If an aborted baby is just a clump of cells, why don’t we see the videos and photos on the b-rolls on the news when the pro-aborts are talking about necessary medical procedures for women, etc? We don’t because if we did, if we showed the aftermath of abortions, they would be (if we have any sense of humanity) outlawed in days rather than generations.
For this non-believer, I think I have a hard time saying necessary. It's something we have to think a bit harder about than just saying, "God is dead, therefore abolish all religious constructs from societal institutions." I guess that's why I draw a distinction between "Atheists" and what I am. I share many beliefs with them, like not believing in religion, though I'd say I'm not without a sense of that which I find sacred. But primarily the people who I tend to call Atheists in certain company are people who are not religious and are assholes about it.
The difference is time, location, and stage of development. It’s a human being in all other factors. Your willingness to admit what is worthy of being treated as a human and what is not is arbitrary opinion. The next guy’s opinion is just as valid based on his/her reasons. That does not make any of them not based true. The conception argument is objective.
That's a fair point. When it looks kinda like a baby it's pretty hard to claim it's just a clump of cells. I mean. I don't think a lot of people who use that are being intellectually honest about it. But, is it complete enough that it's the same as any other human? I think it's also hard to claim it is for the same reasons.
But that's pretty much the whole ball of wax isn't it? Isn't that the thing that everyone is arguing about? The time, location, and stage of development? You guys are pretty sure that you're right. I dunno. Maybe someday, technology will make that more obvious. But it's not obvious now, at least to most people. And there's also a likelihood that you'll never be proven right about it. It may be that it isn't really anything but tissue developing into the form of a baby, until a later point.
Let’s do a though experiment with this line of reasoning, if applied to born people. If a non-complete born person, someone with a mental deficiency or maybe someone that cannot live by him/herself could be killed, would that be ok? Or is it because we can’t hear a baby scream while it is burned alive or torn apart in the womb that makes a difference? Somehow, I have a feeling being able to see the person’s face or see it writhe in pain or attempt to recoil from the assault as you’re killing it might have a bearing on things.
This information is able to be known.
I think the mental or physical deficiency argument was had many pages ago. And as far as the process goes, a fetus can't feel pain until something like the 20th week or so. At least as far as we know. But honestly I am getting kinda tired of this part of the argument. Because no one is changing anyone's mind. It's like people on your side of the argument are constantly looking for information that makes it more obvious that a zygote is morally equal to any other human at any other stage and it's really not. You've probably made up your mind before you saw any of those videos. And I'm not disparaging that. But I think it's worth acknowledging all the things that are true about a thing along with all the things that aren't, that you know of.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should’ve drawn the distinction as well. It’s obvious that you as a non-believer still believes that religion has played an integral role in the evolution of morality and it should continue to have its place.
Absolutely. I don't think religion always gets it right. But then neither does secular reasoning. There was the dark ages where religion was used by powerful people to subjugate them. Thankfully the printing press kinda brought about some reforms. And secular reasoning brought about Marxim which is still a big problem in the world.
Humans have rights. A two cell zygote is human and alive ergo it has rights. Better?
He didn't say you were literally Alynski, he said that your argument followed one of the rules he proposed in his writings. And here is what you said.C'mon man. We've been through this. This isn't the argument I've made. Go read my last post to Chip. Especially the last sections where I'm literally Alynski.
Yes it answered my question, but it also is a reverse of your earlier position that rights come from morals, which I don't agree with. I can agree that recognition of rights comes from morals though.
Well I've heard women are from Venus, but I didn't realize they weren't human.You're not the only one to have made this point, and I've been arguing so many points with you guys that I just didn't think it was worth it. But I'm gonna. Because why the **** not.
That's wrong. A zygote contains all the genetic code to form everything that a human will become. It's not yet what a human will become. Therefore it's not everything that a human is. It doesn't have a dick to think with yet.
But I'll have to disagree, they may not be fully developed but they are still a human. A person isn't fully developed until their 20s. That doesn't make a newborn, even a 20 week preemie not human.
I've known/known of a couple. Myself being one, my grandfather being another. Heck my dad was adopted and his adoptive father fought and won full custody from his adoptive mother. Which was unheard of in those days, from what little I know about it he did fight dirty though.
