And I'm honestly baffled by your declaration that a fetus is a baby.
Show me when "the divine" has entered "the radio" as jamenta put it.
Or tell me that you've never squished a bug. If you have, your pantheist beliefs are inconsistent.
Heinlein showed us that "Thou art God", but he had no problem destroying the evil manifestations of what that meant. (in fact, he was a fervent believer in the second amendment)
Certainly you don't believe all of creation is "Good".
I view it much more simply. I am just one of God's experiments to discover what is "good" and what is "bad". God hasn't figured it out.
When (s)he does will he experience eternal light or eternal dark? How will any experience happen without the contrast between the two?
Like the second law of Thermodynamics that says entropy will rule, when everything breaks down to the same thing how is that different from one thing? how is it different from nothing?
At one time the US congress believed that a fetus regardless of gestation age can be a victim of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
If they are only clumps of cells how can they be a victim of violence as a member of the species Homo sapiens ?
Where does it say that acknowledging the presence of consciousness in other entities means you can't kill them? That's obviously absurd. All life needs to eat, and all life, one way or the other, feeds on death. You don't get to wash your hands clean by pretending that it's fine because the thing you killed doesn't have consciousness; equivalently, killing something doesn't (necessarily) mean your hands are dirty.
The consciousness argument is neither an argument for nor against the practice, any more than it is an argument for or against hunting or warfare. Although infanticide enthusiasts do seem to be rather l eager to imagine the practice is acceptable because babies don't have consciousness.
Context matters. If you kill a man who is attempting to kill you, you've done nothing wrong. If you kill a man because you want his watch, you're a murderer.
Similarly with abortion. If the argument is "a baby would cramp my style", which it seems to be in the overwhelming majority of cases - it's murder.
And I'm honestly baffled by your declaration that a fetus is a baby.
Show me when "the divine" has entered "the radio" as jamenta put it.
Or tell me that you've never squished a bug. If you have, your pantheist beliefs are inconsistent.
Heinlein showed us that "Thou art God", but he had no problem destroying the evil manifestations of what that meant. (in fact, he was a fervent believer in the second amendment)
Certainly you don't believe all of creation is "Good".
I view it much more simply. I am just one of God's experiments to discover what is "good" and what is "bad". God hasn't figured it out.
When (s)he does will he experience eternal light or eternal dark? How will any experience happen without the contrast between the two?
Like the second law of Thermodynamics that says entropy will rule, when everything breaks down to the same thing how is that different from one thing? how is it different from nothing?
At one time the US congress believed that a fetus regardless of gestation age can be a victim of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
If they are only clumps of cells how can they be a victim of violence as a member of the species Homo sapiens ?
Where does it say that acknowledging the presence of consciousness in other entities means you can't kill them? That's obviously absurd. All life needs to eat, and all life, one way or the other, feeds on death. You don't get to wash your hands clean by pretending that it's fine because the thing you killed doesn't have consciousness; equivalently, killing something doesn't (necessarily) mean your hands are dirty.
Thanks, an elegant support in favor of abortion.
Making me even more question your statement about "killing babies".
The consciousness argument is neither an argument for nor against the practice, any more than it is an argument for or against hunting or warfare. Although infanticide enthusiasts do seem to be rather l eager to imagine the practice is acceptable because babies don't have consciousness.
Context matters. If you kill a man who is attempting to kill you, you've done nothing wrong. If you kill a man because you want his watch, you're a murderer.
Similarly with abortion. If the argument is "a baby would cramp my style", which it seems to be in the overwhelming majority of cases - it's murder.