Christopher Hitchens the Pro-Lifer?

When asked if he is involved in the pro-life movement, he said he said yes. This is part of the Q&A portion of a debate between Jay Wesley Richards and Christopher Hitchens.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• abortion
• ethics
• morals
• debate
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• atheist
• atheism
• Richards
• pro-life
• anti-abortion
• pro-choice

[devante11]

@tigersforchrist

Only a REAL FOOL would believe in primitive men he has never met. And in primitive books that cant even tell you about blood types.

[devante11]

@tigersforchrist

Strange, as man eradicated smallpox saving hundreds of millions of lives. Man is perfect as man does something about it :)

If your god created the universe, which their is no evidence for any uncaused cause anyway. And just sat and looked at the hundreds of millions of people dieing of smallpox...with 80% of infected children—dieing from the disease...how imperfect does that make your god. That he couldnt solve a simple problem if he is so superior

[tigersforchrist]

Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com

[belolacove]

Human vs non-human is the wrong approach. What matters is intelligent vs unintelligent, autonomous vs non-autonomous, feeling vs unfeeling. It's worse to kill a lifeform with these levels at or surpassing those of humans even if it isn't human that it is to kill a human with no awareness, feeling, or individuality.

[johnjsal]

I disagree with your "only question that matters." I don't think it's a matter of the nature of the unborn as much as it is a matter of *when* we can say the unborn becomes something we can call "human." I agree with what Hitchens said here, but he has also said elsewhere that the idea of being human at conception is absurd. Now, the answer to just when a fetus becomes something deserving of human rights and protection from harm is extremely difficult to answer.

[RayWilliamJohansen]

@rokth or adoption, SURPRISE SURPRISE

[rokth]

Either you're pro abortion or you're pro welfare. If an infant has a right to life, then you're gonna have to provide it mang. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Schredkern]

@popeyroach For the record, I am an atheist, a humanist, and very liberal in nearly all of my positions. I am anti-death penalty, not opposed to euthanasia when it is an act of sincere compassion, pro-gay marriage, anti-war for the most part. But I have yet to hear an argument from either side on this issue that seems willing to acknowledge the complexity inherent.

Sorry if this was just a one-off comment and I'm blowing up your inbox needlessly, by the way.

[Schredkern]

@popeyroach It just seems like the issue boils down to how people define life, a monumental task that seems impossible, honestly. Why is one person's clump of cells or "zygote" another person's child? Is brain activity the predominant way someone should define life? How can pro-lifers defend the belief that, since a fetus is a baby, a woman has no say in the matter, often with insulting language? How can pro-choicers simply say, "It is not alive" without explaining why?

[Schredkern]

@popeyroach But why though? What is it that makes you believe this? I am not being facetious, I honestly want to know why it is so easy for pro-choicers to define life as post-birth. When people write it off without justifying why they define life in this matter, as if it should be obvious to everyone and pro-lifers are just being willfully ignorant, I am repulsed, in much the same way I am repulsed by many pro-lifers' chauvinism and tendency to act as if pregnant women are by default immoral.