Religion is not a uniter, it is a divider.

Are you confused about the every fiber of my being part? Unequivocally, this is who I am and it is unwavering. Your God would have to tear me to pieces to remove it from me, and I'd gladly submit to it as an example to their awful design.

 

Are they not 99.3% genetically alike? If his argument is that "every human being on this Earth is 99.3% genetically identical" (as stated in the OP) and that, "Once you become a humanist, and put the human race above all others," Then it follows from his own reasoning that he should be anti-abortion.

Sure--it's not specifically about the "religion" he wanted to attack, but it is addressing his supposed "humanist" views.

 

No--I just think the part I quoted was funny.

 

I'm sure you believe that. Okay.

If you sincerely mean that, you can open yourself to that possibility.

It may require vulnerability. You can choose to be vulnerable or not. Time will tell--and as i said, God knows.

 

Felicity, I honestly see no logical connection between pointing out 99.3% genetical identity and banning a woman's right to her own body.

Nor do I see any logical connection between putting "the human race above all others" and banning a woman's right to her own body. In this case quite the contrary, in fact, since humanism revolves around human concerns, to which the integrity of individual rights is central.

Where and what are these connections that you speak of?

By the way, I'm sure Rstones199 is anti-abortion, regardless if he's for or against a woman's right to choose. I know I am and I'm staunchly in favor of protecting a woman's right to her own body (I'm also pro-life since the opposite of that would be anti-life, which I certainly am not - but that's also for another discussion, entirely).

 

It depends on the religion. I can imagine any set of beliefs can be a uniter. assuming they encompass all (or at least most) and do not exclude individuals or threaten punishment for differing beliefs.

A religion that says you must believe in X or suffer for all eternity is not a unifier, but a divider. Love does not come from fear of punishment.

 

His argument is based on genetics. Look at the genetics of an embryo and the genetics of an adult and tell me which is which.

Logical consistency in an argument matters. The legality of procuring abortion is another matter not being addressed here. I mentioned nothing of "a woman's right."

 

What does looking at genetics have to do with recognizing rights? Is there a rights gene? One that mutates whenever a right is granted, perhaps? I may be missing out on something but I simply don't get it.

 

an embryo is a human. Rstones said, "Once you become a humanist, [you] put the human race above all others," --embryos are members of the human race. To kill them because you decide they shouldn't live for whatever reason is CONTRARY to the logic he presented in the OP.

 

Not to argue, I am not committed to either side of the abortion issue... I actually tend to lean a bit more pro-life than pro-choice. I do so simply because I do believe you can restrict and regulate abortion, while still serving a greater good (granting exceptions for legitimate reasons) and avoid "personal freedom" anarchy. Which seems to be a good (and somewhat arbitrary line given my limited understanding of the issue) middle ground. Such regulations and restrictions would increase with the progress of development given that a being with a more developed nervous system should be granted more rights than a being with a lesser developed nervous system.... *anyway*....

I do believe that humanism can be compatible with some pro-life argument, assuming they do recognize a fetus (depending on development of course) as possessing X rights at a particular point in time.

 

Humanism just has so many variants (secular and religious humanism for example) that is is difficult to pin X attribute to humanism if it does not offer a clear and concise benefit to human beings. Abortion would be one of those issues that do not have a clear cut place in humanist beliefs.

 

Point taken, but still the problem remains with the consistency of the reasoning in the OP and subsequent posts. If the argument is a matter of "rights" and not "genetics" then basically his point crumbles because determining "rights" for some and no rights for some others is.....DIVISIVE.

 

oh. ouch. good one Felicity.

 

It's not religion that is THE divider. There are other dividers that are far more obvious. race, country of origin, ancestry, political ideology.

 

I don't get your point, Felicity. Call me thick but I don't.

Death is part of being human as well as being born. There is nothing about humanism that says life must be preserved for all costs. Modern humanism in fact is about humans ensuring the best life for humans, a large part of which is to secure rights and protect the integrity thereof. Creating conflicting rights such as granting a fetus rights when living inside a mother with her full set of rights is a certain way to destroy that integrity, meaning that rights become useless, and meaning a degradation of human life, - which is contrary to the aim of the humanist.

 

You won't find consistency though on the issue of abortion. Both sides contradict themselves.
Rabidly pro-life people contradict themselves in placing an lesser developed being over that of the mother.
Rabidly pro-choice people contradict themselves in placing the mother's rights above the lesser developed being.

The only way to draw up some consistency is to take a middle position, however even then, there are so many arbitrary mile markers and time frames that even then there are some contradictions. Holding a position that at least respects the rights of both parties by some degree seems to be the most reasonable.

 

Sharp post here!

We live in a world abundant with discarded lives and minds, and unwanted children.... Why we would promote unwanted pregnancies goes against all sense and sensibility which would only exacerbate the problem.....
Who would ever begin to think that abortion is a mindful approach towards responsible birth control? The procedure is highly invasive and not in the least bit friendly.... It's terrible in fact!
This is a social situation where awareness should be at the fore front; a part of the awareness in it's current epidemic is that no child deserves to be brought into a world where they are unwanted!
Knowledge is the cure, but where we currently stand, this is the only 'moral' way of addressing this problem.
Nobody believes that it is ideal!

 

True, it's not religion but the religious.

 

A procured abortion is the intentional killing of another human--it's not merely "death."

You keep inserting "rights" trumping some other rights which is not part of what the OP or subsequent posts addressed. You are the one going off topic here by inserting that caveat. The issue is what is "divisive" and the claim was that humanism was not (by inference to its superiority over religion). What you just posted above is ALL ABOUT divvying up "rights." How is that not ENTIRELY DIVISIVE?

 

I agree with that.

That's why logical consistency matters so much.

 

I see Felicity has succesfully turned the thread into an abortion debate.

The Red Herring at work

 

^^^ Bingo!

 

A new born child is a lesser developed being than an 8 year old boy. An 8 year old boy is a lesser developed being than a teenager. A teenager is a lesser developed being than a 30 year old adult.

Pro-lifers don't put more value on the child than the mother. They simply put more value on the right to life than to the mother's right to choice. The right to life of the mother is on par with the child's. They share a common human nature.

 

It's about your logical consistency, actually--not abortion.

 

Comparing the two (genetics and religion) is like comparing apples to oranges.