Notice how rather than offer any rationale for why you believe this, you just state it - as if astonished that most people don't agree. You've gone from supposed "curiosity" to just re-starting your beliefs and asserting that everybody else is wrong.

Most people who get there do so via dogmatic belief, that is, an insistence that there is no rationale, they don't need one because there are just some things which are correct and everyone will "obviously" believe those things. This can run into a pretty nasty problem beyond just being obviously wrong, which is that it's contrary to Freedom of Conscience and thus if you have power to "enforce" it you've got a UDHR violation...

I think a lot of people would agree, though, if left alone with nothing to do except think about whether it's okay to kill a helpless person because we think they can't feel it, or are unaware of what's happening.

I looked at the language in the UDHR and right there in Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." French naissant, Spanish nacen, Russian рождаются, etc. That's unfortunate.

The UDHR builds on such documents as the Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads "Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s [...] disability, birth or other status." [0] (emphasis added), and the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child which reads "The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development" [1] (emphasis added).

The UDHR text should read "All human beings are conceived free and equal in dignity and rights."

[0] Article 2, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-te... [1] http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm

I think it should say "people" or perhaps "persons" but that didn't happen for a different reason that I'm sure you likewise have dogmatic beliefs about.

The Declaration isn't supplied with teeth, but even without them it seems especially nonsensical to insist upon denying facts. Pregnancies are aborted spontaneously all the time, merely "conceiving" a human being means almost nothing.

I'm well aware pregnancies are commonly spontaneously aborted, but the key word there is spontaneously, "without apparent cause or stimulus", i.e. not through the choice or neglect of the mother.

See, you didn't need any help. Given that some were insistent that humans are not animals, and others were insistent that some ethnic or religious groups of humans aren't people, the resolution was to highlight that the latter claim is wrong, and give up on the other claim for the time being.

This means that status of other species (e.g. octopuses) is not recognised in the UDHR. Arguably a realistic setting of priorities, but still unfortunate in my view of course.

> the key word there is spontaneously

So how is your intuition for other spontaneous events? If your child is spontaneously struck down by Influenza, too bad - they live or die and you're not bothered either way? If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?

yes

> and you're not bothered either way?

of course I'd be bothered. elsewhere in this thread I mentioned grieving the loss of the two miscarriages that my wife and I knew about.

> If a work colleague falls down the stairs, and others present just leave them there, a motionless heap, stepping over the body - does that seem right to you?

Either you or I or both of us have really lost the thread here... I guess the falling down the stairs might be considered spontaneous but the others stepping over him instead of helping him is deliberate and probably reprehensible.

> it's not easy standing up for what you believe is the truth when it's inconvenient

From what I can tell, it sure doesn't seem like what you "believe is the truth" is inconvenient for you at all. For somebody who just had about 1% of their lifespan re-assigned as human incubator it seems pretty damn inconvenient.

Your use of the passive voice here makes it seem like the woman wasn't involved in the decision. Choosing to rely on contraception, which has a low but nonzero failure rate, means accepting the low but nonzero possibility of conceiving a child. Having sex without the willingness to bear possible children is tacitly accepting a possibility of needing to kill that child.

The only acceptable choice is to only have sex when you're willing to keep the natural products of sex. This applies to men and women alike. It might be difficult or hard to imagine for some, but it's simple.

I would absolutely support the government easing the burden of women impregnated by rape, including free ultrasounds, pregnancy-related physician visits, a stipend to make it easier for them to order food when they're nauseated and don't want to cook, hell even massages by pregnancy-certified masseuses. Until the government provides those services, I do what I can by donating to life centers.

Let's try again, "For somebody who just had 1% of their lifespan re-assigned by Phil Snowberger here". Does that make it clear where the problem is now?