I am a pro-life atheist

[Whateverist]

I do appreciate your responding to what I asked you. I won't think you a horrible person if in the end we disagree, though I may think you are more inconsistent in your positions than you probably think. However I would like to rephrase the question thus:

If half of us judge that the circumstances which initiated the beginning of life also matter but you don't, exactly why should we concede to your sense of consistency?


I know you feel that you must advocate for the could-be person who cannot do so for himself but I'd like to know why you think that your reasons for not allowing a distinction based on parental intent should weigh more heavily than those of us who judge otherwise.

I know about your concern for the fetus. I also remember that you feel the law needs to be consistent. Of course we want the law to be enforced consistently but we want to formulate the law in a way that makes the correct distinctions. Manslaughter vs intent matters. Planned vs heat of the moment matters. Mentally competent matters. If half of us feel that the circumstances which initiated the beginning of life also matter but you don't, exactly why should we concede to your sense of consistency? This is clearly a distinction which the law needs to get right.

Why? Because we shouldn't make policy decisions on "feelings", we should make them on logical (science based) grounds.

I recognize that you did address my original question more later but I don't see anything that isn't really an expression of your sentiments in the matter. And I am not swayed by those. So agree to disagree then?

It is not the baby's fault how it was conceived, or how its parents feel about it. Yet we are fine with giving it what is effectively a death sentence. That's why it doesn't matter. The most tragic thing about abortion is that arguably the person it affects the most doesn't get a say in the entire process.