Evidence for God from Science

No it doesn't. If parents can't or don't want to take care of their children, they have an OBLIGATION to take them to social services where they can be cared for. They cannot just neglect their well-being. If they do, they are rightfully punished by society.

And so it is with unborn children. All parents of unborn children have an obligation to care for their children. If caring in this context means getting them to the place where they can give them to social services (that is, giving them up for adoption), then that's fine. But they don't have the right to kill the child on the premise that they have no obligation to take care of them.

Don't get me wrong. I do agree with your point of view, but that is not the issue here. At least my comment was not aiming towards this facet.
What I was aiming for is a totally different perspective: a pregnancy affects a woman biologically and psychologically. A man can't get pregnant in a "natural" way.
I am not talking about obligations here, but consequences of a pregnancy on a woman's body and mind. You are placing the baby in first place. I am just doing the same for the woman.

As I said, it might sound cynical, selfish, but it can be a valid argument. I am not saying it's the best way, the correct way, the right way. Every choice has advantages and disadvantages.

And I hear what you are saying and I'm trying to show you why it is not a valid argument. When a woman has children, they are dependent on her even after they are born. The point I'm making is that society requires parents to care for their children. Let me put that another way: society forbids parents from neglecting their children.

You think you're putting the woman first and I'm putting the child first. Neither is the case. I'm talking about societal obligations. In a society, people have certain obligations to one another, and those obligations differ depending on the particular relationship. When it comes to the parent/child relationship, society has determined that parents are required to care for children. That's not a matter of putting the kids first. That's a matter of fact. It is not putting the child first or before the mother to say that she can't leave her newborn child at home without supervision while she goes out and parties with her friends over the weekend.

None of this changes by arguing that pregnancy affects the woman's body. The fact still remains that the woman is the mother of the child, and no woman has the right to neglect or kill her child because caring for the child inconveniences her. The moment the child is conceived, she has an obligation to care for it, and to kill it does not merely deny that obligation, but it makes a mockery out of it. Abortion is not a religious issue, then. It is a matter of simple reason and common sense ethics. We, as a society, have (rightly) rejected moral volunteerism. That is, we are not bound only to those things we give assent to. Rather, we are bound to make good on certain social obligations whether we like it or not. And, sorry, but that applies to pregnant women just as much as it applies to absentee fathers or employers who would like to discriminate based on skin color.

Thadeyus wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Well, maybe not entirely everyone on both sides, according to http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... hame-many/:

Your comments about 'relative person-hood' or 'The equivalents of humanity' are actually what I might consider a case for making things more complicated than they are.

The various stages of pregnancy are given their classifications for reasons. Medical, scientific, legal etc.

As for children, genetic complication sufferers and the injured?

This would seem to be more obfuscating the matter

I must admit to enjoying being able to use the word 'obfuscate' in a sentence. One rarely gets the chance in average conversation.

Very much cheers to you and yours. Much cheers to all.

Thanks Thadeyus for your response. Glad you agreed with much.

Re: person-hood, they weren't my comments. However, let me take this up, because the Atheist or anyone who believes our universe is all there is, if they are consistent cannot believe such a thing as "personhood".

Because, what on earth makes such a person think that there is some magical thing that makes a human become a person? You may as well believe God shoves a soul in at some point along the lines of St Augustine. This metaphysical "magical" quality that'd transition someone from a biological human can't be proven.

So our physiology is all we got, unless you inject some unproven quality called a "soul", "person' or what-have-you. But, science strictly speaking makes no differentiation. And humans, loves to play the "person-hood" or "soul" card, which mind you has been the cause of many atrocities throughout human history whether African slave trade, Jews and even animal cruelty. Where did making such a distinction get those who made them?

And so, if science is all we got, and science is clear, then one's decision on this matter should be equally clear if they too believe in the basic human right of being able to live life.

Let's not muddy it with some mystical metaphysics that enables us to simply off those we don't like or want around.

When we question whether someone is a person, it is because we want to kill him. We do this with our enemies in wartime, or with anyone we would like to enslave or exploit. Before we can feel comfortable treating others this way, we have to expel them from the human community. But there's just no logical reason to expel the unborn.” Frederica Matthewes-Green

When we question whether someone is a person, it is because we want to kill him. We do this with our enemies in wartime, or with anyone we would like to enslave or exploit. Before we can feel comfortable treating others this way, we have to expel them from the human community. But there's just no logical reason to expel the unborn.” Frederica Matthewes-Green

That's a great quote, K. Very true. You should read Death and Donation. You'll get through it really quickly -- I think you'll find it supports your line of thinking here, just at the other end of the spectrum of life.

BryanH wrote:As you present the problem you are saying that a mother should carry out the pregnancy no matter what. The mother has rights too and let's not forget that every baby has a father. The father doesn't have to carry out a pregnancy. You can't force someone to help another human being if they don't want to.

You assume much.

Women deserve better than the motto argument you offer: http://www.feministsforlife.org/FFL_topics/index.htm

Women have the right to keep their babies without being emotionally or physically coerced to kill their unborns. Education institutions apply pressure, work/bosses apply pressure, some "environmentalists" worried over human population apply pressure and even family/boyfriends apply pressure to "hide the shame" (as sometimes happens within Christian churches where parents have coerced and even forced their daughter to secretly abort). What of protecting these mothers??

Keeping in topic with my original post (the compatibility of pro-life and secular) read over this article in the secular domain: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/06/ ... -life.html

Do you understand the main logic of secular pro-life? Jac's comments are valid if you do.

For it is about whether the unborn are human, and science is clear that biologically they are.

You don't seriously believe what a mother wants/doesn't want doesn't decides whether one is human do you? If it does, then well, there are no doubt many born "humans" walking around whose mothers didn't want them. Let's say to all those adopted people out there, sorry, but you're not really human "person" (whatever that subjectively means). Do you really believe that Bryan?

No, you don't believe that do you? You're inconsistent. Illogical. Speaking slogans you just picked up somewhere in your life and regurgitating them here.

So therefore, Jac is entirely right to replace your "unborn baby" with a "born baby". Because if both are human life, then they both should be afforded the basic human right to be protected.

Jac3510 wrote:

When we question whether someone is a person, it is because we want to kill him. We do this with our enemies in wartime, or with anyone we would like to enslave or exploit. Before we can feel comfortable treating others this way, we have to expel them from the human community. But there's just no logical reason to expel the unborn.” Frederica Matthewes-Green

That's a great quote, K. Very true. You should read Death and Donation. You'll get through it really quickly -- I think you'll find it supports your line of thinking here, just at the other end of the spectrum of life.

Thanks Jac. Read over the description and looks depressive. But deals with interesting issues.

You know, there have been people born without a "brain" and lived... Google should turn stuff up. Strange, but true.

Thadeyus wrote:
Okay...life is complicated. You would agree.

One does not go from 'ovum+wriggly' to 'person' instantly.

So...between 'ovum+wriggly' we have the slow, constant development into 'Infant'(Birth)*. From 'infant' we have the slow progression to 'adult'.

The above are my 'shades of colour'. A constant sliding scale from 'ovum+wriggly' to 'adult'.

The 'ovum+wriggly' =/= 'person'.

*Note: 'Birth' can be seen as almost a momentary transition at a point in the transition from 'ovum+wriggly' to 'adult'.

You've really answered nothing here. All you've shown is that you are ignorant (by your own admission) of what constitutes a person. One fact is that the MOMENT the ovum and wriggly unite, then all the genetic information that makes up the person is already there. (Instantly) If you are going to argue that 'stages' affect personhood, then please be consistent and explain which stages of postnatal life are more 'person' than the others. If you are pleading ignorance, fine. But when you are destroying the 'ovum+wriggly' (or whatever term you'd like to use to 'dehumanize' the unborn) then where does the burden of proof lie?

@ Kurieuo

You don't seriously believe what a mother wants/doesn't want doesn't decides whether one is human do you? If it does, then well, there are no doubt many born "humans" walking around whose mothers didn't want them. Let's say to all those adopted people out there, sorry, but you're not really human "person" (whatever that subjectively means). Do you really believe that Bryan?

Although you try to simplify this matter, it doesn't actually work that way. You are not talking about two separate humans. There is one human inside another human and the unborn human is DEPENDENT on the mother to become a LIVE being. So yes, the mother is the one who can decide. When a person is dependent on another, the other person can make decisions that affect the dependent.

No, you don't believe that do you? You're inconsistent. Illogical. Speaking slogans you just picked up somewhere in your life and regurgitating them here.

Please mind your own language. As I said from the start of the discussion: I am just presenting a point of view in a very complicated matter for which I have my own doubts and I am not pro life or pro abortion. I remain UNDECIDED.

@jac

No it doesn't. If parents can't or don't want to take care of their children, they have an OBLIGATION to take them to social services where they can be cared for. They cannot just neglect their well-being. If they do, they are rightfully punished by society.

SOCIETY CHANGES. [I don't need to remind you what they did with some of the children in Ancient Sparta, right?]

And by the way, current law proves your argument wrong in another way. Absentee fathers are still required to pay child support even if they don't want the child--even if they took measures to avoid having the child. Therefore, you are wrong when you say that we cannot force someone to take care of another human being. On the contrary, one of the basic premises of society is that parents are required by law to take care of their children. They don't get to "opt in" for that responsibility, and the sure as heck don't get to "opt out" of it.

All I can say about your comment is: LOL.

Paying money? Who cares about money when your father isn't there for you? So I am not wrong at all. You can force the father to pay, but you can't force the father to actually raise the child. That is what I am talking about. Financial compensation? Really? So actually fathers can opt-out and PAY.

Never heard of mothers opting out and paying child support. Have you?

Look Jac, you are arguing with me for PERFECT LAWS in a society that is far, far, far away from being perfect. So coming back to what you said to me on the other thread where we were talking about using the RIGHT TOOLS when trying to prove the existence of GOD, what tools do you want to use in this society? Utopic tools?

jlay wrote:You've really answered nothing here. All you've shown is that you are ignorant (by your own admission) of what constitutes a person. One fact is that the MOMENT the ovum and wriggly unite, then all the genetic information that makes up the person is already there. (Instantly) If you are going to argue that 'stages' affect personhood, then please be consistent and explain which stages of postnatal life are more 'person' than the others. If you are pleading ignorance, fine. But when you are destroying the 'ovum+wriggly' (or whatever term you'd like to use to 'dehumanize' the unborn) then where does the burden of proof lie?

?

Really? So...children of all ages should vote? Or be able to drive cars etc? Or drink?

'Personhood' is now something that you are defining as a term. Not me.

Seriously, just having a bundle of complete DNA does not equal 'Personhood'.

Heck...by that definition of (Complete DNA=Personhood) we should thence be doing everything in our power to keep cancers alive.

Since, y'know, other than the defining copying errors the cancer has complete DNA as well.

Very much cheers to all.

BryanH wrote: Although you try to simplify this matter, it doesn't actually work that way. You are not talking about two separate humans. There is one human inside another human and the unborn human is DEPENDENT on the mother to become a LIVE being. So yes, the mother is the one who can decide. When a person is dependent on another, the other person can make decisions that affect the dependent.

The danger with this type of thinking is that it opens the door to euthanasia, or as it is now being called, ''the right to die with dignity.''

Would you be OK with euthanizing a dependent elderly relative unable live on his own without your care?

FL

It is interested that the logic, secular as it is, is here coming down to one's personal taste.

Bryan, you should grow some thicker skin. You think what I said about re-regurgitating a stock argument to sidetrack my original post is unfair to you? I don't think so. What's "fair"?

But, I'll also point out that you touched on a valid point:

Look Jac, you are arguing with me for PERFECT LAWS in a society that is far, far, far away from being perfect.

Society is far from perfect. But what "perfection" is there to be had beyond what you believe is the way things ought to be.

If we live, we die and that's it, who cares right? There is no point. So why should we care about society not getting it right -- whatever "right" is? So if it doesn't affect me, then do what you want.

This thinking is really a foundation to secular beliefs, abortion no matter how logical the pro-life is, should just be a matter of what serves one's self best.

This is why I wrote earlier on that I was hoping for a response from the "moral Atheist" who doesn't shrink back from embracing the universal morality they intuit when the logic leads to a position they dislike. As I wrote:

But occasionally your moral Atheist will explore bioethical issues more seriously. So that's who I'm hoping will read over my post and think rather than write it off as simply religious nonsense.

The moral Atheist will say all humans deserve human rights, and follow that where it logically leads them. The Atheist who shrinks back will put out spin along the lines that society is far from perfect... so why should we care on this issue.

To jlay,

I do apologize if my incredulity to you position has come across in a bad tone. As I posted/stated before, life is complex -Reducing it down to a simple And/Or seems...some how wrong to myslef.

*Waves hand @ Kurieuo.

As a secular agnostic (ON the atheistic end of the sliding scale) I'd be happy to throw ideas/comments etc back and forth.

Very much cheers to all.

@FL

The danger with this type of thinking is that it opens the door to euthanasia, or as it is now being called, ''the right to die with dignity.''

Would you be OK with euthanizing a dependent elderly relative unable live on his own without your care?

1. Euthanasia

This is not the subject we are talking about here. But I will give you a short answer: euthanasia does exist in one form or another. Instead of asking me about euthanasia you should be more worried about global eugenia that happens at the moment.

2. Elderly people

If you ask the wrong question, there is no point in answering right?

A dependent elderly relative is not LEGALLY dependent on me. I do have a MORAL obligation to help them more or less, but the key question: CAN I REALLY provide care for them?

By the way, we do have elderly homes and care services today so people who need support don't end up "euthanized".


*** Extra: Let's say that I have 1 million $$$$ in total. Me and you are both very ill and very good friends/relatives. In order to save my life I need 1m. You ask me to help you. Your treatment also costs 1m. What should I do? I mean, if I willingly help you, I am committing suicide/euthanasia.

@Kurieuo

The moral Atheist will say all humans deserve human rights, and follow that where it logically leads them. The Atheist who shrinks back will put out spin along the lines that society is far from perfect... so why should we care on this issue.

I am not putting any spin along the lines. I just presented you with a fact. I didn't create any spin at all. The spin has been there all along. In present times the spin is just more visible.

BryanH wrote:1. Euthanasia

This is not the subject we are talking about here. But I will give you a short answer: euthanasia does exist in one form or another. Instead of asking me about euthanasia you should be more worried about global eugenia that happens at the moment.

I know that euthanasia exists de facto almost everywhere. I am more concerned about its increasing de jure acceptance. As for euthanasia not being the subject, you are wrong. Abortion and ''the right to die in dignity'' are on a continuum.

As for ''eugenia'', what is that? Do you mean eugenics? If so, eugenics gives me no worry at all.

BryanH wrote:2. Elderly people

If you ask the wrong question, there is no point in answering right?

A dependent elderly relative is not LEGALLY dependent on me. I do have a MORAL obligation to help them more or less, but the key question: CAN I REALLY provide care for them?

By the way, we do have elderly homes and care services today so people who need support don't end up "euthanized".

Are you splitting hairs or just avoiding my question? Allow me to ask it more bluntly:

You are the legal guardian of your mother who is suffering from Alzheimer's. She's helpless and totally dependent on you. This is a great burden for you and your family. So...do you ''off'' your mother if you can do it legally? What makes this situation any different from aborting a baby?

And as for parking impotent seniors in old-folks' homes, when the money runs out and you can't afford the rent on your mother's place, do you just off her then?

FL

@FL

If so, eugenics gives me no worry at all.

If this doesn't worry you, then why do you care about abortion and euthanasia?

You are the legal guardian of your mother who is suffering from Alzheimer's. She's helpless and totally dependent on you. This is a great burden for you and your family. So...do you ''off'' your mother if you can do it legally? What makes this situation any different from aborting a baby?

Again you are AVOIDING the main issue. It's hard for almost anyone to acknowledge that sometimes we have to choose directly/indirectly who dies and who lives.

I asked you: CAN I REALLY PROVIDE CARE FOR HER?

It's not that I don't want to help her, but can I?

Let's assume the following scenario: I am married and have 2 children. I don't have a big salary and neither does my wife. We also have 2 young children who are in primary school. Me and my wife can barely make ends meet. If I choose to help my mother that would mean quitting my job. Quitting my job would result in our family facing serious financial issues. Basically I would have to choose between my kids and my mother.

But even if I choose to quit my job, because of the financial problems I could lose my house and my family and I would end up in the streets where I couldn't provide any help for my mother anyway. I am not even speaking about the dangers that my children would have to face and if they are lucky they would probably get a new family that can take care of them.


Now if I have to choose between euthanasia and putting my mother in a home, I would always choose the home.


As long as we live in a society where the main focus is money and some people die because they just don't have the money to survive, I WOULDN'T BE SO BOLD TO SAY THAT EUGENICS DON'T WORRY ME.

You should be worried a LOT about this problem mate.