besides it is not like having an abortion prevents people from having kids in the future. Much better to have 2 kids in a healthy environment where parents are able to provide education and food than 7 kids who are doomed to poverty.

I agree its ridiculous. But its hardly a laughing matter. Are you saying that its not true? Did you look at the links? I doubt it, so go ahead and ignore the truth.

This doesn't really answer the question.

An important good is reducing suffering but I don't think it is always the supreme good.

Over population often times affects the world negatively. But I think that this is a temporary condition so I bear with things and emphasize educating the individual and fostering spiritual growth so they can make intelligent enlightened decisions.

I thought you were asking why evangelicals think life starts at conception?

Well, I do think that reduced suffering and improved living standards are the most important.

Education together with health are called human capital. Investing in human capital ultimately improves everything.

No, I was asking why a higher than average proportion of evangelicals are pro-life. Pointing out that evangelicals believe that human life has value isn't an adequate explanation since almost everyone believes that.

I think evangelicals have a heightened awareness that everyone is in God's hands and that he steers the Earth and so they want people to entrust all serious life and death issues to him even if it entails a hardship.

Evangelicals...lol Ted Haggard. It's like if it were a popular fact that Hitler had a close jewish relative when the Third Reaich introduced David's star.

By having a rudimentary (primary school) level understanding of human biology.

please.

explain to me then what happens after the process has already begun and is well under way that turns the fetus from a nonhuman into a human? or nonlife into life?

I would say that it is prima facia true that life begins at conception. It is the other side that had the burden of proof here. as to why nonevengelicals choose a different starting point, I would say it is a matter of convenience. if god does not exist then life doesnt have an inherent value. so if it is convenient to start life at a different point then you can. people who believe in the god of the bible dont have that convenience. thats the difference.

the bible does not have to be more clear because it is already clear enough.

I did not look at the links, it didn't seem worth it. To imply that planned parenthood has a racist agenda and is going out of its way to kill black babies is laughable. It's really just ridiculous and not worth considering.

And I don't believe Sanger would say what you quoted, either.

FYP

Yeah sorry, this just isn't true. Black birth rates are still positive and the black population is growing. It's WHITE birth rates that are in serious decline, thanks to abortion. Look at population projections from the census bureau, not youtube videos.

If we are to use your logic, the "genocide" you claim is happening to WHITES, not blacks, latinos, or Asians. Shed a tear for the oppressed white race being genocided on unprecedented scales.

And lol that this is "systematic destruction of an ethnic group". People get abortions of their own free will most of the time. Thus blacks are genociding blacks, whites are genociding whites, and latinos/asians aren't genociding anyone. Honestly, the ridiculous use of the word "genocide" as relates to abortion just impugns the objectivity of the person using and does nothing to further the debate.

See I don’t understand how you can say this at all, it seems far more consistent with my position rather than yours. If you think there’s this overriding ‘quality which encompasses all the others’ and that’s what determines who we should favour...Aren’t you conceding that you value those you treat preferentially more (with respect to this ‘all encompassing’ quality) than those you discriminate against? It seems to me you’ve just restated my position. That ultimately, we all value some people more than others. I think this ‘all-encompassing’ quality is the quality which matters. You just suddenly invent this ‘humanity’ quality which you arbitrarily decide who is violating, separate from their actions (which are determined by this ‘all-encompassing’ quality).
I don’t think it ‘diminishes my humanity’ – I think it indicates she values her dog over me (which she obviously does).
Sure – the slaver can insist he really values the humanity of his product. In fact, more than you do since while you're out buying XBoxes he’s willing to invest money in them and keep them alive for a little while until they become someone else’s property. He’s not dismissing their humanity you see, he’s just making a decision about who’s happiness he’d rather improve – his own, his customers and the people who will derive benefit from the slave’s output over the slaves.
Because? Why is declaring an Indian a savage an ‘attack on humanity’ but enforcing an economic system where kids in South-East Asia work for peanuts making us spiffy shoes isn’t?

Even accepting the existence of such "attacks on humanity" – my query to you is how you are precluding some instances where our actions dehumanise others from your condemnation?

Yeah, I think so – wouldn’t you? It seems to me that you and I pretty much do do this already whether we like to think about it or not. We both have extremely high standards of living which we enjoy at the cost of keeping many random third world people from having a vastly improved life (even if it still wouldn’t be close to our current extravagant existence). Our long lives is almost certainly resulting in others having shorter lives.

Not so fast – my whole point is I’m not sure what ‘valuing someone’s humanity’ means when you use the term (especially given it seems quite arbitrary when inflicting harm is directed against their humanity and when it isn’t). I will agree that it’s immoral and that if you did enslave a village you would be valuing those villagers less than those people you didn’t enslave.

Probably. I’m not sure since you just keep bringing up these concepts of:

‘assault on humanity’
‘valuing their humanity the same' (even whilst treating them worse)
‘diminishing humanity’

And I still don’t know what you mean or how you are defining it. From my perspective you seem to be just labelling those treatments you don’t approve of as an ‘attack on humanity’ and those injustices you find acceptable to be ‘valuing some other quality whilst preserving respect for the victim’s humanity’.

If you can provide me with some kind of definition of assault on humanity then I guess the burden of proof will rest with me if I wish to claim something fits the definition. At this stage you seem to be setting up unhittable targets – your terminology shifts, your analogies keep changing, it sometimes matters if it’s direct action and sometimes doesn’t. I’m really very confused – see my final post at the end of these for my overall opinion of your position, but it basically seems to me to be a confusion of some kind of rights-based morality with a value-based one.

Not really. I honestly don’t know what your definition of ‘attacking their humanity’ is – I’m not just being obtuse. (If I kidnap a third world baby illegally and bring them to Australia to enjoy a western lifestyle – have I ‘attacked their humanity’?)

You didn’t direct this to me, but I presume I’m one of ‘you guys’ and I thought I’d clarify that I don’t think this. I think ‘valuing every human beings humanity equally’ is either meaningless or purely subjective and worthless as a mechanism for 'imposing' responsibilities, though it might entail you assuming them. I don't think it entails anything really, I certainly don't think it imposes anything on you.

Agreed.

And as someone who's been involved in two abortions (two different gf's got preggo and each decided to have an abortion) I can attest to the mental anguish that comes with it, not only for the female who makes the difficult choice to have it done, but for the man who impregnated her as well.

The days after that were very tough on me, I broke down and cried many times. Even to this day, when I'm hanging out with my nieces and nephews I can't help but think about what my child(ren) would be like and look like, etc. ~9 years later I can still get choked up in those situations if I let myself dwell on it.

I mentioned it above, Stu Pidasso and I think this is where I think your position is confused. It seems to me that you began by identifying how we treat people as a question of valuation – that if we behaved in certain ways we were valuing one person’s humanity lower than another’s. However, there are certain ways you deem to be based on a valuation of some other quality about the person (not their humanity which you maintain can be equally regarded, even whilst they are being discriminated against).

In my mind, valuation is solely about the decisions we make with respect to allocation of resources. Those things we value more will receive more resources (interpreted in the broadest way to include consideration, fond thoughts, good wishes and so forth) and those we value less will receive less. The distinction you’re trying to make between valuing someone’s happiness rather than valuing someone’s humanity seems quite arbitrary to me – the only way it makes sense to me is if you’re speaking to motivation (rather than action) and then you either don’t get to lump pro-choicers in with slavers or you are forced to lump Nike-buying westerners in with them too.

I think your actual position is more nuanced – I think there are two issues you are merging. One is the concept of valuation (which I maintain is pretty much as outlined above – you value some things over others and the key to seeing which is which is to look at your resource allocation). The other is the concept of rights. I essentially agree with you that there are some acts which we shouldn’t do to anyone and some which we can do to some but not others – I don’t think this is about relative values though, I think it’s because there are some things everyone is entitled to and, beyond that, we are all free to do as we will. Provided we accord each individual a certain, base level of respect and consideration we can divide our ‘additional boons’ as we see fit.

On this framework, I think your view makes sense. You proceed from a position that a fetus is a person and conclude that the pro-choicers are violating the inalienable rights of that person. The Nike-buyer is not violating anyone’s rights (although the issue of exactly where that minimum level is arguable). The slaver is violating the right to freedom of their slaves. The difference in the various treatments is nothing to do with valuation (since I don’t accept you have any method other than by fiat to determine who is ‘(de)valuing humanity’ when taking a certain action and who is ‘(de)valuing some other acceptable quality’).

My essential question boils down to (if you insist that it’s all about valuing different qualities) – how do you tell what quality was being valued when someone took a particular action?

A subsidiary question we haven’t yet got to, but which you indicated might be relevant, is – why does refraining from action vs directly acting have any bearing on the issue of how you are ascribing value to the person you are acting on?

EDIT: Also, in case it gets lost in the above. A third question, repeated:

If I kidnap a third world baby illegally and bring them to Australia to enjoy a western lifestyle – have I ‘attacked their humanity’?

It grows, LOLs; but seriously it does grow.

There is no non-life to life change or transition, a sperm cell is alive, but so is a plant cell. We place different values on each of them in the same way we value a walking talking human being much more than a foetus.

Pro-lifers:

A man ejaculates inside a woman.

The sperm are right next to the egg, and within the next ten seconds one of those sperm will find its way inside the egg.

You would have no problem with someone interrupting the process at that point, just mere seconds before the egg and sperm meet?

Is this correct?

Here you seem to be asserting a view that non-evangelicals are more likely to accept moral views on the basis of convenience than evangelicals. You claim this is because if god doesn't exist then life doesn't have an inherent value. However, as I've pointed out three times now, almost all non-evangelicals believe that life has value. So the belief that it doesn't can't have any causal impact on their moral views. So this seems like an inadequate explanation.

Edit: Also, just to make things clear, do you agree with me that the debate over the morality of abortion can't be settled by appeal to the Bible? That is, your defense here relies on a philosophical principle about who has the burden of proof, not a Biblical passage.

Can you first explain at which point the room goes from being freezing to boiling when I get home and turn on the heater? Just so I know what this kind of answer should look like.