Pro-life atheists

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well ok, let me take a leaf from your book.

'Science' actually tends to agree with the pro-choice lobby regarding when the line is drawn where a human becomes a human. It's always going to be a blurred line, but we can rule out stages such as the zygote.

But seeing as you pretty much agree with me that you're not here for a discussion, I see no reason to further engage with you on this subject.

When text books start describing the human lifecycle beginning with a 24 week fetus, then your claim science supports your position might actually have some merit. Textbooks do support my position that the lifecycle of a human being includes the zygote.

Citation needed.

Also, 'textbooks' is a pretty odd way to categorise scientific discourse.

Regardless of what you do or don't post, you seem to be really struggling to grasp the nuances of the subject you are bulldozing through. It really irks me when I see people claiming 'truths' or 'facts' on a Subject they know really very little about.

Two gamete cells are human beings with rights?

More rights than the woman carrying them?

Gametes are not human beings. When two gametes fuse and become a zygote that is when a human being comes into existence.

Ha, look at this.

Remember what I said about not grasping nuances?

Upon what method have you drawn the seeming arbitrary line to draw your conclusion? Show your working and your citations.

[Heywood]

Upon what method have you drawn the seeming arbitrary line to draw your conclusion? Show your working and your citations.

I shouldn't have to provide links to basic biology concepts for you.

http://www.kean.edu/~ftamari/docs/FA08/1...er_9BW.pdf

[Bad Wolf]

Zygotes are not afforded more rights than adult humans. Your claim is ridiculous.

Thankfully not, in most places abortions are not illegal. But pro-lifers, want to make it illegal don't they? This would result in zygotes being granted more rights than an adult human.

[CapnAwesome]

There must be such a thing. After all, you don't have to believe in a god to stick up for the rights of the unborn.
Thoughts?

Of course there are. I've met some and there are many Atheists who are against late term abortion.

I think one reason that Atheists tend pro-choice is that there are very few secular arguments made against abortion. Most of the pro-life crowd tend towards religious arguments, which obviously don't matter a hoot to us.

[Cato]

What if a fetus that was aborted would have grown up, invented a practical fusion process and saved mankind from a runaway greenhouse effect? Does that make abortion immoral?

Inanity on parade.

What if you didn't abort a fetus and he turned out to be the guy you created the Villians thread about? Hopefully you can realize how ridiculous your exceptional person counterfactual argument is.

[Heywood]

What if a fetus that was aborted would have grown up, invented a practical fusion process and saved mankind from a runaway greenhouse effect? Does that make abortion immoral?

Inanity on parade.

What if you didn't abort a fetus and he turned out to be the guy you created the Villians thread about? Hopefully you can realize how ridiculous your exceptional person counterfactual argument is.

You are quoting me out of context. If you quoted the entire post instead of cherry picked portions, you will see I was making a point that future results do not dictate the morality of the act. That sentence was just an example.

Not an honest tactic.....I'm a little surprised Cato....your better than this.

---

Zygotes are not afforded more rights than adult humans. Your claim is ridiculous.

Thankfully not, in most places abortions are not illegal. But pro-lifers, want to make it illegal don't they? This would result in zygotes being granted more rights than an adult human.

No it would not. If a fetus has the same rights as you....it has the same rights as you. There is no magical property of rights that causes them to multiply if they are possessed by a fetus. Your claim is nonsense.

[Cato]

You are quoting me out of context. If you quoted the entire post instead of cherry picked portions, you will see I was making a point that future results do not dictate the morality of the act.

Not an honest tactic.....I'm a little surprised Cato....your better than this.

I went back and read the entire post. You are quite right. My apologies on this count. Here was Heywood's entire post for everyone's quick reference...

Suppose Hitler killed all the Jews and doing so, stopped a chain of events in which a future Jew destroys the world. Does the fact that in the end we might be better off that Hitler killed all the jews make his actions moral?

What if a fetus that was aborted would have grown up, invented a practical fusion process and saved mankind from a runaway greenhouse effect? Does that make abortion immoral?

The morality of an act isn't determined by future results. There is no need for me to make an argument that we would be better off if abortion were illegal.

Abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. I think I am safe by saying such things are immoral.

[Losty]

Well it took hours for me to dilate so I guess you're wrong.

Did they dilate you with a speculum or did they just let you dilate on your own when you were ready to deliver?

I know this got buried under other comments but I wanted to continue this conversation if you please.

My answer to your question was neither. They used medicine directly on my cervix until I was about 6 cm. They told me of another way but it sounded more painful and it takes a few days, I didn't want to wait that long.

[One Above All]

I am a gnostic (no; the space is not a typo) atheist. I am pro-life (in the true sense of the word: I think all life should be preserved, within reason. Most others who call themselves "pro-lifers" are actually "forced birthers": hey believe women should be forced to give birth, but, afterward, the baby can go to Hell for all they care) and pro-choice. Let me explain:
I think all life should be preserved, within reason. Therefore I do not approve of abortion. However, I do approve of women's right to choose to have an abortion. I believe this to be the most sensible option/opinion in this case.

What does "within reason" mean? In the event that your own life is at risk, I think you would be justified to kill some one (if they were threatening you) or some thing (if you needed nourishment, for example, or they were threatening you). Note that "justified" does not mean "right".

[Losty]

I am a gnostic (no; the space is not a typo) atheist. I am pro-life (in the true sense of the word: I think all life should be preserved, within reason. Most others who call themselves "pro-lifers" are actually "forced birthers": hey believe women should be forced to give birth, but, afterward, the baby can go to Hell for all they care) and pro-choice. Let me explain:
I think all life should be preserved, within reason. Therefore I do not approve of abortion. However, I do approve of women's right to choose to have an abortion. I believe this to be the most sensible option/opinion in this case.

What does "within reason" mean? In the event that your own life is at risk, I think you would be justified to kill some one (if they were threatening you) or some thing (if you needed nourishment, for example, or they were threatening you). Note that "justified" does not mean "right".

I am pro-life in this sense that I believe that all life should be preserved within reason.

I am pro-choice in the sense that I am no so arrogant as to think what I believe should have any bearing on what another woman does with the contents of her own uterus.