God Opposes Abortion

Anyone who claims "abortion is immoral" is generally defaulting to claims made by Religions, since Religions so often arbitrarily claim that various things are moral and various other things are immoral. Well, Religions claim to get those lists of morals from God. So, logically, to claim that abortion is immoral is equivalent to claiming that God opposes abortion. My basic point is, "just because Religions claim something-or-other, why should it be believed?" One of the very-common lies spouted by abortion opponents involves mis-use of the phrase "human being". I've dealt with this in two other Debates, so I won't go into the full details here, about that lie. But you can have the short version: Consider an average human and an average rabbit. In casual conversation we might call the human a "human being", but we never call the rabbit a "rabbit being". Why? What does the human have that the rabbit doesn't, such that a rabbit is unworthy of the label "rabbit being" in casual conversation? Whatever it is, you will find that unborn humans don't have it, either. Therefore unborn humans, despite being perfectly human, don't qualify as "human beings", any more than do human white blood cells, and it is a lie, a mis-use of the language, to claim that they do so qualify. Anyway, this Debate is not supposed to be about that topic. Pro wrote: "Your argument just refuted itself." This is an error. In order to reach that conclusion, Pro had to accept as being True a particular part of what I previously wrote: "... humans are known to be able to tell lies ...". That is, if Pro can claim that I, a human, have lied, then Pro could equally claim that human writers of religious texts have also lied. Much like what I previously indicated. Therefore, regardless of whether or not I lied, it remains possible that writers of religious texts told lies. Because that possibility is based on something that both Pro and I are agreeing is True, that humans are able to tell lies. Next, Pro wrote: "... you can't simply assume from the [outset] that they are going to [lie]." It it not necessary. All I have to do is identify some actual lies in religious texts, and this allows me to question the veracity of everything else in those texts. (Especially everything unsupported by independent data.) For the Bible, the story of the Flood will suffice. It will even suffice for other religious texts that describe a world-wide flood. If you basically double the average depth of the world's oceans with rain-water, to cover all the land, then you will be soaking the land in salty water (half the normal ocean salinity). Now think about all the fresh-water plants on land, getting soaked in salty water for 40 days and nights --they are all going to die, of either drowning or salt-poisoning. (All species of fresh-water fish would die, too.) There won't be a live olive tree for Noah's dove to find! Then think about the salt-saturated soil in which the survivors are supposed to grow crops.... Most scholars are willing to accept the notion that all Flood stories are huge exaggerations of some much-smaller flood or floods. One candidate is: htt.....ww.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html (Replace the dots with standard web-address characters.) There are other candidates, such as tales of Atlantis. Nevertheless, an exaggeration is a type of lie, so.... The existence of one lie means that the writers of religious texts certainly had --and took advantage of-- at least one opportunity to lie. The particular lie about the Flood may be somewhat "innocent" --there have always been Questions such as, "Why am I finding sea-shells in these rocks way up here on the mountainside?" --and to offer a plausible lie is better than to admit ignorance, when the preachers claimed to be in regular communication with God, who is claimed to have all the answers. I used the word "innocent" above because there is an overall category of "origin" tales found the world over, that adults use to quiet questioning children. If nothing else, the tales generally have entertainment value. On the other hand, I also specified "somewhat" above, indicating that there can be more to the Flood story than just story-value. By specifying that God was punishing humanity for various sins, which preachers typically warn against, the preachers bolstered their own social position. "Obey us, or something else on that scale might happen!" So, the preachers had Motive to exaggerate the Flood story in that particular way, when it was written down! Which brings me to the crux. If the preachers lied, claiming that God opposes abortion, what is the Motive for such a lie? Well, there is a very obvious motive. The more people that the preachers can require to be born, the more people will exist in the culture, to donate tithes to the preachers. Quite simply, the preachers can get richer faster. And it is certainly Historical Fact that various religious centers have been extremely wealthy. htt.....ww.the-colosseum.net/architecture/la_costruzione_en.htm htt.....ww.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm Pro wrote: "It is self-evidently true that killing innocent human beings is morally wrong." Whether self-evident or not, the statement doesn't apply to unborn humans. They are not innocent at all (see htt.....ww.debate.org/debates/Abortion/163/ for details), and they don't qualify, any more than do rabbits or human white blood cells, as worthy of the label "beings" in casual conversation. Pro wrote: "... or He does not, and he has absolutely no qualms with abortion. Neither of these positions are neutral." This is a false interpretation of what I originally wrote: "... being Con to one notion does not automatically equate to being Pro of the opposite notion." As a specific example of what "Pro Abortion" can mean, consider the statement, "All pregnancies that result from rape should be aborted." Such a statement would absolutely be Pro Abortion. Meanwhile, the truly Neutral position doesn't care either way. And so my position is that God is not against abortion --but not for it, either. Pro wrote: "... if God is only concerned about human souls and not human bodies, God does not oppose murder in any form." I suspected I needed to clarify what I previously wrote. Murder is about killing a body in which a soul resides. If you kill a non-human intelligent extraterrestrial alien being, you might be committing murder; if you kill a non-human non-"being" rabbit, you aren't. There are good logical reasons to think that unborn humans don't have souls. Arguments to the contrary are merely claims, none of which have a solid foundation. htt.....ww.debate.org/debates/God-always-creates-souls-at-conception/1/ Also, note that there are major religions that make alternate claims, about souls and unborn humans. In Hinduism, for example, they talk about "reincarnation", and say souls only become associated with human bodies after birth. If I had to choose between the different claims of different religions, I'd pick the one that makes the most logical sense. Which, as detailed in the above Debate, certainly isn't the Christian view! So, abortion need not qualify as "murder", nor give God cause to oppose it.