The reason religion is so powerful

[Ravenshire]

What you are referring to are potential humans.

Time to remove your In-This-House-We-Believe yard sign because you definitely do not believe science. The unborn are human from conception. We can debate the degree to which the lives of the unborn have value and should be protected but there is no debate over them being human. That is just a biological fact.

By that argument, tumors are human and destroying them should be the same as destroying a fetus. Toenail clippings... genital warts... bunions... 

[Neo-Scholastic]

Never saw a wart or toe nail grow and go to college. Not to worry. You guys are in good company with those who denied the humanity of the politically inconvenient.

[Peebothuhlu]

Not at work.

[onlinebiker]

Never saw a wart or toe nail grow and go to college. Not to worry. You guys are in good company with those who denied the humanity of the politically inconvenicent.

You want a complicated issue to be black/white, either/or.

Life doesn't work that way.

If life began at conception, death wouldn't occur until a body had totally decomposed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

I take it that you weren't actually unaware of the fact that human dignity isn't a religious concept, then? You knew that the sources and explanations you asked about existed, and were too many to count, you just don't think they "work"?

I'm guessing that's going to be a genuinely novel use of the term. Even people who pursue abortions possess a shared humanity, and.... if you asked.....you might find that they too hold to some idea of human dignity. They're not exactly werewolves, eh?

Not exactly, I just don't debate against links. But you aren't wrong. Saying that human dignity is religious was overbroad when what I meant was that notions like dignity and human rights are normative and not empirical. So technically, yes, they can be considered to be broadly philosophical without being strictly associated with theism and, yes, I think those attempts fail in the same way that many athiests say there isnt any evidence then quibble about what does and doesnt count as evidence. I will just leave it at that.

The main issue is whether religious ideas are uniquely dangerous in political discourse and ought not be used to justify public policies. My issue is that most political discourse is not entirely based on empirical determinations. There are normative considerations based on metaphysical conceptions of human nature and it is the pretense of "humanism" that it is devoid of metaphysical assumptions.

[Mister Agenda]

Meh...it seems to me that religious belief just as often serves as a constraint on the corrupt ambitions of the powerful. Human dignity is a purely relgious concept. Secular governance can still retain the idea for a while but without the rligious underpinning it is just an unchallenged assumption. Cut flowers cannot hold their bloom forever.

How many centuries of the flower not wilting would it take for you to think you might be wrong about that?

[brewer]

Never saw a wart or toe nail grow and go to college. Not to worry. You guys are in good company with those who denied the humanity of the politically inconvenient.

I'm still waiting for you to either defend "The unborn are human from conception" (you might want to define human and/or conception), readdress unborn rights, or be honest and admit your error regarding science.

I advanced molar pregnancy, no response.

[Mister Agenda]

I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

And by that you mean consider the rights of the pregnant woman to decisions about her own body not being superceded by the rights you assign to a fetus. In other words, you value the rights of a blastocyst over a person with a story, hopes, dreams, loved ones, an inner life, and everything else that really makes a human being human. Such a champion of human dignity you are!

---

What you are referring to are potential humans.

Time to remove your In-This-House-We-Believe yard sign because you definitely do not believe science. The unborn are human from conception. We can debate the degree to which the lives of the unborn have value and should be protected but there is no debate over them being human. That is just a biological fact.

Your cheek scrapings are 100% human genetically. They are even potential humans, since we can conceivably use them to clone you. I see you reduce humanity to mere biology when it's convenient to your religious beliefs.

[Brian37]

I am not convinced that appealing to a shared humanity works considering that a fair number of AF members do not recognize the humanity of the unborn enough to afford them any rights.

And by that you mean consider the rights of the pregnant woman to decisions about her own body not being superceded by the rights you assign to a fetus. In other words, you value the rights of a blastocyst over a person with a story, hopes, dreams, loved ones, an inner life, and everything else that really makes a human being human. Such a champion of human dignity you are!

---

Time to remove your In-This-House-We-Believe yard sign because you definitely do not believe science. The unborn are human from conception. We can debate the degree to which the lives of the unborn have value and should be protected but there is no debate over them being human. That is just a biological fact.

Your cheek scrapings are 100% human genetically. They are even potential humans, since we can conceivably use them to clone you. I see you reduce humanity to mere biology when it's convenient to your religious beliefs.

The pro birthers, which is all they are, never want to consider that humans are simply one species among many. One can accept their "good intent" in wanting life not to suffer. And that isn't a bad intent. But the problem with these religious nuts, is that they never want to think about life after birth. There are also lots of evil monsters who WERE BORN, like Hitler and Stalin and Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. 

I am sick of the right claiming pro choice advocates spend our lives going door to door and using social media to tell females to fuck just so we can kill life as if we were playing beer pong at a frat party.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Never saw a wart or toe nail grow and go to college. Not to worry. You guys are in good company with those who denied the humanity of the politically inconvenicent.

You want a complicated issue to be black/white, either/or.

Life doesn't work that way.

If life began at conception, death wouldn't occur until a body had totally decomposed.

Actually, I left open the door to the possibilty that the developmental stages can be a consideration in balancing rights, which allows for some nuance around the issue. Otherwise, I remain firm that the unborn are as essentially human as humans of any other age.