RE: I am a pro-life atheist
February 24, 2012 at 8:32 am
(This post was last modified: February 24, 2012 at 8:38 am by NoMoreFaith.)
I certainly agree that if you do not want a baby, and you have taken all reasonable precautions against it, abortion should absolutely be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy.
If you are not responsible enough to take precautions, then you are not responsible enough to have sex.
If we accept that the first trimester human cells with the potential to be a fully sentient and conscious human being, we only back ourselves into a corner on moral issues imo.
Example 1:
Mary and Bob have been married 10 years, and desperately want to have a child. However, Mary suffers from an abnormal uterus, and the likelihood of bringing a child to full term is highly unlikely.
Mary and Bob wish to attempt to have a child together despite knowing the chances of miscarriage are highly likely.
Do we ban Mary & Bob from engaging in an activity that is highly likely to results in the death of a human being?
---------------------------------
The problem is language. The inability to properly define life, and the OP's is just one of many, makes discussion on the issue next to impossible.
Human Life or Human Being? Are they the same?
The OP makes a case for it being Living Embryonic Human Cells.. and nothing else. You have made the case that it is living human tissue.
The leap is Embryonic Human Cells = Human Being at ALL stages of development.
It depends entirely on objective facts about the biology of human development and what we mean by "Human Being" and picking one out as a start point for morality. In this instance, the Zygote.
However, you are defining life as the Zygote and failing to define the morality.
This is essential and completely ignored.
I don't see any reason to be swayed from pro-choice unless someone can prove that an abortion causes more harm than allowing an unwanted baby.
You have done a Zygote no HARM in abortion. There is no moral question there. The Zygote doesn't care either way.
But its a LIFE! So what. It has endured no suffering or harm.
Unless you are playing word games to cover up an objection to the abortion of POTENTIAL Personhood instead of an objection to Removal of Living Human Cells.
Therefore, it is a question of philosophical morality and not based around a questionable scientific definition.
Declaring "Removing Human Life is Murder" is a clear, simplistic, and borderline irrational response to the realities of the situation in my opinion.
QUICK EDIT RE DEATH PENALTY: The MORAL difference is clear as we are committing harm. The argument is on morality once again, not contradiction based on definitions of the word life.
If you are not responsible enough to take precautions, then you are not responsible enough to have sex.
If we accept that the first trimester human cells with the potential to be a fully sentient and conscious human being, we only back ourselves into a corner on moral issues imo.
Example 1:
Mary and Bob have been married 10 years, and desperately want to have a child. However, Mary suffers from an abnormal uterus, and the likelihood of bringing a child to full term is highly unlikely.
Mary and Bob wish to attempt to have a child together despite knowing the chances of miscarriage are highly likely.
Do we ban Mary & Bob from engaging in an activity that is highly likely to results in the death of a human being?
---------------------------------
The problem is language. The inability to properly define life, and the OP's is just one of many, makes discussion on the issue next to impossible.
Human Life or Human Being? Are they the same?
The OP makes a case for it being Living Embryonic Human Cells.. and nothing else. You have made the case that it is living human tissue.
The leap is Embryonic Human Cells = Human Being at ALL stages of development.
It depends entirely on objective facts about the biology of human development and what we mean by "Human Being" and picking one out as a start point for morality. In this instance, the Zygote.
However, you are defining life as the Zygote and failing to define the morality.
This is essential and completely ignored.
I don't see any reason to be swayed from pro-choice unless someone can prove that an abortion causes more harm than allowing an unwanted baby.
You have done a Zygote no HARM in abortion. There is no moral question there. The Zygote doesn't care either way.
But its a LIFE! So what. It has endured no suffering or harm.
Unless you are playing word games to cover up an objection to the abortion of POTENTIAL Personhood instead of an objection to Removal of Living Human Cells.
Therefore, it is a question of philosophical morality and not based around a questionable scientific definition.
Declaring "Removing Human Life is Murder" is a clear, simplistic, and borderline irrational response to the realities of the situation in my opinion.
QUICK EDIT RE DEATH PENALTY: The MORAL difference is clear as we are committing harm. The argument is on morality once again, not contradiction based on definitions of the word life.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
