Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

Yes, in the context of another person deciding whether or not it should live. Yes, and iirc, the Catholic Church has changed its position on the situation more than once. Souls aren't human. But yes, not all humans are equivalent.

And the same could be said of any human benefiting from or denied medical attention and the benefits of research. Well bearing in mind the biological impossibility of a "moment" of conception what is their current stance? I am genuinely intrigued to know. So where do unborn souls stand in the soul pecking order?

I suppose.The rule is: Thou shall not kill. Here's how I found it phrased:

quote:

---

The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. source

---

Not much to work against In Message 112, Oni provided this link that might help:The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being BaptisedI don't have time to weed through it right now.

Is the denial of medical attention and research into causes of death morally wrong under this banner? Or are all "natural" deaths, avoidable or otherwise, just God's will? Yeah vague when it comes to requiring consistency of thought but very specific when it comes to imposing morality on others.Why am I not surprised?

Personally, I see NOT throwing someone a lifesaver and letting them drown as immoral. Although, not as bad as holding their head underwater.I think action is more immoral than inaction.And of course not all natural deaths are unavoidable. Take heart bypass surgery. But would denying someone the surgery be immoral? I dunno. It depends on the situation.But in the context of this debate, I don't think that pro-lifers deny medical attention and research towards conseptuses so I don't agree with where I think your going with this. 'cause you know how religions work

OK. I get that.But my entire issue is with those who start ranting about aborted conceptuses being "babies" or "souls" whilst really and truthfully not giving one iota of a shit to biologically equivalent "humans" that are not the subject of actual abortions.It is hypocrisy gone mad.

They don't care because they are not being killed. That's why I don't think its hypocritical.Although you are right that some of them are hypocritical.

But on what basis do they define humanity such that it is OK to let it die but immoral to "kill" it?

Actually CS the original Hebrew text said, "Thou shalt not commit murder".Catholics changed it to "kill". Idk why though. But It would seem to me that murder and kill are two different things.Just look at the justice system, the state "kills" conivicted "murderers".Now, is terminating a pregnancy considered murder?- Oni

This strikes me more as "you said so" than "god said so" (the "you" here is collective, not CS or anyone else in particular) - we keep hearing how god is omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent, yet it seems he is unable to stop a condom from not tearing, a doctor from performing an abortion or, indeed, nature itself aborting (something like) 4 out of every 5 fetuses.The righteous (or innocent) but unbaptized go to pergatory - if something like 100 billion humans have ever lived, wouldn't that put purgatory as holding something like 500 billion souls?who the hell creates THAT kind of universe? four legs good, two legs baaad - and all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?I really, really don't like that sentence and can't find much to redeem it if it is meant as a judgement call rather than a statement of "how the world works".

Oh my ...I don't think I need to add a detailed explanation of why you're so wrong because so many people have already done so. This is just painful.

Perhaps we have discovered a new type of pseudoscience. Pregnancy Test Denialism. The belief that knowledge of pregnancy cannot be known until a lady's tummy gets lumpy.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Can I just say that I wholly agree with that sentiment. The reason I have taken the path I have in this thread is because Hyro was advocating his own position under false assumptions about the sanctity of the conceptus and I felt compelled to point out the flaws in those assumptions.But the point you have made above is far more relevant to the actual issue.

Right, and it is hard not to take that issue head on but really when you do you are sort of agreeing to fight the battle on their terms. Its not about rights missing for a fetus its about trying to take away rights from a woman, someone who we KNOW for sure is a person and has rights.Its exactly the same reason why you find many people who actually have abortions expressing pro-life sentiments. "It is murder except when I do it because my situation is different and I deserve the choice."

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Actually, I don't - or at least I agree with Jazzns' reasons, but I think your argument is far more fundemental. It is actually reasoning from baseline morality, by examining typical human social behaviour and thought. "Privacy" and "body sovereignty" are much higher-level concepts, with sufficient caveats that would ensure contiued argument with anti-abortionists.