RE: Abortion-Killing: The Silent Genocide: 2 Billion Deaths Victims Worldwide.
July 11, 2023 at 11:34 pm
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"?
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"?
