(When does human life begin) - Moved from "Who Will Win 2016 Election?

^This.

90sAce is articulating a position that's way more pro-life than pro-choice. It's a position that's far more pro-life than current law, and far more pro-life than the overwhelming majority of Democratic politicians and pro-choice activists, most of whom would regard him as a pro-life extremist. Yet those massive differences are only dragged out on questioning, whereas the much smaller differences with the pro-life side are belabored and magnified. Presumably because that's the side with a lot of people he really doesn't like, even though his intellectual conclusions about life overlap far more with them on this particular issue.

Actually I've never met anyone calling themselves "pro-life" who didn't claim human life/rights began at conception.

I'm not sure I have, either, but that's neither here nor there. Someone who thinks abortions should be banned at the first possibility of brain activity is far more pro-life than current law, and far more pro-life than the Democratic party.

According to you, it's currently legal to extinguish lives that deserve legal protection. Call me crazy, but if this were something you believed in any real sense (rather than in the abstract, Internet-debate sense), I'd think it would garner a lot more of your umbrage than whatever discomfort you get from having some ideological overlap with those scary religious people who apparently want to take all your sexy funtimes and science magic away.

I know this will surprise you but you are not going to have to work too hard to convince me that a large percentage of Christians have formed their world view based on cultural indoctrination. I think it is very misguided however to not realize the same can be said for people from every world view. You don't seem to want to leave any room for things that are not observable. Well, I would recommend you start observing the results of moral behavior in our culture and you might find out those sand zealots weren't all bad.

Speaking of the observable. I would challenge anyone who is pro-choice to listen to their babies heart beat before they make a decision like that. If it doesn't bring you to tears and make you think their is a human life there, you might want to check your own heart beat.

Your a smart guy 90's Ace and you obviously do a lot of reading. You have built your world view upon that. Guess what many, many Christians have done the same thing. Science and religion don't have to be as at odds with each other as they are. We have made it that way.

__________________
Letterboxd

I've not read it all maybe you answered that somewhere, sorry if I make you repeat yourself, buy I have a question for you Yoda.


You seem to say that human life should have a special value that other species don't have, on what is it based?

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

and i'm sure women who choose to abort do hear their baby's heartbeat beforehand, as that's usually the first thing you do when you go to the doctor's to affirm if you're pregnant or not. i'm pretty sure the majority of women out there getting abortions aren't doing it without considering the importance of such a decision. to suggest that they are cold or unfeeling about it is quite tasteless.

__________________
letterboxd

Intelligence and potential, basically. But that's a wildly different topic. One could value animal life as much as human life and still be against abortion, and the inherent value of human life is a given to all involved in this discussion, so naturally it hasn't been necessary to establish it.

Should I take this reply as an invitation to pop into that thread you made awhile back about animal rights?

Probably, but still not as tasteless as...I bet you can fill in the blank.

Sure, consider yourself invited