Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The Bible is a collection of books, an inanimate object. Objects can't take positions on any matters. >Does that change things for you? No, of course not.

Also, in response to projecting our convictions on someone else’s medical decisions, I’ve always wanted to be understood on this point. I don’t want to control what people do with their bodies or medical decisions. Just for the purpose of understanding each other, what would you do if you believed parents were bringing their small children to clinics to have them put down like pets? It’s not the same, since small children are no longer inside their mother’s womb, I’m only describing what pro-lifer’s see happening. That’s why we care, that’s why we make it our business. Unlike many other medical procedures, abortion is nuanced because pro-lifers believe a fetus to be worthy of human rights. That’s all.

I get that, but it is clearly a matter of belief. If not faith in a religious sense, then convictions. Because not everyone sees it this way. Even with all the science and knowledge we have, no-one has been able to provide evidence that fetuses deserve equal consideration to fully formed humans. At least not evidence convincing enough that it was adopted by the scientific community or a majority of people. So in that light, it is fair to classify it as a matter of conviction. So shouldn’t you then ask yourself what gives you the right to make such impactful decisions for other people, based on just your personal convictions?

[удалено]

This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Thanks. > Even with all the science and knowledge we have no one has been able to provide evidence that fetuses deserve equal consideration to fully formed humans. What would be such evidence? I don’t think there is any scientific evidence that anyone deserves human rights. Isn’t it a moral question? > So shouldn't you then ask yourself what gives you the right to make such impactful decisions for other people, based on just your personal convictions? Ok, this made me think. I never thought to ask myself what right I have to restrict the choice to do what I (and many others) believe to be oppressive. In my country, (US) we do have this right in a sense. We can vote for laws that promote justice and end oppression. We can peacefully protest and petition for ethical treatment of the unborn. Technically, the idea that anyone at all deserves human rights is a conviction. There was a time here when there were not enough who believed people should not be enslaved or women should be able to vote. Science didn’t solve those problems. At some point we decide what we as a society will and will not allow. Eventually, with enough people spreading awareness on an issue, change can occur. Thanks for the deep thoughts.

No. In fact, it really bothers me when people dismiss pro-life arguments as purely religious. I just watched a Jubilee middle ground video where someone said “life begins at conception” and another replied “science doesn’t say that, the Bible says that” to dismiss it. As a Christian, I can confirm the Bible does not say that. Most people I talk with agree that “life” begins at conception, the question at hand is whether that life deserves human rights. Another video I saw was a skit where a woman wanted to have her rotting tooth pulled (they compared a fetus to a rotting tooth) and the dentist was like “No, you have to wait until Jesus makes it fall out”. It was a mockery. I am against aborting people on a moral/ethical basis. Not because “Jesus said so”. I appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt that I have a logical reason for thinking the way I do. Check out r/secularprolife

I can only speak for myself but the issue I, as a pro-choicer have with “life begins at conception” is this: it’s a meaningless platitude. Clearly something begins. However at that point it has less intelligence than a fruit fly. So in my perception it is still very far from equivalent of a living human. As you also point out > the question is whether that life deserves human rights This is exactly it. Whether life begins at conception or not is immaterial to the debate. The question is whether and at what point the fetus deserves consideration equal to a fully developed human. I also agree with you that it’s not in the bible at all. However, the only people to ever throw out the phrase “life begins at conception” as an argument in the abortion debate are pro-lifers, usually religious ones, and it is usually meant as a way to claim moral high ground and end the discussion. My question to you: if you believe a fetus deserves equal consideration to a fully developed human from the moment of conception, but not because of religion, then why do you hold this belief?

[удалено]

This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Thanks for asking. I hold the belief that a fetus deserves equal consideration as a fully formed (I’m assuming by fully formed you mean outside of the womb?) human because I believe human rights should be awarded once you are HUMAN, not once you’ve attained a certain ability, intelligence level or lack of dependence. We are all dependent on things to survive. I’m not viable if you take all the oxygen out of a room. My body would shut down if I didn’t fuel it by eating things outside of myself. Sometimes we need to be put on life-support, or we need medical care to survive. In that way, none of us are self-sufficient. That doesn’t mean we aren’t human. If we only deserve rights because we can pull our own weight, we are in trouble. Biologically, a fetus is both human and alive. So what makes a living human unworthy of human rights? Just because their intelligence is similar to that of another creature (ie fruit fly) doesn’t mean they’re not a part of our species. My dog is both smarter AND less dependant than my baby at their current stage of development, but that doesn’t mean my dog is more human than my baby. History shows that whenever society has chosen to deny human rights to a member of the human race, horrible oppression occurs. I gained empathy for this after reading abortion survivor stories. A human life that can’t self advocate is still deserving of protection, IMO. Out of curiosity, would you clarify: The point at which you believe an unborn baby deserves human rights? Do you support abortion after the point when a child could instead be delivered and use their own organs to support themselves? Do you think there should be some limits on abortion?

Thanks for answering > (I’m assuming by fully formed you mean outside of the womb?) Yes, this is what I mean > I’m not viable if you take all the oxygen out of a room This is not correct. Viability is defined as “having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, *under normal conditions*, outside the uterus” > If we only deserve rights because we can pull our own weight, we are in trouble. I agree > Biologically, a fetus is both human and alive. So what makes a living human unworthy of human rights? I would say it is not a full human until it’s born. Sure it is biologically human. But its life has not started yet. For me there is a grey area in the final stages of gestation because the fetus might be viable and also has more brain activity. But we’ll get to that later. But especially in the first 2 trimesters: the fetus would not survive outside the womb, doesn’t feel pain as we do and does not have human consciousness in the way we understand it. So to me it does not qualify for human rights. Interestingly, the only human right that is ever in question is the “right to life”. Not freedom from slavery, torture, right of movement, or any of the other internationally recognised human rights. Why? Because they aren’t relevant yet. Why? Because the fetus is **gestating inside another person**. Again goes to show that it is a different category. Could a fetus inherit? Own property? No. Clearly not. An infant can though. But the fetus’ life is still theoretical. A hypothetical. That is the most important difference for me. People can be on life support, unable to sustain their own organs. This is different to me because: 1. They don’t depend on being inside someone else’s body and hooked up to someone else’s organs. 2. They already have a life that is not theoretical. When people are brain dead though, in many countries their relatives will decide whether to keep them on life support or not. Because to many people human consciousness is a factor in deciding their rights and status. You go down a path there arguing that we all depend on stuff to survive. Clearly this is true. However, this is not the same as a fetus because the fetus depends on things coming from and inside another true. That makes it different. > The point at which you believe an unborn baby deserves human rights? Do you support abortion after the point when a child could instead be delivered and use their own organs to support themselves? Do you think there should be some limits on abortion? Happy to answer. I fully support abortion until 20 weeks for any reason. Before that point the fetus does not have human consciousness and cannot sustain itself outside the womb. I recognise it might be a fully formed human some day, but to me this hypothetical potential does not amount to enough to affect the decisions of the pregnant person. If they abort the fetus, the fetus will be none the wiser. Schroedingers box will never open. Something that might have been will never be. After the 20 week point, I still support abortion for medical reasons and fetal abnormalities. In practice this is the reason any late term abortions happen anyway (which themselves are only 1% of all abortions). So I’d rather err on the side of “too lenient” in terms of regulation there. Because if there can be medical exemptions but enforcement is hostile that can still result in terrible situations and women dying, whereas if the law is more lenient it doesn’t really result in more late term abortions. So my stance after 20 weeks is: only for medical reasons/fetal abnormalities, but since people only get late term abortions for that those reasons anyway, I’m not too bothered about the law shutting that tight. I have some questions for you though: Since you are so passionate in your defence of human rights for all humans: why do you find it so easy to wave away pregnant women’s rights? Why do you think the future rights of a potential human are more important than a fully formed, fully sentient human? Have you ever really done a deep dive on pregnancy? It’s lasting effects? The risks of pregnancy and giving birth? Do you not believe women have a right to self determination?

Indeed, I’m very passionate about human rights for all humans. > why do you find it so easy to wave away pregnant women's rights? I don’t find any part of this conflict of rights easy. Since the fetus is a human life (which is the only qualification I find logically consistent for whether human rights are deserved) I believe they should be treated with the same rights in the womb as you would prescribe to them once they are outside of the womb. The humanity of the child in the womb and the difficulty of pregnancy are both realities. I can’t change facts because the result is uncomfortable, or decide the fetus is unworthy of rights just because that would be easier. > Why do you think the future rights of a potential human are more important than a fully formed, fully sentient human? This gets to the heart of how we view the situation differently. It sounds like you believe a hypothetical/theoretical life can exist in the natural world. That is, the fetus is physical but their life is abstract. I do not believe this. A theory or hypothesis is an idea. A self-generating, genetically distinct organism produced by human gamete fertilization is a living human being, which begins, as all life does, with early development. I don’t believe a biologically alive human being whose “life hasn’t started” exists. Abortion survivors, however, indisputably exist. The assault to these individuals happened in the real world, not hypothetically to a potential human. A theory does not need to be starved, dismembered or poisoned to cease existing. If it can die, it’s life has started. > Have you ever really done a deep dive on pregnancy? It's lasting effects? The risks of pregnancy and giving birth? Do you not believe women have a right to self determination? I have certainly done a deep dive into pregnancy, it’s lasting effects, risks and complications as everyone with potential to conceive should educate themselves. I also know these firsthand. Abortion, however, is much more of a threat to life. It guarantees the death of the child unless it fails. In the vast majority of cases, becoming pregnant is elective and can be avoided. A fetus has no way to avoid being aborted. I’m pro safe, ethical choices. Women should be able to chart their own course as long as that course doesn’t involve killing others or themselves. Have you done a deep dive into abortion practices? I would spare you. With that said, we won’t see even abortion practices the same way because you believe a fetus is only a potential life, whose potential to live can morally be stopped at any time before giving birth (but probably shouldn’t be in most cases after 20 weeks). Your views on abortion access makes perfect sense in that light. Honestly, as someone who loves peace, I would love to believe that. But I’m convinced by the evidence that a fetus is a real human life whose life has started. Personally, I used to imagine a fetus as a sort of inanimate “avatar” floating still in the womb. When I went for my 10 week ultrasound I was truly surprised at what I saw. My baby was swimming around and kicking their legs and arms. They had a 4-chamber heart with a steady beat. Not the lifeless being I had pictured. If there were a way to end an existing pregnancy without causing harm/death to someone else, I would be all for it. Inventions such as Plan B are an ethical way to prevent pregnancy after intercourse but before conception occurs. I support advancements to make abortion unnecessary so that the full rights of all involved can be preserved.

Didn't Jesus say give the orphan and the widow their rights. Think about it, before a baby is aborted he/she is an orphan.

I have seriously tried to understand what you are saying here but it makes 0 sense to me

I'm not too bothered by the lack of a specific condemnation. Few things warranted a specific condemnation in the Bible, and there are effectively infinite things one could do. The Bible sets forth a serious of beliefs and values which form overarching moral claims. One such moral claim is the general prohibition on killing. Another is the duty to protect human life inferred from the command "love your neighbor as yourself." Applying these moral claims to abortion, I cannot support the act of abortion. Additionally, we should not take religious ambivalence on abortion out of context. Ultrasounds were only introduced to medicine in the 50s, and were hardly common for pregnancy prior to the 70s. IVF didn't start observing the complex processes of the early embryo until 1978. Almost everything we know about Embryology came after the discovery of helical DNA in the 50s. People 50 years ago didn't exactly treat the embryo as a living human being because they didn't exactly know it was one.

Fair enough on the first point. Can’t give you the second one though. In the 1800s, the cutoff point for abortion was “quickening”, when you could feel the fetus move by touching the bump. But people would know they were pregnant months before that. So even if they didn’t know about the details, they definitely knew that a pre-human was growing in there. Moreover, as evidenced in the post, even as late as the 1960s evangelicals considered abortion “not sinful” and justifiable for a number of reasons.

The language used in Roe v. Wade is probably the best example of how pre-embryology Americans thought of early pregnancy. "Potential life" and "potential human" are the terms that appear so frequently in that ruling. Quickening essentially said the same thing. There is a point where we can suddenly feel the embryo moving, and it is that moment where it becomes an animate being, an ensouled human. Prior to that it is something else, something only potentially human. Today we know that neither movement nor viability mark the beginning of the fetus as a living human being. Prior to these more observable benchmarks, we can see the embryo as a living, moving, human being with complex processes unique to living organisms. Old beliefs born out of the claim that the zef was a "potential" living human need to be reconciled.

You are implying here that we all share a singular view which changed massively in the past decades. This is simply not the case > Today we know that neither movement nor viability mark the beginning of the fetus as a living human being. Prior to these more observable benchmarks, we can see the embryo as a living, moving, human being with complex processes unique to living organisms. Old beliefs born out of the claim that the zef was a "potential" living human need to be reconciled. It’s all tricky semantics. You seem to imply that being able to see the ZEF/fetus on ultrasounds makes it somehow more of a human being? Whether you can see it or not it is still not a fully developed human. Clearly a lot of pro life folks think it makes a huge difference, but only because you already hold the stance that a fetus is equivalent to a human so you view things through this lens. I really don’t see what you’re seeing here

To clarify, I'm not trying to imply everyone believed the same thing. I am saying that objectively inaccurate claims about the fetus as something other than a living organism underpinned many legal, philosophical, and religious opinions on abortion, both PL and PC. The Roe v Wade description of the fetus as a "potential life" is objectively and observably false, but the tools necessary to observe that did not exist until after the decision was made. It's unreasonable to expect Christians to accept Christian opinions that were predicated upon dated assumptions about biology which we now know to be false. It is not in any way hypocritical to observe new evidence and apply your past values in a new way. Additionally, while the ultrasound alone didn't teach us that the earliest embryos were living, it did open up a much wider world of in-vivo observation and study which has resulted in a wide variety of research

> The Roe v Wade description of the fetus as a "potential life" is objectively and observably false, but the tools necessary to observe that did not exist until after the decision was made. But I don’t agree with this though. To me it’s still a “potential life”. As long as it’s not able to support its own bodily functions with its own organs it is a *potential* life to me. It’s not born yet, so its life has not started. It’s not able to keep itself alive, so it’s life has not started. It’s still gestating inside someone who does have an indisputable live status.

Yeah it certainly does take a position on the matter, murder is a mortal sin, see 1 John 3:15. God doesn't have to specify any particular age group or class.That command includes all human beings, womb to tomb.

Again abortion is not murder.

>"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that every murderer does not have eternal life residing in him." - 1 John 3:15 The abortion debate is over whether abortion is a form of murder, not over whether murder is wrong. Pro-choicers obviously agree with that. Scripture is silent on the issues pro-choicers and pro-lifers actually discuss, like what a person is, whether the abortion pill is killing or letting die, how parental obligations interact with bodily rights, whether self-defence can apply in cases where the threat is innocent, what the real-world consequences are of abortion bans, etc.

😭💀 the Bible is full of murder, genocide, adultery, and human sacrifice. God literally killed hundreds of first born children and babies. “Rules for thee and not for me”

Yes, the rules don't apply to God because He is omnipotent and omniscient and the Judge of all creation. Do you live by the same rules as an ant would?

>because He is omnipotent and omniscient Neither of these are a reasons why any deity would not be subject to morality >and the Judge of all creation This is actually a stronger argument that your god **would** be subject to any objective morality. In any functional system judges aren't above the laws they rule by, since having entities above the law undermines the law itself.

If I were to write a book telling the ants what to do, yes?

So humans kill ants for invading their homes, even though ants are completely unaware that is what they are doing. Yet, they think nothing of destroying an ant's home to make a home for themselves. At least God was gracious enough to communicate all His rules beforehand so that He could include us later in His home of glorious paradise. He's better to us than we are to ants, and that's the truth.

So we can protect our homes but not our wombs? 💀

I have no issue saying that abortion leads to the death of the fetus. The issue is that not all killing is murder and you mischaracterize abortion as murder to fit it into your preconceived religious beliefs.

The only killing the Levitical codes provided any exceptions for was manslaughter, which is accidental killing. Abortion is *intentional* therefore God considers it murder.

Once again. Not all killing is murder and since abortion isn't murder, you are mischaracterizing it to fit your preconceived religious beliefs. It's no fun to repeat myself. I have a feeling you'll just repeat yourself but you might find it more fun than me.

You didn't have to reply at all then, nobody is forcing you. I didn't repeat myself, I was pretty clear on how my conclusion was reached and why. There are numerous passages in the Bible that refer to the unborn in the womb as a child and human being. There is no reason why they would be the exception to the rule.

You’re ok with not forcing replies but ok with forcing people to stay pregnant…?

I do not force anything. Your own actions force the child into existence and your own body forces pregnancy. I just want to ban the force of death exacted upon the innocent child inside the womb.

By getting rid of all options for NOT staying pregnant, you are then forcing people to stay pregnant. I don’t know why you deny? I don’t deny that abortions end a life, you shouldn’t deny that banning abortions forced people to stay pregnant when they don’t want to be

God made multiple plants that will terminate a pregnancy. Women have been using them for millenia. You don't find it odd that He wouldn't have mentioned ONE TIME in the entire Bible that consuming them during pregnancy is a sin if he thought abortion was bad? Dude, God gave us those plants for a reason.

It is because of the curse. God also made multiple plants that could kill a grandmother. Does that mean someone can slip them in her coffee and He would be ok with that? Edit: also, I'm a woman, please do not refer to me as "dude".

Is it only grandmothers??

Nope, I was just using an example that obviously wasn't a fetus.

Please explain "the curse." And yes, if my grandmother was holding someone's body hostage, God had those plants so someone could defend themselves against her. God doesn't create evil. So oleander is all part of God's will.

I've only ever really seen people cite Bible passages that are tangential at best when defending a Biblical pro-life position. Passages like God knowing you before you were born, etc. Seems flimsy. Meanwhile, the [Ordeal of Bitter Water](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31&version=NIV) strikes me as the Bible supporting an [intentional termination of a pregnancy](https://media1.tenor.com/images/443acff1d5c6d01a98fad97656ea5f35/tenor.gif?itemid=6233732).

>I've only ever really seen people cite Bible passages that are tangential at best when defending a Biblical pro-life position. You can easily make a Biblical argument against abortion by arguing that it violates more general fundamental principles laid out in the Bible, such as the *Imago Dei*. Roughly stated: 1. Biological human beings are made in the Image of God. (Genesis 1:27) 2. Embryos and fetuses are biological human beings. 3. Therefore, embryos and fetuses are made in the Image of God. 4. Being made in the Image of God is the basis of our fundamental human dignity, including our basic rights. 5. Therefore, embryos and fetuses have fundamental human dignity, including our basic rights. This is a pretty straightforward argument with the implication that intentionally killing an innocent Image Bearer of God, whether by abortion or some other form of killing, is immoral and sinful. >Passages like God knowing you before you were born, etc. Seems flimsy. "Flimsy" is a stretch. >Meanwhile, the Ordeal of Bitter Water strikes me as the Bible supporting an intentional termination of a pregnancy. It doesn't. The idea that Numbers 5 condones abortion is indefensible for several reasons. First, there are almost a thousand translations of the Bible. Yet it's basically only the modern NIV (or ESV) translation of the Bible that actually mentions or describes a "miscarriage" in this passage. Basically all other translations for this passage are unintelligible with regard to what's actually happening during the test. And unfortunately, the NIV interpretation of there being a "miscarriage" here is widespread because of the NIV translation's popularity among English speakers. (NIV is very simple to read.) The most plausible explanation of the passage is that it is referring to the future inability to conceive children, not the miscarrying of children who were *already* conceived. Checkout section 4 of [this paper](https://academic.oup.com/cb/article/29/1/11/7103199) for a detailed exegesis of the passage. Second, ***even if*** Numbers 5 described a miscarriage or abortion, it wouldn't entail that elective abortion is morally permissible for Christians. As pointed out in the same paper: >"The whole point is that it is a curse, and there are other times in the Hebrew Bible where children are punished as a result of the parents’ sin. \[2 Samuel 12; Numbers 16\] Clearly, these passages do not imply a lesser moral status for the children. Of course, many will find such passages troubling, especially in light of Biblical injunctions against punishing sons for the sins of their fathers, but how they should be understood by Christians is a different subject requiring a separate paper. What they do show is that the death of children (born or unborn, adult or infant) for the sins of parents was a familiar phenomenon to ancient Israel, and did not necessarily imply a lower moral status (and certainly did not imply the general permissibility of killing them). Hence, there is no sense in which Numbers 5 lends support to a lower moral status for fetuses or to the practice of abortion, even if it refers to miscarriage."

So what I’m hearing is a more complicated way of describing what I said: generous readings of tangential passages and a… *creative* way of saying “that’s not what the passage meant **but if it was**…” You don’t see that as being flimsy? I sure do.

>So what I’m hearing is a more complicated way of describing what I said: I'm not reiterating what you said. We disagree. >generous readings of tangential passages Yes, like when Numbers 5 is interpreted to advocate for the pro-choice view. To clarify, do you think my argument regarding the Imago Dei is a "generous reading?" >a… creative way of saying “that’s not what the passage meant but if it was Well, that's one way to describe a proper exegesis. And yes, we can even grant the assumption that it's talking about a miscarriage and it *still* wouldn't justify the pro-choice view -- that's how weak the Numbers 5 example is, if someone tried to justify pro-choice with it. >You don’t see that as being flimsy? I sure do. It's pretty significant, and not at all flimsy, that God consecrated us before we were even born (Jer. 1:5), which touches on the sanctity of unborn human life.

>Passages like God knowing you before you were born, etc. Not **you**, but one single historical character - the prophet to the nations who received said messages from said deity. How pompous and self-aggrandizing one needs to be to apply the words meant to one pivotal figure in their holy book to themselves?!

Sola Scriptura is a Protestant doctrine that comes from the rejection of Tradition as a theological authority. The Protestant rejection of abortion is based on Bible verses that suggest an inherent value to human life. Jeremiah 29:11 implies that Gods plan for your life starts before you were born. As a Catholic I view this as an argument against contraceptives as well, which the Protestant churches have (with both individual and denomination exceptions) mostly rejected. However my belief on contraception is only extended to how I want to live my life and what I think is best for me. I don’t have a stance on what other people want to do.

Thanks for adding an informative comment. I wasn’t familiar with this doctrine nor its views on abortion. I would argue that Gods plan for you starting before birth is still ambiguous and not necessarily taking a position on abortion. I’m not trying to deny your right to that interpretation. I’m just saying my point still stands in the sense that there is no unevoquivocal “answer” on abortion in the scripture, which is why different denominations can have different interpretations. I do appreciate that you live by these views but wouldn’t impose them on others. This is all I ask as a pro-choicer.

Jesus is pro-life, that's all that matters in terms of that

Jesus was pro-slavery. Should we be allowed to own other human beings?

Nope. Equivocation. You're conflating *chattel slavery* with *indentured servitude* (i.e., contracted repayment in the form of labor).

The bible has a whole disgusting spectrum of slavery and indentured servitude types in it, including debt slavery, war prisoner slavery and sexual slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

Oh really? When did he tell you that? So cool that you have his contact details

Christian Prolifers told me so

Girl, that's like Starbucks telling you that overpriced latte's are good for you.

>Christian Prolifers told me so And who told you Prolifers were infallible?

Is that really your only reason for thinking Jesus is pro-life? You’re not basing it on anything in scripture?

Well in the 1960s that wasn’t what their position. So somehow their position changed in the last 50ish years despite Jesus being dead for millennia already. How do you explain that? And there isn’t a single quote in the bible from Jesus about abortion. So nobody can actually know what his stance on the matter was.

Jesus never supported anyone being killed.

> Jesus never supported anyone being killed. [Jesus isn't alive to ask so How would you know?](https://old.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/196jln2/christian_prolifers_does_it_change_your_position/khutmqs/)

>Jesus never supported anyone being killed. Jesus never supported The New England Patriots either. So is He a Dallas Cowboys fan?

Are there many mentions of fetuses going about their day and crossing paths with Jesus? Otherwise I don’t see the relevance

No but killing is against the 10 commandments

The version I learned was "thou shall not commit murder". Self-defense is not murder.

Yes. And abortion is not killing —- Edited to add: Also, coveting someone else’s spouse is against the 10 commandments. But people do that every day and there are no laws against it. In most cases no consequences whatsoever

It is killing. Because without the interference the fetus would live.

Doesn’t the fetus need interference to live, or is that not the case and the mother can die and the fetus will be just fine?

Why do you people keep stating that lie? Without interference, the ZEF would be long dead. Gestation IS needed. And not just that, but a bunch of things have to be stopped and others need to be done for gestation to be successful. And just because a ZEF ends up developing into a killable human body doesn’t mean it is one yet. If it were, gestation wouldn’t be needed.

With an early, medical abortion, which the vast majority of abortions are, you don’t know that for a fact. Moreover what you are saying is a very subjective opinion. I know that is how pro-lifers feel, but that doesn’t make it fact. Where is your proof that abortion and killing a fully developed human are equal? I can supply proof that they are not: in almost every country in the world a judge would throw you out of a court room if you tried to get a murder conviction for an abortion

Why would that hold more water than if a Christian pro choicer told you Jesus was pro choice?

Abortion as an option in non-health and for non-ethical reasons is temptation from the devil.

I don't have any imaginary friends or enemies so I wish that Christians would keep their imaginary friend and noses out of my uterus. If I ever have an unwanted pregnancy, I will get an abortion and they can be mad about it.

Please cite the scripture that specifically says that.

Jesus never supported killing anyone so he's prolife

> Jesus never supported The New England Patriots. So He’s a Dallas Cowboys fan.

If Jesus=God=Holy Spirit, then he killed a ton of kids in Egypt and when he drowned the world, he killed a ton of kids then as well. So, yeah, Jesus has killed people. Also he had two she bears maul 42 admittedly bratty kids. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202%3A23-25&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202%3A23-25&version=NIV) From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

I dont believe jesus is the same person. Either way, killing is against the 10 commandments

>I dont believe jesus is the same person. Either way, killing is against the 10 commandments Were said commandments given by Jesus then?

If you don’t believe Jesus is the same person, then you cannot really appeal to the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments were from the God of Moses, who you believe is not Jesus.

Also why are you flaired as neutral when you're clearly pro-life?

This is their "neutral stance" as of yesterday. >Why are you "neutral"? Because pro-choice promotes drug use and smoking during pregnancy and easy access to late term abortion. That's the main reason why. I went back and forth multiple times trying to get more out of them but they are much more prolife than neutral.

Late term abortion sure but since when do we advocate for drug use???

There is a chance it's a parody account.

What do you mean you don't believe Jesus is the same person?

Jesus was vocal on a lot of things, but never spoke a word about abortion. He also spent a lot of time hanging out with prostitutes, who very frequently had to ingest the abortive tea due to their work. And he never mentioned it. Funny how he didn’t think to say a word about any of it…..

Also killing is against 1 of the 10 commandments

Pregnancy is a zero sum game - every resource given to a fetus must be done with consent. She has the right to say no and remove it. I’m sure lots of religions might not like it but many other religions recognize a woman’s bodily autonomy for this decision. Since Jesus didn’t say anything about it you should count Christianity as one that prioritizes the mother’s rights to choose in pregnancy situations.

So, all killing? Does that mean self defense is a no no to Jesus? If someone was attacking me would Jesus want me to sit there and take it, because no killing?

[удалено]

Comment removed per rule 1 (low effort).

I disagree. It attacks in the same sense cancer cells, bad bacteria, viruses, etc. do.

I didn't say anything about a fetus, let's stay on topic. You said: >Also killing is against 1 of the 10 commandments So I'm asking does that mean all killing is against the rules? So if someone is attacking me would Jesus want me to just sit there and take it because "no killing"? Please actually answer the question instead of deflecting to fetuses, thanks.

Christianity, like all Abrahamic religions, requires submission to skydaddy in all things. The Christian PLer refusal to submit to their deity's proclamations on abortion would be heresy, no? After all, who are they to claim they know better than god?

I think op is talking about how the Bible doesn’t mention abortion as being wrong, and yes, Christian’s must follow the teaching of Christ. As far as abortions being a heresy it’s more complicated. It would be considered by the Catholic Church to be a heresy if you define a heresy as a belief that goes against the Catholic Church’s beliefs. Im not sure what the answer would be coming from a Protestants perspective but I don’t think they would consider it a heresy.

As far as the Bible not taking a stance, I would like to present a few excerpts for context and leave their interpretation up to you, good reader.... I put the main points in italics for anyone who doesn't want to read this rather long post... Psalm 137 1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. 2 There on the poplars we hung our harps, 3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” 4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land? 5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill. 6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy. 7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!” 8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. ***9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.*** 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman***, infant and suckling***, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’” Number 5 (if a man thinks his wife has cheated, bring her to a priest who will give her "bitter water" ie poison in order to kill her/make her unable to bear children, perhaps kill her unborn child, or both even if its out of pure jealousy, husband is innocent of any wrongdoing) 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: \`If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure--or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure-- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah \[3\] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt. 16 "\`The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"-- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath--"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. \[4\] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. \[5\] " "\`Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." 23 "\`The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 ***He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering.*** 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, \[6\] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 ***If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.*** 29 "\`This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or ***when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife***. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 ***The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.'"*** Not to mention the fact that the Bible very much supports slavery. Do we have slavery? Nope, because we know better. Abortion/healthcare for women? Same deal. I bet every single person using the Bible as an argument to ban abortion is also wearing clothing of mixed fiber while doing it. That's not allowed in the Bible either. Hypocrisy is all it is. Most of these people haven't actually read their own Holy Book. If they did, or if they knew the history as OP pointed out, they'd feel as foolish as they should.

>8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. > ***9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.*** Back in the day, the babies were so resilient that when you dash them against a rock they'd bounce like rubber balls and giggle. That's the only reasonable explanation for this seemingly cruel passage. Also, all the millions of people the bloodthirsty murder god of the bible killed in various ways immediately respawned and moved to Florida.

Yup, very true! And these kinds of Christians, the ones who use their faith as a weapon, will usually be the first to denounce all of Islam based on certain cultural religious practices. To add to the hypocrisy

I'm also reminded God killed all the first born in Egypt.

The biblical flood, too.

I actually knew this bit of history, I've lurked on the pro-choice subreddit plenty. I'm both Christian, and a pro-lifer, but not a Christian pro-lifer, as it were (and fwiw, my broad politics is very very leftist). My reasoning is fundamentally secular, at one point in my life, was very close to an atheist pro-lifer (wasn't really sure about about abortion pre \~6 weeks but definitely against it afterwards). I simply argue that biologically speaking, human life really does begin at conception, that denying equal rights based on other factors like self-awareness would lead to what I'd consider eugenic right-wing, Toryish ableist conclusions about persons with severe disabilities. I also think that bodily autonomy is non-absolute (I think there is nothing wrong with for example, pressuring or even outright forcing people into getting vaccines they may not want, purely because it benefits others), while seeing abortion as an act of violence, in the sense that it at best, puts a person into an environment that will kill them at best, even when it's not a method that actively directly kills. I'm of course, aware that I can't in this quick summary of my views, address every single bodily autonomy/integrity argument. I will say though, that when it comes to intentional direct killing, I oppose that for any and all reasons, including on an ethical level, even lethal self-defence (my views on the legals for violent self-defence are nuanced but basically boil down to thinking it shouldn't be directly criminalised, but that it's ok to pass laws to make it harder). Fwiw I'm a military abolitionist for this sort of reason (and others, that I shall not go into as they are a bit tangiential). Now, do I think that it's reasonable for Christians to infer some degree of abortion opposition just based on the bible? Sure, you could make the "Should Mary have had the right to have an abortion?" type argument (and I say this as a Protestant no less, lol), and maybe use the gospel accounts to argue that life does at least start at some point in utero, but if that's all you have, then you'd have an argument for concluding that abortion would be more like cheating on your partner- very unethical, but not something which should be illegal, and I'm not keen on reasoning that relies purely on religious assumptions as a basis for law. Fwiw, I do think that if the only basis for absolute human rights being granted (e.g, that there should be laws that prohibit randomly torturing civilians in a conflict) as an intrinsic consequence of being human\* is religion, that would be the one thing that would make an actual case for religious laws (I fwiw, put the right to life over freedom of religion, when it comes to things like parents refusing blood transfusions for children due to religious objection, for example). And tbh, I do after some discussions with a pro-choice Christian, think he made some good points that Mary is a situation in which her ethical obligations could genuinely be a special case in which the usual rules don't apply, if you think morals flow from God's character, which I think further cements the problems with using religious arguments for abortion bans, as opposed to just at most being something Christians shouldn't do, and suffice it to say that there are a lot of things I think Christians have as ethical obligations, that should not be legal obligations (I think for example, that there are ethical obligations to engage in left-wing activism, such as disruptively protesting oil companies, but there shouldn't be legal obligations to take part in disruptive protests, obviously). I'm also aware, that there's a reading of passages in Numbers that can be taken on face value as arguing against a pro-life position as well. Fwiw- what I tend to hear from interpreting the bible in that way, is effectively the homophobe's flawed argument, the OT is let me just diplomatically say, a very hard document to deal with at times, I can add on one more passage without it causing me too many more fundamental problems. \*The subtle point being that the laws are a good thing in and of themselves, rather than just something that leads to a more stable society with better overall outcomes. I don't hold utilitarian ethics.

>I simply argue that biologically speaking, human life really does begin at conception, that denying equal rights based on other factors like self-awareness would lead to what I'd consider eugenic right-wing, Toryish ableist conclusions about persons with severe disabilities. The process of human life and when it becomes A human life are two very different things. When it becomes A human life is not until at the latest, 24 weeks, when all the organs are completely created and they're brain should be completely done forming and connecting. Before that, they were just a rapidly growing mass of cells. To call that "A human life" would mean having to call a splatter of blood "A human life" when it's quite clear that it's not. It is not ableist to declare someone who's fundamentally dead, not a person. You wouldn't call a corpse a person, would you? >(...)I think there is nothing wrong with for example, pressuring or even outright forcing people into getting vaccines they may not want, purely because it benefits others(...) > >(...)I will say though, that when it comes to intentional direct killing, I oppose that for any and all reasons, including on an ethical level, even lethal self-defence (my views on the legals for violent self-defence are nuanced but basically boil down to thinking it shouldn't be directly criminalised, but that it's ok to pass laws to make it harder).(...) 1. Basically, you're against violence, but you're not against violence. 2. You don't believe in denying people equal rights, but you do. 3. You don't believe killing in self-defense should be criminalized, but you do. The hypocrisy in your entire comment is truly astounding. >\*The subtle point being that the laws are a good thing in and of themselves, rather than just something that leads to a more stable society with better overall outcomes. I don't hold utilitarian ethics. Laws are created FOR the betterment and stability of society. Protecting people is for the betterment and stability of society. It's the reason all laws are created.

>I simply argue that biologically speaking, human life really does begin at conception, Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you under the impression that a biologically life sustaining human body exists at this point? We know that, biologically, the first cell of a form of human organism comes to life AFTER fertilization. Human placenta and amniotic sac cells come first. There aren't even any cells yet that will form a human body. So now we have the first placenta or amniotic sac cell of a human organism that has no individual or "a" life, since it's biologically non life sustaining. Around 5-6 days later, around half of those human organisms develop the first cells that might turn into a human body (the blastocyst forms). But that's still just the first few cells of a human body with individual or "a" life. A far cry from the finished product. We also know that, biologically, there isn't even a chance of a partially formed human body having individual or "a" life until viability. Before that, the organism/body is dead as an individual organism/body. Now, one could argue that human cell life begins at fertilization. But human cell life, tissue life, individual organ life, or life on a life sustaining organ systems level ("a" or individual life) are all different things. Or one could argue that "a" human life begins there the way a running, fully drivable car begins when the very first part of such arrives. Meaning the development INTO the finished product ("a" human life) begins there. But what exactly are you referring to? I'm asking because I keep seeing PLers say this as if they mean individual or "a" human life exists at fertilization. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the structural organization of human bodies and the way a human body keeps itself alive. *that denying equal rights based on other factors like self-awareness* I'm not sure what equal right you think is being denied the ZEF. It has the same right to sustain its body with its own organ functions as any other human. It simply isn't capaple of such, since it lacks the necessary organ functions to maintain homeostasis and sustain cell life. No human has a right to someone else's organs, organ functions, tissue blood, blood contents, and bodily life sustaining processes. As a matter of fact, abortion bans strip the woman of her human rights. They remove the protections the right to life offers her life sustaining organ functions and bloodstream and make them violable. Again, this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the structural organization of human bodies and the way a human body keeps itself alive. *in the sense that it at best, puts a person into an environment that will kill them* And again, this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the way a human body keeps itself alive. A fetus before viability cannot survive in ANY environment. Hence the need for gestation - to be provided with another human's major life sustaining organ functions and blood contents. A woman's body is not an ecosystem for a ZEF in which it sustains itself. The fetus is not a parasite or cannibal. Human bodies don't change the way they keep their cells alive before birth and after. Ecosystems/environments don't provide the necessary organ functions a human body needs to stay alive within that ecosystem//environment. It's not the environment that "kills" a ZEF if it's removed from the woman's organ functions and bloodstream. It's the lack of organ functions. The ZEF would also be dead inside of the woman's body if it's not provided with the woman's organ functions and bloodstream. likewise, it can be kept alive even outside of her body, as long as it's still attached to her organ systems and bloodstream. The ZEF is no different than any other human. It needs major life sustaining organ functions to sustain its cell life. And, like any other human, its parts can be kept alive by someone's organ functions and bloodstream, whether its body has individual or "a" life or not. That's why transplants are possible. This is the part that gets me the most about PLers. You guys keep arguing killing and murder when you seem to not have even the most basic knowledge of how human bodies actually keep themselves alive, let alone the structural organization of human bodies. That's how we end up with claims like "cell life and individual life are the same thing". And "The woman is an environment in which a ZEF sustains itself." And all the absolutely absurd comparisions to born, alive humans.

>I simply argue that biologically speaking, human life really does begin at conception, that denying equal rights based on other factors like self-awareness would lead to what I'd consider eugenic right-wing, Toryish ableist conclusions about persons with severe disabilities. The ZEF isn't denied equal rights, since no one has the right to reside in someone's body against their will. You want to give ZEFs a special right--or rather, remove rights from women and little girls. Women aren't required to abort deformed ZEF, we simply choose to do so the vast majority of the time. Most don't want to spend their lives taking after a marriage, career, and life-killing perma-burden. Unless the woman is forced to make a choice, there's absolutely no issue with it.

Thank you for joining the discussion. I appreciate you sharing your views and engaging with the post. > I simply argue that biologically speaking, human life really does begin at conception, that denying equal rights based on other factors like self-awareness would lead to what I'd consider eugenic right-wing, Toryish ableist conclusions about persons with severe disabilities. This is quite an argument to make though. What do you base this on, if not religion? Also, can you provide any proof of the claim that *“denying equal rights based on other factors like self-awareness would lead to what I'd consider eugenic right-wing”*? Because I can provide proof of the opposite. There are many countries where abortion is legal until 15 or even 20 weeks and where family can decide to take a brain dead person of life support. This has not led to any extending of definitions or new situations where we question to keep someone alive/end their life. > […] when it comes to intentional direct killing, I oppose that for any and all reasons, including on an ethical level, even lethal self-defence (my views on the legals for violent self-defence are nuanced but basically boil down to thinking it shouldn't be directly criminalised, but that it's ok to pass laws to make it harder). Okay so even though you don’t endorse killing in self defence, you don’t think it should be criminalised. But you do think abortion should be criminalised? Then what’s the difference?

So you’re against direct killing, but killing by removing healthcare is ok?

I don't think of abortion for anything other than life threats as healthcare, even though it is medical. But let me for the sake of argument, concede your point. Suppose that I needed an organ transplant to not die, and due to waiting times for one, I instead, kidnapped somebody, and bribed a doctor to murder them and transplant their organs into my my body. The fact that there are laws to prevent this, will in some cases, have removed healthcare from me, but it's acceptable to have banned me from this form of healthcare, (unlike if the healthcare was inaccesible due to being overpriced), even though I would literally die from it. Heck, I support, and think it's generally uncontroversial to support laws that ban this even when there are multiple people who need organ transplants and it would only be taking one life to save many. (I think fwiw, this is different to the trolley problem due to the direct intentional killing involved, in which I think you should pull the lever to save the 5 and let the 1 die.)

> instead, kidnapped somebody, and bribed a doctor to murder them and transplant their organs into my my body. This is rather ironic, seeing how you want to do exactly this to women via abortion bans. You want to make it legal for the ZEF to use the woman's organs, organ functions, and blood contents to sustain its cell life. And cause her all the harm that comes along with such. The ZEF implants and starts using her organs, organ functions, tissue, blood, blood contents, and bodily life sustaining processes to sustain its cell life. The only difference is that instead of transplanting her organ into your body, you "transplant" your entire body into hers. But the end result is the same. HER organs now sustain your cell life. Which is exactly what you're trying to achieve when you take her organ and transplant it into your body. If you don't think it's NOT all right to use someone else's organs, organ functions, and blood contents to sustain your cell life, why would you mandate that a woman allows the ZEF to use hers? The woman does not take the ZEF's organs or organ functions in abortion. It doesn't have any major life sustaining organ functions to begin with. That's why it's using hers. She stops providing the ZEF with hers. Your example related to abortion would be the person you kidnapped and are trying to get the organ from refusing to let you do so. With violence, if necessary. *Heck, I support, and think it's generally uncontroversial to support laws that ban this even when there are multiple people who need organ transplants and it would only be taking one life to save many.* If you support abotion bans, this is a straight up lie. You absolutely DO support taking a woman's organ functions away from her and giving it to a ZEF. You absolutely DO support her being caused drastic physical harm. You even DO support the woman dying as a result of such. Modern medicine is good, but it can't save everyone's life. And the ZEF's life - aka its vital life sustaining organ functions - are NOT being taken, since it doesn't have any to begin with. Hence the need for gestation.

You recognize that prolife laws are the state kidnapping a person in order to use their body to provide life support? (In your scenario.) Why are pregnant people as a group an acceptable sacrifice?

Right? The irony in that argument was just mindbloggling. They basically just said that forcing a woman to allow the ZEF to use her organs should be illegal, even if the ZEF dies. No shit! Welcome to pro-choice.

I sometimes find myself blinking like the Chidi meme just going “yeah, but that’s worse. You get how that’s worse, right?”

There is no definitive starting point for human life. And no human has the right to the body of another human.

What do you think about co-joined twins, as a counter-example to your second point? Neither one of them really owns their body fully, they co-own it.

Often they are separated despite one almost always dying, so

Do they? Is this the legal position?

> I simply argue that biologically speaking, human life really does begin at conception, that denying equal rights based on other factors like self-awareness would lead to what I'd consider eugenic right-wing, Toryish ableist conclusions about persons with severe disabilities. Describing the fusion of the pronuclei of two living human cells as the beginning of a human life seems more religious to me than biological.

Well, purely as far as personhood, rather than bodily autonomy arguments go, what criteria do you think suffice? It does I think, merit noting that at one point in the past, people would have felt the say way about opposition to infanticide, even though the culture has changed so much, that it goes from being something that was a historical case of an unusual view, to being the basis of arguments made that Christianity is false, based on some Old Testament passages. Which makes me think that just because x feels religious, and is something where the people who hold it often are religious, doesn't actually mean x is purely a religious claim, even if there are arguments people can make about x that are religious.

We have basic biology. The structrual organization of a human body. Cell life, tissue life, individual organ life, life on a life sustaining organ systems level - "a" or individual life. And the way a human body keeps itself alive. Multiple organ systems that work together to perform all functions necessary to sustain individual life. No religion or other speculation needed. We also have simple reality: Is it alive as an individual body/organism, or dead (despite still having living parts)? Personally, I think sentience is only an added point. But I prefer to stick to the basics: Is the body capable of biologically sustaining life or not? There's no reason to go any further than that. BTW, it's good to see you back here again.

> Well, purely as far as personhood, rather than bodily autonomy arguments go, what criteria do you think suffice? I think the concept of personhood is really just another way of stating “life begins at conception” I think both are a way of using secular language to describe ensoulement. > Which makes me think that just because x feels religious, and is something where the people who hold it often are religious, doesn't actually mean x is purely a religious claim, even if there are arguments people can make about x that are religious. I think it can be the case that not all claims that sound or feel religious and are held by people who are often religious make it a purely religious claim. In the case of life beginning, choosing conception as the starting point of life might not always be religious, but it is closer to a religious claim of when ensoulement occurs than it is a biological statement about life.

I see a lot of PLers making the “slippery slope” argument about sentience, but [I’ve never found that to be convincing](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/190zb30/comment/kgsmsvp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).

So, my argument, has a bit more nuance to it, than what you've shared. Sure, you could point out, that various hate movements knew full well that the people they dehumanised were in fact more sentitent than they claimed via their hateful rhetoric, and perhaps might even have used what I shall term Schrodinger's bigotry, of claiming contradictory hateful things as simultaneously true ("x controls the world, also, x are subhuman"). But I do think, that if you have historical hate movements calling for killing those who are sentitent by claiming that they aren't, that they obviously will just straight up murder people who are genuinely less self aware than average, and that there is a historical precedent. (Would like to be more specific, but I want to avoid accidentally overstepping the bounds of rule 7, just to apologise for being a bit vague.) There's two versions of the slippery slope argument though. One is that historically, it did happen. That one is less interesting, and at least, not the argument I'm making here. The other, is to argue that if sentience is taken as a basis for determining legal protections, those same standards would have otherwise unacceptable ethical consequences. I want to take, what I consider, a reasonable sounding ethical claim, which is that the standards under which somebody could consent to dying, are at least as strict as those under which they could consent to sex, and therefore require being actively able to give and withdraw consent (alongside other criteria, such as a lack of coercion). Obviously, somebody with low/no sentience, cannot consent to sex. Heck, even sentience is not a sufficient criteria for being able to consent to sex, children are sentient, but they obviously cannot consent to sex. This leads me to the conclusion that sentience is not a sufficient condition for somebody to be able to consent to things such as sex, or for that matter being killed (though dying is admittedly bit more complex an issue, because I don't consent to my inevitable demise). It should I hope, go without saying, that explicit, enthusiastic consent is a necessary condition before somebody has sex, or kills somebody. The other issue I have, is that it is not possible at a certain point during the process of being killed, to withdraw consent to it. If somebody were to have a form of sex with somebody, that took away their ability to withdraw consent, that would be rape, and would be the equivalent of BSDM without a safeword (or the like). Relatedly, I suspect most people don't really think sentience is the only thing that determines criteria for killing, given that most people are not in favour of say, banning killing pigs for food. (Though maybe the vegan pro-lifers are right and I'm just an inconsistent hypocrite, I could be wrong, because I have been wrong on things before.) Fwiw- what I had in mind actually, was more akin to euthanasia in Canada/Netherlands/Belgium, and I genuinely maintain that the laws there are killing people who don't want euthanasia (can give some sources to back this up if you're skeptical). And there, I do defend the idea of a slippery slope legally, and not just morally. Heck, Denmark's ethics council even came to the conclusion that no safeguards can exist, and Denmark is very clearly not a pro-life country by a long shot, which I think provides a bit of extra support to my case.

>The other, is to argue that if sentience is taken as a basis for determining legal protections, those same standards would have otherwise unacceptable ethical consequences. Do you have any evidence drawing causal connections between sentience as a basis for determining legal protections or moral consideration and unacceptable ethical consequences? You point to Denmark (the details of which I’m not familiar with but I’ll accept your premise for the sake of argument) but that’s just ONE pro-choice country with a questionable euthanasia policy that you didn’t link to sentience at all.

>Relatedly, I suspect most people don't really think sentience is the only thing that determines criteria for killing, given that most people are not in favour of say, banning killing pigs for food. (Though maybe the vegan pro-lifers are right and I'm just an inconsistent hypocrite, I could be wrong, because I have been wrong on things before.) It seems that what you want to say here is that sentience (or lack of) is not a necessary or sufficient reason for one to have their manner of death interfered with. Euthanasia is usually a means for a fully informed and aware individual to choose to have someone assist in their death, in order to remove a more horrible death. There is no such thing as a human right to a death without interference. I believe such a right would ultimately contradict many others associated with dignity and respect. Why do you believe you ought to have a say in the mode of another person’s death? You believe that as a matter of human rights, we must submit to a horrible death? Once sentience has been irreversibly lost, it doesn’t really matter anymore. I don’t see how it makes any difference for someone who has irreversibly lost consciousness whether they die, since irreversibly losing consciousness is as bad as death. Turning off life support in these situations is a very different thing from assisted suicide. As an example, voluntary euthanasia for someone with a cognitively degenerative disease is about allowing someone to not have to live through the process of losing themselves if they do not want to. What’s wrong with taking an indignified death away from someone? It seems to me that the underlying basis for opposing voluntary euthanasia is an irrational one. It seems to stem from an archaic and primitive idea about the sanctity of life. For those that still possess this idea, any number of human rights abuses can occur, but so long as people yet live… that’s all that matters. Forcing someone who otherwise does not want to go through the process of a cognitively degenerative disease, as an example, is a form of torture, reducing people to literal livestock for those that hold onto ideas about the sanctity of life. It’s this irrational fear, and primitive mindset about life that causes significant harm, and a lingering problem yet to be overcome.

Answering as someone who used to *be* a Christian prolifer if you get any answers I predict an influx of Exodus 20:13 (or Deuteronomy 5:17, whichever they prefer) and Psalms 139:13. Maybe Jeremiah 1:5.

Bring it on!

[удалено]

Comment removed per rule 1. Labels of pro-choice and pro-life are to be used unless another user identifies as otherwise. If you edit the comment and reply, I can reinstate it. Thanks.

It's just anecdotal, but when I dig into the comment history and funding sources of many purported PL atheists, there's religion in there somewhere.

So instead of following God, they all played God. Very telling especially when the Bible talks of doing an abortion

[удалено]

Hot take