Evidence for God from Science

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.

Absolutely.
The abortion issue is absolutely a moral issue, but that doesn't mean it is a religious issue.

The pro-choice crowd cannot consistently defend itself.
When a couple is trying to get pregnant and they find out the test was positive, do they consider it a life, or something less?
If they have a miscarriage, what did they lose? A baby.
When they have an ultrasound, are they going to see a fetus or their baby?

Fighting this issue on relgious turf is a losing battle. This is an issue of personhood.

I completely agree. Making this a religious issue is one of the few reasons the pro-choice crowd is trying to hold on. (It is also an argument that was leveled against the people who tried to abolish slavery.) Showing that this isn't a religious issue is very easy, but a bigger one would be to show to people how this is not an issue of "Women's Rights", which seems to be their new mantra, or at least what they've been focusing on for the last two months or so.

I typically see this with my Facebook pages and Liberal facebook pages. I was going to post some quotes from my loonier friends, but unfortunately they took them down, like how I was forced to take down all of my pro-life stuff because I might get them mad. It was too bad because it was sort of funny and scary at the same time. Where else do you see teenage girls talking about wearing lipstick like war paint and shooting "the Patriarchy." (You know you're a political loony when you've come up with a personal, bland, generic nickname for anybody that disagrees with you.) However, dealing with the (rather weak and largely emotive) "It's Women's Rights!" issue is for another thread.

And speaking of other threads, this belongs in "Moral and Ethical Affairs"

I purposefully posted it here as desired any Atheists/Agnostics passing through to see it (has more chance of that here I think).

Sadly, I don't think many really think the issue through, and are just happy to go with the flow of society... comes part and parcel perhaps with an easy morality they embrace perhaps.

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.

*Waves*

I have, indeed, glanced over it. Though constraints on available time disallow a detailed kind of comment.

My quickest line is that it's a very, very complicated and complex issue. Whole shades of colours and not just black and white.

Very much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:*Waves*

I have, indeed, glanced over it. Though constraints on available time disallow a detailed kind of comment.

My quickest line is that it's a very, very complicated and complex issue. Whole shades of colours and not just black and white.

Very much cheers to all.

The status of the unborn and their biology, I think the science is quite clear.

What comes of that is where we make it complicated.

In any case, it's good people on both sides saw some sense with Gosnell: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/03/ ... trial.html (take a read of this, and watch the video documentary if you're not acquainted with what happened).

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

Late-term abortionists. The extraordinary number of children that Gosnell was accused of killing after removing them from their mother's bodies (at one point it was in the hundreds) suggests that more babies survive this procedure than we previously thought. Stories are now breaking out of other clinics that imply that this part of the abortion industry is hiding grisly secrets. Consider the hidden-camera exposure of practices at a Bronx clinic, the recent death of a patient in Maryland, or the awful story of a Florida clinic that threw away a baby in a waste bag.

Planned Parenthood. A PP representative is on record saying that what happens to a baby that survives an abortion is “up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” Gosnell would presumably agree. Worse still, PP has admitted that it received complaints about Gosnell from women who went to his clinic and that its only action was to advise them to notify the Department of Health. Whatever moral credibility this wretched organisation once claimed has been totally lost.

Kurieuo wrote:The status of the unborn and their biology, I think the science is quite clear.

I do totaly agree with the highlighted part of your comment and agree in general principal with the whole statement.

Kurieuo wrote:What comes of that is where we make it complicated.

Again, I do agree with your statement here.

Now, as for the whole Gosnell thing. It's only something I've had minor and partial glimpses of wandering through the internets. I'll have to peruse more to even begin to be able to comment on such things.

Kurieuo wrote:In any case, it's good people on both sides saw some sense with Gosnell: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/03/ ... trial.html (take a read of this, and watch the video documentary if you're not acquainted with what happened).

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.

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

You could say the same thing about postnatal. Infancy, adolescense, adulthood, geriatric.
You are making an inference here, so please be clear about what you mean.

jlay wrote:You could say the same thing about postnatal. Infancy, adolescence, adulthood, geriatric.
You are making an inference here, so please be clear about what you mean.

? Sorry...I thought I was agreeing with your comment/statement that there are well worked out and agreed upon 'stages' through out the whole of life's cycle...?

I definitely never try and infer nor make suppositions on another's words/writing.

Very much cheers to you and best wishes to all.

Thadeyus wrote:? Sorry...I thought I was agreeing with your comment/statement that there are well worked out and agreed upon 'stages' through out the whole of life's cycle...?

I definitely never try and infer nor make suppositions on another's words/writing.

Then by all means, please clarify your position. What do these stages mean in regards to the various "colors" you mention, and how does that keep this from being black an white. Person - not a person.

jlay wrote:Then by all means, please clarify your position. What do these stages mean in regards to the various "colors" you mention, and how does that keep this from being black an white. Person - not a person.

My 'position'? (Jk: Sitting at a desk, typing on a key-board/computer) Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm a content and happy Agnostic(On the 'atheist' end of the sliding scale). Hello!

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'.

I will start first with the most important aspect: I am not pro life or pro abortion. I am quite puzzled to be honest because I think that each case is unique.


But now coming back to what you guys have said.

I am quite pragmatic sometimes and you might consider my view as cynical, but just consider it as it comes.

Let's say I am a mother that doesn't want a baby(pregnancy) and that somehow people with pro-life opiniosn would win and pass a law against abortion.

I would do the following: 'I don't want the baby inside me anymore. I have the right to preserve my own health and body as I see fit. Please remove the fetus without killing it. If it can survive on its own(with medical/whatever help), well, good. If not, well, sorry.'

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.

Women should be forced to give birth just because nature selected them as baby carriers? I think not.

This is just another side of a multifaceted coin.

I will start first with the most important aspect: I am not pro parenthood or anti parenthood. I am quite puzzled to be honest because I think that each case is unique.


But now coming back to what you guys have said.

I am quite pragmatic sometimes and you might consider my view as cynical, but just consider it as it comes.

Let's say I am a mother that doesn't want a child and that somehow people with pro parenting opiniosn would win and pass a law against neglecting my children.

I would do the following: 'I don't want this child anymore. I have the right to preserve my own time and resources as I see fit. I'm now ignoring the child without killing it. If it can survive on its own(with medical/nutrition/whatever help), well, good. If not, well, sorry.'

As you present the problem you are saying that a mother should take care of her child no matter what. The parents have rights too and let's not forget that every baby has grandparents. Grandparents don't have to raise the child. You can't force someone to help another human being if they don't want to.

Women should be forced to care for their children just because nature selected them as mothers? I think not.

This is just another side of a multifaceted coin.

@jac

What you just said actually happens. If you don't take care of your children social services can take them away for good.

I am not saying that this the best scenario, but it does happen.

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.

edit:

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.