(May 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm)Janice_Spokes Wrote:(May 22, 2016 at 3:20 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You mean like equivocating the meaning of "baby"?
Troll.
What do you mean it's not a baby? The "fetus" starts growing finger nails, and has a heartbeat within weeks of its conception.
Why is it, that when Princess Kate was pregnant people weren't talking about the "royal clump of cells?"
Why is it that when a woman miscarries (in polite society anyway) people are in sorrow over her lost child, and never tell her "it was a clump of cells, get over it!" Maybe they say that in New York City, but not anywhere I've ever been!
Im just saying, even if it's not an actual baby, its enough of a baby to matter. Its not a clump of hamburger meat, but atheists seem to treat it as such.
Look, lady. Even if we grant your argument, that a fertilized egg is a full human being, it comes down to a balancing of rights between humans. The right to bodily integrity, which includes the ability to choose how and when we procreate, is unassailable. Even though (per this argument) the fetus-baby is also a human, it does not possess the legal right to *force* the mother to use her own body to carry it to term, and to risk the mother's life in giving birth (childbirth is roughly 16 times more lethal to the mother than abortion).
I'll try to explain via analogy. Let's say that you convince me to drink antifreeze, and my kidneys shut down. You're my only kidney donor match on the planet. I will certainly die if you do not undergo an operation (at risk to your own life) in order to save my life... and it's certainly because of your action that I am only able to live via your organs. With me so far?
The question is: do we have the legal right to force you to save my life by risking yours, to invade your body to get the kidneys even if you don't want to give up that kidney or undergo the process?
As a moral question, I think most people would agree that you should give up your kidney to keep me alive. But that's very different from the legal question of whether or not it would be ethical to force you to do so by law.
The same applies to our views about abortion. No one likes abortion. But it would be a far worse world, as far as I am concerned, if people who were against abortion in all circumstances were able to make the government use its power to force others to conform to their beliefs about it. It would be a far worse world if we told people they had to give birth to any child they did not wish to produce, that they had to place their own lives at risk in order to save the life of another.
That does not mean we think of disabled persons as "lesser" people. They are simply products of mistakes in DNA and/or fetal development. If they are born (if their parents choose to bring them into the world anyway), then they deserve the absolute equal respect and whatever accommodation they need from our society.
I believe you are letting emotions get in the way of reasonable thinking on this topic, as evidenced by the use of shaded language, which others are trying to point out to you. It's why they think you're trolling us.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
