A fair number of reasonable people and Democrats would very much like to see Walker go down. Many of them would also like to see Mitch be put to pasture, but since that is looking less likely by the day, the Democrats are taking their resources elsewhere. I would hardly be surprised to learn that they might be putting more effort into Wisconsin.
There are non-religious reasons? I mean, ones that aren’t simple lies, like claiming abortion causes breast cancer or insanity?
Are you serious? The most blaring reason is that there is a question of when life begins? True, the Catholic church and other religious groups have taken a strong position on that and it has become part of the church’s teachings, but that does’ mean that it ceases being a philosophical question. If you snapped your fingers and erased the existence and memory of every religion, we would still be stuck with the question of when life begins. Is it conception? Birth? Or some stage in between? There is no easy answer to this.
And when we apply this to society’s question as to abortion, I’d ask you to look at the moment of birth. Then look backward: B - 10 seconds, B - 1 minute, B - 1 hour, B - 1 day, B - 1 week, B - three weeks, B - 1 month, B - 3 months, B - 6 months, B - 9 m months.
Society needs to grapple with these questions regardless of religion.
Hey, guess what: society has grappled with these questions, and it has concluded that abortion, even arbitrarily, is acceptable.
This is because your argument has a minimum of two logical flaws. The first is that the gametes that conspired to form the zygote were, you know, alive well before they met up. And the cells that produced them were alive, etc, ad infinitum. “Alive” is not adequately refined for it to be meaningful per se.
Moreover, you must consider that women abort tens or hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of embryos every year. Without the aid of a doctor. Usually without even realizing it. Either their bodies just decide not to host the zygote, or the zygote itself fails to gain uterine purchase for whatever reason. Not to mention those ectopic things.
Abortion is a natural event anyway, if a woman does not want to carry, there is no valid reason I can think of why the option of termination should be withheld from her.
But you’re skipping a step - you’re assuming that “when life begins” is the, or even a, question that makes a difference. If you erased the existence and memory of every religion, you’re also erasing a lot of what makes “the start of life” have a meaning in this situation. Not all of it, I’d guess. But I don’t think it would be as blaring a reason.
Yes, and it has also concluded that the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, not some notional “living wage.”
If I must accept society’s judgement about abortion, why are you free to disregard it for wages?
Because liberal hypocrisy. Really, we covered this.
Talking about “when life begins”, in regards to abortion, is a red herring. The real question is when personhood begins. Unfortunately, that’s a question that’s even more difficult to pin down than when life begins.
You’re incorrectly assuming that my statement was meant only to mean that we need to grapple with this issue now, because we haven’t been. In case I wasn’t clear, the comment was a much more general one, meaning that it is an issue any society need to assess and come to some agreement.
As far as the U.S. in 2014, we have enough consensus that we have agreed to not allow abortion. But this by itself doesn’t suggest that we still don’t grapple with the issue. Even if we, as a society, have agreed that abortion should not be outlawed, there is still the issue of at what point during the pregnancy should abortions be permitted.
There are no flaws in what I wrote. However, you seem to have made an assumption that is leading you down that road: I am Pro-Choice. Reluctantly, but steadfastly so.
I don’t see that I’m missing a step at all. Again, removing religion from the situation completely, the issue of what constitutes life will inevitably come up. A women that knows she is pregnant and takes steps to kill/abort her baby at 2 months is not the same as killing/aborting that baby after nine months. Killing/aborting that baby one hour before she would give birth is not the same as killing/aborting that baby one hour after it is born.
Why? It doesn’t enter my calculations for when abortion should be allowed. It doesn’t enter most people’s calculations, either - they limit concern about abortion to human life. That’s another value judgement, and they’re value judgements which have been heavily affected by religion.
And, to me, there is zero difference that matters about the 2 month old life and the 9 month old life. It’s not a question for me at all. “Life” is not a question that needs to be asked for me; I certainly wouldn’t want to say that I speak for or am an example of all atheists or otherwise irreligious people, but I think I’d count as a data point that the question* isn’t *an inevitable one. Especially when you’re couching the question in terms defined heavily by someone’s religion.
I don’t dispute that at all. But they needn’t be. And in my hypothetically religion-less world, they couldn’t be. Do you think that in such a world that society would cease making moral judgements completely? Or just as they regard to human life. I don’t see how that is plausible. And if you are of that mind, I think you’re also indirectly saying that atheists cannot have a moral compass.
How about a 9 month old life that is still in the womb and a 9 month old life that has already been born?
What? I’m stripping religion away. You may want to reread my posts.
I’m saying that in such a world, those definitions and meanings that are heavily affected by religion are going to be different. And that because of that, different questions, predicated on different ideas, are going to be asked. Of course such a world would still make moral judgments - but they wouldn’t make moral judgements based on religiously-based concepts. That “life” is the keystone of the question is something strongly affected by religion.
To me, it’s like you were saying, “Imagine a world without religion; there would still be questions about what sin should be allowed and forbidden.” I’m saying there wouldn’t be; “sin” as a concept doesn’t even enter my concept of what behaviour should be tolerated. Hurt to other people would, or to themselves, or to surroundings, etc. But not sin, because “sin” is a word that is selected because of religious background. Likewise, there are many things which are factors if I question the subject of abortion, but “life” isn’t one of them. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a moral compass, or that I don’t ask those questions; I just don’t ask questions on subjects my worldview sees no reason to.
As a question of life, I see no difference. As a question of* life*, I see no difference between a just-that-second-conceived cluster of cells and a 30-year-old adult. As a question of life I see no difference between 100 adult humans and 100 newts. Because life doesn’t mean to me what it does to you. That doesn’t mean I don’t see any difference at all - I just don’t use that metric for those purposes.
You’re saying you’re stripping religion away, but you’re not, because you’re taking it for granted that absent religion, religious meaning stays.
I really cannot fathom why you are having such a difficult time with this. Please explain how in a world without religion, moral positions would be strongly affected by religion? 
And I did not claim, nor come near claiming, that in the atheistic world I mentioned, that grappling with philosophical concepts of life would mean that that society would arrive at the conclusions we have. Only that they would, at some point, consider the issue.
No, I’m not saying that at all. Rather than focusing on what you think I might be “like” I’m saying you focus on what I am actually saying? And the above only makes any sense if you believe that morality is as necessarily tied to religion as the concept of sin is. “Sin” necessitates religion. Morality does not. Not in my book anyway. Tell me, yes or no, are you of the mind the atheists cannot make moral judgements? And that in a purely atheistic world, there would be no morality?
I’m not talking about sin at all. Zero. So, if in your next response you tie religion to what I’ve been saying, you can know in advance that you are not understanding what I’ve been saying.
Please read harder.
Ah, I get where you’re getting this from; unclear on my part, apologies. I mean that those definitions and meanings that are heavily affected [in this world in which religion exists and affects things] are going to be different in the hypothetical irreligious world [because they either don’t exist, or they don’t exist in the same way]. Of course, in a world without religion, moral positions couldn’t be strongly affected by religion.
Not necessarily, given that there are atheistic viewpoints in which that same meaning isn’t inevitable, and which would render the question moot. Instead, other questions might be asked.
I’ll skip analogies forthwith.
No, I’m not of the mind that atheists cannot make moral judgements. Nor do I think there would be no morality. I think the moral questions would be different, and I think it’s reasonable to suggest that the questions would not be those which are the questions they are because in large part of religion. “Life” as a factor in these kinds of questions isn’t inherent to religion (though neither is sin, for what it’s worth), but its a subject that is strongly affected by it and its role in the question you pose is also strongly affected by religion.
Given that my position is that you are not understanding what you’re saying, we might’ve reached an impasse. I’m using sin as an analogy; I wasn’t claiming you were talking about it. Hence, as you quote, “like”.
Can I ask what your questions to me personally about how I differentiate different lives were about?
Given the above, I’m going to embrace what’s below.
You’re embracing uncertainty? So there is still a chance for agreement! 
Yeah, that’s Heisenberg. I think. Pretty sure.
What we demand is clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
What about the unknown unknowns?