I expect pro abortion protests will quickly die out.

[rogue06]

That has to be the scariest response I've ever seen posted on TWEB.

He is quiet open with his support for infanticide -- allowing a baby to be "aborted" weeks if not months after they have been born and similar such repugnant beliefs -- all while proclaiming that he occupies the moral high ground.

[Ronson]

Not the first time Starlight has shown himself to be a moral monster.

It actually fits with the philosophy of the Left. They value collectivism over individualism, contributions to the whole, so an individual human infant has little worth because it doesn't (and can't) contribute. They find more value in a farm animal.

And it's why the Left will always be traitorous when acting on that philosophy. If someone views the world as the ultimate collective, then they place less value on their specific country. They would likely sacrifice their countrymen for the sake of some greater collective (in their minds) outside their borders. It is scary to find greater value in a pig or a dog than a human infant, and it is traitorous to the human race if they acted on it.

[Gondwanaland]

I don't doubt that you as an atheist find this to be a dilemma since in a purely naturalistic universe, no one lifeform is inherently more valuable than another. However, theists in general and Christians in particular have quite a different view, for what I assume are obvious reasons.

It's not about lifeforms being as valuable as one another. It's about valuing the clear sentience of other beings and not wanting to cause harm and suffering to another being that CLEARLY can understand and feel suffering and harm. That doesn't mean I value, say, gorillas the precise same as humans, for example. It does mean I oppose causing them harm deliberately unless placed in a situation where self defense is required.

As to Christians holding a different view, all I see is Christians destroying and mistreating the Creation their God told them to care for.

[Mountain Man]

It's not about lifeforms being as valuable as one another. It's about valuing the clear sentience of other beings and not wanting to cause harm and suffering to another being that CLEARLY can understand and feel suffering and harm. That doesn't mean I value, say, gorillas the precise same as humans, for example. It does mean I oppose causing them harm deliberately unless placed in a situation where self defense is required.

I think most people are opposed to cruelty to animals, though some people take that to an extreme and declare that raising animals for food is cruel in and of itself.

[Gondwanaland]

I think most people are opposed to cruelty to animals,

They say that, yet most of society's actions and choices tell a different story. You don't get much more cruel than caging a sentient being and ripping its babies away so you can steal their milk, or caging a sentient being in order to rapidly fatten it up and then shoot a bolt through its skull or electrocute it just so you can eat a bit of its flesh.

though some people take that to an extreme and declare that raising animals for food is cruel in and of itself.

Because it is.

In any case, we seem to be veering off topic from the short aside I made to Sparko.

[rogue06]

As to Christians holding a different view, all I see is Christians destroying and mistreating the Creation their God told them to care for.

And yet Jesus fed people fish



ETA: Sorry, my bad. Don't wish to continue the derail.

[Roy]

Next time please compare the laws in Florida with laws in Florida rather than picking a state on the opposite side of the continent something like 2200 miles apart. What you did was no different than citing a law in Greece when someone was talking about the laws in Ireland.

Ok, I'll cite this Florida law that states harming or killing an unborn child carries the same penalty as harming or killing the mother.

But this really should be seer's burden to provide details of sentences for stealing or harming some-one else's unborn children.

[seer]

But this really should be seer's burden to provide details of sentences for stealing or harming some-one else's unborn children.

What does that have to do with turtles eggs? Or the fact that that certain animals have more protection under the law than human beings?

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...76#post1376276

[Roy]

How about this, the state allows you to kill an unborn human being but you could go to prison for destroying or taking Eagle eggs...Happy now?

Perfectly happy. You've shown how willing you are to engage in dishonesty even after the dishonesty has been pointed out to you.

Florida law considers killing an unborn human being to be murder. There are some exceptions, but Florida also doesn't imprison eagles for destroying their own eggs.

[seer]

Florida law considers killing an unborn human being to be murder. There are some exceptions, but Florida also doesn't imprison eagles for destroying their own eggs.

Why is the one doing the killing relevant? Does it change the nature of the thing being killed? A woman can kill her own unborn child - no big deal. But if she destroys eagle eggs she could go to jail. The eagle eggs therefore have more protection under the law.

[Roy]

Why is the one doing the killing relevant? Does it change the nature of the thing being killed? A woman can kill her own unborn child - no big deal. But if she destroys eagle eggs she could go to jail.

The one doing the killing is relevant because the legal penalties for killing some-one else's unborn child are very different from the legal penalties for aborting one's own. If she kills some-one else's unborn child she could go to jail for a lot longer than if she destroys some eagle eggs. So an unborn child has a lot more protection under the law than the eagle eggs do.

You cannot possibly not know this.

[seer]

The one doing the killing is relevant because the legal penalties for killing some-one else's unborn child are very different from the legal penalties for aborting one's own. If she kills some-one else's unborn child she could go to jail for a lot longer than if she destroys some eagle eggs. So an unborn child has a lot more protection under the law than the eagle eggs do.

You cannot possibly not know this.

It makes no difference, who or what is doing the killing is irrelevant, what is being killed is the the issue. The unborn child in the womb is not protected from legal abortion. The eagle eggs are protected across the board.

[Stoic]

I've never experienced a sea turtle. But if the turtle's importance is for humans to experience it, or for humans to derive medical knowledge from it, then obviously humans are superior to it (according to my subjective human perspective, and apparently yours too).

I'm not sure "superior" is the appropriate word, but yes, it's natural for us to value human beings over other animals, since we are human beings.

[Stoic]

Millions and millions of species have gone extinct long before man came on the scene.

True, but as you say, that was before man came on the scene. There's nothing we can do about that.

And you could grab some turtles and put them in a zoo for future generations.

That works as long as our society is stable enough to keep the zoo running. But I don't think it's practical for whales in any case.

The bottom line, no matter how you couch it, is that you assign more value to sea turtle eggs, than to unborn human beings.

With the qualification that these "unborn human beings" are not wanted by their mothers, yes.

[Ronson]

I'm not sure "superior" is the appropriate word, but yes, it's natural for us to value human beings over other animals, since we are human beings.

"More important"?

There's a human being in New Zealand that could use your wisdom.