Oh boy. At the risk of this thread going wildly off-track:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
How many atheists are there who support baby rights?
Baby rights? Do you mean zygote rights? Blastocyte rights? Embro rights? Fetus rights? After birth rights? (not 'afterbirth' rights, lol). Calling the early development stages a 'baby' does happen conversationally of course, but it's not scientific, and it's usually intended to generate an emotional reaction.
But I'll try and give a broad answer if you mean in development: probably most of them, but they would be relative to the rights of the mother, whose rights should not be in question (but often ignored in abortion debates).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
If you apply logical and moral principles consistently, abortion is a horrific thing. And it's the fault of the callousness and mentalism of atheism, which sees humans that can feel and think but not talk or demonstrate reason, as merely nuisances to be murdered, so that a woman can have her bad decision and/or bad forward planning reversed (in most cases - rape, disease are exceptions and also a fraction of abortion decisions).
I noticed in your previous comment you said "Abortion after X weeks". I suspect this was deliberate. If not, why include a time period at all? Surely because it is recognised that there are important differences that happen over time. I'd also add that adding exceptions for rape, for example, shows an inconsistency. If someone's position was based on the supposed rights of the unborn, how could those rights change if the pregnancy was due to rape? The only way to justify it would be to elevate the rights of the mother, but only under that circumstance (which is of no fault of the unborn).
Not sure why you'd include all those emotion-loaded words if you're trying to give a convincing rational position, especially that the 'nuisance baby' can feel and think. Good luck supporting those assertions for the developmental stage that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed.
What's most baffling, actually I'll say annoying if I'm honest (because I
think you know better) is that atheism (being the answer to a single issue concerning the existence of god(s)) is irrelevant. It might be that the way someone gets to being an atheist is also how they get to being pro-life, but it almost certainly isn't being atheist that gets them there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you are at least a non-believer (I put it that way in case you take the philosophical atheist definition, as I do, that an atheist takes the 'believe not' over the 'not believe' stance). It sounds as if you think there is a moral chasm between 'not believing' and 'believing not', so rather than sending this thread down the abortion debate rabbit hole, perhaps you could explain that particular part.