I always find it odd that people conceptualize bodily autonomy as allowing the death of a separate individual. To actually support bodily autonomy you would be against abortion as a fetus is the one defenseless and not given the bodily autonomy. The overwhelming majority of pregnancy is due to choices of the individual. To say someone who has made a choice that develops a new life now has autonomy over that life is denial of bodily autonomy.
I used to be an atheist. I still don't go to church (though the wife and I should), but I don't describe myself as an atheist.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
I am very reluctant to sound like a priest or pastor, because I am definitely neither or those things -- but look at the degeneracy around us. Look at the lives people are living that will leave the next generation worse off than ours. Look at the hedonism, the nihilism, and the apathy. These are not pillars on which to build or maintain a society.
So yeah, I believe there's some sort of God out there -- not because I am trying to curry favor or get in to heaven, but because I think a society-wide moral framework is important. That may sound incongruous to you -- probably because it is.
I'm still working on it - I just see a lot in this comment and the comment above it that make me think you're kind of in the same mental vortex I was in for a while.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
Same with comfort. I'm also not religious and I totally understand why many people need that sort of a positive, structured cultural thing.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about it. I know people who are addicted to going out to drink, to go on Tinder fuck dates. To go to the gym, do many other things. But they act like it's baffling that others fulfill their social needs through church.
You don't need to believe in a sky father to understand the need for good, and doing things with good intent. Honoring the spirit, rather than the letter of the law is the heart of Christian practice-- we call it being lead by the Holy Spirit, but anyone who acts with posterity in mind, who plants trees who's shade they will never enjoy, acts in accordance with the same good we worship. Being a good steward of this earth doesn't require religion. Any who act in the name of the future are my allies, even if they aren't co-religionists.
As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
Convincing women abortion isn't killing and is instead exercising her rights is the both the most effective con ever concocted and the sad reality of women's rational thinking.
The thing is if they admit they are responsible for their own pregnancy it means whoring around is wrong and whoring around can't be wrong because they like doing it and denying themselves something they like is out of the question because they're selfish. This is what happens with addiction as well, you refuse the idea of being wrong and go from there, exactly the opposite of what a smart person would do.
Very few people support bodily autonomy. It's not a popular political position. Most people want to have some part in regulating other people's bodies. I guess it's human nature.
I told my pro-choice mother and her friends at the start of all this:
"If you really believe in my body, my choice, you need to be on the front lines of this."
Because when the other shoe falls, and abortion is outlawed under the same flimsy reasoning "oh it's a public health crisis" then I will have no sympathy for the screeching hordes.
Granted, I was never going to have any sympathy anyway -- but at least I can point out the hypocrisy before they use it against me.
I always find it odd that people conceptualize bodily autonomy as allowing the death of a separate individual. To actually support bodily autonomy you would be against abortion as a fetus is the one defenseless and not given the bodily autonomy. The overwhelming majority of pregnancy is due to choices of the individual. To say someone who has made a choice that develops a new life now has autonomy over that life is denial of bodily autonomy.
I used to be an atheist. I still don't go to church (though the wife and I should), but I don't describe myself as an atheist.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
I am very reluctant to sound like a priest or pastor, because I am definitely neither or those things -- but look at the degeneracy around us. Look at the lives people are living that will leave the next generation worse off than ours. Look at the hedonism, the nihilism, and the apathy. These are not pillars on which to build or maintain a society.
So yeah, I believe there's some sort of God out there -- not because I am trying to curry favor or get in to heaven, but because I think a society-wide moral framework is important. That may sound incongruous to you -- probably because it is.
I'm still working on it - I just see a lot in this comment and the comment above it that make me think you're kind of in the same mental vortex I was in for a while.
Same with comfort. I'm also not religious and I totally understand why many people need that sort of a positive, structured cultural thing.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about it. I know people who are addicted to going out to drink, to go on Tinder fuck dates. To go to the gym, do many other things. But they act like it's baffling that others fulfill their social needs through church.
I hear you.
You don't need to believe in a sky father to understand the need for good, and doing things with good intent. Honoring the spirit, rather than the letter of the law is the heart of Christian practice-- we call it being lead by the Holy Spirit, but anyone who acts with posterity in mind, who plants trees who's shade they will never enjoy, acts in accordance with the same good we worship. Being a good steward of this earth doesn't require religion. Any who act in the name of the future are my allies, even if they aren't co-religionists.
As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
Convincing women abortion isn't killing and is instead exercising her rights is the both the most effective con ever concocted and the sad reality of women's rational thinking.
The thing is if they admit they are responsible for their own pregnancy it means whoring around is wrong and whoring around can't be wrong because they like doing it and denying themselves something they like is out of the question because they're selfish. This is what happens with addiction as well, you refuse the idea of being wrong and go from there, exactly the opposite of what a smart person would do.
Very few people support bodily autonomy. It's not a popular political position. Most people want to have some part in regulating other people's bodies. I guess it's human nature.
I told my pro-choice mother and her friends at the start of all this:
"If you really believe in my body, my choice, you need to be on the front lines of this."
Because when the other shoe falls, and abortion is outlawed under the same flimsy reasoning "oh it's a public health crisis" then I will have no sympathy for the screeching hordes.
Granted, I was never going to have any sympathy anyway -- but at least I can point out the hypocrisy before they use it against me.
You should have told them men can become pregnant (lol) and watch them freak out.