Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?


SquareOne

Recommended Posts

I assume you meant "That we (and so many others around the world) are have this disagreement [is evidence that] that the opinion is not universal."  <<- I'm not being smarmy, I'm just checking I've comprehended the typo correctly?

 

Yes that is what I meant.  I'm not offended that you ask.  Feel free to ask any time that I'm not clear.   I apologize for my poor spelling and typing.  I'm afraid that I am beyond help.  I use spell check as a crutch but it cannot work miracles.

 

I am still thinking about your objections to my objections of arbitrariness though, so I'm going to have to come back to you on that.

 

Fair enough.  I was pro-life for the longest time and had to work through that when I deconverted.  I could not find a way to justify it without my old religion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MadameX

OK it is too complicated to respond by embedding quotes in reply to quotes but I did not shout you down, Sq1. Why would you write that? Do you know:

 

 

THIS IS SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET

 

or

 

This is shouting on the internet too!!!!!!!!

 

 

And your claim that my statement that atheists have no 'should' is 'absolute' - your arguments in general ... you smell like a Xtian apologist troll. Are you?

 

Oh, by the way, I am now proclaiming myself Pro Life. I am for life, for making it better for everyone, including the woman who cannot continue a pregnancy for reasons that she herself knows. 

 

btw Sq1: walk the walk if you gonna talk the talk. What are you doing to increase sex education, access to contraception, improve quality of life for women and children (who make up the majority of impoverished people) chase down deadbeat dads? And to end war, and the death penalty?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sq1, not to put too fine a point on it, but you share a number of ideological attitudes with religious right-wingers, starting with your concept of "natural law" and a demand for "consistency." If you don't like being lumped in with that crowd, the solution is not to complain about being called out on it, but to consider why you're being perceived in this manner. The simple truth is that you can't really justify the kind of attitude you've displayed without a certain amount of dogma and rigidity. You're the one who thinks your subjective opinion trumps others' rights, for just a start. You draw false analogies (comparing caring for a toddler to being forced to carry a fetus to term, for example), paint this bizarre picture of the cutoff point for abortion as being totally arbitrary when it isn't, and generally try to erase a woman's rights entirely from the picture by treating her like some broodmare who barely even figures in your picture of this precious, precious life.

 

And you seem unaware of current research into reproductive rights. Criminalizing abortion won't end abortion; it'll just drive it underground. No matter what the risks are or what the laws say, women know deep down that nobody should have the right to tell them how to handle their bodies, and they know what they can and can't handle. If you want to end abortion, you don't campaign to end abortion--you campaign to end the appalling sexual inequalities and social injustices that lead women to seek abortions. But that's a reality that is difficult for forced-birthers to accept. Maybe you should go back to those UN figures I cited earlier, and look into those countries (Finland particularly) to see if you can draw some inspiration there for why they seem to have such tremendously awesomely low abortion rates. Hint: It's not because they have rafts of laws criminalizing abortion.

 

Nor are you particularly convincing about your claim about subjective rights. We add to those rights, but we do not often remove things from that list. That doesn't make the list subjective. It makes it evolving. We don't move backward. We try to keep moving forward. Except for religious kooks and forced-birthers, of course! :P We're not going to suddenly decide that fetuses have more rights than women do or that it's okay to strip rights from women once they get pregnant. There's not going to be a time when a fetus has more rights than its carrier or when its "survival" means trumping the rights of its carrier not to donate her resources against her wishes--at least, not unless we suddenly declare the UK a theocracy. Ain't nothing like a nice theocracy if you want to reduce women's rights wholesale.

 

I was once very much against reproductive rights. I know these arguments very well; they haven't gotten much more sophisticated than they were in the 90s when I was hip-deep in the anti-abortion movement. You're going to discover a lot of folks here who put a lot of thought into their positions, and I know you have as well. That's why uncoupling yourself from that false, dogmatic programming is going to be very hard.

 

You're certainly free to live your life in a way that gives the fetus extra-human rights. But please don't force others, who have done the same research and seen the same evidence you have but who have come away with very different opinions, to toe the line you've set for yourself. Life's not a rigid yes-or-no. There's a lot of fluidity there. And that is why individual women are best equipped to decide if the pregnancy they're experiencing is something they can handle. I trust them a lot more than I trust you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.  I was pro-life for the longest time and had to work through that when I deconverted.  I could not find a way to justify it without my old religion. 

 

Interesting phrasing.  This suggests that for you the ideology came first, and you attempted to reverse engineer reasons for the belief.

 

That is an not approach that a religious person would usually take.  For them, the religion provides for the motivation for the ideology.  That's pretty evident in the fact that religion correlates heavily with the pro-life position.

 

What you describe sounds like the after-effect of religion.

 

You lost the religion, but the pro-life stance remained, but you looked for a way to reverse engineer support for the belief.

 

I do not think that is what I was doing.  I actually became more pro-life towards the end of my deconversion, whereas it was not an issue on which I felt that strongly beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK it is too complicated to respond by embedding quotes in reply to quotes but I did not shout you down, Sq1. Why would you write that? Do you know:

 

It is a figure of speech, meaning "to strongly object".  It is derived from the notion that a person who strongly objects to something, might shout about it.  However, my using the figure of speech does not mean I necessarily think you were shouting or internet shouting.  Sorry if this upset you, I did not mean to.

 

 

 

And your claim that my statement that atheists have no 'should' is 'absolute' - your arguments in general ... you smell like a Xtian apologist troll. Are you?

 

It is absolute.

 

I am not a Christian.

 

I did my best at the start of this topic, see the first paragraph in bold, to try and highlight that I wanted to proceed with sensitivity, openness and honesty.  I would hope that others would respond in kind.

 

 

btw Sq1: walk the walk if you gonna talk the talk. What are you doing to increase sex education, access to contraception, improve quality of life for women and children (who make up the majority of impoverished people) chase down deadbeat dads?

 

I am permitted by law to discuss ideas.  That is what I am doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MadameX

Meh. No answer on teaching birth control, or chasing down lyin cheatin menfolk. Or sit-ins at the state prison when they execute that pathetic sucker who murdered someone.

 

Are you at the nursing home protesting that not every single possible method of extending precious life is employed?

 

I didn't think so.

 

 

For those who are interested in this topic, this was a great conversation:

 

http://www.onbeing.org/program/pro-life-pro-choice-pro-dialogue-david-gushee-frances-kissling/transcript/4872

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MadameX, I am not sure to which school of debating you are subscribing, here.

 

Are you suggesting that my argument that British abortion law is objectionable due to its resting upon an arbitrary 24-week cut-off period, is invalid because I personally do not teach birth control, chase down 'lyin cheatin menfolk' or stage sit-ins at prisons where the death penalty is carried out, or go to nursing homes and insist on extending life?

 

Because if so, that is one of the most impressive straw man arguments that I have ever come across.

 

If not, I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fair enough.  I was pro-life for the longest time and had to work through that when I deconverted.  I could not find a way to justify it without my old religion. 

 

Interesting phrasing.  This suggests that for you the ideology came first, and you attempted to reverse engineer reasons for the belief.

 

That is an not approach that a religious person would usually take.  For them, the religion provides for the motivation for the ideology.  That's pretty evident in the fact that religion correlates heavily with the pro-life position.

 

What you describe sounds like the after-effect of religion.

 

You lost the religion, but the pro-life stance remained, but you looked for a way to reverse engineer support for the belief.

 

I was a Christian for 35 years.  When I turned 18 I looked to my religion to know "God's will" on how I should vote.  So from that day forward I always voted Republican and Pro-life.  That lasted until I lost faith in the Bible.  Then I began to question my political views.  I could not think of a valid reason to continue being pro-life.  I then considered suffering due to over population.  From there I reached the position that in some situations abortion is the humane option and that the mother is in the best position to make that call.  I've been told that it's a weak argument and perhaps it is.

 

 

I do not think that is what I was doing.  I actually became more pro-life towards the end of my deconversion, whereas it was not an issue on which I felt that strongly beforehand.

 

I was just sharing what happened with me.  Your millage may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your responses MM.

 

Hey, I don't suppose you could help this debate by giving a definition of the difference between objective and subjective statements?  Akheia is saying that human rights are objective, and I disagree with her, saying they are subjective.  What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men have been telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies for thousand of years. It's time to let woman control their own bodies     bill.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sq1, not to put too fine a point on it, but you share a number of ideological attitudes with religious right-wingers, starting with your concept of "natural law" and a demand for "consistency." If you don't like being lumped in with that crowd, the solution is not to complain about being called out on it, but to consider why you're being perceived in this manner. The simple truth is that you can't really justify the kind of attitude you've displayed without a certain amount of dogma and rigidity. You're the one who thinks your subjective opinion trumps others' rights, for just a start. You draw false analogies (comparing caring for a toddler to being forced to carry a fetus to term, for example), paint this bizarre picture of the cutoff point for abortion as being totally arbitrary when it isn't, and generally try to erase a woman's rights entirely from the picture by treating her like some broodmare who barely even figures in your picture of this precious, precious life.

 

 

Firstly, I do not know why you have put "natural law" into quotation marks.  I have not used the words natural law once.  In fact, everything I have said up until this point has pushed an entirely anti-natural-law point of view, dismissing all objectivity.  It is you who states that human rights are objective.  You are the natural law proponent here.  I on the other hand, am a Hartian positivist to my core.

 

I did not draw a false analogy with foetuses and toddlers.  It was not even an analogy.  The justification in the UK for the 24 week rule is that until 24 weeks the baby supposedly cannot survive outside the womb.  I point out that even after 24 weeks the baby cannot survive outside the womb - unless someone helps it.  And that remains true through childhood, until the child can look after themself.

 

The 24 week line IS arbitrary.  It moves according to the medical advancement of society, rather than being based on an unchanging absolute.

 

 

 

And you seem unaware of current research into reproductive rights. Criminalizing abortion won't end abortion; it'll just drive it underground. No matter what the risks are or what the laws say, women know deep down that nobody should have the right to tell them how to handle their bodies, and they know what they can and can't handle. If you want to end abortion, you don't campaign to end abortion--you campaign to end the appalling sexual inequalities and social injustices that lead women to seek abortions. But that's a reality that is difficult for forced-birthers to accept. Maybe you should go back to those UN figures I cited earlier, and look into those countries (Finland particularly) to see if you can draw some inspiration there for why they seem to have such tremendously awesomely low abortion rates. Hint: It's not because they have rafts of laws criminalizing abortion.

 

I am not unaware.  And what you say is hardly current research, it was the justification for introducing the law in the first place.  But I do not think that the risk of driving it underground is an argument for legality.  We don't legalize thievery just because people do it anyway.

 

You do not need to lecture me on women's social inequality.  Inequality is dreadful and wrong.

 

 

 

But please don't force others, who have done the same research and seen the same evidence you have but who have come away with very different opinions, to toe the line you've set for yourself.

 

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men have been telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies for thousand of years. It's time to let woman control their own bodies     bill.

 

Does a woman have the right to use her hand to pull the trigger on a gun pointed to your head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Men have been telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies for thousand of years. It's time to let woman control their own bodies     bill.

 

Does a woman have the right to use her hand to pull the trigger on a gun pointed to your head?

 

Let's not go there.  A fetus is entirely constructed by a woman's body except for some DNA material for a single cell that is provided by a man.  The man's contribution is microscopic so the woman's body does over 99.9%.  If we are going by mass when the baby is born then the man's contribution is lower than one part per trillion.  Until recently a woman's body would do all the building after a child was born until the child was weaned.  Many parts of the world do not have access to clean drinking water and quality formula so it's still the mother's body that does the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what your angle of response was there, MM.

 

I meant to say that, the idea that "It's time to let woman control their own bodies" is a position that I find repeated a lot, but which I find to be nonsense.

 

We restrict a person's actions over their own body with the law in many ways, and these should apply equally to men and women.

 

However, pregnancy is an issue outside of the general rule, because you are dealing with not just the woman's body, but another form of life as well.

 

We can have the debate about whether that form of life should attract the same legal protection or not as a human that exists outside of the womb.  In fact, that is the only really significant issue.  If it should attract the same legal protection, the woman should have no say in its right to keep existing.  If it should not attract the same legal protection, then the woman should have the choice to do with her body what she wants on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All laws should be founded on a rational, non-arbitrary justifications and that a member of our species is a cosmic miracle from the moment of conception is one such rational,non-arbitrary justification."

 There are many things,that are,to a degree,arbitrary but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make them entirely subjective either. E.g. age of consent, age of buying alcohol , speed limit . Would you,SquareOne, also argue,that all age and speed limits should be abolished since they're in a way,arbitrary? If you're to think,that the logic in your post is sound,then I don't see how you could not.

p.s.

 I ,personally,find Peter Singer's position on abortion quite convincing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

Men have been telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies for thousand of years. It's time to let woman control their own bodies     bill.

 

Oversimplying it makes you no better nor less extreme than those that say that women shouldn't ever have an abortion. It's more complicated than that. You have a seperate living being inside the woman's body that is equally the child of the woman and the man, both should have a say in the abortion process, unless the woman's health is at risk having the child.

 

 

 

Men have been telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies for thousand of years. It's time to let woman control their own bodies     bill.

 

Does a woman have the right to use her hand to pull the trigger on a gun pointed to your head?

 

Let's not go there.  A fetus is entirely constructed by a woman's body except for some DNA material for a single cell that is provided by a man.  The man's contribution is microscopic so the woman's body does over 99.9%.  If we are going by mass when the baby is born then the man's contribution is lower than one part per trillion.  Until recently a woman's body would do all the building after a child was born until the child was weaned.  Many parts of the world do not have access to clean drinking water and quality formula so it's still the mother's body that does the building.

Actually, the DNA is half the man's and half the woman's, and is a seperate body. Even if the woman's body provides the nutrience and all that, its still a living being and is more complicated than that. While the gun pointed to your head with her body is an extreme analogy, he had a good point. I'm pro-abortion, though I think that this isn't the Women's Rights TM issue alot make it to be. I think either extreme is going to quash any chance of rational discussion on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raul

 

That quote - That was not something that I said.

 

 

 

 

There are many things,that are,to a degree,arbitrary but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make them entirely subjective either. E.g. age of consent, age of buying alcohol , speed limit . Would you,SquareOne, also argue,that all age and speed limits should be abolished since they're in a way,arbitrary? If you're to think,that the logic in your post is sound,then I don't see how you could not.

 

Very good point.

 

The things that you raise here, I would describe as semi-arbitrary.  Buying alcohol and the age of consent are supposed to be linked to the general time in the life of a human being when we deem them to be developed enough to be capable of taking certain decisions for themselves.  But, we can't work it out on a case by case basis, so we pick a date and apply it to everybody in the same way.  Indeed, this changes from time to time based on current thinking.

 

So your point is, how is the abortion limit of 24 weeks any different?

 

I find this a difficult question to answer, because your argument is a very good one.

 

Perhaps my difficulty is that those who draw the 24 week line would claim that the line is not arbitrary, and can be justified from the argument for viability of life outside the womb.  And it is the argument for viability that I disagree with, because no child can exist outside the womb without help.

 

Would it not be more logical to allow abortion right up until the point of birth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pro-abortion, though I think that this isn't the Women's Rights TM issue alot make it to be. I think either extreme is going to quash any chance of rational discussion on this issue.

 

I tend to agree that it is not a women's rights issue.  I almost said the same thing myself, but anticipated a distracting reaction.

 

It is an issue of human rights.  If men and women are equal in society then it is incidental to women that they are the gender that can carry a child.  A man would have to have the same rights as a woman if he could carry a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oversimplying it makes you no better nor less extreme than those that say that women shouldn't ever have an abortion. It's more complicated than that. You have a seperate living being inside the woman's body that is equally the child of the woman and the man, both should have a say in the abortion process, unless the woman's health is at risk having the child..

 

Why?

 

What makes future potential in an organism that can't appreciate the idea of future potential so special?  As I've said before in these debates.  Fetus doesn't care.  Why should I? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes future potential in an organism that can't appreciate the idea of future potential so special?  As I've said before in these debates.  Fetus doesn't care.  Why should I? 

 

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing three month old babies.

 

Three month old baby doesn't appreciate the idea of its future potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SquareOne, you're still left with trying to explain why a fetus should get more rights than someone else. If the only way you could survive was by crawling into my uterus, I'd still have the right to tell you to fuck off. There's not a real way you could justify forcing me to risk my life and endure unimaginable pain for you. So imagine how much less I care if a teeny tiny comma-sized egg and subsequent 1/4" zygote is making such a demand? My vagina, my rules. My uterus, my rules. Seems pretty damn simple to me. The contents of my uterus are not up for your examination or consideration any more than my vagina is. I don't have to fuck someone you think I have to fuck, and I don't have to have a baby you think I should have. I'm not sure why you're making it into some big production.

 

You're still hung up also on using very absurd emotional pleas to justify your repressive mindset. That you blithely compare an abortion to a woman shooting someone is a good example of your rigid and dogmatic thinking. That's so far past ridiculous that I don't even think you think that's the case, so why would you ascribe such an atrocity to a woman seeking an abortion? By having an abortion, a woman is not shooting a precious magical baby fetus. She's removing her body's hospitality from play. It's no different than me refusing to donate a kidney to you at your request, or refusing to let you, a fully grown adult, crawl into my uterus for your sustenance. It's removing consent to being bodily utilized by another. I wish you could understand how horrifying the idea is to me, but the one time I tried to tell you what it was like, my words whooshed right over your head. Go read 'em again. It's the thing about the cage. There is nothing, nothing in the world, like your body being someone else's to command. Doesn't matter if it's a rape, or it's being told you can't marry someone you love, or being enslaved, or being forced to go through a pregnancy you don't want. It's about the cruelest thing I can possibly imagine doing to someone. There is no human dignity to it, and no compassion. As a dude in a country where slavery is outlawed, I'm guessing you don't have much experience with this idea. As a woman in a country where my rights are by no means assured by law, I'm here to tell you it is not awesome.

 

I do view abortion as a religious issue and as a women's rights issue. A big part of why I "deconverted" from the forced-birth position was finding out just how controlling and misogynistic "pro-life" people are toward women. The "pro-life" platform relies upon lies, misinformation, deception, and emotional manipulation. You sound like you do much the same thing with your weird false choices and bizarre comparisons. Those tactics aren't going to work if I don't accept your central premise, that fetuses are intrinsically valuable and must be protected and nurtured at (hopefully not) all costs.

 

You need to follow this thing through and look at why it's become such a divisive issue. It wasn't, until conservative politicians in the US decided to hop into bed with the Catholic Church. Then suddenly abortion, which had been viewed as a private matter that wasn't up to others' judgements, suddenly became an awesome way to get votes. And the race began! The Catholic Church, and now the conservative Christian faiths, are completely buggy about reproduction. And I can see why. If you want to control women, controlling their fertility is the #1 step to doing that. When biology is destiny, it's really easy to keep women in their place. The "pro-life" mindset does not actually value life, but having babies whether the mother wants them or not--to make sex scary and the penalties huge, and to hopefully roll back women's rights in the process. They don't actually do much to improve life or reduce the number of abortions, do they? If you watch carefully, you'll see the "pro-life" religious right admit the real agenda: getting women to stop having unapproved sex. Whether that's your ultimate goal or not, by advocating the criminalization of abortion you are doing two things: first, you aren't doing a damned thing to actually reduce the number of abortions with such laws, and second, you are working hand-in-glove with people who are very deliberately trying to make your country into a theocracy, and who view such laws as the necessary first step to getting the public on board with the rest of the agenda.

 

So... do you want to actually reduce the number of abortions, or do you just want to control women and make sex all scary again?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What makes future potential in an organism that can't appreciate the idea of future potential so special?  As I've said before in these debates.  Fetus doesn't care.  Why should I? 

 

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing three month old babies.

 

Three month old baby doesn't appreciate the idea of its future potential.

 

Jesus fuck. Posting that lowered the internet's IQ by 20 points. Please stop with the false comparisons.

 

Government can take 3-month-old baby off mama's hands if she decides she doesn't want it.

 

Fetus cannot be cared for by anybody but the mother. Government can't do a thing to help her or take the burden off her hands.

 

Please stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What makes future potential in an organism that can't appreciate the idea of future potential so special?  As I've said before in these debates.  Fetus doesn't care.  Why should I? 

 

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing three month old babies.

 

Three month old baby doesn't appreciate the idea of its future potential.

 

3-month old babies are no longer dependent on their carrier's body, so we as a society have given them the same rights we give to all individuals

 

When do you begin to care for this new creature?  Zygote stage?  Sometime after?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SquareOne, I have now taken a closer look at your avatar. Under "interests" you list law, politics, and story-telling. You'll make a good enough lawyer. You're good at telling stories and twisting other people's words to muddle the picture. I think that is what lawyers generally do. Also religious people. And politicians. So yes, I think you're a troll, whether religious, political, legal, or other.

 

**********************

To the general reader:

 

Regarding subjective versus objective. The definition given here by Squ.1 is hardly the normal definition accepted by most people I know. In my experience, subjective normally means "as viewed from inside my person" and objective means "as viewed from the outside." Subjective normally has connotations of unverifiable, emotional and biased by opinion, whereas objective normally has connotations of being measurable and quantifiable. That, however, applies only in certain cases.

 

For example, the food industry depends on the objective study of the very subjective experience of taste. In other words, how many people prefer chocolate versus vanilla? The preference of taste is subjective but the number of people having that preference is objective. Now let's imagine the FDA makes laws saying that chocolate is unhealthy and pulls all chocolate flavoured foods off the shelves, but provides no evidence proving death or illness linked with consuming chocolate. Let's further imagine that the chief administrator of FDA hates chocolate. That would be an arbitrary law based on subjective data.

 

However, it is true that certain people develop fatal allergies on contact with nut or dairy (or some other) products, and laws/regulations are made to protect these people. Without testing the tolerance level of each individual, it is impossible to make regulations that are not to some extent arbitrary. There is nothing wrong with being arbitrary within reason. After some observation of people who died or almost died, it is known what level of tolerance should be noted on food packages. Some companies list it if there is so much as a possible trace.

 

It is not possible to test the tolerance level for each individual. But it is possible for individual people to learn their own tolerance levels. And it is possible for individual companies to determine when there is a possibility of trace substances of known allergens in their products.

 

Likewise, when it regards abortion, there has to be an arbitrary cut-off date. Not all countries use the same schedule but all are arbitrary to some extent. What rules the date is the human gestation period. That is hardly arbitrary or subjective. The time from intercourse to normal live birth is set by nature. Using their knowledge of biological processes, lawmakers base laws on what seems ethical and appropriately suitable for their own society. The reasoning Squ. 1 provides for UK basis setting the cut-off date at 24 weeks is that the fetus is realistically viable after that date.

 

Squ. 1 changes the definition of viable and argues that human infants are not viable at least until the age of two years. What Squ 1 is now discussing is not "fetus viability outside the womb," but the age at which the human is able to survive on his/her own.  We know there is a difference between an early-stage fetus and a baby. The early stage fetus cannot survive outside the womb to develop into a human baby, and on to become a child and finally an adult. Some full-term babies cannot survive, either, due to defects or illness but that does not discount the 24-week fetuses that are viable.

 

Those who wish can educate themselves on these matters. It seems to me anyone lobbying for or against abortion should get some basic education beyond what lobbyists put out there. Medical and scientific information seems foundational to making wise decisions.

 

I also find it interesting that so many anti-abortionists are male while so many pro-choicers are female. It sort of goes hand in hand with the image of the fornicating male--something our society has tolerated for centuries in men but not in women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What makes future potential in an organism that can't appreciate the idea of future potential so special?  As I've said before in these debates.  Fetus doesn't care.  Why should I? 

 

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing three month old babies.

 

Three month old baby doesn't appreciate the idea of its future potential.

 

Jesus fuck. Posting that lowered the internet's IQ by 20 points. Please stop with the false comparisons.

 

Government can take 3-month-old baby off mama's hands if she decides she doesn't want it.

 

Fetus cannot be cared for by anybody but the mother. Government can't do a thing to help her or take the burden off her hands.

 

Please stop it.

 

Akheia, I say he's a troll. Feel free to ignore him lest you burst a blood vessel.

 

You're a good poster and I like having you here. I'd hate to lose you over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.