Evidence for God from Science

Eureka wrote:I like your strategic choice for thread location, Kurieuo! I agree that it is important to recognize the large-scale moral and social implications of abortion legislation, and I hope the links you provided remind people that the pro-life movement is not exclusively driven by religious motivations. However, I don't agree that the pro-life position is necessarily the "logical" solution to this ethics debate. I really do think I've considered this issue with an open mind, so I'd like to explain where I get stuck when arguing for the criminalization of abortion--maybe someone around here can set me straight.

Sure, lets take a look. I'm going to go ahead and put your opinion under the harsh microscope of philosophy.

Eureka wrote:I recognize that a newly-conceived embryo is fully alive, 100% human and completely unique, and I consistently and shamelessly refer to the 6 month-old fetus I'm currently carrying as my "baby" or my "son" even though he's still a bit too rare to safely handle birth just yet.

Do we need to go on? You pretty much conceded to Pro life once you called it Human and alive.

Eureka wrote:Even though this tiny unborn person has got me head-over-heels in love, I recognize that for the first several months of my pregnancy my baby had not yet developed the physical attributes that are necessary for any type of conscious thought.

And this is backed by what evidence? What does conscious thought have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that we can kill people who are in coma, under general anesthesia, sleeping, or generally in any confirmed unconscious state?
You are of course talking about the cerebral cortex, correct? There isn't a single pre-natal doctor who agrees with you on this, btw. More on that later.

Eureka wrote:Personally, I think that there is a major difference between a human with the capacity for consciousness and a human who does not have that capacity--and I honestly think that this is a critical consideration when discussing the intrinsic value of human life. Most people I know have said that they would prefer to die rather than be sustained in a vegetative state, so it seems that Im not the only one who recognizes that an active brain absolutely impacts the overall value of life. People usually respond to this argument by saying that the potential/probability of the human baby for achieving consciousness in the future is sufficient to dismiss this difference, and for the sake of argument I will yield to this line of thinking even though I'm not sure I really consider the situations to be equal.

What is the overall value for life? Can you scale it down for me?
Again, not sure what consciousness has anything at all to do weather or not you are human and if you have value.
Until you can prove that consciousness is necessarily connected to humanity and value, you're arguing from an irrational point. Believe me, you won't get there. Metaphysics are NOT physics. There is a serious presupposition here on your part that you need to clarify. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "I don't think its equal" commits 2 fallacies. Arguing from ignorance and Begging the question (seems to be popular to make these fallacies on this board lately).

I'd like for you to read this article.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-re ... ans-boy-r/

Eureka wrote:If we assume that the life of the embryo/fetus/baby is equal in value to the life of the mother, then the pro-life/pro-choice debate boils down to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and how this right compares to the baby's right to life. This is because pregnancy is a dangerous, physically demanding process that introduces MANY health risks to the woman, including both temporary issues and lasting issues.

There are a lot of things that are dangerous to our health, but such does not justify murder of another person. In fact, pregnancy is a whole lot safer then plenty of dangerous hazards to our health that we are fully in control of.

The very idea that danger to your health justifies decriminalized pre meditated murder or accomplice to murder is so out there. Making an exception to this to simply murder the silent and defenseless is irrational, inconsistent, and outright evil.

Eureka wrote:Whether or not it is a "natural" process does not mitigate the damage that it does to your body, and the sliding scale of chaos that it imposes is pretty impossible to predict.

This is an argument from ignorance.

Eureka wrote:Legally requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, particularly when the pregnant woman did not consent to the circumstances that led to the pregnancy,

Did not consent? Are you arguing abortion for rape victims? Even if so, I cannot find where you are drawing that line that being a victim of rape justifies decriminalized pre meditated murder or accomplice to murder. Go ahead and make those connections and show me how they are necessarily true.

Eureka wrote:is legally requiring a woman to sacrifice aspects of her own health for the life of another human being, and this is dangerous territory.

Let me go ahead and ask this another way because you're still arguing from ignorance and I'm going to demonstrate it.

Can you rationally predict the future? For example, does tomorrow exist? Will you wake up tomorrow? Will you even be alive at noon? Dinnertime? Go ahead and prove to me that such events WILL OCCUR.

Eureka wrote:It could be argued that the right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy, and at first glance that seems like a reasonable statement,

It is a reasonable statement. Your mind is in fact thinking rationally here. Lets see where you go with this.

Eureka wrote:but the implications of that argument are really severe. There are many laws describing the specific responsibilities that humans have to each other, designed to maximize the protection of each individual's own rights.

They are severe? Really? and they are designed to protect individual rights? Then why are you advocating or supporting the idea that someone's individual rights tramples over another person's right to their life?

Eureka wrote:Once someone has committed to parenthood and accepts the rights that accompany legal guardianship of a child, that person becomes subject to other legal responsibilities associated with parenting, and this is usually considered a pretty fair trade.

Well, I would certainly hope so. Could you imagine a world where parents aren't responsible for the raising of their children? or not legally responsible for any damage they inflict upon society? If anything, it makes the consequences of negligence a very real thing for parents to consider if they stop caring.

Eureka wrote:Nonetheless, I do not know of any laws except for abortion regulations that require a parent to sacrifice his or her health to sustain the life of the child.

Let me give you clue. Because its inconsistent with the reality of what personhood is.

Eureka wrote:Whether or not a parent has a moral obligation to risk personal injury to save a child's life is a separate issue--but should it really be considered a CRIME to protect your own body?

No, but it is a crime to murder or accomplice to murder.
Also, I assure you that you have a moral obligation to risk injury to yourself. For example, stress does in fact cause injury and health problems. Stroke, heart attack, lack of sleep, and so forth. Also, its not just stress inducing to save a child's life, its also stress inducing to SUSTAIN their livelihood. Children require sacrifices. What else is new? If you didn't consider those sacrifices before you began your sexual activity, it doesn't excuse you. Life has consequences for your actions (In my case, my child was a blessing to my life), and murdering the silent and defenseless isn't logically consistent or morally right. Its inconsistent and its a moral abomination. Point is, that one's personal psychology on becoming a parent is completely unrelated and holds NO weight on determining if someone else's life has value. Thats irrational relativism.

Eureka wrote:If we decide that the right to life is greater than the right to protect your own health, then you could rightfully be punished for refusing to donate your kidney when your child needs a transplant,

No, you went off the rails. You've made a syllogistic error here. Theres an ENORMOUS difference between illness and murder. Its not even close and I'm surprised anyone would even try to make such a connection.

Eureka wrote:or for refusing to let a strange homeless person take shelter in your home during a terrible blizzard.

You're really off the rails here. Not only is bringing a homeless person into your home not a hazard to your health (despite that its not even a good excuse to murder someone else), a homeless person has a free will, ability to act, and does in fact have a life.

Eureka wrote:I think that these kinds of ethical dilemmas are outside the scope of the court, even if the protection I provide myself comes at the expense of another human life.

Its actually pretty black and white, and easy for a court/judge to decide. Does your actions impede upon someone else's right to life? (Murder, accomplice to murder, etc)
What the consequences would be for the offense is whats actually the unknown aspect of this.
First off, the murder of unborn children needs to stop. Its not logically consistent or rational. There are consequences for being an irrational human being, and I don't see why we should make murdering the silent and defenseless an exception.

Eureka wrote:Until the time that medicine can reliably remove and sustain a pre-term baby outside of the woman's body, killing the baby through abortion will remain a woman's only option for self-defense in this situation.

Murder is ok right now? Quite a warped way of thinking things. Is this like one of those stand your ground arguments? Judge, this baby was killing me. I had no choice but to kill him first!
Sounds completely rational, right?

Eureka wrote:To hold her criminally liable for protecting her own health is to say that the value of another human life is GREATER than the value of her life,

We're not saying that a unborn child is GREATER then the mother's life. I'm saying its equal and treating it as equal.
What you are saying is that its perfectly ok to murder unborn children because of some irrational prediction a future that does not exist in reality.

Eureka wrote:which simply makes the woman a slave to her child.

Now you're equating it to slavery? Please go ahead and show me how that is necessarily connected? This is gonna be good.

Eureka wrote:As unpleasant as it is to describe should-be loving relationships in these kinds of terms, I am only talking about the law right now--and laws about this specific scenario require comparing two human lives and determining the extent to which one individual's rights can impose upon the rights of another. Unless the rights of the baby are ranked higher than the rights of the mother, abortion should remain a legal option.

Hey, guess what? You know why its unpleasant? Because its WRONG. Hello??? Are you listening to yourself? Are you saying that the laws that man have made are infallible?

Nobody here is arguing that the rights of an unborn child is ranked GREATER then a birthmother. The logical stance is that they are equal. You've made a complete straw man argument out your position and moved the goal posts to somewhere where a Pro lifer doesn't believe in.

Eureka wrote:Honestly, I think that just plain sucks...especially because the "pro-choice" movement has painted this image of a "strong woman taking control of her life and her body" like the triumph over a baby's rights is something to be proud of.

Am I reading this right? We're asking people to be rational and believe in value of the life of ALL persons. The unborn, the children, and the adults.

Eureka wrote:The efforts that are made to downplay the baby's right to anything has been so successful that many people feel comfortable using abortion as a means of evading the consequences of their own actions, which is tragic. I believe that more regulations should exist to avoid the abuse of this procedure, but I honestly dont have specific suggestions.

So, you want regulations in sanctioned murder? Not just criminalize it?

Eureka wrote:Still, as tragic as it is, I support a woman's right to evict her baby from her belly...

I think its tragic that there are people who believe the arguments you presented are any good.

There you go.

Eureka wrote:I recognize that a newly-conceived embryo is fully alive, 100% human and completely unique, and I consistently and shamelessly refer to the 6 month-old fetus I'm currently carrying as my "baby" or my "son" even though he's still a bit too rare to safely handle birth just yet. Even though this tiny unborn person has got me head-over-heels in love, I recognize that for the first several months of my pregnancy my baby had not yet developed the physical attributes that are necessary for any type of conscious thought. Personally, I think that there is a major difference between a human with the capacity for consciousness and a human who does not have that capacity--and I honestly think that this is a critical consideration when discussing the intrinsic value of human life.

I'm a hospital chaplain who works with end-stage dementia patients. I also have a close family member dying of end stage Alzheimer's. Given my experience, I have two problems with what you've presented. I also have two more problems just based on general facts.

1. End-stage dementia patients do not have the capacity for conscious that anymore, either. On your argument, my residents have lost "the intrinsic value of human life." If you are going to be consistent, and I highly doubt you are, you would have to argue that my residents (indeed, my family member) no longer have a right to life, either. We may choose to sustain them at our convenience, of course, much as you are doing with your son. But on your view, they have no right to demand ethical, medical treatment.

2. If people choose not to be sustained through certain types of treatments (hospitalization, CPR, ventilation, hydration/nutrition via tubes (including IV)), they have made a rational and ethical choice. This is well understood in the bioethical community. There is no ethical obligation on the part of a patient to accept medical care. There is, however, an ethical obligation on the part of the medical community to make that care available to those who want it. Therefore, there is no comparison to abortion, because the child cannot rationally decide not to continue to receive medical care.

And the two general arguments:

1. There is a widely held (and legally enshrined) principle that brain dead patients are no longer alive and therefore they can be "killed" (not simply allowed to die). That is something I disagree with, but I disagree with it because I believe they are still alive. On the other hand, there is a difference in brain death and a permanent vegetative state. The former is whole-brain death; the latter simply higher brain death. Neither are reversible. In the case of the latter, however, these people are still (rightly) regarded as alive, even if they are permanently incapable of conscious thought. On your view, people in comas should therefore be regarded as dead and should have no right to demand ethical, medical care. That view is (rightly) widely rejected by society at large and the medical community in general.

2. After your baby is born, he still won't be self-conscious, either. That doesn't happen until about two years old. So, if you are going to be consistent (and, again, I doubt you will be), you should be willing to argue that parents ought to be allowed to kill their children up until about two.

Finally, a more philosophically oriented objection:

In all of this, you fail to distinguish between the capacity for conscious thought and the awareness of conscious thought. Modern neurology has shown that we have conscious thoughts and then we become aware of them. That is not to say (as many atheists are wont to) that there is some kind of neurophysical determinism going on in our brains that decides for us what we think. It is only to say that it, physically speaking, we become aware of the thoughts that we produce. It is an open question, then, as to the ultimate source of those thoughts. If, as I believe, those thoughts are rooted in the soul itself, then what is actually happening is that the soul has--strictly because it is a human soul--the capacity both to think and to become aware of its thoughts through a particular physical medium. That physical medium is developed in the brain and so exercised in the brain. When that medium breaks, the soul simply loses its capacity to exercise something it just does by nature. That does not mean it looses the capacity itself. For instance, if I lose my tongue, I lose the ability to speak. It does not follow, however, that my soul lost that ability. It just lost the means to exercise that ability. The bottom line to all of this is that you have tied the intrinsic value of human life to our ability to exercise a particular ability. But that is not why life is valuable. On the other hand, life is valuable because of what it IS (human life).

I'm not going to deal with the rights of the mother over her own body. That just begs the question. If your unborn child has a right to life that cannot be violated as must be honored (in the same sense you do), then it doesn't matter whether or not a woman has rights over her own body. If she kills the child, she has violated his right to life and therefore done wrong. So the ONLY issue here is whether or not the child has an intrinsic right to life. Any argument from the rights of the mother assumes the child has no right to life (otherwise, the argument can't be made), and therefore begs the question.

@jac + dom

Start getting real. No matter how illogical and relativist something might be for you, that doesn't mean that the WORLD lives by your rules. Actually the world moves in a total different way.

@dom

The very idea that danger to your health justifies decriminalized pre meditated murder or accomplice to murder is so out there. Making an exception to this to simply murder the silent and defenseless is irrational, inconsistent, and outright evil.

Did not consent? Are you arguing abortion for rape victims? Even if so, I cannot find where you are drawing that line that being a victim of rape justifies decriminalized pre meditated murder or accomplice to murder. Go ahead and make those connections and show me how they are necessarily true.

Can you rationally predict the future? For example, does tomorrow exist? Will you wake up tomorrow? Will you even be alive at noon? Dinnertime? Go ahead and prove to me that such events WILL OCCUR.

They are severe? Really? and they are designed to protect individual rights? Then why are you advocating or supporting the idea that someone's individual rights tramples over another person's right to their life?

Individual rights are being disregarded day after day and nothing has changed... A murderer kills 10 people and he is sent to prison for life with his human rights intact... But he trampled upon 10 people's right to life and he gets a cell in prison for which guess what? Other innocent people have to pay tax so he lives out his life? Why is that? Because life is important and his life is important and valuable. Really now?

You want to advocate for human rights for unborn babies? Then make sure that human rights are actually working which they are not of course. Statistically speaking China and India count for half the population of this planet and let's now add Africa, South America and Muslims. In these countries human rights are not respected ranking from some rights being respected to none being respected.

Even in civilized countries such rights have a tough time being respected.

Speaking just from the perspective of REAL LIFE and numbers on paper, human rights are a joke, a cruel joke. It's just an illusion on paper.

You want human rights? Then make them real.

a homeless person has a free will, ability to act, and does in fact have a life.

I know that some people end up homeless because they actually chose the wrong path and continued on that path no matter what, but you might want to actually take a look at the MAJORITY of homeless people and how they ended there. Free will? You are a cruel person Dom.

We're not saying that a unborn child is GREATER then the mother's life. I'm saying its equal and treating it as equal.

The mother can survive on its own. Can the child do the same? How can you actually try to push equality in this equation?

Nobody here is arguing that the rights of an unborn child is ranked GREATER then a birthmother. The logical stance is that they are equal. You've made a complete straw man argument out your position and moved the goal posts to somewhere where a Pro lifer doesn't believe in.

The logical stance makes no sense in this case. The child is dependent on the mother to be born. A mother can make choices. The child can't. Automatically you don't have equal positions no matter how much you want to push them forward. Equal positions means that both parties involved start in pole position. In this case they clearly don't.

@jac

Therefore, there is no comparison to abortion, because the child cannot rationally decide not to continue to receive medical care.

1) Children are not allowed to make medical decisions anyways until they are 18. A doctor can't perform any medical procedure without the consent of a parent or both parents.

2) Children are not allowed to decide in legal matters until they reach 16/18/21 depending on country of residence.

In all of this, you fail to distinguish between the capacity for conscious thought and the awareness of conscious thought. Modern neurology has shown that we have conscious thoughts and then we become aware of them. That is not to say (as many atheists are wont to) that there is some kind of neurophysical determinism going on in our brains that decides for us what we think. It is only to say that it, physically speaking, we become aware of the thoughts that we produce. It is an open question, then, as to the ultimate source of those thoughts. If, as I believe, those thoughts are rooted in the soul itself, then what is actually happening is that the soul has--strictly because it is a human soul--the capacity both to think and to become aware of its thoughts through a particular physical medium. That physical medium is developed in the brain and so exercised in the brain. When that medium breaks, the soul simply loses its capacity to exercise something it just does by nature. That does not mean it looses the capacity itself. For instance, if I lose my tongue, I lose the ability to speak. It does not follow, however, that my soul lost that ability. It just lost the means to exercise that ability. The bottom line to all of this is that you have tied the intrinsic value of human life to our ability to exercise a particular ability. But that is not why life is valuable. On the other hand, life is valuable because of what it IS (human life).

Your example has really puzzled me and raised one important question, anyways, at least from my point of view. You are saying that the brain is the physical medium through which the soul expresses itself. If the soul has lost its connection with the reality we live in, what is the point of keeping the soul trapped in this world and not letting it go to the next?

If she kills the child, she has violated his right to life and therefore done wrong.

The child can't obtain the life on his own therefore doesn't have a life. I think the expression "to give life" is pretty clear. Someone must first give you a life. You don't get that by default.

BryanH wrote:@jac + dom

Start getting real. No matter how illogical and relativist something might be for you, that doesn't mean that the WORLD lives by your rules. Actually the world moves in a total different way.

You need to start getting real. Your statement here is a contradiction and inconsistent with itself. You talk about "the world moves" as if its infallible, right?

BryanH wrote:Individual rights are being disregarded day after day and nothing has changed... A murderer kills 10 people and he is sent to prison for life with his human rights intact... But he trampled upon 10 people's right to life and he gets a cell in prison for which guess what? Other innocent people have to pay tax so he lives out his life? Why is that? Because life is important and his life is important and valuable. Really now?

I do not advocate for the death penalty, and neither does the death penalty equate to murdering unborn children. You've made a syllogistic error here, sir.
I have never made the claim that the justice system is infallible. Nobody on the pro life has made that claim, sir. Thats a strawman argument you are making.

Also, your strawman is completely misguided. If you cannot forgive a murderer because of your own personal psychology, thats your problem.

Nobody here has argued that women who murder their unborn children cannot be forgiven for their wrongdoing. We are asking for the murder of unborn children to simply stop. Criminalizing it, the first step. Thats all.

BryanH wrote:You want to advocate for human rights for unborn babies? Then make sure that human rights are actually working which they are not of course.

No, sir. You've made a Tu quoque fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

BryanH wrote:Statistically speaking China and India count for half the population of this planet and let's now add Africa, South America and Muslims. In these countries human rights are not respected ranking from some rights being respected to none being respected.

.....and?.......Because rights are being trampled somewhere else, it justifies murdering unborn children? Wheres the logic there, chief?

BryanH wrote:Even in civilized countries such rights have a tough time being respected.

..........and?...............where are you getting at?

BryanH wrote:Speaking just from the perspective of REAL LIFE and numbers on paper, human rights are a joke, a cruel joke. It's just an illusion on paper.

This argument you're making is complete joke. You're "REAL LIFE" perspective is void of any logical basis or rational epistemology.

BryanH wrote:You want human rights? Then make them real.

I don't need to "make them real". They exist weather or not you believe they are there. Take off those strawman blinders you got on.

BryanH wrote:I know that some people end up homeless because they actually chose the wrong path and continued on that path no matter what, but you might want to actually take a look at the MAJORITY of homeless people and how they ended there. Free will? You are a cruel person Dom.

Homeless people is a FALSE ANALOGY. The fact that there are homeless people does not justify sanctioned murder.

Could you imagine the logic you are trying to employ here?

Excuse me, sir. Unborn babies are killed because you make dolls in a chinese sweatshop. You are responsible.
Excuse me. Unborn babies are killed because you rape women in the republic of congo. You are responsible.

Yeah, thats really logical there, champ.

BryanH wrote:The mother can survive on its own. Can the child do the same? How can you actually try to push equality in this equation?

Hey Bryan, newborn babies cannot survive on their own, either. Are you advocating murdering children after birth, too?

Go back to the drawing board with this one.

BryanH wrote:The logical stance makes no sense in this case.

No, Bryan. YOUR LOGIC makes no sense. Try again.

BryanH wrote:The child is dependent on the mother to be born.

......and.....? Your point?

BryanH wrote:A mother can make choices.

To murder? Got it. If I need an assassin in the future, I'll be sure to get a mother on the case. Apparently, they are above the law.

BryanH wrote: The child can't.

.....and.....?......so what?....

BryanH wrote:Automatically you don't have equal positions no matter how much you want to push them forward. Equal positions means that both parties involved start in pole position. In this case they clearly don't.

Hold the presses! Automatically? Based on "pole position"? Are you sure you're not talking about F1 racing? Thats completely off topic.

Nice try, Bryan. You prove once again that you don't have a logical stance on pretty much every subject.

*Holds up hand*

Um....are the majority of posters here equating the blastocyst stage of development to?

Just thought I'd ask....

@dom

Nice try, Bryan. You prove once again that you don't have a logical stance on pretty much every subject.

For a smart guy you have failed miserably in reading between the lines. Logic does not apply to every subject. You seem to have a problem dealing with that. For you logic is above all. Guess what? The rest of the world doesn't actually "logicalize" things like you do.

Why do you keep pointing out logical errors in my discourse if I have clearly stated that the perspective I am advocating for has nothing to do with logic. That's pointless.

You need to understand that some choices people make can't be subject to any kind of logical analysis. Are you able to understand that?

P.S.: I don't even understand how you can quote human rights on the matter of abortion anyways. The Human Rights Declaration doesn't support an unborn child being considered a person in the first place. Are you arguing for a change in the Human Rights Declaration as well? Good luck with that!

BryanH wrote:For a smart guy you have failed miserably in reading between the lines.

You've failed miserably in just reading. The SUBJECT of this thread is: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief. Where does it say the non-logical stance? Joke is on you, Bryan.

BryanH wrote:Logic does not apply to every subject. You seem to have a problem dealing with that.

Is that right? Please provide your theory of knowledge that concludes to the underlined. An assertion without proof is begging the question and arguing from ignorance.

BryanH wrote:For you logic is above all. Guess what? The rest of the world doesn't actually "logicalize" things like you do.

Guess what? You've made an ad populum fallacy.
Guess what? If the "rest of the world" doesn't use logic like me, it does not show that I am wrong, and does not prove that they are right.

BryanH wrote:Why do you keep pointing out logical errors in my discourse if I have clearly stated that the perspective I am advocating for has nothing to do with logic. That's pointless.

The title of this thread is "Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief". It is NOT pointless. YOU are the one who is pointless here.

BryanH wrote:You need to understand that some choices people make can't be subject to any kind of logical analysis. Are you able to understand that?

And what does the choices that some people make have to do weather or not those choices are right or wrong? You are, once again, BEGGING THE QUESTION. If you can show me how someone's personal psychology is somehow an exception, I'd love to hear it. So far, you've brought NOTHING to this discussion.

BryanH wrote:P.S.: I don't even understand how you can quote human rights on the matter of abortion anyways. The Human Rights Declaration doesn't support an unborn child being considered a person in the first place. Are you arguing for a change in the Human Rights Declaration as well? Good luck with that!

You mean this? http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Do you believe that this declaration is infallible in covering "Human rights"? Most importantly, why does this declaration matter?

If you believe in infallible documents, would you accept a Christian supported "Human rights declaration"?


Bryan, its time for you to put up or shut up. If you do not have ANY substance to your claims (yet to be seen despite being asked repeatedly for), then you are simply spamming. Thats against the board discussion guidelines here. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE BEFORE I REPORT YOU TO THE MODERATORS.

dom,

Just because Bryan hasn't shown a willingness to be rational doesn't give you the right to be abusive. I believe others have pointed this out to you time and again.

Give it a rest. If that's the best you can do, just leave the thread or ignore what you take to be stupid responses (for what it's worth, that's what I do). If you feel you have to respond, it really is incumbent upon you to do so in a respectful manner. Bottom line: if the post doesn't warrant a respectful response, it doesn't warrant a response at all.

@dom

You've failed miserably in just reading. The SUBJECT of this thread is: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief. Where does it say the non-logical stance? Joke is on you, Bryan.

So if the title is wrong, we should continue discussing about nothing? You just said that. So the joke is on you.

By the way, the title is formulated quite correctly giving people the option to choose: The Logical Stance Belief OR Non-Belief. I think that the word "NON" covers the illogical aspect.

Is that right? Please provide your theory of knowledge that concludes to the underlined. An assertion without proof is begging the question and arguing from ignorance.

Well, is the world just white and black?

Guess what? You've made an ad populum fallacy.
Guess what? If the "rest of the world" doesn't use logic like me, it does not show that I am wrong, and does not prove that they are right.

I did not say that you are wrong and I didn't say they are right. I just said that the world doesn't behave in a logical manner. So far I am right.

The title of this thread is "Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief". It is NOT pointless. YOU are the one who is pointless here.

As I said in my first response to you: The title is what it is, but I consider it to be an inappropriate perspective for the abortion issue. A title is just a point of origin for a discussion. That's how things change Dom. People talk and while they talk, they might find out that their perspective is not the only one out there. Is that pointless?

Do you believe that this declaration is infallible in covering "Human rights"? Most importantly, why does this declaration matter?

Why does the declaration matter? Well, Dom, it's the same like the you were mocking me in regard to the title of this thread, remember? The Human Rights Declaration is not compatible in its current form with the pro life movement. So why are we even talking about abortion from a human rights perspective anyways?

Now, if you have a personal view on what human rights we should all have please say so. I was just pointing out that the Human Rights Declaration simply doesn't agree with your logical stance. That's all. I also said that I consider human rights a joke. You said that human rights exists. Where and what are you actually talking about?

If you believe in infallible documents, would you accept a Christian supported "Human rights declaration"?

Why would a Christian declaration be infallible and the most important aspect: the current declaration for human rights support equality between people. Not all people are Christian. Quite "illogical" to head into such a direction, wouldn't you say?

Bryan, its time for you to put up or shut up. If you do not have ANY substance to your claims (yet to be seen despite being asked repeatedly for), then you are simply spamming. Thats against the board discussion guidelines here. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE BEFORE I REPORT YOU TO THE MODERATORS.

I will say this again: the world doesn't work by your logic. You want proof for that? This discussion is proof for that. The problem is that you keep pushing your own LOGICAL views on other people without considering anything else and asking them to prove what ever you think it's right. They don't need to prove anything to you Dom. They actually live in the real world where your logic doesn't apply. Theory Vs Practice

You are a smart guy and you will probably be able to win any logical/philosophical debate. Philosophy translates into "love of wisdom". I will never question your love of wisdom Dom, but you need to understand that some people struggle day after day to make ends meet and to put food on the table (survive). Do you really think that such people care about your logical stance?

BryanH wrote:So if the title is wrong, we should continue discussing about nothing? You just said that. So the joke is on you.

The key part in which you need to listen to yourself is when you say "IF". I don't have any reason to believe the title is wrong. You're simply assuming its wrong without explanation. THAT is where the problem is.

BryanH wrote:By the way, the title is formulated quite correctly giving people the option to choose: The Logical Stance Belief OR Non-Belief. I think that the word "NON" covers the illogical aspect.

You can go ahead and show me how its even possible to NOT BELIEVE a proposition for NO REASON AT ALL.

BryanH wrote:Well, is the world just white and black?

Its YOUR THEORY, Bryan. Its not the time to be asking me questions.

BryanH wrote:I did not say that you are wrong and I didn't say they are right.

Uh, yes you are. When you deny a premise, its is necessarily connected that you are saying that the premise is wrong. Then you postulate that "they" as you so dubbed "the world" somehow have a theory that is correct (without a reason).

BryanH wrote:I just said that the world doesn't behave in a logical manner. So far I am right.

Why does the behavior of "the world" matter? Again, until you can show that ones personal psychology actually matters, you are (thus far) wrong.

BryanH wrote:As I said in my first response to you: The title is what it is, but I consider it to be an inappropriate perspective for the abortion issue. A title is just a point of origin for a discussion. That's how things change Dom. People talk and while they talk, they might find out that their perspective is not the only one out there. Is that pointless?

No, of course not BUT you need a reason, Bryan. Key word here. REASON.

BryanH wrote:Why does the declaration matter? Well, Dom, it's the same like the you were mocking me in regard to the title of this thread, remember? The Human Rights Declaration is not compatible in its current form with the pro life movement. So why are we even talking about abortion from a human rights perspective anyways?

You've postulated that the Human rights declaration somehow carries weight on the topic of abortion. As if there is something about the declaration that makes it infallible.

Again, the question. So what?

BryanH wrote:Now, if you have a personal view on what human rights we should all have please say so.

Bryan, I don't have a "personal" view. My "personal" view on the matter of abortion is irrelevant. Stop categorizing my view under relativism. That it is not.

BryanH wrote:I was just pointing out that the Human Rights Declaration simply doesn't agree with your logical stance. That's all.

And I asked, "So what?"

BryanH wrote:I also said that I consider human rights a joke. You said that human rights exists. Where and what are you actually talking about?

Its a joke to you? Look, if you think its a joke, then maybe you should reconsider your contribution to this thread. As in, not post at all. First of all, your recent responses to me were not directed at you initially. I'm not saying you cannot do so, but don't get all bent out of shape when you find that you've mistakenly assimilated someone else's response. I assume you are smart enough to figure that out on your own.

BryanH wrote:Why would a Christian declaration be infallible and the most important aspect: the current declaration for human rights support equality between people. Not all people are Christian. Quite "illogical" to head into such a direction, wouldn't you say?

and unborn children aren't "people"? Go ahead, Bryan. Lets see you justify that.
My point on a Christian declaration has to do with you're assumed infallibility of the declaration you've cited. There is a reason why you would disagree with one declaration and agree with another, right?

BryanH wrote:I will say this again: the world doesn't work by your logic. You want proof for that?

Yes, I do.

BryanH wrote:This discussion is proof for that.

Thats not a proof.

BryanH wrote:The problem is that you keep pushing your own LOGICAL views on other people without considering anything else and asking them to prove what ever you think it's right.

No, I've considered other "views". Also, I'm not asking anyone to prove "what ever I think is right".

BryanH wrote:They don't need to prove anything to you Dom.

Of course they don't. If you want to just propagate your view without reason, then its simply dismissed. I have reasons for my position, and thus its not easily dismissed at all. Thats the key difference here.

BryanH wrote:They actually live in the real world where your logic doesn't apply. Theory Vs Practice

Ok, morpheus. Which pill should I take so that I can go to this "real world"?

Reading "Theory vs practice" from you is by far the most absurd thing you've ever written here.

BryanH wrote:You are a smart guy and you will probably be able to win any logical/philosophical debate. Philosophy translates into "love of wisdom". I will never question your love of wisdom Dom, but you need to understand that some people struggle day after day to make ends meet and to put food on the table (survive). Do you really think that such people care about your logical stance?

Its a good question to ask, however weather or not somebody else "cares" about my logical stance has no bearing on truth. That is, again, your assumed and illogical relativism creeping in. You already know my response there.

The key part in which you need to listen to yourself is when you say "IF". I don't have any reason to believe the title is wrong. You're simply assuming its wrong without explanation. THAT is where the problem is.

Well, actually I did provide quite a few examples which you ignored. That's your problem, not mine.

Just a quick review:

-poverty
-money governed society
-social behaviour

You can go ahead and show me how its even possible to NOT BELIEVE a proposition for NO REASON AT ALL.

Do not confuse REASON with LOGIC.

Its YOUR THEORY, Bryan. Its not the time to be asking me questions.

That wasn't a question. It was a self-explanatory rhetorical question.

Uh, yes you are. When you deny a premise, its is necessarily connected that you are saying that the premise is wrong. Then you postulate that "they" as you so dubbed "the world" somehow have a theory that is correct (without a reason).

I didn't say that the world has a theory that is correct. What I was saying is that the world doesn't not follow your logic and as much as you would like to, your logical conclusions are not applied in the real world.

Why does the behavior of "the world" matter? Again, until you can show that ones personal psychology actually matters, you are (thus far) wrong.

Lol mate. Behaviour is what makes us communicate here on this forum. Without behavior you wouldn't be able to send your point of view across. As I said in my statement above: you claim to have discovered an objective truth, but the reality seems to disregard your truth and behave in a different way. You might be right, but the question is: is your truth the only one that we need to consider in the matter of abortion? Society doesn't follow just one rule... there are so many... some formal, some informal.

No, of course not BUT you need a reason, Bryan. Key word here. REASON.

I do have a reason Dom. You might be right in your perspective, but that's not the only one right now. There are many perspectives which intersect and influence one another. You can't simply come with yours and disregard the others.

You've postulated that the Human rights declaration somehow carries weight on the topic of abortion. As if there is something about the declaration that makes it infallible.

Again, the question. So what?

Let's end the Human Rights Declaration dispute here. I told you at leas three times that I do not consider it to be worthy of any appraisal at all.

Ok, morpheus. Which pill should I take so that I can go to this "real world"?

Reading "Theory vs practice" from you is by far the most absurd thing you've ever written here.

You are funny but in a cruel way.

It's not absurd at all Dom. You say that the logical stance is to not kill unborn babies. People do kill unborn babies. Theory vs Practice
The problem is that you are not interested in the context and the cause of abortion. Ok...

Its a good question to ask, however weather or not somebody else "cares" about my logical stance has no bearing on truth.

True. It does have no bearing on truth, but the problem is that your truth is not the only one we need to take a look at when advocating for abortion or pro-life.

I tried to tell you a few times that there is actually a myriad of truths that converge in this matter and paradoxically, some of them are totally opposite.

BryanH wrote:@dom

You've failed miserably in just reading. The SUBJECT of this thread is: Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-Belief. Where does it say the non-logical stance? Joke is on you, Bryan.

So if the title is wrong, we should continue discussing about nothing? You just said that. So the joke is on you.

By the way, the title is formulated quite correctly giving people the option to choose: The Logical Stance Belief OR Non-Belief. I think that the word "NON" covers the illogical aspect.

Actually, the intention of the topic was to convey that pro-life is a logical stance regardless of one's beliefs religious or otherwise.

I.e.,

Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Belief or Non-belief
Pro-Life: The Logical Stance Regardless of Whether One Is Religious or Atheist

The point being, that belief in God, or lack thereof, has no baring on the issue of the status of the unborn.

And as such, why I then proceeded to offer up arguments and secular pro-life links.

Hi Eureka,

Eureka wrote:I like your strategic choice for thread location, Kurieuo! I agree that it is important to recognize the large-scale moral and social implications of abortion legislation, and I hope the links you provided remind people that the pro-life movement is not exclusively driven by religious motivations. However, I don't agree that the pro-life position is necessarily the "logical" solution to this ethics debate. I really do think I've considered this issue with an open mind, so I'd like to explain where I get stuck when arguing for the criminalization of abortion--maybe someone around here can set me straight.

Kurieuo wrote: And so, if the unborn human really is human life and there is no valid reason to kill them anymore than a baby, child or adult, then should not the unborn be afforded the same human rights?

I recognize that a newly-conceived embryo is fully alive, 100% human and completely unique, and I consistently and shamelessly refer to the 6 month-old fetus I'm currently carrying as my "baby" or my "son" even though he's still a bit too rare to safely handle birth just yet.

Actually, if you gave birth prematurely to your current unborn baby, it could survive if not left to expire on the table.

6 months is quite developed. Babies are known to have survived from 20 weeks.

Eureka wrote:Even though this tiny unborn person has got me head-over-heels in love, I recognize that for the first several months of my pregnancy my baby had not yet developed the physical attributes that are necessary for any type of conscious thought. Personally, I think that there is a major difference between a human with the capacity for consciousness and a human who does not have that capacity--and I honestly think that this is a critical consideration when discussing the intrinsic value of human life. Most people I know have said that they would prefer to die rather than be sustained in a vegetative state, so it seems that Im not the only one who recognizes that an active brain absolutely impacts the overall value of life. People usually respond to this argument by saying that the potential/probability of the human baby for achieving consciousness in the future is sufficient to dismiss this difference, and for the sake of argument I will yield to this line of thinking even though I'm not sure I really consider the situations to be equal.

Let me point out, by your using level of development as a response, am I then correct to say that you do not believe that a human should be afforded human rights in virtue of their humanness?

What level of consciousness would you subjectively believe is good enough in order for a human to be afforded basic human rights such as the right to not be harmed by someone else?

Did you know that evidence suggests a baby will respond via movement when touched as early as 8 weeks after conception. And by 20 weeks they appear to be able to feel much pain. (http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/fetal ... g4o15IwdqA)

But that's besides the point. If it is alright to kill another human because they do not feel pain, then it would be quite fine to kill someone with a neurological condition who feels no pain, or even kill someone via a painless means. Logical consistency would demand that if it is alright to kill an unborn human being because they feel no pain, then it is likewise alright to kill a born human being who feels no pain or has no consciousness.

Or, if rights are only afforded based on consciousness, then less conscious or people or those with a mental condition who might be prevented from being fully aware somehow less human -- or deserving of lesser human rights?

Re: capacity, you are wrong with the unborn. After conception all unborn have the capacity for consciousness. Consciousness just may not yet be actualised because they are in a very early stage of human development. Unlike those in vegetative states who may have lost a consciousness state (at least in this life), the unborn have not. They're still undergoing normal development as a human being. Nothing is malfunctioning. And they certainly haven't had a chance to tell others that they'd prefer to die in such a state.

Furthermore, as Jac rightly points out, consistency demands if you make this the subjective quality that matters as to whether we afford someone the basic right to life, then those born who aren't aware should perhaps loose their right to life. Heck, if I'm knocked unconscious or in a coma, society if consistent could just end my life rather than take care of me. A grading scale could also logically be introduced which says those with higher IQ (or who are more aware) are perhaps more human or valuable and deserving of life than those with lesser IQ or who suffer some mental condition.

Does all this fit alright with you?

Eureka wrote:If we assume that the life of the embryo/fetus/baby is equal in value to the life of the mother, then the pro-life/pro-choice debate boils down to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and how this right compares to the baby's right to life. This is because pregnancy is a dangerous, physically demanding process that introduces MANY health risks to the woman, including both temporary issues and lasting issues. Whether or not it is a "natural" process does not mitigate the damage that it does to your body, and the sliding scale of chaos that it imposes is pretty impossible to predict.

Legally requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, particularly when the pregnant woman did not consent to the circumstances that led to the pregnancy, is legally requiring a woman to sacrifice aspects of her own health for the life of another human being, and this is dangerous territory. It could be argued that the right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy, and at first glance that seems like a reasonable statement, but the implications of that argument are really severe. There are many laws describing the specific responsibilities that humans have to each other, designed to maximize the protection of each individual's own rights. Once someone has committed to parenthood and accepts the rights that accompany legal guardianship of a child, that person becomes subject to other legal responsibilities associated with parenting, and this is usually considered a pretty fair trade. Nonetheless, I do not know of any laws except for abortion regulations that require a parent to sacrifice his or her health to sustain the life of the child. Whether or not a parent has a moral obligation to risk personal injury to save a child's life is a separate issue--but should it really be considered a CRIME to protect your own body? If we decide that the right to life is greater than the right to protect your own health, then you could rightfully be punished for refusing to donate your kidney when your child needs a transplant, or for refusing to let a strange homeless person take shelter in your home during a terrible blizzard. I think that these kinds of ethical dilemmas are outside the scope of the court, even if the protection I provide myself comes at the expense of another human life.

Until the time that medicine can reliably remove and sustain a pre-term baby outside of the woman's body, killing the baby through abortion will remain a woman's only option for self-defense in this situation. To hold her criminally liable for protecting her own health is to say that the value of another human life is GREATER than the value of her life, which simply makes the woman a slave to her child. As unpleasant as it is to describe should-be loving relationships in these kinds of terms, I am only talking about the law right now--and laws about this specific scenario require comparing two human lives and determining the extent to which one individual's rights can impose upon the rights of another. Unless the rights of the baby are ranked higher than the rights of the mother, abortion should remain a legal option.

Honestly, I think that just plain sucks...especially because the "pro-choice" movement has painted this image of a "strong woman taking control of her life and her body" like the triumph over a baby's rights is something to be proud of. The efforts that are made to downplay the baby's right to anything has been so successful that many people feel comfortable using abortion as a means of evading the consequences of their own actions, which is tragic. I believe that more regulations should exist to avoid the abuse of this procedure, but I honestly dont have specific suggestions. Still, as tragic as it is, I support a woman's right to evict her baby from her belly...

Ok...tired of typing on this phone! I look forward to criticism of my arguments!

This is a quite cruel perspective, and in my opinion does quite a disservice to women and motherhood.

Pro-life feminists would be in sharp disagreement with the common caricature that you setup here. Yes, motherhood requires certain responsibilities, but an unplanned pregnancy equally brings unplanned joy. At least, until one gets judged by family and friends and the shame and pressure to abort rather than support starts weighing down on the new mother. Who protects these women?

The feminist, Alice Paul who was arrested for protesting a woman's right to vote, called abortion the "ultimate exploitation of women." It allows men to tell women what to do. It gets men off the hook. It allows fear-mongering that convinces women that the joy of giving birth to new human life and mothering their child is the most horrible, risky and dangerous thing. It'll ruin her career, ruin her education... how will she afford to look after "it". With abortion legal, her choice is diminished. Her mental state can be attacked and anguished by others who would have her kill her baby.

And then what of the mental anguish and depression many women often suffer after an abortion? We're moral beings. We have a consciences. The emotional well-being of a woman to allow her own baby to be killed often ends up haunting her in nightmares and dreams. Many women have become pro-life when it dawns on them the reality of the lie they bought into. How far our society has come today to hoodwinking women (and men) out of unspeakable joy.

Babies are a blessing. When you have yours, you'll mature and learn beyond belief. And if you love yours, you'll experience great joy and unspeakable warmth when you see your baby smile at you and absolutely love you without question. Nothing compares to that feeling. And of course, the patience and character that you'll gain... some maturing qualities I believe can only come through the experience of raising children.

But re-focusing on your argument that a woman has the right to expel a human baby from her womb. A baby is not a parasite to its mother. An unborn baby is developing in its natural environment -- inside its mother's womb. Accordingly, the baby has every natural right to be there. It is quite safe for the woman and baby. Abortions can introduce complications and dangers. Health care can help cases where complications exist, but by far and large, a woman will safely give birth.

Forgive the imagery, but if the woman is able to kill the baby being in her womb, she should also be able to prosecute the man for the ejaculation of unwanted semen into her. The man after all, has caused as you say "a dangerous, physically demanding process that introduces MANY health risks to the woman, including both temporary issues and lasting issues." By your logic, surely the man should be able to be prosecuted for abusing the woman with his insemination?

But, that sounds odd doesn't it, especially with consensual sex? Because the woman consented to sex, she is now responsible for the natural consequence that may unfold. Engagement in sex has natural outcomes whether desirable or not. And this is one issue here. Today, we want 100% freedom to do as we please, with 0 responsibility. But, this itself is just wrong. Philosophically, I'd reason that the more freedom one expresses, the greater their responsibility. Yet, our society today is clearly not geared this way. Many prefer to demand respect, rather than earn it. Honour today, in my experience whether work or amongst many people, is seen as something stupid or naive in our Western cultures.

But, let's put aside my argument from logical consistency, that is, according to your logic that men should be prosecutable for unwanted insemination...

Say a babies "natural right" to be in it's mother's womb is not enough even when the woman is responsible. If a woman wishes to dishonour her own motherhood, because she doesn't wish her body or life to be inconvenienced, then why should she be given the right to have a corpse?

When abortions fail, and babies are born alive, they are often left to expire. Planned Parenthood represented said in court that in such cases, the choice should be between the mother and her doctors. Do you agree with this?

With science and technology, the entire issue of abortion could be swept away via surrogacy research... artificial or otherwise. Yet, why isn't this even considered an option by many? As far as I see, it's because the corpse of the unborn baby is wanted. Abortion clinics even sell their parts.

As sad as it is, there is also much evil and excitement having the power to kill human life. Being able to control the fate of another human being. Being able to "box" them out of humanity to increase one's own value. Many people like to tare others down, because it makes them feel more important and valuable. I can't help but feel with abortion, some women find it thrilling having the power to kill their unborn. Perhaps I realise this because of one event I witness. I was eating Subway for lunch, and heard an evil young woman state to her friends, "I don't care for contraception or if I get pregnant, I'll just get it killed. I've had 8 abortions," and she laughed and her friends laughed with her. THAT, was really disgusting. I wanted to loose my prolifeness and kill her to stop her killing more. Kind of like stories you hear out of Nazi Germany against the Jews. I couldn't believe it. There is an evil thrill to being able to kill others and we see it all the time whether with the Holocaust, Rwanda and still around the world today.

Now, given everything I've said... if you're still not satisfied that an unborn baby should be afforded the right to life if the mother wants it out, then why not try to take it out of the mother unharmed? Why not do our best to give the unborn a dignifying extraction instead of the horrific ways they are often mutilated, tortured and killed? Why not invest in funding to sustain and grow human life? Heck, if they can clone, surely we're not that far off technologically?

This desire to get a corpse, even if the baby is born alive, leads me to conclude that it's not really about protecting the woman at all. It is more something like society judging the woman (maybe a single mother?) and her irresponsibility such that they'd prefer the baby's corpse than human life... they want to hurt the woman... or maybe just an evilness of heart such like I heard of that one young woman.

Here is the thing. Your logic if sound (and I see many reasons, some I've stated, to believe it unsound) doesn't get you a corpse. It simply gets you a respectful and delicate removal of the baby from its mother's womb. And then, unless we disregard any morality or social accountability to others altogether, we are responsible to help the baby survive just like any other human being alive.

Great post, K.

Kurieuo wrote:I've said in the past, and I'll say it again, pro-life on unborn is not a religious issue.

If you are a logical free-thinking Atheist or Agnostic, then I encourage you click your brains into gear and read over this blog: http://blog.secularprolife.org. Don't follow like sheep what mass media want you to believe. Throw of all social influences and think logically and freely on this important issue.

Again visit that irreligious person's blog: http://blog.secularprolife.org

To make a quick case here.

An unborn human is still human. They're not half human, they're not dead and they're certainly not a frog... they're a live organic human in the early stage of development.

The unborn are no more a blob of blood and tissue anymore than we're blobs of blood and tissue.

The unborn are not sperm, they are not an ovum.

When human life is first conceived, the unborn have their own unique human DNA and chromosomes. They are a unique human individual residing in their mother's womb.

Size is relative and does not matter. We born people are a but a speck in the galaxy and are still human life.

Level of development does not matter. Retarded or even brain dead people are still human life, however diminished their lives might be. And, if an adult wishes their life support turned off in a brain dead state, then at least they had the choice to decide for themselves. The unborn are never given the choice of whether they'd like their limbs sucked off one-by-one or killed in some other way!

And how does location of an individual change what or who that individual is. Location has no bearing on who/what one is biologically, inside or outside of any womb. Heaven forbid that men no longer have one of their most prized attributes while it enters the woman during copulation.

Then there is dependency on the mother. How does even a newly born baby's dependency make it any less of a human being? Or what of a person in a car or aeroplane accident, or building collapse, who may be injured and now dependent on other humans to help them survive. If anything, our coming together and being dependent upon each other (social quality) is a hallmark of the human species that gives us an advantage above all other species. From conception to birth and throughout our lives, we are often dependent on each other to survive and get by in life.

And so, if the unborn human really is human life and there is no valid reason to kill them anymore than a baby, child or adult, then should not the unborn be afforded the same human rights?

Anyway, again... I'm a Christian.. so what would I know? But, there are millions of irreligious people who are pro-life. Something the media doesn't like you to hear. Again, check out: http://blog.secularprolife.org and I pray you will think clearly on this important issue.

Does the unborn become human, at conception or before conception?


Ken