The statement “a fetus is fully a human being with all the rights thereof from the moment of conception” is fully recognizable as originating in Catholic doctrine, however. That’s the basis of Bricker’s arguments, and let’s call them what they are.
Cite?
Even if it’s the origin (and The big Bang got it’s derisive name because it sounded too “Creation-y”) it still wouldn’t invalidate the reasoning.
You’re also implying that a religious person CANNOT have a non-religious reason for being pro-choice.
That’s wrong.
Be serious. :rolleyes:
It would invalidate the claim that it *is *reasoning rather than a profession of faith. It would thereby let in the concept that others’ views and rights can be valid even if they differ, which a basis in an authoritarian religion prevents. That would be frightening, wouldn’t it?
Yes, it is. I said and meant no such thing, and have no idea how you concluded that. It is true, though, that a nonreligious reason holds up much better in discussion than “Because a bunch of perverted old guys in funny hats tell me to think so”. **Bricker **won’t admit that, though; his only claim when pressed is that the at-conception principle “just seems right” and that no other position could be. Gee, wonder why, huh?
To give you an example, when magellan and I were talking about how your claim on how life starts or is sacred at conception, I feel that it is unsupported secularly. If that is your claim, I mean. I think one would be hard-pressed to identify a micro-organism as human enough to deserve all the rights and benefits of an actual birthed human being. You can argue that I’m wrong, but I consider all such arguments of life being sacred at conception to be religious based, because to me, there is little difference between such a clump of cells vs. skin cells, or hell, even sperm and eggs by themselves. Anyone who makes that argument is automatically pegged by me to be coming from a religious standpoint, just as if someone tried to find a science-y way of defending Intelligent Design. We’re used to the purposeful misdirections and we’re simply not gonna keep humoring those people
I’ll agree with you with one caveat: there are certain arguments which, despite whatever protests to the contrary, are religious in nature even if they don’t mention god. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade and ignore their attempts to convince me otherwise
I agree with you on that general principle, but not on the specific topic of abortion. Most pro-lifers make abortion out to be this life and death, baby-murdering, good vs. evil argument. If they are already fully committed to that stance, and they feel its so important that use pro-choicers are practically the devil incarnate, then they should be ready to pay any price to stop abortions ESPECIALLY if that price is lower and much much more effective in reducing abortions. So yeah, when some pro-lifers screaming bloody murder outside a clinic like its the end of the world but somehow can’t pay a few cents more in taxes for sex education or just having the schools provide free cheat condoms, then I do see through their bullshit into the religious foundation of their argument
What if they bring in something like Intelligent Design, which is purported to be science but everyone knows is religious? Do I still have to humor them?
Then what’s your explanation for the existence of pro-life atheist groups?
My own secular objection involves a fear of the slippery slope. I dislike the idea that government arrogates to itself the power to kill its subjects. I believe that history shows acceptance of government’s right to kill people leads to a general acceptance of death, and I believe the problems which arise from this are self-evident.
For this reason, I wouldn’t support a law allowing parents to kill newborns, even though a day-old baby has very little in the way of reasoning, intellect, or survival skills that typically mark an adult human. Human society hasn’t always agreed with this premise; children in medieval England could be hung at age 7 for being thieves – but look at how medieval England viewed everyone’s “right to life.” Answer: poorly.
So now the slippery slope: if I wouldn’t support a law permitting parents to kill a day-old, born infant, I also feel that I should oppose a law permitting that parent to kill a one-day-from-being born infant. And so on, back to conception. If we know that we’re talking about a human being, then we ought to extend the protection of the law to that human being, because societies that don’t end up with an all-around low regard for human life.
Today, in our supposedly enlightened society, how many of our states still permit the death penalty? And why?
That is a perfectly secular, non-religious reason to disfavor abortion.
I’d say that if if someone has a “science-y” way of defending anything, and you can’t win the argument without bringing up religion, then maybe that person has more of a point that you’d like to admit. For someone who holds reason us the ultimate arbiter, why in the world would you want to be the one to introduce religion into the debate? It seems like a cheap tactic where you can always play the card up your sleeve, "Aha, but you’re a devout _______, aren’t you?!!
Well, I don’t know what you’re referring to, but I maintain, that if the person who you suspect of having religious motivations does what you (me) require of him and does NOT bring religion into it, you and I should be bound by the same requirement. If you want a purely secular, rational argument, keep it purely secular and rational. And as I said above, if you or I can’t counter the non-religious argument coming from a religionist, maybe we should rethink our position.
I strongly disagree with your “pay any price”. I think that’s a ridiculous requirement to impose.
I don’t see it as humoring anyone. I see it as arguing in good faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Now one can certainly argue if an ID debate can be secular. I’d say it can, if you take an a-religious, Deist view of the watchmaker. And if someone can do that, then it’s incumbent upon us to counter the arguments being made, not the ones we suspect might be lurking in someone’s heart. That’s just a waste of time for everyone. Just address what has been put on the table. If they bring up religion, point out that they’re not interested in having a debate based on the merits. If they don’t bring it up, argue against the points. I don’t see what is so difficult about that. I’m also a bit baffled that someone who wants religion OUT of the debate would then be willing to inject it either based on suspicion of it as a motivation or because a religious argument argues for the same position. That’s just bad logic.
I see that you’ve mentioned more than once that you agree with me in principle, good. But why are you so quick to abandon the principle in order to inject a religion into a debate? What do you lose by adhering to the principle?
I was going to just say they’re idiots, but I think this deserves a serious answer. To me, it would depend on why they are pro-life more than the fact that they are in the first place.
I don’t agree that the problem of the acceptance of death is self-evident so I cannot agree with your slippery slope argument. Seeing as I hold no intrinsic respect or value for life, just the fact of a lot of people dying is neither problematic nor virtuous to me.
Its only because in reality, it happens with near certainty. At some point, one gets tired of the cat and mouse. Plus, like I mentioned before, there are certain arguments I hold to be intrinsically religious so anyone trying to science their way into a logical debating using those arguments is automatically going to be wrong in my book
Part of that is exaggerating for effect, but I hope you will address the rest of that point.
I believe there is absolutely no way to argue ID secularly. What you say sounds good in theory, just argue the points logically as they are presented, but in these secretly religious arguments, there inevitably comes a point where you get to the religious part. I’m simply trying not to waste any more time than I have to.
Because I don’t believe the religious side argues honestly and am sick and tired of being roped into an intellectual exercise that turns out to be religion cloaked in the guise of fact?
Noob.
Can you find an example of a nation where it is legal to electively abort one-day-before-born and describe its relatively low regard for human life?
Trick question, of course. In Canada such an abortion is legal (but unheard of), and there is no death penalty. How does Canada’s regard for human life thus compare to a U.S. state that has strict abortion laws and capital punishment? Is there a score card we could consult?
If I were Lobohan, I would bookmark this quote and follow you around with it; every time I wanted to poison the well in a debate you you I’d post it to show how you don’t care about people dying, or somesuch.
But your government already allows itself to directly kill people via the death penalty and indirectly though self defense principles such as the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws. You’ve let yourselves slide pretty far down that slope with not much of a peep coming from the conservative side of the aisle.
I could say that I fear the slippery slope of a government being able to force you to use your organs as it sees fit rather than how you would choose. I even have the advantage of my society not yet taking other steps down that slope. I’d rather just point out that if the best secular objection that you can muster is the spectre of government death squashed your secular argument is weak indeed. Canada’s 24 years of no abortion law stand as an example of how groundless your fears are.
If you were Lobohan, you’d probably lead a much happier life.
So, I’m kind of glad that I get to be, and you’re stuck being Bricker.
Are we being unCanadian in rudely pointing out facts?
Man, doesn’t that violate the Eighth Amendment somehow?
Prove to me that life has value
I think we are ok as long as we remember to keep our voices lowered, refrain from unnecessary profanity and offer our opponent a nice cup of tea.
Do you like Red Rose, Bricker?
P.S. I just noticed a slight error in my previous post. Where it says “death squashed” it should read “death squads”. Damned auto-correct.
To be fair, maybe out there somewhere is a country where abortion is fully legal and toddlers are hunted for sport, and is the real-world cautionary example that is the basis of Bricker’s concerns. There must be, otherwise he would be making stuff up.
Self-interest. I don’t want you to kill me. To me, my life has value.
I assume you don’t want someone to kill you – and as a lifetime NRA member, I assure you that there exist multiple lethal weapons in the hands of many people that can accomplish this. I will assume that to you, your life has value.
One method of preserving your life is to create and sustain a culture in which all human lives are said to have value, at least as a starting proposition. If we do this, then we can generally count on all our neighbors working to protect my life if it’s threatened; the cost being, of course, that I also participate in that social contract to protect your life if it’s threatened.
Peep.
By that I mean I have consistently and strongly spoken out against the death penalty, and against stand your ground laws.
Why are you ascribing to me arguments that come from others?
I’m sure a dandelion is happier than a human being, too.