To all pro-lifers out there, you have asserted that your position does not have its roots firmly embedded in religious dogma, so please give me only scientific answers to the following question? Why is Human life of any more value than any other life on this planet, remember scientific reasons only .. unless you want to admit that pro-life is religious based.
No takers .. hardly surprising as pro-lifers cannot give a single reason why human life is "special" without reverting to the basis of their stance - religion.
Irrelevant, not a scientific answer, so I must assume you cannot answer the question without delving into religious dogma, and thus further proves my point that this pro-life argument is based firmly in religion and nothing else. do you think human life is special, if so why?
answering a question with a question is usually seen as bad debating .. but .. where do I say ANY human life is special, I have on numerous occasions stated that a human life has only as much value as another places upon it, so the question remains - Do you think human life is special, if so why?
Please be more specific for me. Are you asking my specifically about the unborn human life, or simply just ALL human life in general (such as those born humans also)?
Even some, no, actually, ALL atheists, have this subconscious knowledge of right and wrong in their hearts, in which God gives them. That's the only explanations that actually makes perfect sense, which is some absolute proof that God exists. Without God, there's no absolute truth or right and wrong, which can't be true, which totally prove that God exists and also that he's real.
Hmm so you cannot find a single reason why human life is special without resorting to religion .. I rest my case. Any other pro-lifer care to give it a go, or is the fact that the pro-life movement is firmly rooted in religious dogma too much for you to admit?
Its not a scientific issue. Its an ethics issue. Its a moral issue---which yes is religious but Atheists say they have morals so.....it pertains to them. Human life is special only if society deems it special. It either is or it isn't. I believe human life should be "special" because once its not---then we fall into a narcissistic society. A Narcissistic society would ask---why are the lives of the elderly so special? They don't offer anything productive to society when they are retirement. They could cost society a lot as they age and get sick. Their lives aren't worth much but ...their assets are. Why not help them die before they fall into a painful quality of life issue? And then people raising families, working and producing into society can have more resources? A narcissistic society would see a woman with a child who feels over-burdened and restricted with the responsibilities choosing a different option then a society where life is valued. She could simply kill her child. Her born one. Because that child no longer benefits her and human life is not valuable, thus its easy to kill her child and in a society where human life is not any more valuable then an animal's....its a legal and easy choice. There could be a culture that nurture personal responsibility, sacrifice for others, hard work, disapline, putting others before self. And then there could be a culture of not accepting responsibility, putting self before others and prioritizing self-gratification over the welfare of others. In this culture, its one person for themselves and those who can't protect themselves are at risk. I guess its a matter of which society a person would rather live in.
and so you make my point for me .. that a life is only worth as much as another places upon it, and it is also a scientific issue, science tells us that a human life has no more value than any other life form, it is no more important than a single cell organism. The "value of life" pro-lifers place upon a fetus comes from where?
It comes from a persons priorities and values. Pro-life people value human life. Pro-choice people do not value human life. And it is not a scientific issue. Its an ethics/moral issue. Ethics is a totally different field from science.
But even that is not strictly correct, pro-lifers value only the lives they see as having value . they do not value the life of a killer or the enemy in war. Do you value the life of your children the same as your friends Do you value the life of your friends the same as a stranger Do you value the life of a stranger the same as your enemy the pro-life label is by definition about saving/protecting ALL life not just what they deem as worthy. You definition of pro-choice is arbitrary to say the least, and based upon the presumption that a human being exists at conception .. a point that does not have consensus among the scientific community.
War is a little tricky. Wars are fought for different reasons based on different values. But it does come down to values and priorities. A pacifist who won't kill but will let her or his loved ones get killed is doing so based on values and priorities. Some pro-life people are pacifists---like the Amish. Some aren't. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life views human life as valuable and worthy of protection even if its a problem, or if it offers no benefit to those in power. A pro-life person sees a life inside of a woman as a baby, a human being and an individual. A pro-choice person must hold the baby, coo at the baby, intereact with the baby before that person views it as a human life worth protecting. In other words---it must offer a benefit. If it doesn't offer a benefit then its dehumanized into a blob of tissue. If it offers a benefit then its "human". I do believe in the death penalty. I believe in the death penalty for those who will kill human life without remorse if given the chance. To me---its the only way to truely value innocent human life. Those who destroy life without remorse and would do it again have to pay the ultimate price for the ultimate crime.
False. There is a basic difference of opinion as to when the unborn become a human being with rights. It is an age-old debate for which there is no consensus in science, medicine, or theology. Regardless of this lack of consensus, pro-lifers want to impose their beliefs on all women by force of the state, reducing them to walking incubators. How can you say you value human life when you have no regard for a woman's constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity?
You contradict yourself here by saying "pro-life views human life as valuable and worthy of protection even if its a problem, or if it offers no benefit to those in power" then saying you believe in the death penalty, how can you feel human life is worthy of protection even if it is a problem and then support a penalty that is basically taking away a life because it is a problem, same goes for war .. the taking of life in war is purely because your enemy is a problem, yet you advocate pro-life views as protecting life even if it is a problem.
Mammals are programmed to protect the young even if they belong to different species , this is why sometimes apes or even big predators will guard a human or a deer baby , for some people this genetic programming goes as far as the unborn ones and it is not surprising.
It is not a matter of rights, We made up the words. We made up the concept. We made up the reality. We are the very reason "Special" Exists....so we get to decide what it is.
You falsely accuse pro life people of their motives. I personally do not want to do what you just stated at all. A woman chooses if she is to have a child and thus I do not force her into a fate she does not desire. Such a crime (also known as rape) is wrong and should be punishable by death, but not punishing the innocent party which also has no choice and is just as much a victim. Every pro-choice person has a more extreme bias towards a large number of women and wish to govern, the choices those women make, these women's bodily integrity, and their lives. Yes, the unborn have gender.
All this is based on the assumption that a single cell at conception is a human person, something there is no consensus with in medical, legal or any other body. The motive can be no other, if you make abortion illegal you in effect trying to enforce pregnancy onto women and thus removing her rights to body autonomy.
This is only the case when the environment is adequate enough to support both the female, the pregnancy, and the offspring, in the animal kingdom (where they cannot perform abortions) the mother of the newborns will kill and eat them if resources are not adequate to support them all. - - - Updated - - - So in effect you are saying that humans are no more special than they decide they are, basically exactly as I said, a life has only as much value as another puts upon it.
So you are saying that the motive is specifically and simply wanting to enslave women, and that for the purpose of doing it alone? Obviously not. The motive is to save lives. A law against murder controls what someone can do with their body. You cannot pull the trigger on that gun and randomly kill people. Now isn't that a horrible enslavement? Gender is already decided in the DNA. You wish to remove rights to bodily autonomy from women as well.
