apples to oranges by arguing against biblical principles, but doing so from an atheist perspective. You fail to think it through and note that, from a Biblical perspective - i.e. with an afterlife - we all have the same rate of survival - 100%.

....which only brings us back to Rob's point. Why would an abortion matter then? I mean, to you, it's no different if you die as a 40yo, 80yo or two cells, and you get to an afterlife anyway.

You were saying all lives have a 0% chance of survival, which is blatantly conflating living forever and what was meant in this case specifically - surviving birth. It's obvious those are not equal and not 0, and if the source of the value of life makes it so unequal here and equal (with a 100% success rate no less) for the afterlife, doesn't it follow that this life is pretty much worthless, thus proving Robs point?

[Salacious B. Crumb]

He did, but that's a theological discussion.  

I have 3 children from 4 pregnancies. If I got pregnant again my fetus would have a significantly less amount of potential for survival than my first two pregnancies, and somewhat less than my fourth pregnancy. That's just considering the biological implications because I know you will spout on about free will if I start talking about how the potential was effected by my exhusband.

If god believes all lives to be equal then it makes no sense for him to allow pregnancy in a woman whose body cannot support a pregnancy. If he allows such a pregnancy then it seems that he doesn't value the life of the woman or the fetus as much as he does other lives. I mean...god is supposed to know you and love you before he creates you in your mothers womb, but if he really loved you'd he'd have found a safer womb to stick you in right?

If only this logic could be processed in some people's minds. Well put. But, NOOO it's god's will when he kills a fetus. He still wuvs whoever and whoevers wittle fetus he killed. The extremely small amount of time spent in the womb must be part of some master plan. That's the beauty of it, everything is part of the master plan, no matter what it is.. no matter how good, how evil, how despicable it's all out of love from invisible man made out of pure love that lives in the sky. How comforting..

 We may never have satisfactory answers as to why [insert horrible things that happen to people]...but god allows nature to take it's course he really does value your life. You just have to have faith.

....and that's when the debate ends because we are no longer having a rational conversation.

I’ll have to start using that last line. The ‘conversations’ will be no more than a post or two if I feel like having a direct conversation about morality or religion with a theist. Or any time I hear, "God told me this", "It's in the bible", "Just because it's true" (without anything to back it up), "I can feel it's true", "Life is sacred", "We're created in god's image", any argument from ignorance of our existence in general, or "Because I believe that aborting a fetus is wrong even if the mother's life still can be saved, I'd rather see both of them die" type of arguments. MINDBOGGLING how these types of arguments can be used in conversations that are meant to be rational.

[Losty]

Well there's a disingenuous equivocation -_-

Nope. The point is that atheists all too frequently compare apples to oranges by arguing against biblical principles, but doing so from an atheist perspective. You fail to think it through and note that, from a Biblical perspective - i.e. with an afterlife - we all have the same rate of survival - 100%.

Ok, so if the rate of survival is 100%, then why is it ok for god to drop a fetus into unsafe womb where it will die and likely kill the mother but it's not ok for the mother to take it out. 100% survival remember

[robvalue]

Won2:

---

Yes, I was using the belief of many theists that a dead baby will go to "heaven". Of course any theists is welcome to believe whatever they want, and if they don't believe this happens, then my logic is wrong for that person. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer about this.

I don't understand what beliefs you are presenting. Can you describe what happens to a baby if I kill it right after it is born? What will its experiences be, according to you, after it has died? Does a dead baby get a lesser eternal happy life than an older person?

"The means" in this case is making a decision on the baby's behalf which is will never get a chance to go back and make for itself. Ever. It is in a unique position of guaranteeing eternal bliss. Unless of course, you don't believe that will happen to it. Who actually kills it is pretty irrelevant here, whether it is me on a blood crusade, it is the parent, or they have an abortion. My point is entirely to highlight the absurdity of the situation, and the way people who profess heaven beliefs will fight tooth and nail to keep a baby out of guaranteed heaven.

Consider this: if the baby fully understood the situation, and could be given an instant ticket into heaven, would it take that ticket? Or would it want you to choose to let it possibly miss out on that, because of a "means to an end" fallacy being committed? I'm being serious. If you were the baby, would you take the ticket to paradise or not?

---

Losty:

---

I dig what you are saying about people's "worth". People can say everyone is worth the same, but if that doesn't inform their actions, then it's a pointless platitude. Clearly their actual worth is contextual and subjective. If I am willing to kill someone to stop them killing someone else, I'm putting more worth on the person being attacked. The person doing the attacking is of less worth, in real terms, in that situation. They are less "worthy of being alive", in my subjective opinion (and anyone who would do the same.) To say otherwise is to say nothing actually useful. I could say they would be worth the same to me, if they weren't about to kill someone. But so what?

---

[robvalue]

Let me rearrange this question:

For those of you who think dead babies go to heaven, is it in the baby's best interest to kill it before it has the chance to possibly go somewhere other than heaven? Forget for the moment whether or not anyone should actually kill the baby. Just answer from the baby's point of view. If you were the baby, what would you choose? Instant heaven, or this life and only a possibility of heaven?

For those of you who think the dead baby doesn't go to heaven, or has a lesser experience as a result of dying young, I'd be interested to hear what you believe instead.

[Javaman]

Let me rearrange this question:

For those of you who think dead babies go to heaven, is it in the baby's best interest to kill it before it has the chance to possibly go somewhere other than heaven? Forget for the moment whether or not anyone should actually kill the baby. Just answer from the baby's point of view. If you were the baby, what would you choose? Instant heaven, or this life and only a possibility of heaven?

For those of you who think the dead baby doesn't go to heaven, or has a lesser experience as a result of dying young, I'd be interested to hear what you believe instead.

Apparently, God is good when he arranges matters so that tens of billions of unborn children will go directly to heaven.

But it's really, really bad when us mere humans cause exactly the same thing to happen at a fraction of the scale.

I'm still trying to puzzle out why abortions performed by Yahweh are A-OK, but abortions performed by humans are completely unacceptable.

[robvalue]

Good point.

I'd really like to hear anyone honestly say that they would choose to risk their ticket into heaven if they were a baby with this choice, for the sake of this far inferior, finite life. I find it hard to believe anyone in their right mind would make such a statement. But we'll see! Forget about killing, the door is right in front of you. What does baby do? If I was a baby who understood it all, and those two choices were available, I'd go through the heaven door.

I hope no one uses this kind of betting strategy in a casino. "I'll wager my infinite chips. If it lands on red, I get fifty more chips. If it lands on black, I lose all my chips, and possibly owe you infinite chips too." This is being charitable enough to say their religious choice is actually 50% likely to please God. In reality, it's an infinitely small area of the wheel they are aiming for. Everything else will cost them infinite chips.