Abortion

[LascielsShadow]

Eh, I think you're supposed to just wait and see what happens. Apparently, there's always a chance that god will see fit to make YOUR ectopic pregnancy one of those very very very rare ones that happens to not be tubal and can be carried to term, and you'll never know if yours is the one that gets blessed or just ruptures and kills you unless you do. (No, really. I have just learnt that this is a thing some people believe.)

 

The really funny thing is that even the majority of anti-abortion folk acknowledge that hey, ectopic pregnancy exists and can be lethal, and that the best thing there is to save the woman.

[philpot123]

Oh, of course. But then, you could also be wrong about all the things you claim to know. I know them right now based on what I've observed and experienced.

 

However, like I said, that can change based on new information. Tomorrow I could gain some information that completely changes my entire worldview and turns everything I know on it's head.

 

If you could be wrong about everything that you claim to know, how can you know anything? If I told you "I think the speed limit outside my house is 25MPH, but I'm really not sure," do I really know it? Knowledge is obviously limited. We can't know everything. And if we don't know everything, something in the sphere of "things we don't know" could contradict what we claim to know right? So in order to know anything, you would have to know everything. Or, alternatively, have revelation from someone who does. So do you know things? What's your basis for knowledge?

 

I'm pretty surprised there are still people who don't view some abortions as medically necessary.

Like, hello, ectopic pregnancies? o_O Do people not know those are a thing?

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there are medical procedures that can be performed to attempt to save the life of the child and the mother. They have minuscule rates of success and the child typically dies, but there is a fundamental difference between attempting to save both lives and intentionally terminating one. That's why intent is a HUGE part of homicide law. So no, the answer to ectopic pregnancy is not "wait and see." We just don't believe that an intentional killing of the child in the womb is necessary.

Edited June 23, 2013 by philpot123

[brairtrainer]

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there are medical procedures that can be performed to attempt to save the life of the child and the mother. They have minuscule rates of success and the child typically dies, but there is a fundamental difference between attempting to save both lives and intentionally terminating one. That's why intent is a HUGE part of homicide law. So no, the answer to ectopic pregnancy is not "wait and see." We just don't believe that an intentional killing of the child in the womb is necessary.

Incorrect, there have been surgeries where they have attempted to move the child but all have failed because the child won't implant in the womb. Also, several sites that talk of those surgeries as being possiblities state that if you are not a canidate that you shoulc have the offending body part remove, meaning that instead of opening up the fallopian tube and removing the fetus and allowing the woman to keep her reproductive organs, that instead the fallopian tube be removed killing the fetus and lowering the mothers fertility.

[Spelunker]

If you could be wrong about everything that you claim to know, how can you know anything? If I told you "I think the speed limit outside my house is 25MPH, but I'm really not sure," do I really know it? Knowledge is obviously limited. We can't know everything. And if we don't know everything, something in the sphere of "things we don't know" could contradict what we claim to know right? So in order to know anything, you would have to know everything. Or, alternatively, have revelation from someone who does. So do you know things? What's your basis for knowledge?

 

 

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there are medical procedures that can be performed to attempt to save the life of the child and the mother. They have minuscule rates of success and the child typically dies, but there is a fundamental difference between attempting to save both lives and intentionally terminating one. That's why intent is a HUGE part of homicide law. So no, the answer to ectopic pregnancy is not "wait and see." We just don't believe that an intentional killing of the child in the womb is necessary.

Would you mind answering your own questions? I think that would give us a lot of insight into what the heck you're thinking.

 

And about those procedures:

 

Quite a bit of the reason that people abort ectopic pregnancies are that the chances of the baby surviving are one in a million, and the mother is likely to die. Plus, the type of ectopic pregnancy (abdominal pregnancy) that has a small chance to be viable is very likely to kill the mother.

 

From WebMD

[philpot123]

Incorrect, there have been surgeries where they have attempted to move the child but all have failed because the child won't implant in the womb. Also, several sites that talk of those surgeries as being possiblities state that if you are not a canidate that you shoulc have the offending body part remove, meaning that instead of opening up the fallopian tube and removing the fetus and allowing the woman to keep her reproductive organs, that instead the fallopian tube be removed killing the fetus and lowering the mothers fertility.

Debate 10: Ectopic Pregnancies

 

That deals with the issue pretty thoroughly.

 

Would you mind answering your own questions? I think that would give us a lot of insight into what the heck you're thinking.

 

I don't believe I can be wrong about everything I claim to know, and I don't think you can be either. I have certainty in my knowledge that I am alive, that I'm sitting on a chair, and that I am typing at a computer. I am certain about this because, while I don't have all knowledge, I have revelation from a being who does.

 

The fact that we as humans know anything presupposes divine revelation. Again, in order to know anything for certain, you would have to know EVERYTHING (to be certain that nothing contradicts your supposed knowledge), or have revelation from someone who does know everything.

 

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

 

Knowledge of any sort presupposes the existence of God. Humans know of the existence of God, because He has revealed Himself through creation. We are created in the image of God (incidentally, why abortion is wrong), and are aware of His existence. Unless you begin with the existence of God, you have no foundation for knowledge claims.

[Pixxelation]

Then we have disease and miscarriages because...?

[Spelunker]

Unless you begin with the existence of God, you have no foundation for knowledge claims.

 

So if I am an atheist, everything I know is invalid? Please stop spouting religious BS and give us some hard, concrete facts to support your side. Until then, I am laughing my butt off over here. Have a nice day.

[philpot123]

So if I am an atheist, everything I know is invalid? Please stop spouting religious BS and give us some hard, concrete facts to support your side. Until then, I am laughing my butt off over here. Have a nice day.

Not what I said. My point is that you have no foundation for knowledge within your worldview. You want facts. How would you interpret those facts if you were to see them? With your reasoning? How do you justify the validity of your reasoning?

 

Then we have disease and miscarriages because...?

I'm confused as to what you're asking. Are you asking for an explanation for disease and death based on my beliefs?

[Pixxelation]

Where's your foundation of your supposed knowlege that God exists, or that knowlege requires God as a foundation? Please, elaborate.

 

~

 

I'm asking you that, since death seems to be wrong according to your beliefs, why are there diseases and miscarriages?

[hazeh]

I don't see how God has anything to do with knowledge. Knowledge is a memory from learning- either learning from experience (i.e., stove is hot, how do I know this for sure? touch it and get burned, ow, bad thing, stove is hot), or by deducting information based on what information already exists that may or may not be testable (theory of evolution, theory of gravity, theory of anything really). The brain is capable of taking in this information, processing, and storing it. It is a purely biological function.

 

Knowing if information is true or not? Well, from an atheist, or information is valid in our worldview because it is provable, has logical reasoning to it, or is at least more acceptable than the religious theories that contradict it. We know them because they have been given enough evidence to be known as true until otherwise proven otherwise, which in that case would only serve to give us more and better truth. With religious faith, there is none of this, there seems to be only blind trust in what someone else says. Doubt is a powerful tool in learning.

[Slaskia]

Not what I said. My point is that you have no foundation for knowledge within your worldview. You want facts. How would you interpret those facts if you were to see them? With your reasoning? How do you justify the validity of your reasoning?

Phil, I may believe in a higher power (though one that is not based on any 'main stream religion'), but your statement is too easily interpreted as 'if you don't believe in god, your foundation for knowledge is not as solid as mine'. That's...rather offense and reeks of 'better than you' mentality. Sorry if that's not your intent, but that's how it reads to me.

 

That said, who cares if where they get their knowledge, or what foundation they use? It's not based solely on faith (or lack there of), but on our own individual experiences and what we learn as we live our day to day lives. Some people think abortion is murder, other's think it's not, and yet other's don't like it but see it as a 'necessary evil'.

 

The problem comes, when individuals try to force their particular world view on everyone else. Keeping abortion legal won't hurt those that are Pro-life: they simply just don't get abortions if they feel that strongly about it. However, if Pro-lifers/birther's succeed in making abortion illegal, that will hurt up to twice as many more 'people' than if abortion is legal.

 

Why twice as many? Simple. I'm talking both the mother and fetus. With abortion illegal, the chances of both dying is much greater and if even if both survived, the emotional and/or physical pain that likely comes afterward will be great. Not just the emotional/physical trauma of the mother, but on the child as well: being abused by a parent that never wanted it, or abused by the system it was thrown into once born. Not a life I'd want: I'd rather die.

 

It basically comes down to which life do you consider worth more? The life of a woman that already has thoughts, feelings and dreams? Or the life of a clump of cells that may not even get to the point of viability to experience life? Myself, I place more worth on a life already here in the world, than one that is still growing and directly dependent on the mother via the womb.

[KageSora]

If you could be wrong about everything that you claim to know, how can you know anything? If I told you "I think the speed limit outside my house is 25MPH, but I'm really not sure," do I really know it? Knowledge is obviously limited. We can't know everything. And if we don't know everything, something in the sphere of "things we don't know" could contradict what we claim to know right? So in order to know anything, you would have to know everything. Or, alternatively, have revelation from someone who does. So do you know things? What's your basis for knowledge?

I "know" based only on the information I have--same as anyone else. I consider "knowing" and "thinking" somewhat different.

 

For example, if I see a sign that says the speed limit outside my house is 25mph, then I "know" that in that I have an observation that backs up what I claim to "know". If I know of a sign in my neighborhood that states it, even if it is not right on my street, I can "know" it because when the limits change a new sign is posted and if a new sign is not posted I can be fairly safe in assuming that the limit has not changed. I can also be fairly safe as I have a large amount of observational data that 25 is the standard speed limit in neighborhoods in my area. I would not have anywhere near as much safety to say that I "think" the limit is 35 or 15, as I do not have as much observed data to work with.

 

Obviously in the "sphere of the unknown" there could very well be something that contradicts what I currently "know". I will never deny that.

 

However, I base a good chunk of my knowledge of what I can observe and prove.

 

If I feel I have observed it but I cannot prove it, I consider it belief and not solid knowledge. To tie that in with abortion, I believe that a fetus is not a person. I cannot objectively prove this, therefore I wouldn't consider it something I "know" but something I "believe".

 

If I observe or learn something that exists in the "sphere of the unknown" that contradicts something I "know", then I simply have to look at which one has the bigger backing of physical proof or reliable sources of data. (To me, that would come from generally respected sources, especially the sciences, rather than religion as it does for other people). If it turns out that the new information has the much more solid backing in the sources I believe are most reliable, then I will be forced to accept this new view as knowledge. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but I must accept that it is more accurate than what I previously knew.

 

 

To me, knowledge and belief are often tied together, and you can't always 100% separate them. Some people believe that their religion is the best source to prove something, others believe that science is, and still others use both and see no conflict between the two. Knowledge, to me, is subjective because the sources we trust ultimately come down to which we feel is more trustworthy.

 

Emotions and the like also usually end up in the mix, since we're all human.

 

 

(I don't actually consider this 100% off-topic, because I feel it's important to understand the way the minds of those you're debating with work if you want to try to convince them that you have the correct information)

[Shienvien]

My point is that you have no foundation for knowledge within your worldview.

What is your basis for claiming that it is so? What prevents me from just as effectively using the same argument against you? There is no feasible way for you to prove that you are acting on anything but your personal interpretation of a figment of others' imagination. Religion - things you cannot prove with clear evidence - should not be used in such debates. If you are wrong and I am right in my interpretation of the world's functioning, but your approach wins, then you've effectively participated in the destruction of millions of women across the world, most of whom aren't even Christians. Edited June 23, 2013 by Shienvien

[brairtrainer]

Debate 10: Ectopic Pregnancies

 

That deals with the issue pretty thoroughly.

And I'm very skeptcal on some of the statistics mentioned in that article, especially with my google searching pulled up this informtaion:

 

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2041923-overview

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014677.htm

http://www.drdonnica.com/fastfacts/00005325.htm

 

None of these are biased sites (aka pro-choice, pro-life, pro-birth, pro-abortion) and are a medical website, a report done from Center for Disease Control, and fast facts from a doctors website.

 

 

[Corvidae]

Being refused an abortion didn't kill her.

 

Excuse me, but if that child had been aborted at the time that it was necessary to save the mother's life, she might just be alive. Ectopic pregnancies are extremely dangerous and in most cases, the child cannot be saved. Which life is more important? The young fetus who is not yet considered a human? Or the life of the pregnant woman, who knows what her body needs?

 

--

 

I came back to this forum post to read what had been posted while I was away. I've returned to see a now religious-based debate. Allow me to state my opinions.

 

Knowledge > Religious beliefs

 

Unless you begin with the existence of God, you have no foundation for knowledge claims.

 

I am an atheist. The statement above is one of the most outlandish, biased statements I've ever read. Do not force religion down the throats of others in a debate such as this. Everyone has different beliefs, not all have a god. And no, I will not capitalize the "g" in "god" because I am not referring to your god. I could referring to Osiris, Isis, Anubis, Thor, Loki, Odin, Zeus, Athena...ANY god.

 

I believe in science, evolution, and everything that has been proven. In my beliefs, the bible was most likely written like a novel. To believe that a man who was nailed to a cross and left for days, left in a tomb, then mysteriously moved a BOULDER out of his way and flied up to the skies is outlandish. People believe this, but won't believe that dinosaurs were real.

 

My own cousins refuse to believe that dinosaurs are real because they were not in the bible, when we have the remains and even DNA of such creatures. So to say that I must believe in god to say that I know something is biased and an empty statement. Do not drag religion into a non-religious debate.

 

But anyways, I do not need any kind of religion to be able to make claims of knowledge. That's like denying everything Stephen Hawking has proved because he is an atheist.

[Kai]

You have to be very careful when you take the nuclear option of 'reason doesn't exist, etc'. In a world of atoms and physical laws, that's true. There is no such thing. But humans live above that level, and it is clear that we must hold axioms such as the existence and use of reason and logic, in order to talk about anything. It is obviously evident, say, because you are trying to use reasoned arguments to put the points. And forgive me if I bet against your living your life reason-free, flopping around on the ground.

 

Invoking a god as basis of absolute logic is pretty weird considering part of his whole schtick is reason-defying miracles.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Kai

[ebony ink]

Throwing my two cents in:

 

Am absolutely pro-choice. It should be the choice of the person carrying (or in some cases the family/couple). I think it's reasonable to abort for medical, financial, personal or any other reason. Quite often it's done with the welfare of the child in mind.

 

For religious/ideological/theological arguments: it's unreasonable to want the world (and laws) to obey your viewpoint. You can believe what you want, you can't enforce it on other people.

Edited July 4, 2013 by ebony ink

[philpot123]

Where's your foundation of your supposed knowlege that God exists, or that knowlege requires God as a foundation? Please, elaborate.

 

~

 

I'm asking you that, since death seems to be wrong according to your beliefs, why are there diseases and miscarriages?

I'm asking you on what basis you know anything. On what basis do you justify the validity of your experiences, senses, and reasoning?

 

Because we live in a fallen world where death happens.

 

I don't see how God has anything to do with knowledge. Knowledge is a memory from learning- either learning from experience (i.e., stove is hot, how do I know this for sure? touch it and get burned, ow, bad thing, stove is hot), or by deducting information based on what information already exists that may or may not be testable (theory of evolution, theory of gravity, theory of anything really). The brain is capable of taking in this information, processing, and storing it. It is a purely biological function.

 

Knowing if information is true or not? Well, from an atheist, or information is valid in our worldview because it is provable, has logical reasoning to it, or is at least more acceptable than the religious theories that contradict it. We know them because they have been given enough evidence to be known as true until otherwise proven otherwise, which in that case would only serve to give us more and better truth. With religious faith, there is none of this, there seems to be only blind trust in what someone else says. Doubt is a powerful tool in learning.

 

How do you know you can trust your senses? How do you know you can trust your powers of deduction?

 

You believe in truth? True information and false information? Explain truth to me. How can something be objectively "true" in your worldview? If my thoughts are byproducts of chemical reactions, and my brain was created by chance, what makes my thoughts "false" and yours "true"? They're both just chance reactions. I'm just having trouble understanding it. To me, that seems a bit like asking me whether Dr. Pepper fizz or Mountain Dew fizz is true. They're both just chemical reactions, what makes one true or false, better or worse?

 

So you believe in logic? How do you explain the existence of logic within your worldview? Where did an unchanging, immaterial, universal system of rules of reasoning come from? How do you know when something has been proven? Again, how do you validate your reasoning?

 

Phil, I may believe in a higher power (though one that is not based on any 'main stream religion'), but your statement is too easily interpreted as 'if you don't believe in god, your foundation for knowledge is not as solid as mine'. That's...rather offense and reeks of 'better than you' mentality. Sorry if that's not your intent, but that's how it reads to me.

 

That said, who cares if where they get their knowledge, or what foundation they use? It's not based solely on faith (or lack there of), but on our own individual experiences and what we learn as we live our day to day lives. Some people think abortion is murder, other's think it's not, and yet other's don't like it but see it as a 'necessary evil'.

 

I'm saying your foundation for knowledge is exactly the same as my foundation. Your foundation is revelation from the God of scripture, found in nature and written on your heart by virtue of being created in the image of God, because without that revelation, "knowledge," "truth," and "logic" have no basis in reality. My point is that there is no foundation for knowledge, truth, and logic within an atheistic worldview, because there is no explanation for the existence of any of them. So any knowledge claims by an atheist presuppose something that doesn't exist within their worldview.

 

How do you evaluate your experiences and what you learn? If you can explain to me how you validate your reasoning, I'd love to hear an explanation.

 

For example, if I see a sign that says the speed limit outside my house is 25mph, then I "know" that in that I have an observation that backs up what I claim to "know". If I know of a sign in my neighborhood that states it, even if it is not right on my street, I can "know" it because when the limits change a new sign is posted and if a new sign is not posted I can be fairly safe in assuming that the limit has not changed. I can also be fairly safe as I have a large amount of observational data that 25 is the standard speed limit in neighborhoods in my area. I would not have anywhere near as much safety to say that I "think" the limit is 35 or 15, as I do not have as much observed data to work with.

That was a very well-reasoned paragraph. But I still haven't gotten a good answer to the basic question of how you know your reasoning is valid

 

And I'm very skeptcal on some of the statistics mentioned in that article, especially with my google searching pulled up this informtaion:

 

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2041923-overview

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014677.htm

http://www.drdonnica.com/fastfacts/00005325.htm

 

None of these are biased sites (aka pro-choice, pro-life, pro-birth, pro-abortion) and are a medical website, a report done from Center for Disease Control, and fast facts from a doctors website.

 

Feel free to be skeptical. You'd have to go to the sources he cited and challenge their validity.

 

Excuse me, but if that child had been aborted at the time that it was necessary to save the mother's life, she might just be alive. Ectopic pregnancies are extremely dangerous and in most cases, the child cannot be saved. Which life is more important? The young fetus who is not yet considered a human? Or the life of the pregnant woman, who knows what her body needs?

Hers wasn't an ectopic pregnancy. You're confusing issues. You don't consider it a human, but that doesn't mean it isn't.

 

I believe in science, evolution, and everything that has been proven.

How do you know those things have been proven?

 

People believe this, but won't believe that dinosaurs were real.

I believe in dinosaurs.

 

So to say that I must believe in god to say that I know something is biased and an empty statement. Do not drag religion into a non-religious debate.

You're not following what I'm saying. I didn't say you have to profess belief in God to say that you know something. I'm saying the fact that you DO know things presupposes the existence of God, whether you profess belief in Him or not.

 

You have to be very careful when you take the nuclear option of 'reason doesn't exist, etc'. In a world of atoms and physical laws, that's true. There is no such thing. But humans live above that level, and it is clear that we must hold axioms such as the existence and use of reason and logic, in order to talk about anything. It is obviously evident, say, because you are trying to use reasoned arguments to put the points. And forgive me if I bet against your living your life reason-free, flopping around on the ground.

 

Invoking a god as basis of absolute logic is pretty weird considering part of his whole schtick is reason-defying miracles.

Do you know for certain that reason doesn't exist? Sounds like an absolute knowledge claim to me. How do you know reason doesn't exist? Did you reason your way to that conclusion?

 

Again, I'm not arguing that reason doesn't exist. I believe in objective, universal laws of logic. I'm saying that apart from the existence of an immutable being to provide these immutable laws, there is no explanation for them other than "we just think they exist."

 

How does supernatural intervention into natural creation violate the accepted laws of logic?

 

 

For religious/ideological/theological arguments: it's unreasonable to want the world (and laws) to obey your viewpoint. You can believe what you want, you can't enforce it on other people.

Then stop telling me I can't rape and molest children and steal. You can believe it's wrong if you want, but don't enforce it on me.

[Slaskia]

I'm saying your foundation for knowledge is exactly the same as my foundation. Your foundation is revelation from the God of scripture, found in nature and written on your heart by virtue of being created in the image of God, because without that revelation, "knowledge," "truth," and "logic" have no basis in reality. My point is that there is no foundation for knowledge, truth, and logic within an atheistic worldview, because there is no explanation for the existence of any of them. So any knowledge claims by an atheist presuppose something that doesn't exist within their worldview.

Again, I find that offensive. We don't have to 'know' a higher power to be knowledgeable. I don't believe Mother Infinity created us out of the dust of the earth like your bible says, I believe She used evolution to active it. We weren't created in Her 'image' because She has no form: if she has no form, how can She form us in Her image?

 

Mother actually doesn't care if you believe in Her or not, just so long as you follow the 'golden rule' ('Live the best life you can, so long as you do not harm other's for selfish reasons'). If you do that and pass the trials life loves to toss at you, you can reincarnate as a higher being (if you fail, you are reborn as the same species or a less advanced one, depending on how badly you fail).

 

Bah, I'm going off topic. My point is that you cannot say your foundation of knowledge is the only one out there: we may be wrong after all, that a deity even exists. Heck, for all we know, we could be just an experiment by aliens 'playing god' (so to speak). That said, I'd rather 'believe' in something that has been proven (or at least has a lot of supporting evidence) than a 2k year old book that has been rewritten/retranslated Mother knows how many times by fallible men that have their own selfish agendas.

[pudding]

How about we just migrate this to the religion section?

 

Back to personal opinions on Abortion. I, for one, believe in choice because it all comes down to the fact it is the mother who is carrying the child. Some people may argue that the fetus isn't a part of the mother it is certainly using the mother as a host. No matter the reason, you should be allowed to choose what goes on in your body and if you feel that for whatever reason you can't or do not want to have a child, you should not be forced to carry one. Just like America doesn't force you to be an organ donor or sign up for medical programs, it shouldn't force you to carry a parasite either. Because fetuses are pretty much parasites and no one should be forced to carry one.

[Pixxelation]

Knowledge is what you choose to believe based on facts presented to you that you choose to believe or disbelief, as well as opinions you form by gathering information with your senses. If I tell you a restaurant is bad, you may decide not to go there and tell others it isn't a good restaurant. Opinions form in a similar way. If I don't shower for a week, and then you notice a stench while we are talking, you decide that I am a dirty person, letting that information become part of your knowledge.

 

~

 

I am pro-choice, as a clump of cells that cannot function as an organism outside the womb is not a human, IMO. It may be made of human cells, but that does not make it human, in much the same way that a clipped fingernail isn't human. Some use the argument that a fetus or embryo has different DNA than the mother, therefore making it not her decision. However, sperm cells and egg cells have different DNA than their parents--only half. Is menstruation in females murder? No. Some say that an aborted zygote is a killed human, but a girl's period is not murder because it can become a human on its own, but a single egg cell cannot. However, it depends on the mother to become a human, which is certainly not on its own--a zygote sittin' out in the sun on its own ain't gonna make no baby. A fetus does not have a consciousness, either. Can it react to stimuli in a way that resembles a reaction to pain? At a certain point, yes. Do they have a conscious mind that interprets that as pain and can register the hurt? Nope. Based on all that, I see no reason to believe that abortion is murder. Anyway, I'm Jewish, and Jews believe that life has not "begun until the greater part of the infant (if the infant is born feet-first) or the head has been born."

 

Did I miss any arguments to debunk?

Edited June 25, 2013 by PieMaster

[sparkle10184]

I have a simple (or not) question for pro-life people:

Why do you value a clump of cells over a living, breathing human being?

I am very curious because it would surely be your main basis behind your beliefs and decisions.

[potterwolf]

I have a simple (or not) question for pro-life people:

Why do you value a clump of cells over a living, breathing human being?

I am very curious because it would surely be your main basis behind your beliefs and decisions.

This isn't quite a fair question. Unless you're talking specifically about situations in which the woman's life is in imminent danger as a result of pregnancy, the conflict isn't between valuing the "clump of cells" over the woman.

 

Presumably a person's right to life is more valuable than a person's right to choose not to carry a pregnancy to term. If this premise is accepted, then it would make sense that a fetus's right to life would override the mother's right to choose.

 

The point of contention between pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates is not about whether the fetus is more important than the woman. Rather, it is about whether or not a fetus has rights at all. If not, then its right to life doesn't factor into the equation. If, however, a fetus does possess human rights, then the protection of those rights would have to take priority.

[KageSora]

How do you know you can trust your senses? How do you know you can trust your powers of deduction?

 

You believe in truth? True information and false information? Explain truth to me. How can something be objectively "true" in your worldview? If my thoughts are byproducts of chemical reactions, and my brain was created by chance, what makes my thoughts "false" and yours "true"? They're both just chance reactions. I'm just having trouble understanding it. To me, that seems a bit like asking me whether Dr. Pepper fizz or Mountain Dew fizz is true. They're both just chemical reactions, what makes one true or false, better or worse?

 

So you believe in logic? How do you explain the existence of logic within your worldview? Where did an unchanging, immaterial, universal system of rules of reasoning come from? How do you know when something has been proven? Again, how do you validate your reasoning?

How do you know you can trust that your religion is true? How can you know that your God exists and has given you reason and laws and absolute truths?

 

You claim that you have divine revelation that proves this. So, I claim that I have mundane experience that proves to me that my perceptions are real as I experience them.

 

Thoughts cannot really be considered true or false, IMO. INFORMATION can, if it is properly backed by observation. But thoughts themselves, as thoughts, don't really have that true/false value assigned to them.

 

 

Where the HELL did I ever say unchanging and universal? I believe that the logic each person uses CAN change, and therefore it's not universal. We're having a clear example with this debate--to me, it is logical that fetus =/= baby, therefore abortion =/= murder and yet you find that fetus = baby, therefore abortion = murder.

 

Logic is what makes sense--it may not always be rational or reasonable, such as the idea of "twisted logic", for example. When explained, you can follow the trail of thought even though it's not want a "normal, rational" person would generally think up.

 

I consider something proven when there is enough repeatedly observable data on the matter, that cannot be explained away through other means. I don't consider religion to be an accurate source, because it is rooted in faith more than science is. The entire point is to have faith in the unprovable.

 

Really, I validate it because it makes sense to me--and I understand that it may not make sense or be valid to others, kinda like how your idea that knowledge comes from your god isn't valid in my eyes because there is no way to prove your god (much less your interpretation of your god) exists. I don't run to some supposedly all-powerful being to hide behind "He said so!" and claiming that to be that and that it ought to end any argument because the magical all-powerful deity said something to some people who died a long time ago and left no actual universally convincing proof behind that it wasn't just a story invented in ages past to explain things people didn't understand.

 

I just accept that I may be wrong, that my logic and reasoning may be unsound, and move on with it rather than insisting that they must be the result of divine revelation and such.

 

 

The point of contention between pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates is not about whether the fetus is more important than the woman. Rather, it is about whether or not a fetus has rights at all. If not, then its right to life doesn't factor into the equation. If, however, a fetus does possess human rights, then the protection of those rights would have to take priority.

Except then that would give a fetus greater rights than any humans.

 

You cannot just force a random person off the street to give blood or a kidney because another person is dying and needs it to live. You cannot force another person to donate their organs even in death.

 

So why, then, does a fetus suddenly have the right to take over a woman's body to preserve it's own life? When that same woman would not be forced to give blood to a dying person?

[HeatherMarie]

You cannot just force a random person off the street to give blood or a kidney because another person is dying and needs it to live. You cannot force another person to donate their organs even in death.

 

So why, then, does a fetus suddenly have the right to take over a woman's body to preserve it's own life? When that same woman would not be forced to give blood to a dying person?

Wonderful, wonderful point. Why is *this* so different? If pro-lifers are all about valuing life, the sanctity of life, etc, then why is there no huge debates about forcing healthy people to donate organs so someone can *live*, or giving blood to someone who might die, etc etc etc? If it's *really* all about *life*, we should be living in a society where if someone is dying and needs a kidney transplant, anyone in the area would immediately be forcefully tested to see if they might be a donor. Because, life!

 

But that's not how it works, is it? So why do fetuses get such a huge priority?

 

I admit, I don't read every single post in this thread, but I'm just going out on a limb here and thinking (hoping?) that anyone arguing pro-life means *fetuses over 21 weeks*. And logic would dictate that even pro-lifers should have no problem with abortions performed before that time. According to *way* too many websites, the *very* earliest known fetus surviving outside the womb was at 21 weeks.

 

If it can't survive outside the mother's body, I see no reason discussing it's "rights".