The reason religion is so powerful

[Silver]

Then why involve us?

Because it's a public forum, silly.

[brewer]

And the embryos that don't implant and get flushed, what human rights should they have?

You raise an important point. I do wonder why should I care so much for something that Nature seems to care so little for. So many attempt at life and so few survive. On its face you are saying, that yeah, life is cheap so why care about inconvenient and vulnerable ones. It's not wrong. Life is cruel. Does that mean I have to be cruel?

Now maybe there is a certain developmental milestone, somewhere between conception and delivery, where both personhood and 'quickening'* proceeds. I would love to end this abortion debate with some compelling compromise that truly satisfies the extremists on both sides - from every sperm is precious to grab a fork it's done for. Because, yeah, life is cheap. Many are conceived then still-born...expelled by the body as naturally as if it were on birth control. Buuuuttttt....only a sick mind could pull babies out of the womb leaving, only their tiny little heads inside, and jabbing a pair of scissors in their spines.


* quickening was the only semi-thelogical word I could find. Like the point at which one's distinctiveness, or soul/formal cause, becomes manifest in an otherise generic material cause...to just spout some Scholastic gibberish.

I'm not an extremist, just a realist. I've never encountered a soul in nature. I've not stated that life is cheap or inconvenient. Reproduction attempts have successes and failures, some of the failures (and successes) even threatening the mother or other conceptions. Those are just the facts.

I don't believe I've taken a pro or con position on abortion in this thread. My position is against all unborn have humans rights from conception and gave biologic/medical reasons and examples in support of  that position.

But just to be clear, I'm pro choice. However that debate is for another time/thread. The water in this thread has been to muddied. The last sentence of your first paragraph is a perfect example.

[John 6IX Breezy]

My position is against all unborn have human rights from conception and gave biologic/medical reasons [emphasis added] and examples in support of that position.

The reasons: Any stage during which an organism is in danger of dying shouldn't have human rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Granting that, I still don't see how it gets us to forcing women to bear children against their will. No one is arguing that a fertilized egg isn't biologically human with the potential to eventually develop into a person, the argument is that there is no evidence that it is a person. An acorn is biologically an oak, but an acorn is not an oak tree. A bird egg is not a bird. How is an embryo a baby?

Aren't you raising the bar? If human rights are grounded in one's humanity, then one must simply be human to have them. If instead personhood is the criteria for having human rights then there is a subset of humans that do not actually have human rights.

-and if we try to force the whores to have the babbies, there's another subset of humans lacking human rights, even though it won't save those babbies

Can any of you forced birthers muster up an ounce of this humanity you deem to be so crucial? I think this brings us right back round to why religion is so powerful. They are declarative claims to truth. Truer than true, no amount of facts to the contrary ever will or even can call them into question. If you have religious beliefs about babbies...and you do, you are going to be incapable of seeing those beliefs as anything other than true no matter how ludicrous the set of arguments you have to make to maintain them becomes. No matter what you have to do.

That's the nature of a religious belief.

[brewer]

My position is against all unborn have human rights from conception and gave biologic/medical reasons [emphasis added] and examples in support of  that position.

The reasons: Any stage during which an organism is in danger of dying shouldn't have human rights.

Wrong, for the most part it's has no chance of living. Your willful ignorance is astounding.

Now move the goal post and tell me it's cause medicine isn't trying hard enough or that they have future rights so give it to them now.

[h4ym4n]

IMO

The reason religion is so powerful is to get a person to go to war and believe if they die they will be rewarded.

If you can’t control the pawns you can’t win wars.

[Belacqua]

IMO

The reason religion is so powerful is to get a person to go to war and believe if they die they will be rewarded.

If you can’t control the pawns you can’t win wars.

Several of the atheists who post here are veterans. They were pawns and they aren't ashamed of it.

[h4ym4n]

IMO

The reason religion is so powerful is to get a person to go to war and believe if they die they will be rewarded.

If you can’t control the pawns you can’t win wars.

Several of the atheists who post here are veterans. They were pawns and they aren't ashamed of it.

I’m also a veteran. 

Who said anything about shame?

[Mister Agenda]

And the embryos that don't implant and get flushed, what human rights should they have?

You raise an important point. I do wonder why should I care so much for something that Nature seems to care so little for. So many attempt at life and so few survive. On its face you are saying, that yeah, life is cheap so why care about inconvenient and vulnerable ones. It's not wrong. Life is cruel. Does that mean I have to be cruel?

Now maybe there is a certain developmental milestone, somewhere between conception and delivery, where both personhood and 'quickening'* proceeds. I would love to end this abortion debate with some compelling compromise that truly satisfies the extremists on both sides - from every sperm is precious to grab a fork it's done for. Because, yeah, life is cheap. Many are conceived then still-born...expelled by the body as naturally as if it were on birth control. Buuuuttttt....only a sick mind could pull babies out of the womb leaving, only their tiny little heads inside, and jabbing a pair of scissors in their spines.


* quickening was the only semi-thelogical word I could find. Like the point at which one's distinctiveness, or soul/formal cause, becomes manifest in an otherise generic material cause...to just spout some Scholastic gibberish.

Would you agree that there's a certain amount of cruelty involved in forcing a woman to bear a child against her will?

---

You raise an important point. I do wonder why should I care so much for something that Nature seems to care so little for. So many attempt at life and so few survive. On its face you are saying, that yeah, life is cheap so why care about inconvenient and vulnerable ones. It's not wrong. Life is cruel. Does that mean I have to be cruel?

Now maybe there is a certain developmental milestone, somewhere between conception and delivery, where both personhood and 'quickening'* proceeds. I would love to end this abortion debate with some compelling compromise that truly satisfies the extremists on both sides - from every sperm is precious to grab a fork it's done for. Because, yeah, life is cheap. Many are conceived then still-born...expelled by the body as naturally as if it were on birth control. Buuuuttttt....only a sick mind could pull babies out of the womb leaving, only their tiny little heads inside, and jabbing a pair of scissors in their spines.


* quickening was the only semi-thelogical word I could find. Like the point at which one's distinctiveness, or soul/formal cause, becomes manifest in an otherise generic material cause...to just spout some Scholastic gibberish.

I'm not an extremist, just a realist. I've never encountered a soul in nature. I've not stated that life is cheap or inconvenient. Reproduction attempts have successes and failures, some of the failures (and successes) even threatening the mother or other conceptions. Those are just the facts.

I don't believe I've taken a pro or con position on abortion in this thread. My position is against all unborn have humans rights from conception and gave biologic/medical reasons and examples in support of  that position.

But just to be clear, I'm pro choice. However that debate is for another time/thread. The water in this thread has been to muddied. The last sentence of your first paragraph is a perfect example.

Right, even children don't have all the rights of adults, why should embryos have all the rights of children?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Right, even children don't have all the rights of adults, why should embryos have all the rights of children?

Presumably, different governments give different rights to different age groups. Most of my rights disappear if I step in North Korea. So perhaps you should specify which rights would bother you if they were given to embryos, and why embryos should be disqualified. (e.g. Children shouldn't vote because they haven't developed the cognitive capacity to make such choices.)