The biblical flood: abortion of "convenience"

Yahchristian

Well-known member
When a doctor’s act kills a child a week before it would have been born, is that supposed to be wrong?
Yes. In my personal view, that is wrong. If the doctor kills the unborn baby 30 weeks before it would be born, in my personal view that is not wrong.

as a supporter of abortion rights

@mikeT can you please clarify your support for abortion rights...

Do you support abortion rights a week before it would have been born?

If not, up to what point exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Howie

Well-known member
All the Roe v Wade talk has shown me one thing. When - as a supporter of abortion rights - I'm accused of killing kids for the sake of convenience, I turn around and ask why God isn't accused of the same thing. After all, both involve killing human life to solve a problem.
Your argument is flawed. You are arguing you are God.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Likewise, if we look at it from the other end of the spectrum, i.e. those who pass judgment on this mythological god who is destroying his own creation don't seem to have a problem allowing anyone to destroy their own creations.
Except that that is not remotely true - it's a caricature of pro-choicers' (the majority of whom are Christians) position.

Why the double standard?
There isn't one.

In other words, we can just as easily take their argument and turn it against them. What's their excuse? They don't seem to have one. They're pointing their fingers at the bible thumper and don't see that they're just as guilty of hypocrisy as anyone else.
Except that we're not.


If they think it's immoral for a mythological god to do it, then by their own logic, it necessarily does prove it's just as immoral for anyone else to abort their own offspring as well.
The two situations are not remotely the same.

Their argument caves in on itself.
No, it doesn't.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It doesn't matter.
Well it does matter to the extent that you were happy to talk about how the atheist minority will feel in "future generations" but omitted to mention how the Christian majority will.

The general population, including atheists and Christians, will agree on that point.
Possible. Also possible that they won't. I see no reason to think that those who are pro-choice will, en masse, change that position in "future generations".
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Well it does matter to the extent that you were happy to talk about how the atheist minority will feel in "future generations" but omitted to mention how the Christian majority will.


Possible. Also possible that they won't. I see no reason to think that those who are pro-choice will, en masse, change that position in "future generations".
The development of science in the field of neonatology. Ultrasounds of the developing human life in its earliest stages should be convincing enough that it is not just a blob of tissues. The evidence is clear that abortion terminates a human life. Abortion goes against the natural principle that for a species to grow and flourish, you can't eat your own, so to speak.
 

mikeT

Well-known member
The development of science in the field of neonatology.
It's possible that science will provide information that shifts the abortion debate. Speaking only for myself, I'll happily change my position if I find that (for example) the fetus can feel pain at 30 days, or that brainwaves are detected much earlier than previously thought.

Ultrasounds of the developing human life in its earliest stages should be convincing enough that it is not just a blob of tissues.
It's not; not to me. I haven't seen any ultrasound evidence which changes my current pro-choice stance (aka. I'm for unfettered abortion during the first trimester, I get pretty nervous about it in the second, and I oppose it in the third except for the most extreme situations).

The evidence is clear that abortion terminates a human life.
Well, sorta. The evidence is clear that it terminates life, but whether that constitutes "a human life" is very much debatable. For example, skin cells are a form of human life, and no one has any moral problems with terminating them. A human zygote is also a form of human life. So is an 8 month old fetus. We know that abortion kills something, but whether it's a human being or the tree equivalent of an acorn is hotly contested. And rightly so.

Abortion goes against the natural principle that for a species to grow and flourish, you can't eat your own, so to speak.
You realize there are species that do exactly that, right? Cats and dogs sometimes do it. "Natural principle" is nebulous at best.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
The development of science in the field of neonatology. Ultrasounds of the developing human life in its earliest stages should be convincing enough that it is not just a blob of tissues.
That is nothing new. And at the time of most abortions it is "just a blob of tissues".
The evidence is clear that abortion terminates a human life.
No, it's not. Whether a fetus is "a human life" is a moral and philosophical matter, not a scientific one. Nor is it the only significant factor.
Abortion goes against the natural principle that for a species to grow and flourish, you can't eat your own, so to speak.
...except that many non-human animals do precisely that. Some absorb the fetus back into their own tissues; others miscarry under various forms of stress. Abortion certainly does not go against any natural principle.

In short, there's nothing in anything you say that indicates it's likely that the pro-choice majority will, in a couple of generations, change their mind.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Well, sorta. The evidence is clear that it terminates life, but whether that constitutes "a human life" is very much debatable. For example, skin cells are a form of human life, and no one has any moral problems with terminating them. A human zygote is also a form of human life. So is an 8 month old fetus. We know that abortion kills something, but whether it's a human being or the tree equivalent of an acorn is hotly contested. And rightly so.
It can only be a human life that is in the process of growing. An acorn would be akin to an egg, it has potential to become something but it doesn't start the growth process until it's fertilized. It might never get to the fertilization stage which is when it becomes human or an oak sapling.
You realize there are species that do exactly that, right? Cats and dogs sometimes do it. "Natural principle" is nebulous at best.
ok
 

mikeT

Well-known member
It can only be a human life that is in the process of growing.
Right.

An acorn would be akin to an egg, it has potential to become something but it doesn't start the growth process until it's fertilized. It might never get to the fertilization stage which is when it becomes human or an oak sapling.
Ok, I agree my analogy wasn't great. However, there are points in the gestation of a human in which the human life doesn't have a brain or a heart. It's not what anyone thinks of when they think "human being".

The 9 months of human gestation is a gradual process over which the clump of cells turns into what looks like a human baby. There are no solid lines across which we can say "a minute ago that was a clump of cells, now it's a baby" or whatever. However, at some point, it IS just a clump of cells (with human potential); at some other point before it's born, calling it a baby is entirely reasonable.

In the same way that we can't label the fetus "not a human being even though it's going to be born in a few minutes", we also can't label a clump of cells a human being. Both are fundamentally wrong.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
What does any of this have to do with abortion, sir?

Even if you are right, namely, that God is a hypocrite or that God is a moral monster, so what? All you prove is that the Christian God is a moral monster and not worth believing in.

You haven't proven that abortion is morally justifiable.
The point is not to prove that abortion is morally justifiable, but to point out that Christians that do not take Yahweh to task for the Flood, while holding that abortion is immoral, are hypocrites.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The biblical flood was vastly worse than abortion. Anybody who 'approves' of the biblical flood has no basis whatsoever to every criticise the morality of any other person's act. Ever.
Except the flood was because the people had become so sinful. Christians dont approve of the flood we just note the sin. So since we see abortion as sinful we have every right to criticise it. Seems you want to silence us
 
Top