I don't think it is "erring on the side of caution" as much as it is "we don't believe this is life at conception, but we will try to compromise". For those who believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, the act of abortion is such that it ends the future for a life where without that action it would be allowed to naturally survive. I don't think (just as with Covid) bringing up wild fringe possibilities and potential exceptions changes that fact. It is either ending a life, or it isn't.
But as far as abortion only concerning the fetus, the baby is certainly and literally tied to the mother as well. And excluding the "abortions of convenience", there are surely instances where patients are presented with "its either the mother or the baby". That is a heartbreaking thought.
But If we were to agree that both lives were actually precious and alive, choosing to end either future is tragic. Especially since we are relying on an expert (doctor) to predict that one will certainly die without terminating the other. Do we really know that it will be the case? The only certainty seems to be that by choosing to end one life, you will certainly end that life.
As for it being like Covid concerning freedom, again if we agree that the life is a life, then just like we shouldn't have a liberty to take a life, we shouldn't have a liberty to take an unborn life. Bodily autonomy becomes shared space for 9 months. I cant kick a passenger out of a moving jeep just because I am in the drivers seat.
Saying "There’s no down side to banning abortion completely" is a subjective statement. For those who believe it is akin to saying murder should be completely banned, it is understandable. For those who have their own definition of what it means to be alive, I can see how the statement would come across as, in the least, insensitive. But when something is wrong, it should be called wrong...completely.
Science tells us that human life begins at conception. As soon as fertilization takes place, the genetic makeup of the child is already complete.
The Bible tells us the God knew us before we were born (Jeremiah 1:5), and that all the days ordained for us are written in His book (Psalm 139:13-16). An unborn child was the first person to recognize Jesus (Luke 1:41)
Abortion is such a sensitive issue, and I have no desire to start a war with anyone who thinks differently. I just thought I would share my thoughts on the matter.
They've been sharpening this issue for 30 years to use it as a wedge right now. When the world is falling apart, when we most need to unite, they're trying to split us using abortion.
I'm pro-choice, but I'm perfectly comfortable with SCOTUS ruling that this is an issue for the states to decide. Given the polarization that exists on this subject, I think it's correct and desirable that one side doesn't win by federal fiat. Everyone can choose to live in a state that expresses their values.
But most of all, this issue is not at all important right now. It will not be important until we have saved the world from the ongoing engineered health and economic collapse. I hope everyone sees that.
So, in Mark Changizi's world, if I understand it correctly:
> Big Bang
> Billions of years of random, amoral death, disease and evolution
> Mankind arises from the ooze
> ~6 billion years of ooze later, mankind achieves "full-moral-agent" status.
You are having trouble finding some kind of moral the line between a "zygote" and a 9 month old baby, but what is your consistent standard that allows you to say the 9 month old has any moral value in the first place? Why does ooze from year 6 billion (mankind) have more moral value than year 0 ooze? Why did 6 billion years of did meaningless, random death/disease/violence result in any kind of morality or intrinsic value whatsoever? Why should I draw my lines as Mark Changizi does?
I'm pretty sure your answer to such questions would be arbitrary, emotion driven and/or largely based on tradition. I know you are not an emotionally driven type of person, but I don't see how you answer the question in any other way. If your answer is arbitrary, as I expect it is, why is someone elses arbitrary answer better or worse than your own?
"Hmmm, if you lived through the last two years of Covid, you should be afraid of any position that claims to have no down sides."
I can't say I'm familiar with this argument being made by anyone. I acknowledge there is a down side to restricting abortion. Abortion may make my life more convenient, I may be happier on some level, I'll probably save some money, etc. Every sin has some kind of upside or we wouldn't commit them in the first place. But the argument from the religious pro-lifers (at least in my personal bubble) was never "There is only upsides to ending all abortion!" The standard for all morality was/is: There's a God, God has a law and lockdown/forced meds/zygote killing/etc are contrary to that law.
I know you don't think much of that line of thought, but I think it's a more consistent position than your own. I do not understand what the basis for your moral system is, at all, other than you find it personally pleasing.
I think you are taking some kind of standard of your own, applying it to another group that never used that standard, and then claiming hypocrisy for them not adhering to the standard that they never had.
You are being as dismissive and insulting as the lockdowners.
In this short article, you present a ridiculous strawman as if it were a serious pro-life position. "No downside"? That's the position you choose to ridicule? And then when called out, you assign some other completely made-up position to me and try to ridicule that - zygotes and sorites. Sure.
If you wish to engage in intelligent, even scientific, discussion, you must do better. Respect the views of others, rather than caricaturing them. If you wish instead to waste your time on insults, then keep doing what you're doing.
The pro-lifers are a particularly hypocritical bunch, from my experience.
I am an extreme pro-lifer.
I an an extreme anti-raper.
I am an extremist against child abuse.
I am an extremist against heinous crimes in general.
Clearly, you are my moral and intellectual superior.
I don't think it is "erring on the side of caution" as much as it is "we don't believe this is life at conception, but we will try to compromise". For those who believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, the act of abortion is such that it ends the future for a life where without that action it would be allowed to naturally survive. I don't think (just as with Covid) bringing up wild fringe possibilities and potential exceptions changes that fact. It is either ending a life, or it isn't.
But as far as abortion only concerning the fetus, the baby is certainly and literally tied to the mother as well. And excluding the "abortions of convenience", there are surely instances where patients are presented with "its either the mother or the baby". That is a heartbreaking thought.
But If we were to agree that both lives were actually precious and alive, choosing to end either future is tragic. Especially since we are relying on an expert (doctor) to predict that one will certainly die without terminating the other. Do we really know that it will be the case? The only certainty seems to be that by choosing to end one life, you will certainly end that life.
As for it being like Covid concerning freedom, again if we agree that the life is a life, then just like we shouldn't have a liberty to take a life, we shouldn't have a liberty to take an unborn life. Bodily autonomy becomes shared space for 9 months. I cant kick a passenger out of a moving jeep just because I am in the drivers seat.
Saying "There’s no down side to banning abortion completely" is a subjective statement. For those who believe it is akin to saying murder should be completely banned, it is understandable. For those who have their own definition of what it means to be alive, I can see how the statement would come across as, in the least, insensitive. But when something is wrong, it should be called wrong...completely.
Science tells us that human life begins at conception. As soon as fertilization takes place, the genetic makeup of the child is already complete.
The Bible tells us the God knew us before we were born (Jeremiah 1:5), and that all the days ordained for us are written in His book (Psalm 139:13-16). An unborn child was the first person to recognize Jesus (Luke 1:41)
Abortion is such a sensitive issue, and I have no desire to start a war with anyone who thinks differently. I just thought I would share my thoughts on the matter.
They've been sharpening this issue for 30 years to use it as a wedge right now. When the world is falling apart, when we most need to unite, they're trying to split us using abortion.
I'm pro-choice, but I'm perfectly comfortable with SCOTUS ruling that this is an issue for the states to decide. Given the polarization that exists on this subject, I think it's correct and desirable that one side doesn't win by federal fiat. Everyone can choose to live in a state that expresses their values.
But most of all, this issue is not at all important right now. It will not be important until we have saved the world from the ongoing engineered health and economic collapse. I hope everyone sees that.
So, in Mark Changizi's world, if I understand it correctly:
> Big Bang
> Billions of years of random, amoral death, disease and evolution
> Mankind arises from the ooze
> ~6 billion years of ooze later, mankind achieves "full-moral-agent" status.
You are having trouble finding some kind of moral the line between a "zygote" and a 9 month old baby, but what is your consistent standard that allows you to say the 9 month old has any moral value in the first place? Why does ooze from year 6 billion (mankind) have more moral value than year 0 ooze? Why did 6 billion years of did meaningless, random death/disease/violence result in any kind of morality or intrinsic value whatsoever? Why should I draw my lines as Mark Changizi does?
I'm pretty sure your answer to such questions would be arbitrary, emotion driven and/or largely based on tradition. I know you are not an emotionally driven type of person, but I don't see how you answer the question in any other way. If your answer is arbitrary, as I expect it is, why is someone elses arbitrary answer better or worse than your own?
"Hmmm, if you lived through the last two years of Covid, you should be afraid of any position that claims to have no down sides."
I can't say I'm familiar with this argument being made by anyone. I acknowledge there is a down side to restricting abortion. Abortion may make my life more convenient, I may be happier on some level, I'll probably save some money, etc. Every sin has some kind of upside or we wouldn't commit them in the first place. But the argument from the religious pro-lifers (at least in my personal bubble) was never "There is only upsides to ending all abortion!" The standard for all morality was/is: There's a God, God has a law and lockdown/forced meds/zygote killing/etc are contrary to that law.
I know you don't think much of that line of thought, but I think it's a more consistent position than your own. I do not understand what the basis for your moral system is, at all, other than you find it personally pleasing.
I think you are taking some kind of standard of your own, applying it to another group that never used that standard, and then claiming hypocrisy for them not adhering to the standard that they never had.
You are being as dismissive and insulting as the lockdowners.
In this short article, you present a ridiculous strawman as if it were a serious pro-life position. "No downside"? That's the position you choose to ridicule? And then when called out, you assign some other completely made-up position to me and try to ridicule that - zygotes and sorites. Sure.
If you wish to engage in intelligent, even scientific, discussion, you must do better. Respect the views of others, rather than caricaturing them. If you wish instead to waste your time on insults, then keep doing what you're doing.