eskilnyberg:
Do you have a religious incentive behind your stance? While I agree that every life is valuable, the degree at which we live while prenatal is far from that after birth. Yes, we rid the world of a soul, but in my personal opinion that person wasn’t born yet, and thereby haven’t lived. Biologically, sure, but they have yet to develop a sentience they’ll recall in their life.
I can’t personally relate to the “we rid the world of a life” argument because in my opinion the life wasn’t a sure thing, and thereby it not existing is just an alternate path.
I’m looking for a healthy argumentation, and don’t mean to offend you. What’s your take?
cultureshift:
No child’s ‘alternate path‘ should involve being killed because they are ‘unwanted’. It’s our duty as adults to protect children, whether personally conceived by us or not.
As for my religious beliefs, as an atheist, I hold none. Abortion isn’t a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue. Humans don’t need a deity to provide a moral compass, it’s already built in. Some may choose to ignore it, but it’s there all the same. After all, humans created the many religious myths that abound across the world today.
Applying moral calculus to arrive at the justified killing of prenatal children based on their ability to recall their past experiences is flawed at best. Do you recall your experiences as an infant? According to your logic, it should be legal to kill them.
We must never use a sliding scale to measure the value or equality of a human being. Doing so only invites the rationalization of great human atrocities committed in the name of ‘reason’. One only has to explore history to discover this truth.
