Guess what? A lot of people prefer their cat to their neighbour. Its not that uncommon. So, yes. Personally, I can't think of any animal I've encountered whom I've disliked, but plenty of humans whom I have.
So because "a lot" of people prefer their cat to their neighbor, it makes the value of their neighbors lives less important? It's not about liking and disliking people, its about the value of life. On that value you are placing a human fetus at a expendable level, and I don't think God has given anyone the authority to do that.
Second of all, a fetus is not the same as a citizen. The killing of a citizen by a serial killer who started out practising on housepets, resonates far deeper than a confused woman who may choose abortion. The likelihood is that that confused woman will not go out of her way to open fire in a public park, but that person who mutilated the cat may grow up to one day.
whats your point? Does that make the life of a fetus less valuable? Thats the point I was trying to make.
Thirdly, the government has a job to protect its citizens. The fetus is again, not the same as a 21 year old.
So who is your God, the government or the God of the bible? Because a fetus is not out of the womb yet makes it not "worthy" of citizenship, in this case, life? You are still making the same argument that a xx year old human is worth more than a fetus, but on that same note, you do not point out that there is no one forcing a choice to be made. It's not like if a child lives then the mother dies. Yes it happens very rarely, but i'm speaking of the majority of cases on this point. The situation is not a choose one and lose one. In most cases its just a devaluing of human life to the point as to where it can be destroyed due to being inconvenient. Society has helped with the issue by making it seem like a simple medical procedure that doesn't hurt anyone or anything, and that is just wrong.
The case of the 30 year who started mutiliating cats two decades before is going to present a much bigger risk to society than the woman who got the abortion. The citizen is more of a concern for the government than the fetus. If you have such an issue with that, don't vote for a pro-choice candidate then. But if society has voted for that pro-choice leader and abortion stays - fine. No-one's saying you have to get one, but it is there for a reason. Maybe to fix something you don't see as a problem, but its very different when you're a woman in that situation.
Once again, who do you represent, the government or Christ? If society allowed something you considered to be an atrocity, then would you be against it or not?k
Fourth, I do take the subject seriously - as I'm still sitting here debating it. But I will say if one's entire argument is religious-based, it is a weak argument, if not entirely a BS-one.
It's not totally religion based. Belief in God only gives extra reason as to why it is wrong. There are plenty of pro-life people that are not Christian. However, I'm not one of them, and I don't feel like I need to argue for them. On that note, I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be making a secular humanist argument for pro-life, so to call my argument weak only shows the weakness of your ability to rebut it.
I may be "missing the point", but you don't seem to actually be reading what you're responding to, either.
I've read everything you've written thus far. What I cannot grasp is that you claim to be a catholic yet you do not listen to any God-based argument that I put across. Do you follow God? If not, then your icon has been confusing me, and totally throwing my posts off. If you do not claim Christianity then you have every right to do so, I just will know not to debate with you using God as a reference point. Have a good one, take care!
