Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Which doesn't work. It's either legal or not. If it is, we know that most will be solely for convenience.
-
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
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No, but a unborn baby has it's own body. He has a right to be born.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Statistically, religious people far more than non religious people.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Not at a cost of the bodily autonomy of another.
If I was dying of kidney failure and needed your kidney, I cannot simply knock you out and take your kidney. You have a right to deny me the use of your kidney, even if to do so would kill me. Your right to the use and protection of your own body outweighs my right to life.
Heyo
Veteran Member
So you are not pro life (which was the original question you tried to deflect) because you don't care about the life of the delinquent. You are, at most, pro innocence.
But since you are now the fourth to not see hypocrisy in the different treatment of the cases, I feel better about my different treatment. It seems to come down to a value judgement. We value life and liberty, you value innocence and conformity.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Not buying it. Athiests have killed thier millions too.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Dumb analogy. A baby isn't a kidney. And there's lots of potential kidney donors. There's only one person who can bring the baby to term.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But, on average, a killer is more likely to be religious than non religious. Same with rapists, abusers and terrorists.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You don't seem to have understood the analogy. In it, the baby isn't the kidney. The baby was myself. The kidney is a womb, if you like.
See, your argument is that abortion isn't justified because a baby has a right to life. But, surely, that logic applies to me as well. And if you believe that it is okay to force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will because doing so saves a life, then it is not really a huge stretch for you to also believe it is okay for me to knock you out and take your kidney against your will if it will save my life. In both scenarios, one person is being grievously harmed, but you believe it is justified because it provides a life-saving benefit to another. Surely you must believe that my life is more important than your "convenience" of remaining conscious and having two kidneys and not having a lengthy recovery period and permanent scarring. You must necessarily believe that any action which saves a life, even if it results in significant harm against the will of another, is justified.
Then imagine that I needed a very specific kind of kidney and you were the only person on the planet who had one. Does that make me morally justified in taking your kidney? And what if, instead of taking it by force, I asked for it and you said no. Should you be prosecuted or forced by law to give me the kidney?
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Lol, you still don't get it. The Baby is already alive. You have it backward. The life in danger here is the child's life, not the mother's life. What does giving a kidney to someone else have to do with it. All she has to do is let nature takes it's course.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Because more people in the world believe in God than are atheists, of course, more so-called religious people are going to be killers.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Sorry that is not correct.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
It's a fact.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Acually, both are in danger. Some pregnancies do result in the death of the mother, and even if they don't they always result in significant harm befalling the mother. Childbirth is not a simple, clean process. It has a huge physical, phsychological and emotional impact on a person, and often the consequences are lifelong.
You believe it is morally justified to force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will because it saves the life of another. By the same logic, I believe it is morally justified for me to knock you out and take your kidney if it saves my life. Both are instances in which the life of one individual is weighed as more important and of more moral worth than the right of another to the full use and autonomy of their own body. If you believe it is okay in one instance, you must believe it is okay in the other.
You clearly do not understand the impact that pregnancy and childbirth can have on a person.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, I said statistically they are MORE LIKELY to be killers. Even if we average out the numbers, a lower ratio of non-religious people are violent, murderous, terrorists or bigots. Statistically, being religious increases the likelihood of all of these things.
But we extinguish life every day, and nobody bats an eye.
How is aborting a fœtus different from killing a chicken?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Hilarious! I have been present at the birth of each of my children. The impact is invariably outweighed by the rewards. Most women will choose to give birth after seeing thier child on an ultrasound.
The saving the mother myth for condoning abortion is a false one, because that's not done at an abortion clinic, and it's not what pro life people want outlawed.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Says who?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Are you serious?
Have a drumstick with no guilt. Human life doesn't equal animal life.
Yes, I'm serious. What makes humans a special case? Is it only species that confers special rights on hominins? If so why?
Is this a religious thing?