So? That doesn't change the definition of parasite. A fœtus conforms to the definition, does it not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists are more pro-life than Christians
- Thread starter Altfish
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Actually, no it is not. It is not murder for someone to die as a result of you not giving them your organs or blood.
Because those don't impose upon your bodily autonomy.
Nobody should be forced to make any sacrifices they don't want to make or consent to, beyond the reasonable expectations of responsibility we all have for each other and those in our care. And nobody should be forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for another.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No it doesn't. He is your child, not a foreign object in your body. Geez.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Hogwash. We send people to prison for not caring for thier kids.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Correct.
However, we don't send people to prison for not donating blood or organs to their kids.
One is a failing to meet a reasonable expectation of care, the other is a refusal to go above and beyond in that care. The former is generally illegal or punishable, the latter is not.
None of this precludes it's being a parasite. "Parasite" is not a value or status indicator.
"Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship, or long-term relationship between two species, where one member, the parasite, gains benefits that come at the expense of the host member."
Parasitism - Definition, Types and Examples | Biology Dictionary
A fœtus takes nourishment from the mother -- at the expense of the mother -- but contributes nothing. See definition above.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Because in the US, a born human is a legal person. Hebrew law in the Bible dictated that a baby could be killed up to 30 day after birth. Glad we don't do that.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Chapter and verse?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
- Refusing to run into a burning building to rescue people. - should not be a forced choice
- Refusing to donate an organ or organs. - should not be a forced choice
- Not jumping in front of somebody to protect them from a knife or bulle " "
pregnancy that does not require organ loss or life of mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancy) - forced choice fine by me and by something approaching or exceeding 50% of Americans
Please avoid false equivocations and false analogies.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I can speak of my position, for example, myself and most born again men I know would marry the mother of our child or financially support the child and/or pay alimony and child support promptly, etc.
But I've warned people during public preaching that atheist fathers will often recommend or even (Lord bless them!) be slightly willing to pay for an abortion when they've done the deed outside wedlock (and many times be for the abortion DURING wedlock because "why should I have to sacrifice to raise a child" and "I support your bodily autonomy, darling").
Choose LIFE.
Missing the point. I meant your position that demands others sacrifice themselves to satisfy your beliefs.
Again you avoid admitting the truth about your position. If it's too shameful for you to confront head-on, why keep it up?
Does all your preaching involve fear-mongering and slander?But I've warned people during public preaching that atheist fathers will often recommend or even (Lord bless them!) be slightly willing to pay for an abortion when they've done the deed outside wedlock (and many times be for the abortion DURING wedlock because "why should I have to sacrifice to raise a child" and "I support your bodily autonomy, darling").
Choose LIFE.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
This is not an argument. If you believe it is okay not to force people to run into a burning building or to donate organs, it should not be difficult to undertand why it is morally wrong to force people to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.
Asserting that something is false does not make it so. Simply asserting that pregnancy is different to the above scenarios doesn't make it so, either.
You are just making an arbitrary distinction to justify your immoral position on forcing people to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That would just be your bias showing.I can speak of my position, for example, myself and most born again men I know would marry the mother of our child or financially support the child and/or pay alimony and child support promptly, etc.
But I've warned people during public preaching that atheist fathers will often recommend or even (Lord bless them!) be slightly willing to pay for an abortion when they've done the deed outside wedlock (and many times be for the abortion DURING wedlock because "why should I have to sacrifice to raise a child" and "I support your bodily autonomy, darling").
Choose LIFE.
People of All Religions Use Birth Control and Have Abortions
Survey: Women Go Silently From Church to Abortion Clinic - Focus on the Family
What's "fine by you" is irrelevant.
Is the concept of consent completely foreign to you? What you're pushing is the mentality of a rapist:
- "yeah she said she doesn't want sex, but she invited me up. What did she think would happen?"
- "yeah she said she doesn't want to be pregnant, but she had sex. What did she think would happen?"
Last edited:
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Sorry, I meant Bible days, not in the Bible specifically. Historically in Jewish law, full viability was not assumed until 30 days after birth. Later on, full viability was at birth, which is still Jewish law I think.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
'
I appreciate your strong feelings in this matter. But I say it is not the mentality of a rapist to counter inconvenience with killing a life.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
We both have multiple positions that demand other sacrifice themselves for satisfying our beliefs.
For an example, you want me to pay extra taxes to house convicted murderers for years and years, instead of executing them and reducing the tax burden.
I have no problem with this sort of thing--for example, I'd like COVID vaccines made mandatory. That would be an example of forcing people, even religious friends who are vaccine hesitant, to have something done to their bodies against their will. Fine by me.
My bodily autonomy and yours has limitations including taxation, subject to arrest, unable to consume alcohol or marry legally before a certain age, possible draft to fight and die in a war, etc. without which society--and actually the value placed on LIFE and INTERDEPENDENCE diminish.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
It is an argument. After all, an adult can choose to risk their life to run into a burning building or not.
A child cannot make that choice. So I'm technically pro-life, any parents who want to abort can record that decision, and then, when their child turns 18, they will have the option to choose death by knife cutting, burning in saline solution, etc.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
That would just be your bias showing.
People of All Religions Use Birth Control and Have Abortions
Survey: Women Go Silently From Church to Abortion Clinic - Focus on the Family
I have a very large bias or so the Mrs. says . . .
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
And a woman can choose not to remain pregnant or give birth.
It is not the child's choice to make. A person who needs an organ to live cannot "choose" to take any organ from any individual in order to do so.
This is a pretty silly argument for very obvious reasons. People don't abort just because they want to kill the child. They abort because they don't want to go through the process of pregnancy and childbirth (or, because they are unprepared or unwilling to raise a child).
Killing an autonomous person whose continued life does not rely on the continuous consent to access of another person's organs and the sacrifice of their bodily autonomy is not the same thing as killing a foetus.