[Scotty]

This, of course, needs to be balanced with the knowledge that these people are human beings who deserve our respect, not "enemies" in some way. It's absurd to assume that everyone involved in an abortion is a monster, or even a bad person. But when an action is wrong, and it hurts innocent human beings, trying to persuade people not to do it is not presumptuous manipulation. It's rescuing the baby, and giving the mother exactly what she needs and has every right to: the truth.

It's declaring that you know better, and that everyone should adhere to your morality because you're correct and they're not.  Even if your interpretation of when life begins is correct, and even if it was against your sincerely held religious and spiritual beliefs, that doesn't matter in the slightest, because this is a country that emphatically rejects, in a matter so important it is enshrined in the supreme law of the land, the concept that you can force your beliefs on anyone else.

When it comes right down to it, no matter whether you say you're trying to help the unborn or not, you're attempting to aggressively persuade (at a time in which these people are most vulnerable) them that they are committing murder.  Even the softest Pro-Life positions are couched in this, because it is the entire reason Pro-Life believes and does what it does.

[Phantom Hoover]

Jesus Christ Scotty, that's a load of bull****. Do you believe that it's wrong to force your belief that murdering 5 year olds is bad on others?

[GhylTarvoke]

    This is so incredibly frustrating. If more of us could see both sides of the argument, maybe we'd actually make some progress.

[karajorma]

Jesus Christ Scotty, that's a load of bull****. Do you believe that it's wrong to force your belief that murdering 5 year olds is bad on others?

The difference is that everyone agrees that 5 year olds are alive and there's no scientific basis to pin a difference on them that would justify murdering them. The belief that an embryo is alive is a belief, there is no scientific basis for it.

@bob Repeating the same arguments that have been disproved or explained multiple times is

I'll stop using the old testament when the Christians do. There is clearly a difference of opinion on the matter among them, otherwise gay marriage wouldn't be a big deal.

Wrong again. The New Testament contains lots of stuff that is against homosexuality too. Jesus might not have said anything on the subject but the New Testament isn't just the gospels. So while Christians frequently quote the OT when talking about homosexuality it's only cause the NT says that it is still wrong.

[jr2]

Jesus Christ Scotty, that's a load of bull****. Do you believe that it's wrong to force your belief that murdering 5 year olds is bad on others?

The difference is that everyone agrees that 5 year olds are alive and there's no scientific basis to pin a difference on them that would justify murdering them. The belief that an embryo is alive is a belief, there is no scientific basis for it.

[/quote]

How about a person in a coma?

[InsaneBaron]

This, of course, needs to be balanced with the knowledge that these people are human beings who deserve our respect, not "enemies" in some way. It's absurd to assume that everyone involved in an abortion is a monster, or even a bad person. But when an action is wrong, and it hurts innocent human beings, trying to persuade people not to do it is not presumptuous manipulation. It's rescuing the baby, and giving the mother exactly what she needs and has every right to: the truth.

It's declaring that you know better, and that everyone should adhere to your morality because you're correct and they're not.  Even if your interpretation of when life begins is correct, and even if it was against your sincerely held religious and spiritual beliefs, that doesn't matter in the slightest, because this is a country that emphatically rejects, in a matter so important it is enshrined in the supreme law of the land, the concept that you can force your beliefs on anyone else.

When it comes right down to it, no matter whether you say you're trying to help the unborn or not, you're attempting to aggressively persuade (at a time in which these people are most vulnerable) them that they are committing murder.  Even the softest Pro-Life positions are couched in this, because it is the entire reason Pro-Life believes and does what it does.

Again, you'd have to explain to me why the logic you just used applies to me and not Martin Luther King Junior or Harriet Tubman. Besides, which is better: trying to persuade people of the truth or leaving them in a serious error which harms a third party?

[Mongoose]

The difference is that everyone agrees that 5 year olds are alive and there's no scientific basis to pin a difference on them that would justify murdering them. The belief that an embryo is alive is a belief, there is no scientific basis for it.

It's a basic biological fact that an embryo is alive.  Hell, it's a basic biological fact that an embryo is human life: it consists of a full 26-chromosome-pair genome distinct from either of its parents, and also distinct from the original sperm and egg cells which only had 26 single chromosomes each.  Most non-religious arguments against abortion I've come across have used this as a foundation.  Now obviously the rub comes in determining what sort of rights that particular form of human life should be afforded: is it equivalent to a bunch of cells in a petri dish?  To a brain-dead coma patient?  To a fully-fledged developed human being?  I don't expect to see any significant resolution of those questions in my lifetime.

[mjn.mixael]

Man.. there is a quote that I wish I could remember and find the source, but I couldn't. However it applies here. I'll paraphrase what I remember.

"I have the utmost respect for a Christian who feels the need to share their faith with me because they believe it's true and to them, I need Christ for eternal life. They are hoping for my best, even if I don't agree."

EDIT: Found it. Penn Jillette

"I don't respect people who don't proselytize," Jillette said, "I don't respect that at all."

"If you believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and people could be going to Hell ... and you think it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward, ... how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you and you didn't believe it, ... there's a certain point where I tackle you, and [everlasting life] is more important than that."
Link

The point being that whatever speaker I heard say this Jillette was in complete disagreement with the Christian faith, but he would actually think less of Christians who didn't share their faith because those Christians truly believe they are out to help others. If a Christian truly believes they have the truth about eternal life and try to do something non-violent about it, they deserve some respect. Something similar applies here.

If a pro-lifer absolutely believes that an embryo is life, what choice do they have? To believe an embryo is life and do nothing is to be a hypocrite. But when one does do something, no matter how civil, they get dumped on. I have the utmost respect for someone who has such strong convictions that they try to actually do something [civil] about it rather than just have pissing contests on the internet.

[Bobboau]

well, it's because they believe what they believe because they believe it. they make arbitrary lines and act as if they are justified. and if you ever manage to get them to elaborate beyond that it starts sounding like they oppose abortion because they want people who have sex in ways they don't like to be punished by the consequences of their actions.

[mjn.mixael]

That's it? You're not even going to try and put thought into the arguments in the thread? You just dismiss all opposing viewpoints by using an extended set of assumptions that may or may not apply? OK I guess.

[Bobboau]

at 1 in the morning? no, maybe later. right now I'm just expressing my opinion and experience on the matter, feel free to dismiss it.

[karajorma]

It's a basic biological fact that an embryo is alive.  Hell, it's a basic biological fact that an embryo is human life: it consists of a full 26-chromosome-pair genome distinct from either of its parents, and also distinct from the original sperm and egg cells which only had 26 single chromosomes each.  Most non-religious arguments against abortion I've come across have used this as a foundation.  Now obviously the rub comes in determining what sort of rights that particular form of human life should be afforded: is it equivalent to a bunch of cells in a petri dish?  To a brain-dead coma patient?  To a fully-fledged developed human being?  I don't expect to see any significant resolution of those questions in my lifetime.

Fair enough, I was in a hurry when I wrote alive. But that's basically still the point I was making. No one would claim that a 5 year old child should have less rights than a bunch of cells in a petri dish. The distinction is quite obvious. As is the difference between a healthy person and a person in a persistent vegetative state from which they'll never recover.

[The E]

Man.. there is a quote that I wish I could remember and find the source, but I couldn't. However it applies here. I'll paraphrase what I remember.

"I have the utmost respect for a Christian who feels the need to share their faith with me because they believe it's true and to them, I need Christ for eternal life. They are hoping for my best, even if I don't agree."

EDIT: Found it. Penn Jillette

"I don't respect people who don't proselytize," Jillette said, "I don't respect that at all."

"If you believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and people could be going to Hell ... and you think it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward, ... how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you and you didn't believe it, ... there's a certain point where I tackle you, and [everlasting life] is more important than that."
Link

The point being that whatever speaker I heard say this Jillette was in complete disagreement with the Christian faith, but he would actually think less of Christians who didn't share their faith because those Christians truly believe they are out to help others. If a Christian truly believes they have the truth about eternal life and try to do something non-violent about it, they deserve some respect. Something similar applies here.

If a pro-lifer absolutely believes that an embryo is life, what choice do they have? To believe an embryo is life and do nothing is to be a hypocrite. But when one does do something, no matter how civil, they get dumped on. I have the utmost respect for someone who has such strong convictions that they try to actually do something [civil] about it rather than just have pissing contests on the internet.

This is certainly a respectable stance. However, if I have to choose between applauding someone for standing by their principles, and condemning that same someone for the use of emotional blackmail, attempts to shame people who disagree, inflammatory rhetoric and outright falsehoods in the pursuit of their principles, then I am choosing to condemn.

[zookeeper]

But that's basically still the point I was making. No one would claim that a 5 year old child should have less rights than a bunch of cells in a petri dish. The distinction is quite obvious. As is the difference between a healthy person and a person in a persistent vegetative state from which they'll never recover.

Scotty condemned forcing your beliefs on others, specifically formulated as a blanket statement. The belief that 5 year old kids shouldn't be killed and the belief that human embryos shouldn't be killed are both beliefs being forced on others.

That more people have the belief that 5 year old kids shouldn't be killed and don't need to be forced that belief is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether you think it's ok to force that belief on someone who disagrees. And of course you and Scotty and everyone here does, making the "it's bad to force your beliefs on others" little more than a rhetorical device.

[karajorma]

Are you going to tell me that there is anyone in American society without a mental illness who thinks that's okay?

[zookeeper]

Are you going to tell me that there is anyone in American society without a mental illness who thinks that's okay?

Umm... no, I wasn't planning on. Why do you ask?

[karajorma]

So then it's not about forcing beliefs on people any more than a vicar is forcing his beliefs on people in the congregation. They already believe.

[zookeeper]

So then it's not about forcing beliefs on people any more than a vicar is forcing his beliefs on people in the congregation. They already believe.

How does that figure? There's lots of people who actually have killed 5 year old kids, so obviously not everyone already believes that it's somehow inherently bad and would automatically refrain from doing it even if it was legal.

[karajorma]

There are lots of preachers who bang on about homosexuals and then get caught having sex with another man.

My point is that even people who kill 5 years olds would argue that killing 5 year olds is a bad thing. They just believe that their circumstances make them a special exception. There aren't any people who believe that anyone should be able to kill any random 5 year old. At least not anyone who doesn't have serious mental problems.

[zookeeper]

There aren't any people who believe that anyone should be able to kill any random 5 year old.

And the analogy doesn't require that. It only requires someone to have a belief that it's ok a kill a 5 year old and you to have a belief that it's clearly wrong.

Either forcing your beliefs on others is wrong or it's not. All you need to do is pick one and stick with it. Saying that forcing your beliefs on others is wrong is purely a rhetorical device if the most obvious kind of scratching the surface immediately reveals that it depends on extra qualifications like overwhelming majority, living in American society, not having a mental illness or whether the belief is a categorical imperative -style general belief about something which would apply to everyone.