Abortion-Killing: The Silent Genocide: 2 Billion Deaths Victims Worldwide.

[Angrboda]

Angrboda: just a quick word to you, if you deny all human beings have all human rights, you lose the basis for saying many things are wrong that we would both otherwise affirm. In fact, any sub-section of humanity could then be denied human rights, either the young, or the old, or children below say, 3 years, or the aged near death, or this or that gender, or race, etc. Because Rights are Natural, either all human beings have rights, or no human being has rights. Human Beings have Natural Human Rights, i.e. by Nature of being human. The moment you say all those who are human beings by nature need not have all the human rights that flow from that nature legally recognized in law, you open a Pandora's Box. Any and every form of discrimination or denial of human rights to a particular few arbitrarily deemed as "sub-human non persons" would be possible.

What are your thoughts on that paper I mentioned arguing for "Post Birth Abortion"?

I didn't read it. You seem to be something of a chicken little. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen, but I'm okay with the fact that it could happen. We have plenty of examples that rights are determined by men, not the least of which is the argument you just made to the effect that the majority (Christians, Hindus, and Muslims) determine that life for the unborn is a right. But rights are given and taken away all the time. A state may deprive a 20 year-old of the right to drink. They may pass a law then extending the right to those 18 and older. They may then a few years later reverse themselves, raising the drinking age to 21 and once again removing the right of 20-year-olds to drink. They could decided tomorrow that anyone over 50 has no right to life and kill me. It could happen. That it doesn't is not particularly mysterious and it comes down to common decency. You think that pro-choice people are on the wrong side of history. They think the same of you. Nothing is to be gained by simply asserting that pro-life people are right, but that is the only argument they and you tend to make.

Oh, and FWIW, if I deny your premise, I lose that basis for saying moral things; that isn't the only basis upon which those things can rest. If it is, we're fucked anyway.

Let me give you an analogy. Politically, in the U.S., at the behest of Donald Trump, democracy as we knew it was threatened. This occurred not so much because Trump broke rules or laws designed to prevent it, but because the unwritten norms which had been holding democracy together were suddenly being violated. This was a problem because there was no explicit mechanism for preventing this. The same could happen with morals. The only thing preventing it is the will of average people to do what is right.

[h4ym4n]

Why would god create an after life one step up from hell and a step down from paradise just to closet dead baby souls?

What do you think X. Does it sound like a punishment to you?

Nishant XavierHymn4n, they have Perfect Natural Happiness, and a Possibility of even Super-Natural Hapiness. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Abortionists and those who promote and support baby-killing should consider their own Children might rise up at the Judgment and ask God to condemn them. And what do you think God would do if those Babies asked him to, Hymn4n? If one has committed an abortion, or supported it, the right thing is to ask God, and one's children, for forgiveness. There is no right to take life. There is a duty to protect life, especially the lives of one's own innocent children. That might be hard, but it is the Truth. The Truth will set you free.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Xavier

It’s so refreshing to speak to a believer who replies with honesty.

I’m glad we both came to the same conclusion that aborted unwanted babies are far better off being aborted rather than being born into a world controlled by gods appointed enemy Satan/Lucifer/Devil.

“they have Perfect Natural Happiness”
“[b]Doesn't sound so bad to me”[/b]
“[b]and a Possibility of even Super-Natural Hapiness.”[/b]

I agree, sounds like paradise LITE with the possibility of heaven parole.

Let me ask you another question and I hope you take the time to think about your answer.

In my case, someone who has never believed and wasn’t given the evidence that god gave you that it exists , that me being aborted would have been far better for me than being born to a world Satan controls, never believing and being tortured for all eternity for not believing?

Seriously think about it and I am appreciative for your thoughts. 

[no one]

Nishy is just upset that mommy aborted it.

[Pat Mustard]

<snipping even more of your idiotic bullshit>

If abortion is so wrong why does yhwh demand it when a husband thinks his wife is having an affair?

[The Grand Nudger]

Gods fine with it, god commands it, and….this is very important…the man is blameless in any case.

[Aegon]

If therefore, it's moral and lawful for Parents to kill Children in young age, it should be Perfectly Fine also for Children to kill dependent Parents in old age. But it isn't

Children routinely stick their old parents in shitty-ass nursing homes. That's not technically killing them but they might as well be dead with the quality of life they have.

[The Grand Nudger]

To put a fine point on it….there is not…in fact….any law that makes kids take care of their parents.

It is actually perfectly fine for kids to kick their geriatrics to the curb to die like animals. Should we be revisiting that too? Should kids be legally responsible for the care, feeding, and oh, idk….debts….of their parents?

Fucking hellworld. This is the pedo-churches pitch and they wonder why it’s not working?

[Bucky Ball]

This is from Christianity Today, just pointing that there are Pro-Life Atheists for purely Scientific Moral Reasons: "Monica Snyder gave up her childhood faith. But she never stopped being pro-life. She opposes abortion for different reasons than her Catholic parents. Snyder doesn’t believe fetuses are made in the image of God. She doesn’t think they have eternal souls. Though her arguments differ, as an atheist with a master’s degree in forensic science from the University of California, Davis, her conclusions are the same: Human life begins with the zygote, and abortion is almost always wrong."

Bucky, there are 4 major ideologies in the world as a whole: (1) Christianity, (2) Islam, (3) Hinduism, and (4) Atheism. The views of Pro-Life Christians on the Abortion issue, clearly stated in the Didache, as the Lord's Teaching to the heathen through His 12 Apostles, and which guided Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, for nearly 2000 years, until the 1970s, are too well known to bear repeating. Let's come to Hinduism next. Wiki says this: "Some Hindu scriptures assert that "abortion is a worse sin than killing one's parents"; Islam has some slight differences, but it is similar: "In Shia Islam, abortion is "forbidden after implantation of the fertilised ovum." Together, the first 3 ideologies represent roughly 75% of the world's population.

And, ever hear the saying, "Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead/Departed". I believe you're a former Catholic yourself (correct me if I'm wrong) based on some things you've said elsewhere, so you'd understand why that is. We are talking of a Near-Universal Moral Consensus that Abortion was wrong in major different civilizations, from America and Europe to the Middle East to India to elsewhere - before the rise of Communism, Atheism and modern pro-choicers. So, in light of that, while it's true that, in the last 50 years, there have been and are many pro-choicers today, in light of the historical consensus, in light of the fact that there are now strong pro-life movements everywhere, including among the young, that may not mean very much, and quite soon. We will see how things go: and btw, another point is worth noting - nations that promote more or less unlimited abortion generally have poor demographics, low fertility rates, and so the future of abortionist ideology is not good for that reason also.

Yes, we are aware there are different people today, with influence first from Marxist, and now liberal Western culture, who interpret traditional moral and religious teaching in a liberal way; but we will see how things turn as more and more people understand all of cultural, moral, religious and scientific reasons why Abortion is wrong - including that Atheist with a master's degree I mentioned above.

As for US law, I will note the US declaration of Independence speaks of God-Given human rights as a self-evident Moral Truth. God-Given human rights begin to exist when life itself begins to exist. But, it is now scientifically known - it may not have been known them - life begins at Conception. Therefore, God-given human rights begin to exist at conception. Many roads lead to the same conclusion, because the conclusion is true. When you see Pythagoras Theorem for e.g. or any axiom proved in multiple independent ways, it increases the confidence in the strength of the conclusion. The same is true of moral conclusions.

Now, as a practical matter, not only this or that person, but even I, a Pro-Lifer, and I think many other Pro-Lifers too, are in favor of making exceptions for now, for rape, incest etc. Since 2 BN roughly have been killed in 50 years, that's roughly 40 MN children a year. I'm in favor of anything that saves lives, while in time, especially as more scientific discoveries are made, and it becomes more and more clear Life begins at Conception - and it's also quite possible it may be shown children in the womb can feel pain even earlier than believed right now; see below - in time, the consensus will form for democratic pro-life action, just like the Abolitionist movement gradually gained strength.  

[Source, Wiki: "As recently as 1999, it was widely believed by medical professionals that babies could not feel pain until they were a year old, but today it is believed newborns and likely even fetuses beyond a certain age can experience pain."]

In time, Moral Truth prevails over Moral Error. It did on slavery and racism and eugenics and many other evils, and it will do so on abortion.

Angrboda: just a quick word to you, if you deny all human beings have all human rights, you lose the basis for saying many things are wrong that we would both otherwise affirm. In fact, any sub-section of humanity could then be denied human rights, either the young, or the old, or children below say, 3 years, or the aged near death, or this or that gender, or race, etc. Because Rights are Natural, either all human beings have rights, or no human being has rights. Human Beings have Natural Human Rights, i.e. by Nature of being human. The moment you say all those who are human beings by nature need not have all the human rights that flow from that nature legally recognized in law, you open a Pandora's Box. Any and every form of discrimination or denial of human rights to a particular few arbitrarily deemed as "sub-human non persons" would be possible.

What are your thoughts on that paper I mentioned arguing for "Post Birth Abortion"?

Your unconvincing opinions are noted. They are not important here. Neither are some cherry-picked opinion of a forensic person.
I'm sure anyone can find someone to agree or disagree with anything. It's not how too argue.
Regurgitating old Roman Catholic shit is boring and a waste of time.
Your god is the worst abortionist of all time.  

The first rule of debate, is "know your opponent". You are obviously new to debate. This is an atheist site.

There is no agreement in science or among OBGYN physicians when "conception" occurs. 
You don't know when conception occurs.

[Bucky Ball]

No one has the an absolute right to anything. ((See Conservative Catholic) Justice Antonin Scalia's interview with Piers Morgan)), where he also said ... basically gave away the store ... "we have a right to what is *reasonable*. That includes "life". There is no absolute right to life. In US (and most other countries) the government can require one to give up their life in an emergency (war) context. The right to life is not absolute.

One's rights are dependent on the situation in which they live, and for an embryo / fetus that includes the situation of the mother. The picture is never just about a fetus and a mom. The mother has responsibilities with respect to the rights of her children, her husband her job, her wider family (... what if her parents need her for their care ?) Do the rights of ALL the others outweigh the (possible) rights of a blob of undifferentiated cells ? The woman has to decide ... and the right to decide she HAS, according to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Roman Church :
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

The Church, (Catholic women) universally use birth control (99 %), and get abortions (24 %). The people are the church. Not the hierarchy.
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2020/...GpEALw_wcB
Catholic women do not look to the hierarchy for moral guidance any more, (if ever).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...tion%20and

If a woman, weighing the rights and obligations of ALL of those she has responsibilities with, decides that her honest conscience demands she terminate a pregnancy,
the RCC agrees she has a right to make that decision.

YOU do not know what is in her conscience.
YOU have no right to judge anyone.

[Astreja]

Astreja said: "A woman's body is sovereign territory, and I believe that she has an absolute right to rule it as she will, and banish anything and anyone from its borders at her sole discretion."

Ok, let's use your analogy; first, the child was conceived with the Father's and Mother's consent, yes (excepting cases of rape)?

Not necessarily. I've had sex literally hundreds of times in my life without any desire to conceive at that time. I have one child, and decided not to have any more because my ex-spouse was absolutely useless at supporting the family. When I finally left him, I was absolutely ecstatic when my monthly period arrived, as that meant I was not pregnant and would not have to seek an abortion. Yes, that's correct: I was actively planning to terminate any pregnancy that had "followed" me out of the marriage, and I have absolutely no regrets.

Your analogy about emigration therefore does not apply and has been ignored. Sex is never, ever automatic consent to pregnancy and birth.

There is no right to take life.

Oh, so you admit that your god had no right to drown anyone in the Noachide flood? Why do you worship an evil god, Nishant?