Big Blue Wave's Comments
Educate yourself.
Everyone thinks the "pro-life" and Christian position is based on metaphysical presuppositions of the ancient world. IT IS NOT!
The "pro-life" position is based on science as expressed in most major biological and medical textbooks used to teach aspiring doctors in medical schools. These textbooks unequivocally and with consensus declare that an individual human existence begins at conception.
I don't know about other Christians, but with Catholicism the only faith involved is protection of human life whatever that may be (which just so happens to coincide with modern secular, human rights thinking). It just so happens that in modern times, science says its conception.
"Everyone thinks the "pro-life" and Christian position is based on metaphysical presuppositions of the ancient world. "
I would say,based on debates that I've held, is that people think the pro-life position is based solely on the Bible. And of course it's not.
I do think that the pro-life view of the unborn child is based on ancient metaphysical presuppositions. It's just that as you pointed out with the advent of modern embryology, when you apply those beliefs to the unborn child, you derive the belief that human life is valuable from conception.
"I don't know about other Christians, but with Catholicism the only faith involved is protection of human life whatever that may be (which just so happens to coincide with modern secular, human rights thinking)."
I believe that other conservative Christians are on the same page as Catholicism when it comes to fetal rights. And yes, Christianity is the only faith that has a human rights model on the abortion question. All major religions oppose abortion to one degree or another. But Christianity is the only religion that upholds fetal rights.
"I do think that the pro-life view of the unborn child is based on ancient metaphysical presuppositions."
I think this is the misunderstanding of most followers on either side. In my mind, it is what prevents the "pro-life" position from overwhelmingly winning this argument.
While certainly, religious convictions are enough for most people, they are not the basis of the "pro-life" movement that aims to change law. Arguments must be based on legally solid grounds.
Metaphysical presuppositions mean arguments regarding the soul/psyche, which are not provable and hence have no standing in legal arguments.
Like I said, the "pro-life" position is based on science. Have you ever wondered why 71% of all abortions (in the US anyway) are performed by abortion-dedicated clinics as opposed to hospitals and other centers of medical aid/treatment? The reason is that mainstream science looks down upon the practice of abortion.
Science doesn't care about the soul/psyche. All that science cares for is the fact that that clump of cells at conception will never turn into anything other than another individual human existence different from the mother, father, etc. Whether there is a soul/psyche doesn't matter to science.
To put it simply... Life is to be protected and Science says Life begins at conception.
Anyone who thinks the idea that Life should be protected is a strictly metaphysical/religious idea needs to read this statement:
--which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ...--Thomas Hobbes, talking about life without society and authority and hence the purpose of society and government. The basis of most western political philosophy. Metaphysical indeed?
"Metaphysical presuppositions mean arguments regarding the soul/psyche, which are not provable and hence have no standing in legal arguments."
I don't think this has anything to do with the soul.
It has to do with the belief that human beings are valuable.
That's a metaphysical position.
"Like I said, the "pro-life" position is based on science. "
Not solely. There has to be a value component, which metaphysics provides.
"Anyone who thinks the idea that Life should be protected is a strictly metaphysical/religious idea needs to read this statement:"
That's still a philosophical position. Maybe not a metaphysical one. But it's not science as we know it today.
"Have you ever wondered why 71% of all abortions (in the US anyway) are performed by abortion-dedicated clinics as opposed to hospitals and other centers of medical aid/treatment? The reason is that mainstream science looks down upon the practice of abortion."
What a joke! Come on - this "science" guy you're talking about must have some serious power! To be able to stop all those hospitals from performing abortions - wow!
"What a joke! Come on - this "science" guy you're talking about must have some serious power! To be able to stop all those hospitals from performing abortions - wow!"
Yes. In the US, 1.5 million abortions are done every year... imagine how much more there would be if hospitals actually did more of them.
"imagine how much more there would be if hospitals actually did more of them."
That's not the point (whether I believe it or not)! You claim that it's "science" that keeps hospitals from performing abortions - to which I say BS!
"mainstream science" doesn't take moral positions - it deals with science, not morals.
It isn't science that keeps hospitals from doing abortions, it's domestic terrorism.
Most doctors would rather not have to wear bulletproof vests to work.
joe agnost,
The "pro-life" position is not about morals. Perhaps it is different in Canada, but in the United States... the right to life is explicitly stated as "inalienable" in the Declaration of Independence. It cannot be taken away. In fact, taking this right away becomes a legitimate reason for revolution!
In many other countries, this right is explicitly stated as well. Take the Philippines, where the constitution defends the right to life from conception.
Legally speaking, whether you believe in the morality of it or not, human life is supposed to be protected in the United States. AND Science defines life as beginning at conception. That is where I am coming from. That is not a metaphysical argument... that is a legal argument.
Right to Life is not a moral value. It is at the very top of the "rights system hierarchy" which forms the foundations of the country's laws.
Now you can argue the legal foundation is based on metaphysical presuppositions... but that doesn't remove the legal foundation from being there. And in the end, legality is what we are talking about; not metaphysics.
"Perhaps it is different in Canada, but in the United States... the right to life is explicitly stated as 'inalienable' in the Declaration of Independence."
But that pertains to citizens... a fetus is NOT a citizen.
"AND Science defines life as beginning at conception."
Really? Where did "science" do that??
Commenting by HaloScan
