Value assigned by you because of your own interest. I referred to intrinsic value. Your life doesn’t have intrinsic value, it only has the value you assign it and applies to you only. How does a zygote have value?
Embryo, ergo sum.
¨
I am.
Heck, I’m willing to stipulate that a human life has value. It’s just not an absolute value above all else. Like any commodity, its value is affected by its location, its timing, its condition, and what the market is willing to pay for it.
Funfact: A fetus is as sentient as a dandelion.
By that definition, nothing has intrinsic value.
It was merely an aside commenting on how I perceive your ideological brethren to cleave so tightly to the arguments you are attempting to make. As well, to show that the government sanctioned killings, which have majority approval and have been around in the States at least since the late 1800’s, have not lead to the bad results you vaguely foretell.
The main thrust of my comments was that making an unfounded argument based on the fear of what may come to pass if the government allows this specific kind of killing is no argument against abortion at all.
Would you like some tea?
Wow, fuckin’ deep, man! Pass me another slice of the pepperoni and a beer? Say, how did you do on your metaphysics final?
On this board, there’s no doubt that all conservatives are seen as my ideological brethren. But among groups of conservatives, I take flack for my liberal views regarding the death penalty, as well as other things.
So I don’t agree that I have many ideological brethren.
Nor do I agree with you. In the late 1800s, the government was much more free with the death penalty, and society as a whole was much harsher and less friendly towards all life. People accepted cruel punishments and cruelty in their lives, towards people and animals. Bull-baiting, dog fights, and cock-fighting were perfectly legal, and were greeted with no real animus or social penalty in much of the country.
So I’d say that the bad results I mention are demonstrated by our history, rather than refuted by it.
So is there a correlation between capital punishment and abortion? Is “an all-around low regard for human life” something that can be actually observed, or is it just another vapid meaningless phrase like “humans are special” ?
And I assert that the your society developed to become less harsh and more friendly to life in spite of the stand your ground laws and death penalty and the reduction in using the death penalty was a result of that change and not a cause.
Your assertion of bad results would thus stand refuted.
IF I believed that you were correct about which was the horse and which was the cart, THEN it would stand refuted.
In another probably futile attempt to get a response from Bricker, did Roe in the U.S. and 1988’s R. v. Mongentaler in Canada warn of a decreasing regard for human life in either country, possibly to late 19th-century levels?
Exactly, now you’re getting it 
Cite, please, that dandelions can feel pain.
I’d say the actual reason is not as important as whether or not a fair observer would call it reasonable. In other words, if a non religious group was opposed to abortion because they felt that a prolonged drought would be the result of abortions, I’d say that would be un reasonable, not rational. If they were of the opinion—correctly or incorrectly—that the baby is sentient or that we should end life once conceived, then I’d say the were rational reasons. From the sites, I haven’t seen any irrational arguments against abortion from atheist groups. I don’t personally agree with their reasoning, but it is rational.
I don’t think that’s a principled or constructive way to debate. YMMV
Okay. What that argument boils down to is that you want to be able to prove someone to be a hypocrite. So what. They may be hypocritical, but that doesn’t mean that either of their seemingly contradictory stances are wrong or invalid. And you want to use your own assumptions to do that. Take the example of someone being opposed to abortion and in favor of the death penalty. One can easily apply criteria by which they fairly be characterized as being a hypocrite. But so what? Does that assessment invalidate both of their positions? One? Which one? And it doesn’t take in to account that they might have perfectly valid reasons, exhibiting consistent thinking, that apply. For instance, they might not feel compelled to extend the same thinking to an innocent life that they do to a muderous one.
Well, it depends what you mean by “religious”. If you mean mentioning something tied to a specific religious doctrine, then I’d agree. But I am of the opinion that the question of how we came to be is NOT first and foremost a religious question but a philosophical/scientific one. Assuming that every religion ever known to man is completely wrong, that does not invalidate the concept of a grand watchmaker.
So, the answer is for you to not argue honestly and fairly. Why would you so easily cede the higher ground. I say force them to argue 100% rationally, secularly. If they revert back to religion, then I think they’ve conceded their argument (and I’d tell them so). But if they leave religion off the table, the fair—and the rational—thing to do is not bring it up yourself.
I have to agree with Bricker, here. Surely, those in society must make certain assumptions about life. And we have. If not, nothing is objectively wrong with murder, rape, slavery. Right? Hey, I’m horny…oh, look a cute college girl about to walk to her car in the dark. Score!
You made the original assertion and then tried to present a “just so” story to back it up. I’m just following suit.
It’s cute how utterly uninformed and genuinely gullible you are on a broad variety of topics.
Again, you think that dictionary definitions trump human rights. Someone should slap your parents for their utter failure.
No, you’re just not smart enough to understand it. The motivation of the shooter is the issue. The action is the same. Shoot the 15 year old. The first time the shooter is reasonably defending himself. The second time, it’s murder. Two different motivations that produce the same action.
Just like a pro-lifer person can be atheist or religious. You really are inept at the very act of thinking.
I’ve said several times in this very thread that disagreement with abortion can be both secular and religious.
And it’s the religious version that I have issue with, in regards to legislation. Also, you have no idea what straw man means. Look it up.