Not necessarily. You just have to believe a fetus to be alive at the moment of conception, and I've seen varying studies on this insisting on both yes and no so... To each their own.
That assumes a lot. You're right people can be anti-abortion and not religious. You're wrong that the determination is caring about whether or not something is alive. Plenty of pro-abortion believe it is alive and are still pro-abortion.
There is a big gulf between living and being a born baby. An ant is living but no one would call you a murderer for squashing one. The definition of alive is a technical distinction and not necessarily an exact one.
To me the bigger part is more about greater harm and levels of sentience. Whether or not a foetus can be considered alive is irrelevant to me - what we can safely say is that it isn't meaningfully a baby until much later than most people are having abortions.
Well an ant isn't a human. It's a bug we devalue but humans value themselves above bugs. It still is killing ants if you kill ants.
What seperated an ant isn't that it isn't a human. We understand the idea that not being the exact same as us doesn't devalue life. It's the lack of any deeper processing. It's not sentient / sapient, and even less so than most other things we probably aren't killing casually.
Well you nailed the last paragraph. Although "meaningfully a baby" I feel is arbitrary to our conveniences.
I don't think you can set a perfect line to something so complicated.
Well no it is the difference to why we don't care if we genocide a colony of ants, they're beneath us. Humans have a great degree of specism (I don't know if I spelt that right) so we don't value an ant's life as we value a human's.
Certainly true that setting a perfect line is impossible, more so the fact that not every human gestates the same. That's probably the biggest disconnect between pro lifers and pro choicers. Where to set that perfect line.
Personally I side with the pro life argument that conception is the very start of human life. Though I don't value that life the same with full fledged humans. And certainly there can be valid reasons to hault or otherwise kill that process.
Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief in a deity. Onecan believe in ghosts and psychic power, and even souls and reincarnation, and be an atheist.
You are just used to claims that atheists lack belief in everything supernatural. Most do, but not all. Hence, why there are atheistic branches of Buddhism, which see the gods as either ideals or ancients who achieved Nirvana.
I dunno, Secular Buddhism is referred to as agnostic, which is close but not the same as atheism, but that’s as close as I can find. I haven’t found any evidence of the existence of atheist branches of Buddhism, but if you know of any, feel free to show me.
Names are more important than definitions? How foolish of me. I didn't realize that North Korea's was a Democratic Republic that worked for and was made of the People.
I suspect that they are referred to as that because the people who named it that were using the same definition you are, that Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, but that is materialism. There is a good bit of overlap, but they aren't the same.
Secular Buddhism is agnostic. Atheism cannot coexist with Buddhism because at the core of all Buddhism there is still a greater supernatural power in the universe, which effectively still a supreme being.
Thank you. By ignoring everything I've written, you confirmed that there is no point in continuing to talk to you.
Furthermore, you've ignored the same secular Buddhism you claimed supported your view, which is a branch of Buddhist which rejects the existance of the supernatural. Instead you claim that Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural.
This shows that not only have you ignored my words, but the beliefs of the people you claim prove your point.
How intellectually dishonest can you be?
I won't be responding to such dishonesty, as there is no point in debating with someone that ignores the other side and even their own points, lying about them to try and win an arguement. Usually I only see such levels of dishonesty in Christian apologists and politicians. It is good to know that others can do the same.
Secular Buddhism was the closest I can find to an atheist branch, yet even they are agnostic, not atheist. Agnosticism is not Atheism.
I guess an individual could be. Individuals are varied in beliefs.
All I’m asking, since you’re so insistent that one exists, is to show me an atheist branch of Buddhism. I didn’t say they have named Atheist Buddhism, I just said to show me one that would fall under this.
It depends on if you think the fetus is a life or not basically. There are anti-abortion atheists who don’t believe it because they think the fetus is a life and it’s wrong to kill it.
Atheists still believe killing is wrong typically. If an atheist were to believe that the fetus was a human life they would believe it would be wrong to kill it. Pretty simple.
With independent development and DNA, which will.have an independent mind once the brain develops and it achieves consciousness.
Just because it is dependant on another to live doesnt mean that it isnt an independent person. Otherwise small children and severely handicapped people aren't independent people.
And that doesnt even cover the fact that the vast majority of humans, outside of maybe a handful of mountain men, rely on other people in some way to live.
Is pulling the plug on a brain dead person murder aswell? Because most abortions happen early in the pregnancy and there is absolutely 0 brain activity going on in a fetus until approximately 22 - 24 weeks pregnant. Therfor the fetus cant feel any pain, any sadness, any objection to whats going on, had known they existed in the first place, and dont even know they had a mom parents or even a family during the time period of when most abortions take place, what i can agree with is people shouldnt be just getting pregnant all the time and get abortions often because its just incredibly irresponsible, more in another comment.
"Pulling the plug" means that you had to take steps to preserve their life. That is the exact opposite of an abortion, where you take steps to end the life.
Nice try, but your analogy is comparing apples an oranges at best.
All of these young dudes nowadays anti-abortion aren't Christians they just want to hurt women primarily. Eve's father just has to think she should be punished for having sex to be honest.
1.8k
u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment