....so stop acting as if opposition to abortion is necessarily religiously-informed.
Do you think doing something against a child's will is justification for removing him or her from the parents' care?
Whoop-de-do.
It's interesting that you used the word "generally". It's also interesting that I didn't use the word "generally". Yet somehow I guess you don't agree with my general opinion.
And yet it's fine to start firing drones and dropping bombs on foreigners despite knowing it's an absolute certainty that some innocent human beings will die as a result?
(And don't start playing semantic games with the word 'deliberate')
It's what always strikes me about the ban on abortion in Northern Ireland. Where parties with paramilitary wings and a history of violence all agree that abortion is worng.
Blow up a toddler in the course of making a political point? Unfortunate but unavoidable in the course of achieving a legitimate political aim. Abort a foetus to save the mother's mental health? Never justifiable, ever.
If only abortion could be carried out with semtex and a telephoned warning to the foetus, eh?
except I don't view it through your rose colored glasses.
an embryo is not human...
...can not exist outside the body without advanced medical technics...
can abort spontaneously(miscarriage)
...and has no rights that supersedes those of the woman.
....so stop acting as if opposition to abortion is necessarily religiously-informed.
Do you think doing something against a child's will is justification for removing him or her from the parents' care?
Of course it's not fine. Anyone who goes to war to deliberately kill innocents is guilty of a war crime.
While I know this does happen in the scientific communities sometimes, the difference is that a substantial counter-argument to counter the current accepted wisdom goes somewhat further than it does in religious communities. The number of points that the Catholic church has conceded in terms of what it considers to be accepted wisdom in the last 2000 years can probably be counted on two hands, whereas among scientists it has happened beyond count. We'd still be discussing the Four Humors and other such bollocks as if they had scientific merit if it wasn't the case, whereas the requirement of a woman proving that she is a virgin is still in the Bible. Imagine finding the scientific equivalent of that in a 'current' science textbook (aside from "teaching the controversy")!
"“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014).
People die spontaneously all the time.
I'm sure slaveholders thought the same of their slaves.
I said no such thing.
Are you asking me this question because you didn't understand the point I was making that you're responding to here? I thought I was quite clear and specific. I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.
But I said don't play semantic games with the word 'deliberate'. And yet that's just what you did. Going to war means the death of innocents. The invasion of Iraq certainly did. It's entirely predictable, so the use of the word 'deliberately' there is a bit of an evasion.
Except in this case when you decided to have kids you were the one that put the half loaded revolver to thier heads and pulled the trigger.
I guess, in the sense that having life involves the inevitability of death by any one of myriad means. Likening that to giving them a loaded gun is pretty ridiculous.
The fact that people die of natural or accidental causes doesn't free us to bring it about deliberately. We might just as well justify any murder on that basis.
Of course it's not fine. Anyone who goes to war to deliberately kill innocents is guilty of a war crime.
The maintenance of mental health shouldn't merit a death sentence for someone else.
You don't think you were portraying abortion as if only Christians object to it? As if trying to outlaw the practice is just religious imposition?
It's strange having to quote your own words back to you twice, but you said:
"Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles, and that it should be a crime to force one's religious views on to others."
Many, many tasks in parenting call to do things against the will of their children. Vaccinations for example. Would it be permissible for me to divorce children from their parents on the grounds that the parents were trying to forcibly disabuse their children of belief in God?
the only difference between us and lower animals is our intelligence and an unsupported belief in god.Also known as the glasses that scientists use.
"“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014).
In the first place, that's irrelevant - the value of human lives is not conditional. I could just as arbitrarily claim that blacks are only human beings if they live in Harlem. Secondly, if we accept this standard, is that to say you'd oppose abortion past 24 weeks, so far the earliest date that a child has survived outside the womb?
People die spontaneously all the time.
I'm sure slaveholders thought the same of their slaves.
Your argument rings hollow to me.
People do die of natural and other causes approaching 100% (not everyone has died yet so it’s not 100%)
Kids however don’t. In the US they have the following chances to die:
- 0-1 years old 0.58%
- 1-4 years old 0.025%
- 5-15 years old 0.013%
Even the worst country has an infant mortality rate over the 1st year of 6%.
Trying to conceive under your definition of life and death however is a 30-70% chance of death depending on the age of the parents when trying to conceive.
Taking the abortion drug RU486 runs 91-98% chance depending on the week after conceiving it’s taken.
So your argument is making a choice that has a 90% chance to result in the death of an innocent child is immoral but making a choice with a 70% chance of death is moral because:
Maybe you think it’s ok because God told you be fruitful and multiply. So any spontaneous abortion doesn’t really count as a dead kid. But did it ever occur to you that maybe it doesn’t count that early in pregnancy because it really isn’t a person yet?
- Everybody dies so that’s no reason not to do what you want (even though born kids actually have 100 times less chance of dying)
- You don’t want that to happen so you aren’t responsible if it does. (Even though it’s a directly foreseeable outcome from your decision)
Do you even understand what is being talked about when they talk about maternal mental health?
Instead of whatever facile story you tell yourself about sluts pretending to be depressed to get an abortion why don’t you picture this instead.
You and your wife find out at 30 weeks that your very much wanted baby is showing signs of a congenital defect that is not compatible with life. Your baby will be born and then will spend a few hours gasping for air and eventually dying in pain. Heroic medical measures might extend that pain to a few days.
Now since third trimester abortions are very difficult to get your choice is basically made for you and your wife. It is to watch the baby you were so excited for be born and die horribly.
Would that have any mental trauma for you? Do you think it might for your wife? If that wouldn’t hurt somebody emotionally do you think there might be something fundamentally wrong with that person.
Now your other option is spend $10K+ and fly to one of the few clinics that will do a third trimester abortion. Instead of hours or days of pain, an injection is given which stops the babies heart in minutes and your wife would then be induced to give a still birth.
Both options are the result of an awful situation but why is the allow the baby to die in prolonged agony the moral choice while the other is immoral?
No. You're projecting your doubt as if it constitutes a substantial argument. By all means continue to doubt if it pleases you.
Why don't you just argue the point I actually made rather than try to talk about something else? Do we need to argue every single scenario in which parents do things against the will of their children and which we agree and disagree with before you'll get back to the actual freaking topic? Whether either of us would advocate the idea of taking children away from anti-vaxxer parents makes no difference to the actual topic, just like if we were both for removing children from their rapey parents, or if we're both against removing children from parents who don't wish to give them ice cream every time they ask. It makes no difference to the actual topic.
the only difference between us and lower animals is our intelligence and an unsupported belief in god.
the value of human life is completely conditional, it is whatever society decides it is. if society decides the rich, or white, or a particular religion is more valued there isn't much that will change that except society itself.
belief in god is not proof of god.
Again, being alive involves the inevitability of death. At various stages of life people are at higher risk of natural death than others. They aren't more or less human depending on where they are on the risk curve.
You would support the government taking children away from their parents if the parents are training their children in their religion, correct?
First, selling an isolated worst-case scenario doesn't change anything about the fact that late-term abortions are almost never done for reasons of fetal anomaly or deformity. Guttmacher's own study found that women having such abortions cited the same reasons as those in earlier-term abortions: raising children alone, depression or drug use, conflict with a male partner or domestic violence, etc. People cite this claim as if it's axiomatic but it simply has no factual basis.
Second, to give an honest answer to your question: I'll concede that in this scenario I would proceed with the birth, strictly because of my orientation to God - I have no right to usurp his sole authority in determining a natural death. I've no right to predict the future. Furthermore, I wouldn't condemn non-Christians who elected abortion under those circumstances.