Untitled

mitchfynde:

yourownpetard:

mitchfynde:

Before we start, let me clarify. I’m not claiming that atheists or agnostics cannot be pro-life. I’ve met many who are. I’m saying that, regardless of your religion or lack thereof, being pro-life is a religious ideology.

I’m going to explain why I think that is. I think the bottom line of the abortion debate can be summed up in a single question.

“Do you believe there is such thing as a potential person?”

If you answered “no”, you’re pro-choice. If you answered “yes”, you’re an idiot. I’m just joking. You know what I’m getting at.

So, how exactly does this tie the pro-life ideology in with religion? 

It’s quite simple, actually. 

Potential person = concept
God = concept
Both are only concepts.

I think most religious people will be happy to tell you about the virtue of religious faith. Faith is arguably the most important factor in religion, especially Christian sects. Well, just as there is no physical evidence towards or against God’s existence, there is no evidence of a potential person.

You either exist or you don’t. 

This is why I find the idea of a potential person to be ridiculous. If the potential person is aborted, the potential is gone. There was never a person, only the potential for there to be one. I don’t think it’s ridiculous for me to point out how utterly meaningless that potential is.

There is no potential person when an abortion takes place. The potential for that person to exist is destroyed. Nothing is lost. Nothing is gained. Nobody died because nobody was given the opportunity to exist in the first place. This is why abortion is a non-issue for me. Taking a politically pro-choice stand is the only logical conclusion.

Wat?

Potential Person is a pro-abortion concept. 

 Pro-abortion argues that the fetus will become a person but is not at present so it’s OK to kill it. People who are pro-life argue that the fetus is a person so it’s not OK to kill it. That is the entire basis of disagreement.

You’re right, if you believe in potential persons you are probably pro-choice. Because the concept of a Potential Person is the required assumption to be pro-choice. The concept of fetal person-hood is the pro-life position in it’s entirety. They are mutually exclusive.

A potential person is not a pro-choice concept, don’t be fucking ridiculous. We don’t believe there’s a potential person. The potential is destroyed when the abortion takes place. It’s meaningless. If you meant that pro-choice people coined the term or something to describe how pro-lifers think, you might have a point there. Still…

I’ve seen TONS of pro-lifers talking about the potential person that is being destroyed. Changing up the wording isn’t going to fool anyone. Giving personhood to a fetus is the whole concept of a potential person. It’s the potential for a person to be born. If they aren’t born, their “potential” is effectively snuffed out. Their life never takes place.

“Person”. You’re not a person when you sleep. In any case pro-lifers don’t use the “person” argument but HUMAN. You destroy a human.

That’s it.

(via )