Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure. I may do.

But whether or not an individual WOULD do such a thing is not really relevant. We may both agree that cutting off your own hand to save another person's life is a very nice thing to do, much like running into a burning building to save someone from a fire, or donating an organ to save someone dying from illness. These are certainly brave and noble things to do.

But that these things are good things to do is not the position you are arguing for. What you have to argue in favour of is FORCING SOMEONE BY LAW into cutting off their own hand in order to save the life of another. You have to argue not only that it is morally good for someone to run into a burning building to save a life, but that they should be PENALIZED BY LAW for NOT running into a building. You are arguing not that simply donating an organ is a good thing, you are arguing that it is morally justified to FORCE PEOPLE to donate organs against their will.

Would you agree with that?

Seems that @BilliardsBall is having trouble distinguishing the morally praiseworthy from the morally obligatory.

Supererogation - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not sure. I may do.

But whether or not an individual WOULD do such a thing is not really relevant. We may both agree that cutting off your own hand to save another person's life is a very nice thing to do, much like running into a burning building to save someone from a fire, or donating an organ to save someone dying from illness. These are certainly brave and noble things to do.

But that these things are good things to do is not the position you are arguing for. What you have to argue in favour of is FORCING SOMEONE BY LAW into cutting off their own hand in order to save the life of another. You have to argue not only that it is morally good for someone to run into a burning building to save a life, but that they should be PENALIZED BY LAW for NOT running into a building. You are arguing not that simply donating an organ is a good thing, you are arguing that it is morally justified to FORCE PEOPLE to donate organs against their will.

Would you agree with that?

Yes, I would agree that saving the life of an innocent baby, not some murderer on death row, should require one to make sacrifices, by law if necessary.

Women don't usually need to donate an organ to be a mom.

It IS relevant that I would lose a hand or arm to save a life, and you're unsure. I say that not to accuse you but to point out to the self-sacrificing nature of biblical care and concern for others.

 

[BilliardsBall]

For the analogy to work, WE would be cutting off YOUR hand. And we'd be doing it against your will.

I'd be okay with losing a hand to save a life, because the example of self-sacrifice(s) are clear in the scriptures. There's a difference between us. Another is letting murderers but not babies have life by sacrificing less than one's hand(s).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I would agree that saving the life of an innocent baby, not some murderer on death row, should require one to make sacrifices, by law if necessary.

That's not what I said, and you didn't answer my question

While you and I may agree that it is commendable for people to make sacrifices to benefit others, do you therefore also believe that it is morally right to FORCE people to make sacrifices to benefit others?

Women don't usually need to donate an organ to be a mom.

Yes, they do. Their organs are co-opted by the child for the duration of the pregnancy. The mother uses them as well, but they are still hers and she has a right to full entitlement to them, even at the cost of ending another life.

It IS relevant that I would lose a hand or arm to save a life, and you're unsure.

No, it isn't.

For starters, my answer was honest. While I can agree it would be a good thing to do, I have no idea if I could actually do it in the heat of the moment. And, if you were honest, I doubt you would too. Since that situation is basically impossible and never going to happen, you have the benefit of SAYING you would do it while also having the comfort of knowing you'd never actually have to. It's just baseless posturing.

For seconds, it is completely irrelevant because what we are discussing here is not the morality of making a sacrifice to save others. What we are debating is whether it is morally right to FORCE PEOPLE to make sacrifices for others. My post was very clear about this, and yet you have remained suspiciously silent on that issue. I believe that this is because you realize that to FORCE people to cut of their hand, or go into a burnint building, or donate organs, or - yes - remain pregnant and give birth against their will IS indefensible and immoral, even if it saves a life.

You just don't wish to admit it.

I say that not to accuse you but to point out to the self-sacrificing nature of biblical care and concern for others.

It truly is noble that you are willing to SAY you'd do something you will never, ever have the opportunity to do in order to save a life.

Meanwhile, I am both a blood and organ donor who works in medicine.

But, by all means, continue to believe you have the moral highground on making sacrifices to save others.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry, but I've held too many precious babies to take even a small chance to terminate a life.

How do you survive without terminating life?
It boils down to what life we accord moral consideration to; what qualities entitle a living thing to consideration.
I maintain a fœtus does not yet possess the qualities that would entitle it to moral consideration, it it not yet either a baby or a person.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How do you survive without terminating life?
It boils down to what life we accord moral consideration to; what qualities entitle a living thing to consideration.
I maintain a fœtus does not yet possess the qualities that would entitle it to moral consideration, it it not yet either a baby or a person.

If we don't know when the foetus is a baby, why take a chance?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's not what I said, and you didn't answer my question

While you and I may agree that it is commendable for people to make sacrifices to benefit others, do you therefore also believe that it is morally right to FORCE people to make sacrifices to benefit others?


Yes, they do. Their organs are co-opted by the child for the duration of the pregnancy. The mother uses them as well, but they are still hers and she has a right to full entitlement to them, even at the cost of ending another life.


No, it isn't.

For starters, my answer was honest. While I can agree it would be a good thing to do, I have no idea if I could actually do it in the heat of the moment. And, if you were honest, I doubt you would too. Since that situation is basically impossible and never going to happen, you have the benefit of SAYING you would do it while also having the comfort of knowing you'd never actually have to. It's just baseless posturing.

For seconds, it is completely irrelevant because what we are discussing here is not the morality of making a sacrifice to save others. What we are debating is whether it is morally right to FORCE PEOPLE to make sacrifices for others. My post was very clear about this, and yet you have remained suspiciously silent on that issue. I believe that this is because you realize that to FORCE people to cut of their hand, or go into a burnint building, or donate organs, or - yes - remain pregnant and give birth against their will IS indefensible and immoral, even if it saves a life.

You just don't wish to admit it.


It truly is noble that you are willing to SAY you'd do something you will never, ever have the opportunity to do in order to save a life.

Meanwhile, I am both a blood and organ donor who works in medicine.

But, by all means, continue to believe you have the moral highground on making sacrifices to save others.

Yes it is morally/biblically right to force others to make sacrifices to benefit others. For example, payment of taxes.

For another example, we are an interdependent species, all sorts of mental and physical health problems happen to loners. Marrieds live far longer than divorcees.

I appreciate that you are a donor who works in healthcare.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd be okay with losing a hand to save a life, because the example of self-sacrifice(s) are clear in the scriptures. There's a difference between us. Another is letting murderers but not babies have life by sacrificing less than one's hand(s).

Don't pretend that your position has anythint to do with self-sacrifice.

The pro-choice position isn't just about supporting the right to abortion - and the right not to get pregnant in the first place - but it also supports a person's right to continue the pregnancy if that's what they want.

Your position is entirely about imposing your will on others against their will. There's absolutely nothing about self-sacrifice in it.

 

[Valjean]

If we don't know when the foetus is a baby, why take a chance?

We know it lacks self-interest, even self awareness. It does not care if it's aborted, it's unable to anticipate futurity.
We know it lacks the usual features we associate with personhood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we don't know when the foetus is a baby, why take a chance?

What difference do you think it should make?

I'm 44, unquestionably a person, self-aware and perfectly expressing my will to live. If this fact doesn't imply that anyone else - including corpses - should be compelled against their will to provide the use of their organs, tissues or fluids to keep me alive, what possible reason could there be to force someone to provide these things for a fetus?

You're not asking for the rights of personhood for fetuses; you're asking for something much more.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes it is morally/biblically right to force others to make sacrifices to benefit others. For example, payment of taxes.

But is it morally right to force people to make ANY sacrifice to benefit others? For example, if I steal your kidney to give yo a dying person, am I morally justified? If you are being attacked by someone with a knife, I could jump in front of them to protect you - that is a sacrifice I could make to benefit you - but would you therefore say that it should be illegal for people to NOT throw themselves at attackers to protect others? If I decide not to go into a burning building to try and rescue people because I believe it would put myself at too great a risk, should I be prosecuted?

See, there is a HUGE difference between doing something that is expected that happens to benefit others (like paying taxes) and doing something that goes ABOVE AND BEYOND in order to help another person. It is pretty obvious that, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth but decides to remain pregnant for the sake of the life of the baby, that is them going ABOVE AND BEYOND in order to save a life, and that is something that should not be mandated to force people to do, for the same reason we don't force people to donate organs or prosecute people for refusing to try to rescue people from a burning building.

To demand that people do these things against their will is morally reprehensible.

For another example, we are an interdependent species, all sorts of mental and physical health problems happen to loners. Marrieds live far longer than divorcees.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is moral to FORCE people to do it. Again, just because this may be true does not therefore make it right to FORCE people to get married, or to punish unmarried people.

I appreciate that you are a donor who works in healthcare.

I don't think you do, because I bet you still somehow believe you are more willing to make sacrifices to save others than I am.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But is it morally right to force people to make ANY sacrifice to benefit others? For example, if I steal your kidney to give yo a dying person, am I morally justified? If you are being attacked by someone with a knife, I could jump in front of them to protect you - that is a sacrifice I could make to benefit you - but would you therefore say that it should be illegal for people to NOT throw themselves at attackers to protect others? If I decide not to go into a burning building to try and rescue people because I believe it would put myself at too great a risk, should I be prosecuted?

The direction @BilliardsBall decided to take this thread has very strong Lord Farquaad vibes, IMO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't pretend that your position has anythint to do with self-sacrifice.

The pro-choice position isn't just about supporting the right to abortion - and the right not to get pregnant in the first place - but it also supports a person's right to continue the pregnancy if that's what they want.

Your position is entirely about imposing your will on others against their will. There's absolutely nothing about self-sacrifice in it.

Pro life - have the baby (laws forcing parents to parent properly are considered fine)

Pro choice - have the right to kill the baby (not to kill the baby when the pregnancy presents challenges is the self-sacrifice)

 

[BilliardsBall]

The direction @BilliardsBall decided to take this thread has very strong Lord Farquaad vibes, IMO.

View attachment 52110

I support abortions for real needs for the mother (like ectopic pregnancies).

 

[BilliardsBall]

But is it morally right to force people to make ANY sacrifice to benefit others? For example, if I steal your kidney to give yo a dying person, am I morally justified? If you are being attacked by someone with a knife, I could jump in front of them to protect you - that is a sacrifice I could make to benefit you - but would you therefore say that it should be illegal for people to NOT throw themselves at attackers to protect others? If I decide not to go into a burning building to try and rescue people because I believe it would put myself at too great a risk, should I be prosecuted?

See, there is a HUGE difference between doing something that is expected that happens to benefit others (like paying taxes) and doing something that goes ABOVE AND BEYOND in order to help another person. It is pretty obvious that, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth but decides to remain pregnant for the sake of the life of the baby, that is them going ABOVE AND BEYOND in order to save a life, and that is something that should not be mandated to force people to do, for the same reason we don't force people to donate organs or prosecute people for refusing to try to rescue people from a burning building.

To demand that people do these things against their will is morally reprehensible.


Which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is moral to FORCE people to do it. Again, just because this may be true does not therefore make it right to FORCE people to get married, or to punish unmarried people.


I don't think you do, because I bet you still somehow believe you are more willing to make sacrifices to save others than I am.

Can you give us an example of when you willingly made a sacrifice for another's benefit? Do you regret doing so?

Can you give an example of when you unwillingly did so? Do you regret it?

 

[Valjean]

Pro life - have the baby (laws forcing parents to parent properly are considered fine)

Pro choice - have the right to kill the baby (not to kill the baby when the pregnancy presents challenges is the self-sacrifice)

Why do you keep calling it a baby?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you give us an example of when you willingly made a sacrifice for another's benefit? Do you regret doing so?

Can you give an example of when you unwillingly did so? Do you regret it?

Why are you incapable of engaging with or answering my questions?

I'll make it as clear and simple as possible for you:

Do you think there are instances in which it is WRONG to legally force someone to do a thing, even if it would save a life?

Or, another way to put it, would you make the following things illegal:
- Refusing to run into a burning building to rescue people.
- Refusing to donate an organ or organs.
- Not jumping in front of somebody to protect them from a knife or bullet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pro life - have the baby (laws forcing parents to parent properly are considered fine)

Pro choice - have the right to kill the baby (not to kill the baby when the pregnancy presents challenges is the self-sacrifice)

Are you the one who's pregnant?

If the answer is "no," then you aren't talking about SELF-sacrifice.

If you're this uncomfortable admitting the truth of your position, maybe you should reflect on why. Could it be that you realize deep down that it's wrong?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you give us an example of when you willingly made a sacrifice for another's benefit? Do you regret doing so?

Can you give an example of when you unwillingly did so? Do you regret it?

Can you give us an example of you actually addressing the point?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why do you keep calling it a baby?

Would you prefer "clump of cells" or "parasite" as many on your side are wont to call developing humans in the womb?