An embryo is an individual being of the human species. When they taught you about the lifecycle of a human being in medical school I bet there was a an image of an embryo in the chart. Now you can say that an embryo is not a human being but I don't see that as being much different then the Nazis saying the jews were not human beings.

This does read like an evil fantasy, I like it.

Because I see them both as human beings and I believe it is wrong to say some human beings have more value than others.

Why should all human beings have equal value? How could an embryo that has a far less advanced nervous system than a fruit fly possibly have equal value to a person with experiences, feelings and dreams? How could the embryo independently of it's parents preferences even have equal value even to a fruit fly? The preferences of the women are working on a completely different level of magnitude than anything the embryo/fetus is capable of feeling or caring about. Why are human beings more valuable than fruit flies if we go by this value system of yours?

I don’t think this sort of arbitrary value thinking is a sign of well formed system of morality.

there are definite biological differences.

So would you ever kill someone in self defense if that was the only option? Either you or him?

So?

Like i said earlier it is this ideology which has lead to the most evil autrocities in history.

Now perhaps you can make an argument that this ideology has done much more good than evil. If you can then perhaps I can be convinced to embrace it. Until then I will reject it and consequently things like abortion and capital punishment that are natural consequences of it.

what do you mean so? do you value life of a cow as much as a human?

What do you mean by "all" abortion? Do you think that there is a position that is defensible that does not include all abortion?

Weight their preferences.

I don't think that the utilitarian/consequentialist view I am advocating has caused any attrocities or even been embraced by more than a handfull of people.

Wait, pro choice/pro life has never been discussed here?

Essentially I already answered this when I talked about an ectopic pregnancy.

I want you to tell me straight up. WOULD YOU KILL SOMEONE in SELF DEFENSE if that was the only option?

Al Queda thinks killing americans makes the world a better place.

Yes, rape, incest, risk for the mother's health, the mother caring deadly diseases onto her baby, I would include inability to provide the minimum for your child and not being able to give it up for adoption/in a orphanage.

If a man comes at me with a knife I shoot him in the face. Once he is no longer a threat I try to save his life.

So you do value your life more then his... this is just contradictory to what you said before "I believe it is wrong to say some human beings have more value than others."

By having abortions legal, we're helping Al Queda.


How many guns do you have?

one working toy bb gun and one non working toy bb gun.

Nothing special is meant by "all." Feel free to defend any position on abortion from the Biblical text. Here's my issue: I understand why Catholics are more pro-life than the other people. But why are evangelical Christians who only accept the Bible as authoritative? As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't say much about abortion. So why are the moral arguments against abortion so much more convincing to evangelicals?

One sort of unfriendly explanation is that it is because evangelicals are more focused on maintaining a patriarchal authority structure that is threatened by the social ramifications of legal abortion. Or, that evangelicals tend to be anti-sex in general, and so want those who engage in sexual immorality to suffer the consequences. Another, more friendly one, is that evangelicals tend to emphasize the value of family more than average and abortion weakens families.

Of course, you might disagree with my premise that the Bible doesn't say much about abortion. So convince me.

Well no, but if she had the abortion knowing that she would not be able to feed herself and her one year old child, then we wouldnt have that problem, now would we?

Seems like you are entirely in defense of pro-choice with this statement.

So? Their definition of what constitutes as better has pretty much zero to do with any sort of rational basis on the experiences of living beings.

If I do nothing he kills me and instead of 2 humans beings there is only one.

Now If I shoot him and then attempt to save his life, sometimes I will save his life so on average there will be more than 1 human being left.

Self defense has nothing to do with me valuing my life more than his but rather me attempting to maximize the number of humans beings who survive the situation.