[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If this suggestion ever worked on people who live their lives based on the guidelines (mis)interpreted from a 2000+ year old book we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Touche! Couldn't be said any better.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If this suggestion ever worked on people who live their lives based on the guidelines (mis)interpreted from a 2000+ year old book we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

How about just using current medical indicators? If people would just be consistent and stop devaluing life for their own convenience and use already standard medical indicators to determine "life", then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Waragainstsleep]

If you had your way and individual states made up their own laws, then several of them would probably ban it outright, and several more would probably ban it under almost all circumstances.

Seems lots of people in this thread would not be in favour of restrictions that harsh so perhaps we would still be having this discussion.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Why wouldn't those people just go to the lenient states? Not such a promoter of "choice" after all?

[Athens]

can these people afford to travel to lenient states? Its not cheap to travel.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That's only because the purpose of most travel is for luxury (ie vacations). Merely getting from here to there costs less than the abortion itself.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Neither side condones murder. This is yet another situation where the distinction between "alive" and "a person" is key. Most living things can't be murdered, but all "people" can. If you had used "person" there would be no confusion, as accusing someone of "murdering" a thing not considered a "person" is nonsense.

You've pretty much summed up the debate right here. It boils down to human life vs personhood. By insisting that all adhere to your personhood principle, you're essentially asking pro-lifers to accept the pro-choice premise. Which is irreconcilable.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've pretty much summed up the debate right here. It boils down to human life vs personhood.

Not as long as you arbitrarily exclude some "human life" and not others. What it really is is one view of personhood vs another. My personhood is more selective than yours, but both are more selective than "human life."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not as long as you arbitrarily exclude some "human life" and not others. What it really is is one view of personhood vs another. My personhood is more selective than yours, but both are more selective than "human life."

You're the only one in existence confusing human skin tissue with human life in the abortion context. Analysis paralysis. Otherwise, I disagree. You're asking pro-lifers to abandon their premise which is the reason Roe V Wade is law.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've pretty much summed up the debate right here. It boils down to human life vs personhood. By insisting that all adhere to your personhood principle, you're essentially asking pro-lifers to accept the pro-choice premise. Which is irreconcilable.

That doesn't sum up the debate for me.

I don't really have a strong opinion about when life and personhood starts and all of that jazz (nor do I really care, to be honest), but I feel strongly about the notion that we as individuals should be making these hard choices ourselves, not the government, and I feel strongly that anybody who ratchets up the non-intrusive government rhetoric should be consistent and advocate for the government to not intrude here.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're the only one in existence confusing human skin tissue with human life in the abortion context. Analysis paralysis. Otherwise, I disagree. You're asking pro-lifers to abandon their premise which is the reason Roe V Wade is law.

It's not about confusion it's about honesty. Life doesn't come from non-life, you know this as well as anyone. But you insist on these terms to try to force your opposition to say something isn't "alive" when it clearly is. Meanwhile you refer to such things, that are clearly alive yet sub-person by your and anyone else's beliefs, as "components." It's dishonest.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That doesn't sum up the debate for me.

I don't really have a strong opinion about when life and personhood starts and all of that jazz (nor do I really care, to be honest), but I feel strongly about the notion that we as individuals should be making these hard choices ourselves, not the government, and I feel strongly that anybody who ratchets up the non-intrusive government rhetoric should be consistent and advocate for the government to not intrude here.

Yeah and murderers should be making the hard choice themselves about whether their victims should die, and rapists should be making the hard choice about whether their victims wanted it. Also I should be making the hard choices about how much a Metallica album should cost, and Al Qaeda should be making the hard choices of exactly how terrified we should be at any one time. Why do we even have laws, anyway? Everyone can just govern themselves.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah and murderers should be making the hard choice themselves about whether their victims should die, and rapists should be making the hard choice about whether their victims wanted it. Also I should be making the hard choices about how much a Metallica album should cost, and Al Qaeda should be making the hard choices of exactly how terrified we should be at any one time. Why do we even have laws, anyway? Everyone can just govern themselves.

And like I've said before, all of those crimes impact others, therefore they are not absolutely personal matters. My abortion choice does not impact you at all, it is personal.

[Athens]

No one has answered the question of why Pro Lifers should get to make the choice for every one. If your pro life dont do it. What gives Pro Lifers the right to tell others what they can and can't do medically/

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Analysis paralysis.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That doesn't sum up the debate for me.

Yeah it does and you proved it does when you said "none of those crimes impact someone else".

I don't really have a strong opinion about when life and personhood starts and all of that jazz (nor do I really care, to be honest), but I feel strongly about the notion that we as individuals should be making these hard choices ourselves, not the government, and I feel strongly that anybody who ratchets up the non-intrusive government rhetoric should be consistent and advocate for the government to not intrude here.

The fact of the matter is that Uncle and myself are both suggesting the impact of the choice is not exclusively the woman's. Our problem is he insists on using "personhood" to indicate a point in fetal development later than conception and I insist on using "human life" to advocate personhood at conception.

Your point about "ratcheting up non-intrusive government rhetoric" is a ruse and you know it. Of course, I would fully expect someone who defends the actions of a nanny-state government philosophy would be all over government intrusion in the abortion context right? You feel strongly... then you don't.

To be clear; I am consistent in my distaste for government intrusion in that I believe irreconcilable, complex social issues such as abortion/life/personhood should be left up to the States to decide.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You're missing a great deal of context for the accusation. I maintain there are a select few in the abortion context who would conflate human skin tissue with human life.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No one has answered the question of why Pro Lifers should get to make the choice for every one. If your pro life dont do it. What gives Pro Lifers the right to tell others what they can and can't do medically/

We'll let you pretend this was a zinger and that there's simply a problem with your [shift] key.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you had your way and individual states made up their own laws, then several of them would probably ban it outright, and several more would probably ban it under almost all circumstances.

Yes, if the American people had their way as was the intention of our founders, lot's of things would be different than if a small, unelected group of elites who do not represent the people get to decide for themselves. Our country fought a pretty big war to try and keep that from happening.

You are helping make my point.

Seems lots of people in this thread would not be in favour of restrictions that harsh so perhaps we would still be having this discussion.

I would not agree that they would go far enough to be the "right" thing morally, I'd at least be satisfied if states got to implement non-arbitrary restrictions based on current standards. That's not the case right now. We have to live with legislation the courts invented, which is arbitrary and does not reflect the will of the people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No one has answered the question of why Pro Lifers should get to make the choice for every one. If your pro life dont do it. What gives Pro Lifers the right to tell others what they can and can't do medically/

For the same reason why other citizens can decide for everyone else that they can't kill their boss via a surgical procedure of removing his brain, when they threaten to fire them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not about confusion it's about honesty. Life doesn't come from non-life, you know this as well as anyone. But you insist on these terms to try to force your opposition to say something isn't "alive" when it clearly is. Meanwhile you refer to such things, that are clearly alive yet sub-person by your and anyone else's beliefs, as "components." It's dishonest.

I'm not saying merely "alive", that's all you. I'm also not trying to force my opposition to your principle. Naturally, if your principle was that personhood was attained at conception, we'd be in total agreement. The fact is your criteria for personhood is not conception. Because I'm advocating personhood at an earlier point in fetal development; the beginning of it, I'm using human life or conception as the determinant.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're missing a great deal of context for the accusation. I maintain there are a select few in the abortion context who would conflate human skin tissue with human life.

I guess that proves it: you really have no idea what "analysis paralysis" is.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And like I've said before, all of those crimes impact others, therefore they are not absolutely personal matters. My abortion choice does not impact you at all, it is personal.

My choice to rape does not impact you at all, because it's not you I want to rape

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not saying merely "alive", that's all you. I'm also not trying to force my opposition to your principle. Naturally, if your principle was that personhood was attained at conception, we'd be in total agreement. The fact is your criteria for personhood is not conception. Because I'm advocating personhood at an earlier point in fetal development; the beginning of it, I'm using human life or conception as the determinant.

We don't have to agree on when personhood starts to agree that personhood is the issue. We DO have to agree that personhood is the issue in order to communicate. Intentionally blocking communication is the epitome of analysis paralysis.

"Human life" is simply objectively false, because it's both human and alive before and after your demarcation, as it is at mine.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes, if the American people had their way as was the intention of our founders, lot's of things would be different than if a small, unelected group of elites who do not represent the people get to decide for themselves. Our country fought a pretty big war to try and keep that from happening.

Lots of things would be different if the majority got their way too. I doubt parking tickets would exist for example. Taxes too. There is a reason some decisions are not left up to idiots to decide. This will continue to be the case in all democracies until idiots are made the minority. Which again is unlikely to happen soon even with legalised abortions, I shudder to think how much worse it would get if abortion were banned again.

I love the way you all buy the idea that any of the wars you fought were over noble ideals like freedom. Only WW2 really qualifies there and you guys were pretty late to that party. Some influential people in the US got bored paying taxes to an out of touch madman on a throne thousands of miles away so they fought a war to let them keep way more of the resources and taxes to themselves instead of getting raped by the british empire like much of the rest of the world did. Much like the war in Iraq, its about greed not nobility.

Before you all go completely off on one, I'm not saying I'd have done otherwise in that position, I'd have no issue overthrowing the UK government tomorrow if it shaved 10% off my tax bill. Just stop hiding behind propaganda and using it to justify arguing against laws you don't like.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Lots of things would be different if the majority got their way too. I doubt parking tickets would exist for example. Taxes too. There is a reason some decisions are not left up to idiots to decide. This will continue to be the case in all democracies until idiots are made the minority. Which again is unlikely to happen soon even with legalised abortions, I shudder to think how much worse it would get if abortion were banned again.

I love the way you all buy the idea that any of the wars you fought were over noble ideals like freedom. Only WW2 really qualifies there and you guys were pretty late to that party. Some influential people in the US got bored paying taxes to an out of touch madman on a throne thousands of miles away so they fought a war to let them keep way more of the resources and taxes to themselves instead of getting raped by the british empire like much of the rest of the world did. Much like the war in Iraq, its about greed not nobility.

Before you all go completely off on one, I'm not saying I'd have done otherwise in that position, I'd have no issue overthrowing the UK government tomorrow if it shaved 10% off my tax bill. Just stop hiding behind propaganda and using it to justify arguing against laws you don't like.

Much of your post frames ideals in opposition to self-interest. But what is the self-interest in outlawing abortion? There seems to be nothing to be gained, besides ideals.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For the same reason why other citizens can decide for everyone else that they can't kill their boss via a surgical procedure of removing his brain, when they threaten to fire them.

Its not the same thing. The woman is not killing the baby. The hospital is as a medical procedure. My question was why do pro-lifers get to decide for every one what doctors can and can't do. Some religious nuts wont allow children to receive organs, blood and some medicines because of religious beliefs or treatments. And in some places they charge parents with murder if they refuse treatments. Other places the state removes the kids and call it child abuse and force the treatments on the kids. Its a dam good thing they can't decide for every one that blood transfusions are bad and donated organs are bad.

The abortion debate comes down to religious beliefs nothing more. I have not seen a single post yet that gives a valid reason not to do abortions outside of saying its wrong which the bases for that usually is religious in nature. I really can't find one valid reason to ban abortions out side of the religious reason. Arguments like but the baby feels pain. Well maybe true, but won't be feeling it for very long as it will be dead. And thats something that can be corrected with changes to procedures and the drugs used if it was determined to feel pain.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Much of your post frames ideals in opposition to self-interest. But what is the self-interest in outlawing abortion? There seems to be nothing to be gained, besides ideals.

The self interest for pro-lifers is that they have an opinion about it and they want everyone else to have to follow that opinion whether they agree with it or not. Perhaps you can tell me why that is.

Personally I suspect many pro lifers are just pushing their religious views onto others. That is definitely an example of self interest.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The self interest for pro-lifers is that they have an opinion about it and they want everyone else to have to follow that opinion whether they agree with it or not. Perhaps you can tell me why that is.

Personally I suspect many pro lifers are just pushing their religious views onto others. That is definitely an example of self interest.

Isn't that exactly what "ideals" are?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If this suggestion ever worked on people who live their lives based on the guidelines (mis)interpreted from a 2000+ year old book we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Would that be the writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle or Sun Tzu?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

We don't have to agree on when personhood starts to agree that personhood is the issue. We DO have to agree that personhood is the issue in order to communicate. Intentionally blocking communication is the epitome of analysis paralysis.

"Human life" is simply objectively false, because it's both human and alive before and after your demarcation, as it is at mine.

Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A basic requirement for personhood is individuality, which entails differentiation between the person and its parents. Biology offers a number of stages in the life cycle that have been seen as candidates for personhood:

Fertilization, the fusing of the gametes to form a zygote

Implantation, the start of pregnancy, occurring about a week after fertilization
Segmentation, after twinning is no longer possible.

When the heart begins to beat

Neuromaturation, when the central nervous system of fetus is neurobiologically "mature"[9]
The time of fetal movement, or "quickening"

When the fetus is first capable of feeling pain

When it can be established that the fetus is capable of cognition, or Neonatal perception

Fetal viability, when the pregnancy can be ended with a live birth
birth

By this definition, 3rd trimester is the cutoff.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Would that be the writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle or Sun Tzu?

If there was anyone who followed these writers with the belief in their inerrancy, they'd be idiots too.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Would that be the writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle or Sun Tzu?

Nope.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Lots of things would be different if the majority got their way too. I doubt parking tickets would exist for example.

We typically elect the people in charge of things like parking tickets.

Most understand those kinds of things to be "necessary evils," but if things get out of hand, we have a check on the system (vote someone in who will change what is wrong). I know that there was one location locally where after citizen input, they pulled meters out and made parking free. You can't do that when a judge decides by fiat what they want to do.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its not the same thing. The woman is not killing the baby.

Yes, she is. She's deciding to end it's life.

The hospital is as a medical procedure.

Doctor supervised brain removal is as well. Even when the one having it removed has no ability to consent.

My question was why do pro-lifers get to decide for every one what doctors can and can't do.

See above. Doctor's are not God, and our rights were endowed by God. They have no right to decide who should live or die.

Some religious nuts wont allow children to receive organs, blood and some medicines because of religious beliefs or treatments. And in some places they charge parents with murder if they refuse treatments. Other places the state removes the kids and call it child abuse and force the treatments on the kids. Its a dam good thing they can't decide for every one that blood transfusions are bad and donated organs are bad.

Different situation entirely.

The abortion debate comes down to religious beliefs nothing more.

False. It's already been explained ad nauseam in this thread how you are wrong in this instance.

I have not seen a single post yet that gives a valid reason not to do abortions outside of saying its wrong which the bases for that usually is religious in nature.

It's taking the life another living human for convenience, based on arbitrary standards which are inconsistent with when medical experts would typically deem someone "alive" as far as protections against ending their life goes. We've always had restrictions against that sort of thing.

See...not a single mention of religion there.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Doctor's are not God, and our rights were endowed by God. They have no right to decide who should live or die.

God doesn't exist. Therefore no-one in the US has any rights at all. ?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

False. It's already been explained ad nauseam in this thread how you are wrong in this instance.

Its been argued, not explained and in this thread it hasn't been argued all that much in an effort to avoid turning it into another religious debate like some other current threads.
There is undoubtedly a correlation between between pro-life and religious belief and a strong correlation between the most vocal pro-lifers and strong, fundamentalist religious belief.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

God doesn't exist. Therefore no-one in the US has any rights at all. ?

According to the US Government, you are wrong. Our founding as a nation is based on the assumption that there is a God. However, the official US Governmental opinion on anything "divine" ends there, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Its been argued, not explained and in this thread it hasn't been argued all that much in an effort to avoid turning it into another religious debate like some other current threads.
There is undoubtedly a correlation between between pro-life and religious belief and a strong correlation between the most vocal pro-lifers and strong, fundamentalist religious belief.

The fact remains that one does not have to be particularly religious to have a pro-life stance. There is a rationale above and beyond anything faith based. I just illustrated that. Continuing to oppose this stand, when I for instance have never used a particular religious argument for (save for the mere existence of a God, which is acknowledged in our country's founding) by making anti-religous remarks says more about you than those with the "fundamentalist religious belief" you seem to oppose. I think it's a clear example of irrational bigotry. When I explained the standards based rationale and you continue to harp on religion, it's not because I hold a particular religious belief, but rather because you likely hold a particular irrational fear of faith.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

We don't have to agree on when personhood starts to agree that personhood is the issue. We DO have to agree that personhood is the issue in order to communicate. Intentionally blocking communication is the epitome of analysis paralysis.

I'm not intentionally blocking communication, I'm expounding on the principle of personhood by giving it a singular, discernible point in the pregnancy. Flooding the question with variables such as house plants, skin tissue, Chewbacca, and the robot from star trek does not lend itself to the crux of the debate as none of these are even remotely implied by using the term human life in the abortion choice context. I maintain that you're intentionally blocking communication because you do not accept the premise for reasons other than its alleged lack of linguistic precision.

"Human life" is simply objectively false, because it's both human and alive before and after your demarcation, as it is at mine.

I maintain that my nomenclature is precise enough that you oppose it in principle, not in its alleged, objective falsehood.

[ebuddy]

A view is shaped by religion only when it conflicts with the views of the non-religious. Logic follows that the anti-religious views are shaped no less by it. Wait for the alleged religious view and oppose it a priori.

[Chongo]

There are pro life atheists.
Beliefwatch: Pro-life Atheists - Newsweek

Pro-life atheists insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though they don't believe in God.
Before the election I wrote a piece for NEWSWEEK.com about white evangelicals and abortion. In that piece, I predicted that conservative Christians would not move in large numbers away from the Republican Party because of their fundamental theological and cultural objections to abortion. In response, I received many comments—mostly the usual entrenched rhetoric on both sides. But embedded in the comment boards was a surprising point of view: a tiny fraction of readers objected to the relentless framing of the pro-life arguments in religious terms. The case against abortion could be made without God, they said. Atheists could be pro-life.
Few of them are. Abortion has been a wedge for more than 30 years because its moral volatility has forced Americans to choose sides: religious vs. secular, right vs. left, traditional vs. progressive. Atheists have generally aligned with the left. In a three-year-old Gallup poll, nearly 40 percent of Christians who attended church weekly said they believed that abortion should always be illegal. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of people with no religion (not atheists necessarily) said that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Just as pro-life Christians argue that life is sacred because it's given by God, pro-life atheists insist that human life is intrinsically valuable without God's help. "I think there is nothing beyond this life—but life in and of itself is unique and special," explains Matt Wallace, a UPS package handler in North Carolina who started an online group for pro-life atheists in 1999. "In abortion, a human being ends up getting killed for no other reason than he or she wasn't planned or wanted. One should always err on the side of innocent human life." Wallace is likely one of the very few atheists who voted against Barack Obama, largely because of his abortion views.
Christopher Hitchens, the bombastic and verbally double-jointed atheist intellectual, says the articulation of such points of view represents progress, a reaching for common ground after 30 years of oppositional acrimony. Hitchens, known for his defiant and politically incorrect positions, takes an uncharacteristic middle path on abortion. When asked whether he is "pro-life," he answers in the affirmative. He has repeatedly defended the use of the term "unborn child" against those on the left who say that an aborted fetus is nothing more than a growth, an appendix, a polyp. " 'Unborn child' seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix," he says. "You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." At the same time, he adds, "I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be." Hitchens does not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade. What he wants is for both moral callousness and religion to be excised from the abortion debate and for science to come up with solutions to unwanted pregnancies, like the abortifacient mifepristone (RU-486), "that will make abortion more like a contraceptive procedure than a surgical one. That's the Hitchens plank, and I think it's a defensible one."

One of the most sympathetic and intriguing aspects of the Hitchens plank, as he outlines it, is how little the atheist talks about fetal science (terms like "viability" and "neural development" rarely come up) and how much he cedes to his squeamishness on the matter, a squeamishness he comes by honestly, he says, out of two personal experiences with abortion. Though he vehemently rejects religious arguments, one senses something very much like a rabbinical inner struggle in the development of his position. It's inconsistent and imperfect, for how is a pharmaceutical abortion any different from a surgical one? But as he says, "I'm happy to say some problems don't have solutions." In the abortion wars, such honest reflection is progress indeed.

Matt Wallace's website
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not intentionally blocking communication, I'm expounding on the principle of personhood by giving it a singular, discernible point in the pregnancy. Flooding the question with variables such as house plants, skin tissue, Chewbacca, and the robot from star trek does not lend itself to the crux of the debate as none of these are even remotely implied by using the term human life in the abortion choice context. I maintain that you're intentionally blocking communication because you do not accept the premise for reasons other than its alleged lack of linguistic precision.

Hypothetical examples indicate thoughtfulness. Your refusal to be thoughtful on this topic is noted.

BTW, I notice you left out sperm and eggs, the most practical of my examples. Your refusal to be practical either, is also noted.

I maintain that my nomenclature is precise enough that you oppose it in principle, not in its alleged, objective falsehood.

So you have nothing to defend its truthfulness, all you can do is disparage the motivations of the messenger.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

According to the US Government, you are wrong. Our founding as a nation is based on the assumption that there is a God.

The declaration of independence was NOT founding a nation. Quite the opposite, it was removing us from a nation. It was another decade before our new nation was founded.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its been argued, not explained and in this thread it hasn't been argued all that much in an effort to avoid turning it into another religious debate like some other current threads.
There is undoubtedly a correlation between between pro-life and religious belief and a strong correlation between the most vocal pro-lifers and strong, fundamentalist religious belief.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You and the other atheists are the only ones trying to drag religion into this topic. You've tried many times in this thread, and no one has taken the bait. Just accept failure on this tactic and move on with your life.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The declaration of independence was NOT founding a nation. Quite the opposite, it was removing us from a nation. It was another decade before our new nation was founded.

According to most texts, the United States of America came to being on July 4, 1776. That's the date that the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress of the original 13 colonies and that's the day the federal government uses to celebrate the birth of the nation every year. In fact, at the end of the Declaration, the signers name themselves as the " the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."

It would seem to be tough to be representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA if it didn't exist for another ten years, though I understand that years after it's founding that more details about the nature of how the government would work, and what rights the people had were formalized.

I think you are engaging in a semantic argument. The fact remains that the founders created this new union under the premise that there was a God. There are better and easier arguments to make in these forums than to dispute something that was clearly put into writing, into the document that first announced ourselves as a new nation. But, you can do as you please I suppose.

[Uncle Skeleton]

A premise so integral that it was never mentioned again? Yeah, semantics

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes, she is. She's deciding to end it's life.

Shes deciding to remove a parasitic organism from her body. The doctors are doing the actual killing.

Doctor supervised brain removal is as well. Even when the one having it removed has no ability to consent.

Huh?

See above. Doctor's are not God, and our rights were endowed by God. They have no right to decide who should live or die.

God, HAHAH GOD, HAHAHA! There is no god. God is the anthropomorphic representation of the SUN, a star, a ball of gas. God lovers have NO right to impose there misguided, false and dangerous beliefs on others. That alone should keep it a legal procedure in the medical system if thats the only reason to be against it.

Different situation entirely.

No its the same, the same misguided false beliefs dictating against logic and science. Its exactly the same.

False. It's already been explained ad nauseam in this thread how you are wrong in this instance.

False, not it has not. But since you say it has the burden of proof is on you, post some examples then.

It's taking the life another living human for convenience, based on arbitrary standards which are inconsistent with when medical experts would typically deem someone "alive" as far as protections against ending their life goes. We've always had restrictions against that sort of thing.

Just shows how hypercritical human society is. Governments sanction the murder of human life all the time. So does the medical community. We murder Humans all the time with the death penalty from crimes. And I can promise you that consent is not given by the soon to be dead person. We send troops to murder and kill other troops all over the globe. Doctors get to pull the plug on brain dead people as well who have no hope of recovery. So your argument about taking another living human life as wrong has very little to stand on as we already remove human lives in many other situations already.

See...not a single mention of religion there.

Ahem... "See above. Doctor's are not God, and our rights were endowed by God. They have no right to decide who should live or die."

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

According to the US Government, you are wrong. Our founding as a nation is based on the assumption that there is a God. However, the official US Governmental opinion on anything "divine" ends there, and you are entitled to your opinion.

And the US Government is always right lol, seriously they have less credibility then any other institution on this planet. At one point in our history the planet was thought to be flat. Guess we should still go by that today even though its proved not the case?

The fact remains that one does not have to be particularly religious to have a pro-life stance. There is a rationale above and beyond anything faith based. I just illustrated that. Continuing to oppose this stand, when I for instance have never used a particular religious argument for (save for the mere existence of a God, which is acknowledged in our country's founding) by making anti-religous remarks says more about you than those with the "fundamentalist religious belief" you seem to oppose. I think it's a clear example of irrational bigotry. When I explained the standards based rationale and you continue to harp on religion, it's not because I hold a particular religious belief, but rather because you likely hold a particular irrational fear of faith.

You don't have to preach religion in your arguments, if your opinion for it is religious based its still a religious reason no matter how many non religious ways you try to string it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

A premise so integral that it was never mentioned again? Yeah, semantics

Pretty much none of the Declaration was mentioned again, because there was no regurgitation of the pertinent info required in order to further it's goals. However, lot's of important people, including Abraham Lincoln, believed that the text of the Declaration and the meaning behind it is what we should be using to determine whether or not our Constitution needs tweaking. He thought that the Constitution didn't (and should) do more to protect all men, and strived to correct that. We ended up with an amendment based on that.

It's clear that even years after it's adoption by the representatives of the people of the United States, wise leaders looked back on it as the guiding principles to which the country should adhere.

[Athens]

And you can be anti abortion with out taking the choice away. I hate abortion, think its unnecessary most of the time. But my reason for hating it has more substance then most religious reason. One, many people want a baby and can't have one. Two, its a waste of medical resources when no medical reason for termination exists. Three, its a easy way for lazy woman who don't want to go through a pregnancy. Its only 9 months, serve your time and give up the kid. Im against most abortions because of viable alternatives after birth. Im also pro abortion when the baby is defective, if its a rap victim who had absolutely no choice and when a defect in the mom or complication in the mom makes birthing to risky for her own life.

The problem with most pro-lifers is they fail to accept any valid reasons for abortion because of religious beliefs.
The problem with most pro-choice is they fail to accept that most woman don't need abortions due to viable alternatives after birth.

The best path is middle ground which means not allowing convenience based abortions but allowing medically necessary abortions. But most people are stuck to one of the 2 extremes to realize this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Pretty much none of the Declaration was mentioned again, because there was no regurgitation of the pertinent info required in order to further it's goals.

Those premises that actually were central, were later codified into law. Things like the importance of liberty, democracy/representation, opposition to tyranny, and the other various specific gripes against King George (like quartering troops).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You and the other atheists are the only ones trying to drag religion into this topic. You've tried many times in this thread, and no one has taken the bait. Just accept failure on this tactic and move on with your life.

I dislike your debating tactics therefore you should go away and concede defeat.

You can deny it all you like but religion is a massive influence on peoples opinions on this issue. You can try and argue your point using selective science, suspect opinion polls and various other tools and angles but the fact that we all know religion is the root of your position undermines your credibility from the start. You're just trying to hide a lack of reasoning behind pseudo-reasoning. Another tactic that never convinced anyone who didn't already agree with you.
For the record no-one is arguing that all religious people are pro life or that all atheists are pro choice, no one is claiming any such black and white absolutes so pointing out exceptions is not a valid rebuttal.