OK, I understand your position better now but there are still a few issues:
There's no evidence that a fetus thinks prior to week 21. It's after week 21 when brain development begins. It's also after this point that the fetus shows signs of awareness, such as reactions to loud noises. After week 21, there is some question as to when thinking and self-awareness begins. I'll leave the specifics to biologists but I use week 21 as a conservative placement of a benchmark.
Getting to my take on the abortion issue, the anti-abortion crowd can talk about fingerprints and heartbeats all they like. Without the brain, as we say in Kentucky, "there's no there there". 91% of abortions happen during the 1st trimester, well before week 21. The laws we have on the book now make it next to impossible to get an abortion after week 21. The mother's life has to be in danger.
When I was "pro-life", I advocated getting religion, sex and gender out of the discussion as distractions and focus on the core issue of "person A's right to life vs. person B's right to choice". At the time, I concluded that person A's right to life trumps person B's right to choice. Since I have studied fetal development, I've discovered there is no "person A". Left only with person B's right to choice, which was never in dispute as far as I was concerned, I've been pro-choice ever since.
Now, if you're saying that your objective is to ban all abortions even in cases of rape, then you'd be fully honest.
Now, for me it's not a problem to "allow" abortion when the fetus is conceived in rape because abortion isn't murder. It's when you ascribe all the traits and rights of living beings to a fetus and then turn around and say you're OK with someone killing it if the father was a rapist that I get uncomfortable with your line of thinking.
However, you have said you don't believe in absolute morals, so I withdraw my charge that you're inconsistent. My apologies for assuming just because you're a Christian that you advocate for such a concept. I'm so used to that being part of the package.
(May 29, 2014 at 12:21 pm)alpha male Wrote: I never said that. I don't know that I'd classify a fetus as "thinking." I doubt that I'd classify an infant as "thinking" either.Actually, infants do "think" as do animals. The thoughts may be simple (I'm tired, I'm hungry, I'm wet, etc.) but they are "thoughts".
There's no evidence that a fetus thinks prior to week 21. It's after week 21 when brain development begins. It's also after this point that the fetus shows signs of awareness, such as reactions to loud noises. After week 21, there is some question as to when thinking and self-awareness begins. I'll leave the specifics to biologists but I use week 21 as a conservative placement of a benchmark.
Getting to my take on the abortion issue, the anti-abortion crowd can talk about fingerprints and heartbeats all they like. Without the brain, as we say in Kentucky, "there's no there there". 91% of abortions happen during the 1st trimester, well before week 21. The laws we have on the book now make it next to impossible to get an abortion after week 21. The mother's life has to be in danger.
When I was "pro-life", I advocated getting religion, sex and gender out of the discussion as distractions and focus on the core issue of "person A's right to life vs. person B's right to choice". At the time, I concluded that person A's right to life trumps person B's right to choice. Since I have studied fetal development, I've discovered there is no "person A". Left only with person B's right to choice, which was never in dispute as far as I was concerned, I've been pro-choice ever since.
Quote:As noted, I'm not hiding anything.A bit debatable. If you claim you are against abortion except in cases of rape but in reality your objective is to ban ALL abortions whether the fetus was conceived during rape or no, it's a bit dishonest.
Now, if you're saying that your objective is to ban all abortions even in cases of rape, then you'd be fully honest.
Quote:Speaking of dishonesty, what do you think of someone who spins a large reduction in deaths as being genocide?Advocating for the execution of all children conceived in rape strikes me as genocidal.
Now, for me it's not a problem to "allow" abortion when the fetus is conceived in rape because abortion isn't murder. It's when you ascribe all the traits and rights of living beings to a fetus and then turn around and say you're OK with someone killing it if the father was a rapist that I get uncomfortable with your line of thinking.
However, you have said you don't believe in absolute morals, so I withdraw my charge that you're inconsistent. My apologies for assuming just because you're a Christian that you advocate for such a concept. I'm so used to that being part of the package.
Quote:Yes, if all women are liars, but I have more respect for them. Some might lie, but many won't, therefore reducing the number of abortions (which is a genocide in your thinking).Rampant AI commented how sex education and birth control are the most effective ways of decreasing abortion. Do you advocate for these things?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
