Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 16:22:36 GMT
LOL, religious people don’t follow science, most of these anti choice people also believe the earth is 6000 years old and deny evolution. And science doesn’t say that a clump of cells is the same as a human being, and don’t give me any bullshit about fetuses being the same as humans. And anyway, women have the right to bodily autonomy and to get rid of something that’s feeding off of their body. The truth is, most anti choicers are just god wads who believe that women were put on earth to pump out babies and serve men, and don’t see them as deserving of basic rights. That's a popular myth. Most religious people are fine with science, believing that God created life to evolve. People who believe earth is only 6000 years old are very rare, I was going to assert this, but then drew back, thinking it was probably too Western-centric. I have never looked into this, but I'm going to venture a guess that when the Eastern Hemisphere is considered, as well as all religions, I think maybe a majority of "religious people on earth" might believe in the young earth theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 16:27:09 GMT
That's a popular myth. Most religious people are fine with science, believing that God created life to evolve. People who believe earth is only 6000 years old are very rare, I was going to assert this, but then drew back, thinking it was probably too Western-centric. I have never looked into this, but I'm going to venture a guess that when the Eastern Hemisphere is considered, as well as all religions, I think maybe a majority of "religious people on earth" might believe in the young earth theory. Worth looking into. I'd count it less as a point of faith and more rooted in defiance/opposition to authority, like most conspiracy theories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 16:28:24 GMT
I was going to assert this, but then drew back, thinking it was probably too Western-centric. I have never looked into this, but I'm going to venture a guess that when the Eastern Hemisphere is considered, as well as all religions, I think maybe a majority of "religious people on earth" might believe in the young earth theory. Worth looking into. I'd count it less as a point of faith and more rooted in defiance/opposition to authority, like most conspiracy theories. You think the young earth theory is a conspiracy theory?
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer81386 on Jun 24, 2021 16:30:16 GMT
The Church, and Pro-lifers in general, argues that abortion is taking away someone's choice: The baby's. In fact it is taking away every choice the baby would ever get to make. Babies don't make choices. And neither do fetuses. They are not persons. Only persons make choices. Therefore, abortion is not taking away the fetuses' choice. babies aren't people?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 16:42:20 GMT
And yet, at one point, every fetus was composed of two distinct entities; a sperm and an egg cell. And whether a fetus is a human life is irrelevant anyway; it's whether it's a person that matters for its right to life. And a fetus is not a person. Why not? What constitutes personhood? A concept of self, of time, with expectations for the future and the ability to make choices. That's more or less the definition I read in a book by Peter Singer. It makes sense. jammer81386: That's why fetuses and babies aren't persons in the philosophical sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer81386 on Jun 24, 2021 16:45:59 GMT
Why not? What constitutes personhood? A concept of self, of time, with expectations for the future and the ability to make choices. That's more or less the definition I read in a book by Peter Singer. It makes sense. jammer81386 : That's why fetuses and babies aren't persons in the philosophical sense. So infanticide should not be a crime?
|
|
|
|
Post by Geddy on Jun 24, 2021 16:50:23 GMT
As long as abortion is legal noone is taking away choices, but the unborn need a voice of support and that's what pro life is all about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 16:51:50 GMT
A concept of self, of time, with expectations for the future and the ability to make choices. That's more or less the definition I read in a book by Peter Singer. It makes sense. jammer81386 : That's why fetuses and babies aren't persons in the philosophical sense. So infanticide should not be a crime? Yes, he thinks that. He admitted as much on the RFS board a couple years back when he claimed babies (already born) were not persons and shouldn't have legal rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 16:52:04 GMT
A concept of self, of time, with expectations for the future and the ability to make choices. That's more or less the definition I read in a book by Peter Singer. It makes sense. jammer81386 : That's why fetuses and babies aren't persons in the philosophical sense. So infanticide should not be a crime? If the parents are ok with it, and if the baby doesn't suffer from being put to sleep, then it shouldn't be a worse crime than killing an animal. At least that's my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 24, 2021 16:57:06 GMT
It's the contradiction. People will try to limit access to abortion because they don't like it, therefore it's not apart of God's plan. Maybe it wasn't God's plan for them to interfere? "God's plan" is a broad phrase that could cover almost anything, except if you're not a subscriber to faith.
I consider it wholly immoral to use religion as a template for the choices of others. It's not universal enough. People from other cultures have every right to ask which God? Which God's plan is it? God would want it this way. How do you know that? Maybe this abortion, maybe every abortion that ever happened was God's plan.
It's an outdated argument against abortion. The more modern argument (I think) is making it an issue of when life begins.
It pales in comparison to taking back the autonomy of a woman; a woman who lives, breathes and exists outside the womb.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer81386 on Jun 24, 2021 16:57:54 GMT
So infanticide should not be a crime? If the parents are ok with it, and if the baby doesn't suffer from being put to sleep, then it shouldn't be a worse crime than killing an animal. At least that's my opinion. I always thought calling the pro-choice crowd "baby killers" was unfair, congrats in proving me wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 24, 2021 17:00:24 GMT
If the parents are ok with it, and if the baby doesn't suffer from being put to sleep, then it shouldn't be a worse crime than killing an animal. At least that's my opinion. I always thought calling the pro-choice crowd "baby killers" was unfair, congrats in proving me wrong. It is wrong because being pro-choice means the choice taken could be to not have the abortion. It's not pro-choice if only one option is the only option; women have every right to choose not to have an abortion too, but at least that choice would be theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer81386 on Jun 24, 2021 17:04:42 GMT
I always thought calling the pro-choice crowd "baby killers" was unfair, congrats in proving me wrong. It is wrong because being pro-choice means the choice taken could be to not have the abortion. It's not pro-choice if only one option is the only option; women have every right to choose not to have an abortion too, but at least that choice would be theirs. What about the choice to kill them after they are born? Should that choice be available?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 17:08:29 GMT
Worth looking into. I'd count it less as a point of faith and more rooted in defiance/opposition to authority, like most conspiracy theories. You think the young earth theory is a conspiracy theory? It's appealing as one. It has some basis in religious text, but I feel that in general most people hold the contents as lessons more than literal documentary of actual events unless they're threatened. See, in my view there was never a real philosophical conflict between science and religion. Only a group of religion-haters using science as validation of their attacks. In America, religion was never about taking science away from anybody...not until science-abusers saw fit to try taking religion away from everybody. What's gotten enflamed in the process of this is entirely comprehensible to be on those terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 17:10:40 GMT
Why not? What constitutes personhood? A concept of self, of time, with expectations for the future and the ability to make choices. That's more or less the definition I read in a book by Peter Singer. It makes sense. jammer81386 : That's why fetuses and babies aren't persons in the philosophical sense. How do you prove anyone has this sufficiently over a fetus? Would you choose to live absent the communication skills to convey it? Also...do the mentally incapacitated not qualify as persons? How about people who are always late or don't know who they really are? What does it mean to have a concept of self? Are there enough words in a language or is that but a symptom of social constructs? How do you know a fetus lacks these things? Simply because they don't have a command of language or expression? A 9-month old hardly possesses these qualities in any way you can measure...can we euthanize them at will?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 17:19:40 GMT
I always thought calling the pro-choice crowd "baby killers" was unfair, congrats in proving me wrong. It is wrong because being pro-choice means the choice taken could be to not have the abortion. It's not pro-choice if only one option is the only option; women have every right to choose not to have an abortion too, but at least that choice would be theirs. Not getting pregnant is a choice no government is taking away. That should be enough choice and more than enough to oppose murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 24, 2021 17:27:06 GMT
It is wrong because being pro-choice means the choice taken could be to not have the abortion. It's not pro-choice if only one option is the only option; women have every right to choose not to have an abortion too, but at least that choice would be theirs. Not getting pregnant is a choice no government is taking away. That should be enough choice and more than enough to oppose murder. Bad birth control or non consensual sex can take that choice away. I'd bet you a trillion dollars of Jefferson Cody's money that if men were threatened with castration for unwanted sex that resulted in an abortion...unwanted pregnancy would still happen because some things just won't go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 24, 2021 17:29:41 GMT
It is wrong because being pro-choice means the choice taken could be to not have the abortion. It's not pro-choice if only one option is the only option; women have every right to choose not to have an abortion too, but at least that choice would be theirs. What about the choice to kill them after they are born? Should that choice be available? No sir. No siree Bob!
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 17:32:28 GMT
Not getting pregnant is a choice no government is taking away. That should be enough choice and more than enough to oppose murder. Bad birth control or non consensual sex can take that choice away. I'd bet you a trillion dollars of Jefferson Cody's money that if men were threatened with castration for unwanted sex that resulted in an abortion...unwanted pregnancy would still happen because some things just won't go away.
A lot of unwanted problems would go away if we could all just kill things that were involved. Or would they?
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer81386 on Jun 24, 2021 18:45:12 GMT
What about the choice to kill them after they are born? Should that choice be available? No sir. No siree Bob! phludowin disagrees
|
|
