Pro-Life is not a Christian religious value

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 39302

Yup. I was there in 1975--the women were dressed normally. We regarded it as a step up from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[Elixir]

This is how I see the anti-choice crowd. Emotionally unstable hypocrites.

 

[pood]

I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?

I appreciate getting one substantive reply.
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.

The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.

Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.

I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.

I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.

So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?

There isn’t one.

Correct.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom

P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now

This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Bolded bits by me.

So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.

And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

 

[pood]

Perhaps I should make this even clearer: When you write, “but all the baby killers keep changing the subject,” could you name a single person here who has advocated killing babies? Still more, ALL the baby killers? There is not just one?

Even more to the point, you did not say people here advocate baby killing, you said they ARE baby killers. Are you prepared to defend this?

 

[Jarhyn]

I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?

I appreciate getting one substantive reply.
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.

The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.

Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.

I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.

I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.

So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?

There isn’t one.

Correct.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom

P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now

This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Bolded bits by me.

So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.

And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.

I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.

Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.

 

[TomC]

I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?

I appreciate getting one substantive reply.
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.

The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.

Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.

I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.

I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.

So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?

There isn’t one.

Correct.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom

P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now

This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Bolded bits by me.

So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.

And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.

I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.

Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.

This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.
People like Jarhyn can write the most ridiculously false and insulting things and nobody will care.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?

I appreciate getting one substantive reply.
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.

The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.

Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.

I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.

I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.

So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?

There isn’t one.

Correct.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom

P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now

This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Bolded bits by me.

So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.

And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.

I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.

Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.

This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.
People like Jarhyn can write the most ridiculously false and insulting things and nobody will care.
Tom

So you didn't argue that you would see the state strap someone down and take their kidney?

Or maybe you didn't argue that giving a rape baby to her mother's rapist was not necessarily a travesty of justice?

Because the first, in the environment of the second, leads to shit like forced kidney theft by legal jackassery.

 

[TomC]

I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?

I appreciate getting one substantive reply.
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.

The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.

Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.

I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.

I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.

So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?

There isn’t one.

Correct.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom

P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now

This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Bolded bits by me.

So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.

And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.

I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.

Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.

This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.
People like Jarhyn can write the most ridiculously false and insulting things and nobody will care.
Tom

So you didn't argue that you would see the state strap someone down and take their kidney?

Or maybe you didn't argue that giving a rape baby to her mother's rapist was not necessarily a travesty of justice?

Because the first, in the environment of the second, leads to shit like forced kidney theft by legal jackassery.

Like I said pood...

It's like trying to discuss ancient history with YEC, or politics with a TeaPartier.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I take it this is intended as a non-religious argument against abortion?

I appreciate getting one substantive reply.
But no, I've not made any argument against abortion in this thread.

The religious argument, as I understand it, is internally consistent. It posits the existence of a God, who then grants something called a “soul” to each individual human (though not to other animals, apparently). Moreover, it holds that God “ensouls” humans at conception, so a zygote has a soul. Ergo to abort a zygote or early-stage fetus is basically to murder a human being because a human is defined as an entity with a soul, full stop.

Despite its internal consistency, the claims are without a shred of evidence. There’s no evidence for God (and plenty of evidence against even the possibility of such a being) and no evidence for souls. It’s not even clear what a soul is supposed to be. Finally even if you could adduce evidence for God and souls you would then have to show that God ensouls at conception as opposed, say, to at birth, or even at age five. Or maybe sperm and unfertilized eggs are already “pre-souled,” in which case masturbation, for example, is murder.

I understand that, sort of. It's one religious argument, there are others. I don't much care about any of them.

I've annoyed religionists before by taking it to it's logical conclusion. If unborn humans have souls and are completely innocent and innocents go to heaven. Good parents are trying to get their children to heaven. Obviously, abortion is the ideal child rearing method. Keeping the baby alive at the risk of their soul is quite selfish. God will understand.

So what’s the scientific argument against abortion?

There isn’t one.

Correct.
Science doesn't have any moral messages to give. Information is all science can offer.
Tom

P.s. There's lots more in your post to discuss, but I've gotta go now

This is fine, and I look forward to more, but then I just noticed in the Kidney Challenge thread you wrote:

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Bolded bits by me.

So if in this thread, in its very opening, you were not making a non-religious argument against abortion, what were you doing? Do you believe abortion is the killing of a baby? A baby, of course, is only a baby upon birth.

And how do you reconcile “Science doesn’t have any moral messages to give” with attacking people for failing ”to use science to inform your moral code”? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

You're talking to someone who argued with a straight line that it's not bad for the state to force organ donations under a precedent that will clearly lead to judicial abuse, after arguing it wasn't absolutely and clearly judicial abuse to turn a rape baby over to the rapist who produced her, at the same age he raped her mother.

I don't know how much good faith you can possibly find there.

Of course abortion is not killing a baby but good luck getting Tom to actually tell you 100% of what he feels about the subject and why.

This, @pood , is kinda why I stopped bothering with this thread.
People like Jarhyn can write the most ridiculously false and insulting things and nobody will care.
Tom

So you didn't argue that you would see the state strap someone down and take their kidney?

Or maybe you didn't argue that giving a rape baby to her mother's rapist was not necessarily a travesty of justice?

Because the first, in the environment of the second, leads to shit like forced kidney theft by legal jackassery.

Like I said pood...

It's like trying to discuss ancient history with YEC, or politics with a TeaPartier.
Tom

Except, of course, that I'm actually pointing at things you said and believed and have not even yet rescinded.

This is my point: you said these things. Nobody forced you, we all watched as you opened up your internet connection and poured all those words through it. Including the part about arguing to force some to a table and rip a kidney out of them.

I can accept that you think so little of bodily autonomy that you would rob others of it, and argue that it may be taken from others.

Your stance on organ donation is clearly an argument that supports doing the same to pregnant people "because they caused the situation".

I think that view is ethically abhorrent. That nobody, at any time, ought have their organs taken to give to someone else.

Someone should always have the option of saying NO to that, and it is 100% someone's right to deny use of their body because if it isn't, then all sorts of holes in open up, and all kinds of body horror may be realized.

 

[Toni]

the abortion issue is about the fact that back in the 70s the KKK was freaking the fuck out that abortion was going to cost whites the breeding wars,

Dayum.

That's quite an assertion.

uh no, that's simply historical fact.

www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-against-abortion-rights-is-nearing-its-apex-but-it-began-way-before
www.thenation.com/article/politics/anti-abortion-white-supremacy
www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america


those articles mostly speak to the fact that nobody in religious circles (excepts catholics) really gave a shit about abortion until the late 70s when suddenly the religious right did a 180 and went ape shit on the subject.
those articles don't mention it specifically, but i've read profiles on many prominent religious leaders of the era connecting them with KKK members and the beginnings of what is essentially the 'great replacement' theory.

fears that economically stable educated white women get abortions which will lead to whites being demographically replaced by not-whites is, and always has been, the beating heart of the anti-abortion movement.

On a more visceral level, I think that men oppose abortion because If women can choose whether or not carry a pregnancy, then it loosens the power a man or men have over her.

If she doesn’t have to worry about raising a child, she can make decisions based on her own interests, wants and needs. She doesn’t have to put up with a man who may be abusive or selfish or just not interesting unless she wants to. There is no child to be harmed by the loss of a father’s protection. She’s free to move on and perhaps to choose a better mate.

On the biological side, if the woman aborts his fetus, his biological imperative is thwarted: he has no progeny to carry his genes. Socially, he has no one to carry on the family name/business/whatever. He has no progeny to be his ally with biological/familial ties. He appears weaker, less capable of he cannot even keep a woman or engender a son. He loses social standing in his community.

The other, more broad socioeconomic reasons mentioned by others also apply. The rich depend upon the poor to do all of the grunt work. We Implied in those, if not stated outright, is the racial fear that whites will become a minority if they don’t start churning out those babies.