Are there any atheists against abortion?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Are there any atheists against abortion?

Any one you know or you?

 

I'm curious my friend says it's exclusivly a religious issue. 


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
What I am saying is that

What I am saying is that you cannot claim to be Pro-Life and then pick and choose which lifes count and which don't. Honestly a human life be it a unborn baby, or a serial killer, has no more value than an animal.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good steak, but I'm also not standing on a high horse claiming to be pro-life either. 

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: But

todangst wrote:
But personally, I accept that they do, because as an atheist, I believe that every stage of development of life is a stage in personhood, no matter how meager the stage may be. I believe that holding that a fetus is not a person is an arbitrary freezing of a fetus at the fetal stage - when in fact, all beings are always becoming, and are never truly simply one stage or another.

Honestly, it seems just as arbitrary to me to assign personhood to a cluster of cells which doesn't even possess a nervous system, let alone any thoughts, feelings, ambitions, or desires that make a human worth the special status we grant to humans. In early stages of development, there's really not much differentiating a human fetus from a number of others for which we do not acknowledge rights, so I still consider it a potential person rather than an actual person for some substantial amount of time from conception, just like every combination of healthy sperm and egg.

I appreciate the simplicity of using the beginning biological life as the one-and-only checkpoint in this discussion. It doesn't open up several very ugly cans of worms as it does to try to find a later point when we can morally still terminate the life. We have to start looking at why we grant humans rights that we don't grant to other species, what is special about us specifically, and that topic is based on almost nothing but emotions on all sides; and it may force us to face the possible reality that we assign a greater importance to ourselves than we really deserve.

However, if we do not open those cans of worms, and we just use biological life as the gateway to personhood, we force hardship on not only the parents, but also on the child once it transitions from a potential person to an actual one.

todangst wrote:
In order for there to be rights, there must be responsibilities. A right to life can only be instantiated as long as others are responsible to life. There is a necessary balance. So while a mother has rights, she also has responsibilities. If a mother purposely and knowingly takes part in a sexual act knowing the ramifications of that act: possible pregnancy, then she has a responsibility to the life she creates, as does the father.

I agree with you completely about this, if you allow me to say that in this context 'life' refers to a person. However, the issue becomes somewhat murkier when you introduce the failure of contraception, I think, because then the mother is taking the measures that are available to her. Is it really fair to force such enormous responsibilities on someone just for following the instinct to have sex, especially when done as responsibly as possible?

todangst wrote:
The reality is that even an impregnated egg is something more than just a sperm and an egg on their own... merely inseminating an egg leads to a 1% chance of human life. A sperm and and egg on their own give a 0% chance.

Well, a newly fertilized egg can't lead to a new human life "on it's own". It requires the body of its mother to support it, without which it too would have a 0% chance. The sperm and egg require each other and the mother's body. But in real situations, none of this occurs "on it's own"; rather there are enormous numbers of sperm, and egg, and the mothers body, all in the same place, and each gamete has a small non-zero chance of going on to to be a newborn baby, so I don't really think this is a genuine distinction.

todangst wrote:
...but I must admit a feeling of reverence for life.

todangst wrote:
To me, it's ridiculous to refer to this matter as a choice, unless you can demonstrate to me a faction who is against humans reproducing!

Count me as against humans reproducing in many situations. I consider it irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you cannot properly care for it. Adoption just pushes the problem to someone else, and it assumes that there is always someone to accept the responsablity; it's still irresponsible to do.

I don't share this reverence for life. Biological life, itself, is cheap. Almost all life can make new life, and if it can't, there's usually a problem. What is difficult is making that life worthwhile, and I think unwanted pregnancies tend to hurt the odds for many people. There is a point when it is too late, when a person has developed to the point past which it is dispensable, although I freely admit my ignorance of exactly where that point should be, and I do not believe that it is within the first several weeks of pregnancy.

So, to sum up my main feeling on the matter, I think that morally, abortion is perfectly acceptable, but if it is to be done, it should be done as early as possible, and past some poorly defined point, it may be an option only offered as medically necessary.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I gather ugzog and todangst

I gather ugzog and todangst are unsatisfied with the terms being used: pro-life and pro-choice. They're not precise terms, and were probably inspired more by political rhetoric than by anything else. However, do we have the luxury of changing the widely accepted definitions? I have enough trouble getting people to understand what atheist means.


Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
  The chances of sperm and

 

The chances of sperm and egg creating life is very slim and even then the fertilized egg is still expelled in more than a few cases right? So my problem is this, Why should two adults feel responsible for what might possibly happen as a result of sex? The potential, however small, for fertilization doesn't seem to require it.

If we have to take into account the potential of our actions, in regards to sex, even the small ones, shouldn't we be preventing and taking measures against the sexual urges and thoughts themselves?

If you have the opportunity to have sex one night and don't, haven't you just taken some form of birth control action? My point is the potential exist at the very moment the opportunity for sex presents itself, so why even deal with the responsibility of birth control? 

It seems to me the real point of responsibility occurs at the first point potential for a child becomes relevant and that occurs at the moment one chooses to act on their sexual urges(like going out, dating, booty calls and such)

By the way I want anyone reading this to understand I may still be drunk while writing this because I have never experienced a hangover like the one I'm having now.Frown

I suck at signatures.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
ugzog wrote: What I am

ugzog wrote:

What I am saying is that you cannot claim to be Pro-Life and then pick and choose which lifes count and which don't. Honestly a human life be it a unborn baby, or a serial killer, has no more value than an animal.

don't forget that the pro-life schtik only lasts until the baby is born, then it's "YOU EVIL SINNER BURN IN HELL,WORTHLESS SCUM!"

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Cassiopeia

Cassiopeia wrote:

 

shouldn't we be preventing and taking measures against the sexual urges and thoughts themselves?

That's what I did for years as an evangelical.  

We made public vows in youth group to wait until marriage for sex. (and the girls that did it, got a nice necklace with a small key on it, a tool to show horny guys when they tried something...)

Me and my 'accountability' partner  kept 'lust journals' where we wrote down every time we masturbated, looked at porn, or fantisized about women...

And the current administration's  policy on sex ed is heavily slanted towards abstinance (taking measures against urges....)

 

 


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Cassiopeia wrote:   By

Cassiopeia wrote:

 

By the way I want anyone reading this to understand I may still be drunk while writing this because I have never experienced a hangover like the one I'm having now.Frown

Your post sounds to me like you are in favor sex without responsibility...  Getting pregnant IS a responsibility.  And the chances of getting pregnant with no birth control are definitely high enough to cause me to think twice...  not to mention STDs. 

 

But you did mention you may not be thinking clear, so maybe that's not what you meant Laughing


unRogers
unRogers's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-04-03
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I see

MattShizzle wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wong with a woman getting an abortion under any circumstances.

Matt; are you aware of the procedure for partial-birth abortions?

 And to throw a spanner in the works; I have seen a lot of arguments about fertilization, but almost none about implantation. Most emergency contraceptives act by preventing the implantation of a fertilized zygote; so is this equivalent to having a full on dilation/curettage abortion?

WWTFSMDFAKB?


Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Your post sounds to me like


Your post sounds to me like you are in favor sex without responsibility... Getting pregnant IS a responsibility. And the chances of getting pregnant with no birth control are definitely high enough to cause me to think twice... not to mention STDs.

 

But you did mention you may not be thinking clear, so maybe that's not what you meant Laughing

You're right, I wasn't being very clear, I don't favor sex without responsibility. I favor sex without the guilt that you may(1% chance) become pregnant And then taking that to mean that you must punish yourself by removing your freedoms.

 

I suck at signatures.


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Cassiopeia wrote: You're

Cassiopeia wrote:


You're right, I wasn't being very clear, I don't favor sex without responsibility. I favor sex without the guilt that you may(1% chance) become pregnant And then taking that to mean that you must punish yourself by removing your freedoms.

Yeah...  I heard the world 'pure' describe virgins growing up.  Of course that implies that people who have sex are not 'pure' or dirty.  Funny how our religous culture works Laughing


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
For anyone who thinks that

For anyone who thinks that a fertilized egg deserves "personhood", look to this moral question.

You are sitting in the waiting room of a fertility clinic with a child about 3 years old that has no relation to you. On your other side is a tray containing a million fertilized eggs. Suddenly, a fire breaks out in the room and the child becomes trapped. There is no-one else in the room besides yourself. You only have the chance to grab either the child or the tray of 1-million zygotes and run for the exit. If you choose one, the other must die.

 Unless you're a terribly mixed up person or do not fully understand the implications of the question, I am going to assume you chose the child.

Why? Because the child is a person. The child is made up of trillions of cells, has thoughts, feelings, memories, can feel and remember pain, has relatives that it knows, loves and cares for, and has a desire to life. Those 1 million zygotes are merely clumps of biomass. Sure, they are living, but they sure as hell are not people. They were cheap (even pleasurable) to produce, and many millions more can be produced in their place. They are nothing but potential people, and their deaths would merely be unfortunate, not a tragedy. The personhood of just one child outweighs the potential personhood of millions of potential people. It is ludicrous to assume otherwise.

 I think this argument speaks to stem cell research more than abortion though, but it works in both cases.

Replace those zygotes with macroscopic blastocysts or centimeter-long embryos and you have a slightly more distressing problem. Replace them with nearly-born fetuses or full grown babies, and then you have a real moral dilemma. This merely shows that the developmental process is extremely important in the making of any such abortion laws. There should be, theoretially, a threshold at which you would choose the fetuses over the child, but I think this threshold would be very close to birth and at very high numbers.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think that a fertilized

I think that a fertilized egg is a person but I think that personhood carries different levels of value. A brain dead person is still a person but that doesn’t mean you need to keep them around.

            So in your example I would save the 3 year old because the child will suffer considerably more than the zygotes, not because the 3 year old is a person and the zygotes are not.

            And just because you save the child that doesn’t mean that the zygotes now have no value. If you had a choice between saving your wife or your mother in law from a fire you would save your wife. That doesn’t mean it would be ok to set your mother in law on fire.  

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I have mixed emotions about

I have mixed emotions about abortion.

I personally draw the line at a point when the fetus can feel fear and pain--whenever that is.  Other people draw that line other places.  Roman Catholics believe every sperm is sacred.  Other people believe third trimester abortions are ethically "okay."  I believe the line should be drawn somewhere in between.

Because the issue can be argued philosophically until the cows come home, I'm hesitant to force my views on others.  Of course, we do "force our views" of morality on others when it comes to clear-cut cases of murder.  The argument is over when a zygote becomes a person.

This issue is so emotionally charged I find myself avoiding it...sigh.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Ghost Rider wrote:Gauche

Ghost Rider wrote:
Gauche wrote:

If you think that personhood starts at conception as some here do (including myself but I’m still in favor of abortion) are you against the birth control pill? The pill works by preventing the sperm from joining with the egg or by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus. In effect that’s an abortion. So do you think it’s immoral to take the pill?

No. The pill is a PREVENTATIVE measure as it prevents the conception from happening. In this way it's a more moral choice for reasons I'll address in your second question. I'd also say that personhood starts when someone becomes self-aware, so no, most abortions do not involve human beings.



the birth control does not necessarily prevent conception. gauche is right; it also prevents a fertilized egg from developing.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I personally see nothing in

I personally see nothing in the slightest wrong with abortion. A fetus or lower level of development is not yet able to experience pain or emotion, so therefore doesn't have "personhood." I have no more qualms about someone having an abortion than I do about someone swatting a fly.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
This issue is absolutely

This issue is absolutely stupid. As a whole. Anyone who says that abortion is wrong has either not weighed in the factors, or has not weighed the factors in properly. Anyone who has made up their mind on EITHER SIDE is commiting so many rational errors that it boggles my mind that insanely rational people would lean on any side.

In the case of death for the mother, one life for the other is not a good trade off. The reason for this is that we KNOW what the mother is like. We do not know if the infant (yes, I call fetus' infants because they are incapable of taking care of themselves) is going to be an ass hole or not.

And I don't know about you guys, but I'm really fucking tired of ass holes.

But this is besides the point.

Abortion can be the right thing to do and it can also be the wrong thing to do, it all depends on circumstance and situation...

Can the mother take care of the baby? If so, abortion is the wrong thing to do.

Does the mother not want to take care of the baby? If not, abortion is the wrong thing to do as there are alternatives, such as adoption.

Will the mother die? If so, abortion is an option up to the mother. If she thinks sacrificing her life for anothers is the right thing to do, then fine. One should never be forced to give up their own life for another.

Was the mother raped? If so, abortion is an option up to the mother for the same reasons listed above.

Should it always be a choice? NO. Nobody thinks this, and if they do then they are an idiot. Should it be a choice for those who will suffer from it? YES. IT SHOULD.

 

Todangst, DG was correct in saying that there is no such thing as Pro-Abortion. If anyone actually thinks that abortion should be a choice left to mothers who don't want to take care of the child then they should be shot simply for being morally exempt. This is not the case though as there are, and always will be, exceptions to the rule. People who are pro-choice realize this and, generally, don't think it is OK for a well-to-do-mother who will have no problem raising a child to abort one.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: This

CrimsonEdge wrote:
This issue is absolutely stupid. As a whole. Anyone who says that abortion is wrong has either not weighed in the factors, or has not weighed the factors in properly.

That's an overly categorical statement, and it's quite unfair to the people who have made a real attempt to address the issue seriously.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Anyone who has made up their mind on EITHER SIDE is commiting so many rational errors that it boggles my mind that insanely rational people would lean on any side.

??? So if you support abortion, you're irrational. And if you oppose abortion, your irrational? Huh?

CrimsonEdge wrote:
But this is besides the point.

Yes, I agree. Totally irrelevant.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Abortion can be the right thing to do and it can also be the wrong thing to do, it all depends on circumstance and situation...
Can the mother take care of the baby? If so, abortion is the wrong thing to do.
Does the mother not want to take care of the baby? If not, abortion is the wrong thing to do as there are alternatives, such as adoption.
...

I think you've missed the important issues, such as what the moral status of the fetus is and how the rights of the mother are balanced against the rights (if any) of the fetus.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
This is not the case though as there are, and always will be, exceptions to the rule. People who are pro-choice realize this and, generally, don't think it is OK for a well-to-do-mother who will have no problem raising a child to abort one.

So, abortions of convenience are Ok, but only for those who you judge would be badly inconvenienced? We can't write a law, or even form a moral precept based upon a litany of all the specific cases you can think of. I don't think the mother's economic status enters into the general moral question one bit, nor does her fitness to parent.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:

Strafio wrote:
One thing that interests me though, I have absolutely no qualms over the morning-after pill. Todangst, your post hinted that you might be against that too?

The morning after pill and IUD act in the same 'time-frame' and I do sort of have qualms about both because of that. I'm with Tod in saying there's no upholdable line between a person (baby) and a person (foetal) and the practise of abortion at any point in gestation is detestable. It's a really really grey area when we get to those two things (MA and IUD) though because it drags in all sorts of irreconcilable aspects of the parent's human condition. But then I'm a theist so my opinion here doesn't matter much.

BTW I am impressed with the thoughtfulness of the opinions expressed here already.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Most little kids I meet are

Most little kids I meet are complete assholes.  Hear hear for contraception!  (and more specifically, the patch)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote:  If

CrimsonEdge wrote:

 If anyone actually thinks that abortion should be a choice left to mothers who don't want to take care of the child then they should be shot simply for being morally exempt. This is not the case though as there are, and always will be, exceptions to the rule. People who are pro-choice realize this and, generally, don't think it is OK for a well-to-do-mother who will have no problem raising a child to abort one.

 

Well, I have recently had my IQ tested at the "Very superior" level, so you are wrong - I clearly am not an idiot and I think if a woman doesn't want a baby and doesn't want to spend 9 months carrying one, let her have an abortion. I don't see it as a moral issue at all - any more than I'd see killing millions of bacteria by taking an antibiotic as a moral issue. I have no problem with a woman getting dozens of abortions for any reason whatsoever.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Holy thread necromancy.  I

Holy thread necromancy.  I thought this one was done already.

I will add to what I already said back in June that the pro-choice argument "it's just tissue" is not the strong argument.  Yes, some people use it, but it could be argued that it's an error of composition.

The key difference between the tissue-fetus and the tissue-person is that the tissue-person has been born.

Is that an arbitrary distinction?  To some extent (although there's the question of dependence in there too).  But age 18 for voting and age 21 for drinking (in the U.S.) are also arbitrary distinctions that are used for purposes of determining how laws are applied.  Children have fewer rights than adults because of their age.  Fetuses have even fewer rights than children, also because of their age.  I don't hear anybody arguing that 6-year-old children should have the same rights as adults because they're both clumps of cells.

So in that sense, claiming that the "it's just tissue" argument is an error of composition is a strawman.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: I'm not

Maragon wrote:

I'm not nearly as eloquent or concise as some of the other posters in this thread, but I do have a uterus, so I wanted to contribute.

Instead of just throwing out some strawman posistion, I want to explain what I think.

I believe that abortion is a terrible neccessity. As previously discussed, there can be instances when a womans life is in danger, and aborting is the only real option. Then there are other cases where the woman knows that she cannot care for this shild, and believes that the kindess things to do would be to abort it. Whatever the case, I believe that it should be the right of a woman to do whatever she pleases(up to a certain point in the pregnancy) with the fetus in question.

This is not because I like abortions, or I feel they should be a form of birth control, or I'm 'proud' of people who have had them or whatever, it simply means that I support the freedom to have them. I truly believe that if stricter criteria were implimented, or abortion was outlawed, that women would still find ways to have them, and some of those ways would undoubtedly kill both mother and zygote.

I know that very few people will argue the idea that sometimes abortions are medically needed, nor will many argue that a rape conception may be aborted, but I know some of you will have objections to simply terminating an 'unwanted' pregnancy. However, I believe that if a couple was using every method of birth control available to them, and they still ended up concieving, that they shouldn't be punished for a statistical improbnability.

Here's the thing; I hear all the time 'well you should just carry it to term and then give it up for adoption'. And to be frank, it's just not that simple. Carrying something inside of you like that is uncomfortable to say the least, and can have huge negative implications on your life. First of all, there are major physical reprocussions to carrying and giving birth to a child. The last several months are painful, and you can't do any of the things you would normally do, most women have to take months off of work, your body is stretced and bloated. And this is assuming that the pregnancy is uncomplicated. The birth of course is painful, messy and may involve a C-section or episiotomy, and even after the child is out, your body requires months to recuperate and return to its former state, if you're lucky and it does so at all.

Then there are the social, economic and emotional implications of being forced to carry the baby to term. Women could be ridiculed, ostracised, miss job oppourtunities or lose work due to pregnancy. No one wants to hire a woman who's six months pregnant; she's just going to go on maternity leave. And during pregnancy, there's all kinds of hormonal changes that can lead to emotional prblems, not to mention post-partum depression.

Essentially, I am againt the idea that someone can tell me that I have to do those things. I'm not sure what I would do if all of my contraception failed and I ended up pregnant, but what I do know is that I want the choice. I want to be able to choose what would be best for my fiancee(who is still in University) and for myself. And if that makes me a terrible and selfish person, then I accept that.

Sorry to butt in again, I think Maragon's position is really important to understand. But I also think that women taking the responsibility for this much of the human condition alone is what's really wrong with abortion. This view from the perspective of the woman's outcome fails to connect birth with sex, and by failing to connect birth with sex, it fails doubly to connect sex with realtionships, and in turn triply fails to connect the relationship with the emotional needs of the parents. The fact is that babies start at least as far back as that in the system. The emotional needs of BOTH parents that leads to relationships and consequently sex then baby is all one system of the human condition.  When you isolate those things out of the system the woman takes on an incredible weight of responsibility, like Maragon. But this responsibility boils down in the offing, to all humans, not to her. When we debate abortion I feel we deal post rationally with an already failing system of ethical economies ensuring ourselves no resolution, the real issue is in the burden of responsibility for moral outcomes that lies on everyones shoulders in the arena of emotional support for each other on every scale. In short babies come from sex, and sex is an emotional support system of human relationships well steeped in troubles of it's own.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise: it's probably

Eloise: it's probably overly-idealistic to say that "sex is an emotional support system" that is inextricably interlocked with reproduction and long-term romantic relationships.  This isn't a complete picture of how the whole spectrum of humanity views sex, and it's not even necessarily the most adaptive or desirable view.

For example, the evidence suggests that humans everywhere and in all times are really into recreational sex.  Among consenting adults where no one is being deceived, decoupling sex from relationships is not a "failure."  It's an innocent activity.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Some people here are using

Some people here are using the word baby and child while saying the "clump of cells" phrase is a fallacy of composition. Pardon me for thinking those people are contradicting themselves while simultaneously criticizing the wording of an argument rather than the gist of it.

One would think that any meaningful definition of baby or child would make reference to personhood. Personhood, in turn, implies sensorial and intellectual capacities that make it an individual. Those capacities, in turn, imply that there are brain cells and/or neuronal cells so configured as to make the entity conscious. An embryo or early-stage fetus is not an entity with brain cells and neuronal cells so configured as to make it consciousn. Consequently, it does not possess personhood. Consequently, it's not a baby or child by any definition of the word that makes reference to personhood. If your personal definition of baby or child makes reference to personhood, you're contradicting yourself by calling an embryo or early-stage fetus a baby or child. I have no complaint of people saying an embryo or early-stage fetus is a potential baby or potential child, or that a later-stage fetus is an actual baby or actual child, but the embryo or early-stage fetus most definitely is not an actual baby or actual child. By calling such an entity a "baby" or "child" you are implying actuality when there is no actuality to which you can speak.

If your personal definition of baby or child doesn't make reference to personhood, I'd love to hear it. I would also love to know how you are objectively distinguishing between the embryo or early-stage fetus being a baby or child while a benign vaginal tumor is not. Undoubtedly, you might try to make recourse by referring to the intentionality of the procreation event but that brings up the problem where the offspring of rape victims are no longer called babies or children. That's not an insignificant problem. You might try avoiding this problem by saying it's only the intentionality of the male, but we all know that males generally don't intentionally impregnate women, not to mention the chauvenism of such a position. I would also like to know how you are distinguishing the embryo or fetus from the mother and thus making it a distinct entity rather than being a part of the mother while not also simultaneously making benign vaginal tumors babies or children. Furthermore, I would also like for you to explicitly state whether situations of misplanted fertilized eggs are cases where the mother is an involuntary baby killer or involuntary child killer. I'll be looking forward to your definition and your answer.

As for the phrase "clump of cells," I do not particularly like the wording of the phrase itself but I can find no way to disagree with the gist of the argument that lies behind those words. Earlier the phrase was called a fallacy of composition. In actuality, it's not a fallacy of composition, just bad writing. If you look at how the phrase is used and the idea it was intended to convey, you'll find that the person was letting those ready-made phrases (that Orwell warned against) pour out onto their writing while they intended to say (something similar to) that it's an entity that doesn't possess personhood because it's configuration does not give rise to the emergent property of consciousness and consequently there's no reason to consider the entity a moral concern anymore than (say) a rock or benign vaginal tumor.

In the vast majority of intentional abortions, what was removed were things without personhood. To remove that nonconscious nonperson entity from a woman's private region is truly no different from removing that nonconscious nonperson clump of cells that comprise the foreskin of a male baby's penis. The only difference between them, of course, is that the male baby is a conscious person who's strapped down and proceeds to scream as someone rips its foreskin off. When was the last time you heard someone put forward an argument along the lines of: foreskin is made of cells; cells are life; I'm pro-life; therefore, I'm pro-foreskin? No! We don't see any large political debate on that issue, it's skirted to the side. People are less concerned about whether it's morally objectionable to chop off children's body parts and more concerned about whether the embryo will reach the stage where they can chop off it's body parts. So far as I'm concerned with other peoples' business, I support the right to choose whether to abort the embryo or fetus provided it's not a conscious entity at the time the operation's performed. Whether it arose from rape or consentual sex is irrelevant because personhood entails rights but nonpersonhood entails nothing. A woman who wants or needs to abort a nonconscious nonperson entity from her body is the only person involved, the thing inside her is not a person. It therefore follows that she is the only person we should have a moral concern for.

This raises the issue of whether it's better for the woman to have an abortion or to follow through with the birthing of a child and giving it up for adoption. It's my opinion that the woman would be better off emotionally by having an abortion than by giving birth to the child and giving it up for adoption. If the nonconscious being is aborted, never did it feel pain and never was it aware of its existence anymore than the dandruff washed off your scalp. The mother won't feel too bad for having aborted it. I think the majority of her pain will be the sorrow she feels when she has those rosy imaginings of what life would've been like if she allowed it to become her child. If she thinks realistically she probably won't feel that bad about missing that path in life though—she just managed to avoid working for another person for eighteen or more years, changing diapers for what seems like forever, and various other things like driving the kid to school during the winter and jeopardizing her own life because the child gave the bus driver the finger. It's the rosy imaginings that hurt her, not necessarily the events or actualities. On the other hand, what if she births the child and gives it up for adoption? The initial separation of a person and nonperson can certainly suck, as in the case of abortion, but the initial separation of a person and another person looking back at her can be much more emotionally disturbing. Do you think she'll ever forget that horrible moment? And again, one must factor in the imaginings of the woman. Just think of handing your child over to someone and then thinking to yourself, years on end, whether the child may have fallen down that someone's stairs and broke it's bones, might be beaten by the foster parents or the kids in the neighborhood where the foster parents live, might be relocated from one home to another and scarcely knowing just who their parents are, and so on. Those thoughts aren't of the "boo hoo, it could've been so great" variety that inevitably arise in the abortion scenario, those are absolute conscience killers. I would also like to restate Maragon's statement that noticably pregnant women "could be ridiculed, ostracised, miss job opportunities or lose work." Let's also not forget that if the female is a teenager, her highschool education may have been extended an extra year, thus lowering the amount of money she would've otherwise made throughout her life. Then, add to this whole scene of woe the feelings of those children put up for adoption who actually do experience the pains I mentioned. As Magilum pointed out, some of the children put up for adoption can be "transformed into monsters who will only continue the cycle of social destruction."

Women should have the liberty of choosing the path they think will produce less emotional scarring, but they also own their own bodies. This was part of the reason why I asked for a definition of baby or child that distinguishes the embryo or fetus from the mother. If the embryo or fetus is considered part of the mother, rather than something distinct that is inside the mother, then denying her the choice of abortion could only be sustained by the tyranny of denying her right to own her own body. The criterion of personhood provides an excellent reason to think they are distinct entities, as they are distinct consciouses, but before there is a consciousness in the fetus how do you separate it as a distinct entity from the mother? I have crafted an argument that uses self-ownership to establish the woman's right to have an abortion when the fetus has not attained consciousness and I would appreciate feedback on it:

(1) People own their bodies and everything within them that is without consciousness
(2) Embryos and fetuses without consciousness grow within the bodies of people
(3) Therefore, people own the embryos and fetuses without consciousness within their bodies (modus ponens, 1-2)
(4) People may destroy what they own that is without consciousness
(5) Therefore, people may destroy the embryos and fetuses without consciousness within their bodies (modus ponens, 3-4)

Thus far, I have not yet addressed the issue of whether abortion should be allowed or not after the fetus has attained a rudimentary consciousness though. This is when a rudimentary personhood exists and the issue becomes more complex. I'm truly not comfortable speaking on this portion of the issue. I'll simply say that I intuitively feel that it's wrong to have an abortion at this stage, but my intuition could be completely wrong. I need more time to contemplate on this issue. Thankfully, however, attempts to have an abortion during this grey area is almost vanishingly small percentage-wise. I can't recall the exact percentage but somewhere around 99.5% of all attempts to have a legal abortion occur during the period where there isn't even a rudimentary consciousness, meaning that the vast majority of abortions that do occur present no moral dilemma as far as I can tell.

Of course, that almost vanishingly small amount of possibly morally objectionable abortions should be reduced even farther—along with all other abortions. I think that making abortion illegal is a nonsolution. If you make abortion illegal then the result will consist of black market abortions where sanitation standards aren't nearly as high thus increasing maternal deaths, women desperately trying to do the procedure themselves with objects like clothes hangers and dying in the process along with fetus or child, or actual children being born in back alleys and being tossed in dumpsters where they slowly starve to death while their screams reverberate through the metal canisters they were placed in. Those issues will not magically disappear—regardless of the uplifting but delusional reassurances given by conversative Christians—and consequently abortion illegality present a larger moral dilemma than legality because the ending of life occurs to conscious persons instead, who are capable of being harmed and self-interests denied. As such, I support legality and think the solution is to reduce the amount of unintended pregnancies, of which there are many possible ways to address the problem.

First, medicaid coverage of contraceptives would, according to the Guttmacher Institute, prevent ~500,000 unwanted pregnancies and ~200,000 abortions every year. By preventing that many pregnancies, we not only reduce the amount of conscious-fetus abortions that occur but federal and state governments could also save perhaps billions of dollars by reducing the amount of funding needed to provide pre-natal and post-natal pregnancy care for medicaid recipients. This has a fairly high upfront cost but it would ultimately reduce the budget and the misery.

Second, I think the debate between safe-sex and no-sex education is completely ridiculous because both approaches could be combined into a single approach. The current debate over the issue is baffling—an analogous situation would be firefighters at the scene of a forest fire doing less than they could because they're consuming their time by arguing amongst themselves about whether to fight fire with fire or water when both tactics could be combined. They should, in essence, be taught that they should control themselves but they should have a plan B if they find themselves overpowered by their hormones. This is akin to telling someone that if they absolutely must punch something to vent their frustration, better a wall than a partner. And...

Third, that combined approach should be expanded upon so it conveys a more comprehensive understanding of not only how an unintended pregnancy could doom their dreams but also show them the effects of unintended pregnancies on the environment, thus using the new green-generation's desires as a leverage. How many students are taught about the amount of deforestation that occurs due to unintended pregnancies, or the amount of extinctions or devastations that result from that deforestation, and so on? The current institution seems to insist that they focus only on themselves rather than teaching students that the moral problems are less local, more global, in nature. Perhaps the medicaid savings could be used toward this goal.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
What I said is very simple,

What I said is very simple, yet, instead of reading everything I said, only a few sentences are read and are taken into context of itself instead of the paragraph given.

It's very simple and is very similar to the strong and weak atheist bit.

If you have made up your mind that either side is 100% correct and toss out any of the many circumstances then you are an idiot. Very plain. Very simple. If you think everyone should be allowed to have an abortion, no, this is not the case. If you think no one should be allowed to have an abortion, no, this is not the case either.

This is what I said, and if you think otherwise then yes, you are an idiot. Not because of I.Q. Not because of your logic and reasoning skills. Not because you are otherwise rational. You are an idiot because you see a non-black and white issue as a black and whtie issue.

The issue is more like the following picture, with hundreds of different situations that may or may not have an effect on it.

 

Am I pro-choice? Yes, but not a strong pro-choicer.


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think it is an

I think it is an interesting thing to point out that, while many of the atheists here are more than willing to say that they detest abortion and they find it "morally wrong," they are not willing to have the government claim that pre-born humans have rights, protected by the government like every other human.

 I wonder why that is?  Is there something to be said about the moral relativism of atheism?  I never believed it myself, because I get all of my ethics from philosophy rather than from any religious text--but I doubt everyone has put as much thought into ethics as I have (although certainly some have). 

Thoughts? 

 

(Note: personally I think that it should be determined like almost every law should--locally.  People should be able to govern themselves, and vote within their local community as to what is and isn't moral.  Therefore a local community absolutely has the right, and in my opinon they should, to regulate abortion.  Self governance is a right of all people.

On a more personal note, I would vote to abolish abortion except in cases of rape or when two doctors consented that the birth was a danger to the mother.  If she was raped, then she should not have to suffer a pregnancy by someone elses forced actions (the baby itself is violating her right to her body, taken from her against her will), and if she is in danger of harm... well I don't think I need to justify that one.)


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

Textom wrote:

Eloise: it's probably overly-idealistic to say that "sex is an emotional support system" that is inextricably interlocked with reproduction and long-term romantic relationships.

Hi Textom, you've inserted three words into my mouth , I said nothing about anything 'long-term' or 'romantic'. I just said relationships and thats what I meant, relationships like the one we're having here, like the relationships we have with friends, parents, our local government, favourite movie star etc ; all human interactions personal and indirect which leave a lasting impression or affect of 'another' on our personal being.

Insert my words, instead, and tell me what you think.

 

Quote:

For example, the evidence suggests that humans everywhere and in all times are really into recreational sex. Among consenting adults where no one is being deceived, decoupling sex from relationships is not a "failure." It's an innocent activity.

Innocent until we have a serious moral problem with the consequences, right?

Anyhow that's not even my point. I am not trying to say it isn't an innocent activity. What I am saying is simply and without nuance, what I said, sex is an emotional support system of human relationships. If you call it recreational you're still calling it emotional support, the difference is semantic.

Suffice it to say I think you have my point all mixed up. You may be right that I have aversion to the vacant, sexuality rhetoric of the modern era, but I don't see that you have grasped how.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Okies, my bad. I retract

Okies, Eloise, my bad. I believe you and retract the inaccurate parts of my comments.

Recreational sex can be innocent in the same sense that other risky activities--driving a car, skydiving, getting drunk--can be. If you're referring to the relative unreliability of most birth control as the 'consequences,' then I'll concede that one. We can only hope for better methods soon, and there is always sterilization.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: What I

CrimsonEdge wrote:
What I said is very simple, yet, instead of reading everything I said, only a few sentences are read and are taken into context of itself instead of the paragraph given.

I'll assume this is directed at me and/or Matt since we're the only ones who responded to you directly. I read your entire post, and I had no intention of quoting you out of context, and I believe that I did not. And, in case you didn't notice, you called a bunch of people idiots with absolutely no basis whatsoever, and I think they have a right to respond to your baseless ad hominems, as Matt has.

My point is that you seem to have skipped the important moral questions and gone straight into case studies. But without forming a moral basis for your opinions, this is a purely arbitrary process. If you aren't using some sort of morality as a standard, there's no argument you can make against aborting the child, or even the mother for that matter. I'm afraid you cannot be our capricious moral dictator of all matters any more than a god could.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
It's very simple and is very similar to the strong and weak atheist bit.

The strong/weak atheist bit is a matter distinguishing between positive and negative positions. Abortion is not that sort of problem.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
If you have made up your mind that either side is 100% correct and toss out any of the many circumstances then you are an idiot.

Why?

CrimsonEdge wrote:
This is what I said, and if you think otherwise then yes, you are an idiot. Not because of I.Q. Not because of your logic and reasoning skills. Not because you are otherwise rational. You are an idiot because you see a non-black and white issue as a black and whtie issue.

I have no problem with nuances, but you haven't advanced a position on the matter, nuanced or otherwise. You've just launched into a litany of specific cases. You say that a woman who is well-off shouldn't be able to get an abortion, but a woman who is in poverty should. Personally, I find this a reprehensible attitude, in that it grants different rights to different people with no clearly-stated underlying rational.

My post was to encourage you to elaborate on the matter, not to put you on the defensive. I look forward to reading your reasoned reply.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
I have bo problem with

I have no problem with abortion.

I think a womans rights over what happens in he r own body trump the "right" of feotus.

We assign rights based on the manifestation of certain special properties. Any object that displays these special properties is afforded these special rights. The properties in question are conciousness, self awareness, ability to feel pain. It is these manifest properties that we seek to protect with assigning rights. Not this is nothing to do with being a human. If any animal displayed these properties to a human level then they too shoudl be afforded special protection by law.

Science tells us the feotuses simply do not have these properties. Thus they do not have the special protection of special "human" rights. They should thus be treated in a similar way to other objects with similar levels of these properties.

Now sure they have the POTENTIAL to manifets the special properties in question but so does every strand of DNA in your body under the right conditions. If we allow potentiality to come into it then every time a fertile couple have protoected sex and and don't concieve then it should be classes as murder. In fact masturbation is equivelant to the holocaust if we allow the potential to come into it.

So a woman manifests these special properties and so has full rights including her right to what happens in her own body and life.

A foetus does not have these properties.

The womans rights wins.

The man has no rights in this because it is not his body that would effectivly be enslaved for nine months if forced to carry full term. Unfortuantly men to have an obligation to look after the child if it is carried full term. Is this fair? Well probably not but this bit of unfairness is better than letting fathers off the hook so it has to stay really.

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Okies,

Textom wrote:

Okies, Eloise, my bad. I believe you and retract the inaccurate parts of my comments.

Recreational sex can be innocent in the same sense that other risky activities--driving a car, skydiving, getting drunk--can be.

 

No Problems, Textom. You've got my drift now for sure. I was discussing this with a good friend recently (she quickly understood my semantics being familiar with my tone) and her immediate response was to state similarly about risky activities going on to say there are just too many things consenting adults can't politically be allowed to do, but sex is exempted from that cull and perhaps that has fostered an over-reliance on it. I'm agreeing with her for the most, she also had good ideas about the possibility of turning to tribal traditions (like coming of age rites for young men) speculating that perhaps there was wisdom in these rites of passage being healthy compensation for the virile stages of human development.

 

Quote:

If you're referring to the relative unreliability of most birth control as the 'consequences,' then I'll concede that one. We can only hope for better methods soon, and there is always sterilization.

There's always hope in technology, yes. I won't disagree with that, humanity is creative enough to solve any problem with technology, but I will wonder aloud if we've begun to think technology is the only answer available to us, and if that's wise.  

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
If everyone were totally

If everyone were totally homosexual we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. It's not as though we need anymore humans inhabiting the Earth. In the case of everyone being totally homosexual the only children born would be the ones that were really wanted.

To be serious, however, haven't abortions been performed by humans for an incredibly long time? I realize that that's not a good reason in and of itself to continue on the practise in the modern times, but it factors into my understanding of the importance of the option to women.

At what point in time does someone consider an abortion an abortion? My sister, with her husband, did not want babies and did not want to use certain birth control for personal reasons. My sister employed a series of other contraceptive methods in order to reduce the chance of her getting pregnant, but eventually a method broke down and she feared she may be pregnant. She used the morning after pill in order to ensure that she didn't continue being pregnant if she was. This seemed very reasonable to me. After all, I don't believe that anyone should ever dictate to another person what they can and cannot do to their bodies and between each other, even if a bundle of cells could mature to birth. That being said, my sister is now 3 days from her due date of a pregnancy she and her husband planned.

I wouldn't have had a problem if the abortion (Because that really is what my sister did isn't it?) if she was indeed pregnant, took place a month or two after she became pregnant. Or am I to understand that there are different developmental stages a human life goes through before birth and that some of these disqualify the use of the term abortion? I don't see how a person or people can be obligated by a law to carry a human life to term if they really don't want to. My sister did not want a baby at the time. You could say she was irresponsible for not practising the use of certain other contraceptives, but that is quite irrelevant. If abortions are to be banned except in the case of extreme need, what would people be forced to do? How would my sister have carried on her life as she did? What sort of burden (emotion, financial) would have been put on her and her husband? She has expressed to me that if she became pregnant at a time inconvenient to her she would not carry through with the pregnancy. Would it be termed infanticide for a person to have an abortion where they are illegal? Would the person be put to trial and sentenced? I am simply beside myself with the implications banning abortion would have.

I believe it's important for those people who agree with a ban on abortion to realize that they are not usually performed whimsically and just because but by people usually in desperate circumstances. Unless society is wiling to pay for the pregnancy and ensure the health of the child and a home for it if it is unwanted when it is born, then I can only see a ban on abortions as a gross injustice in a society largely apathetic to the needs of others.

I don't personally support abortions in the typical sense (obviously, I hope), but to be opposed to them merely because it seems repugnant and immoral or because of some fanciful ideal that adoption is available and a viable option is extremely naive and frankly insulting to the women and couples who would be extremely hard put by a pregnancy they can't afford emotionally or financially, regardless of how she/they became pregnant. I fail to see the issue in another way and I refuse to give a centimetre of personal freedom up in order for society to exact some control over sex. I find it absolutely more repugnant to put a human life capable or producing another human life at the same level of the produced at the point of production. My sister, her happiness and welfare, and that of all women, come before my desire to protect and foster even the most infantile life. I would rather a woman be able to have a baby when she can and wants to than to be forced to carry to term a baby that would negatively impact upon her happiness and welfare.

[edited]

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
evil religion wrote: Now

evil religion wrote:

Now sure they have the POTENTIAL to manifets the special properties in question but so does every strand of DNA in your body under the right conditions. If we allow potentiality to come into it then every time a fertile couple have protoected sex and and don't concieve then it should be classes as murder. In fact masturbation is equivelant to the holocaust if we allow the potential to come into it.

you need to re-analyze this argumetn b4 you discard it, because you are creating a strawman.

the foetus HAS the right conditions to become life, it became that way because of the choice of two consenting adutls to make it that way.  Now all that is required is the natural processes of the mother's body in order to make it a living, breathing, feeling organism.  It has more than the potentiol to become life--it has already taken the first step. 

Discarding it as you did is a strawman.  You should adress the issue at hand more forefully rather than making a strawman reducto ad absurdium argument.

 

 


WormGetsItsWings
WormGetsItsWings's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-08-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: I

deludedgod wrote:

I dislike abortion except in cases of rape and severe disability of the baby or danger to the mother.

I usually distrust the excuse of genuine inability to care for the child due to poverty/alcoholism etc because if that is the case, you ought give the baby up for adoption, instead of killing it.

. Nonetheless, I concede that an abortion out of "inconvenience" is a rarity. Usually, the mother has a good reason. In the UK, there are laws against having an abortion without a doctor's opinion that it is the best option.

And I only "dislike" it. I am still pro-choice. Remember, there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". Hopefully, no one thinks abortion is a good thing, pro-choice only means you concede that it is the mother's decision.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I've always said that abortion should not be used as a "get-out-of-baby-free card", but in certain circumstances (e.g. rape, incest, risk of mother's life, etc.) I wouldn't begrudge anyone for using it. I'm also big on personal freedoms, so even if abortion is not a choice I would make in a particular situation, I can't and would never want to force you to make the same decision.

"On mine honour, my friend, [...] there is nothing of all that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hell. Thy soul will be dead even sooner than thy body; fear, therefore, nothing any more!"

- from Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote: evil

RationalDeist wrote:
evil religion wrote:

Now sure they have the POTENTIAL to manifets the special properties in question but so does every strand of DNA in your body under the right conditions. If we allow potentiality to come into it then every time a fertile couple have protoected sex and and don't concieve then it should be classes as murder. In fact masturbation is equivelant to the holocaust if we allow the potential to come into it.

you need to re-analyze this argumetn b4 you discard it, because you are creating a strawman.

the foetus HAS the right conditions to become life,

So what? 

Quote:
it became that way because of the choice of two consenting adutls to make it that way.

So what? 

Quote:
Now all that is required is the natural processes of the mother's body in order to make it a living, breathing, feeling organism. It has more than the potentiol to become life--it has already taken the first step.

I see so you think that it magically aquires those rights at the point of conception. Why? Why does it aquire thsoe rights then? Why does it aquire them fully then at that point? Why does the millisecond before the sperm enter the egg the matter in question has no rights and then a split second latter it has full rights? 

Quote:
Discarding it as you did is a strawman.

No it is not a strawman because there are plenty of sperm/egg combinations that WOULD have the right conidtions to become life NATURALLY but dont because of the pressence of the various forms of contraception. In order to retain a coherant argument you need to explain why we dont treat couple who use the contraceptive pill in the same way as we treat couples who murder their children.

Quote:
You should adress the issue at hand more forefully rather than making a strawman reducto ad absurdium argument.

I have addressed the issue. If you care to read the rest of my post you will see that I am bassing my argument around the manifest properties of objects rather than their "potential" (natural or otherwise) or their actual categorisation.

Human beings base their moral protections on the special properties that are present. We do not, largely, base them on the potential of the object in question. Some considerations can be given to potential but the main consideration is the actual properties displayed. A momments reflection will see that his is true.

A piece of cloth and some oil based paints  has the potential to be a great work of art. But no great crime is commited if they burnt.

A sperm and and egg have the potential to be a human being and would develop naturally into into one IF NOT for the presence of the contraceptive pill. No great crime is commited by couples who use the contraceptive pill. 

You could construct an argument along the lines of:

There is a special property present at the point of fertiliation that means that the object in question deserves special moral protection.

But you would need to clarify what this special property is and why it deserves special moral protection. Many Xtians posit that at this point a soul is born and that is why it needs to be protected. If this is your stance then lets have a discusion about that. There are many many problems with this notion of soul. 

 



I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    Science is the only

    Science is the only way to fix this problem, the "on -off implant solution ?, Deluded and his, need work on this .....  We are science ..... abortion no more is  possible ..... and will be ? why not ? ??? 


Jman911 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 While it's late here and I

 While it's late here and I havn't had time to pore over all of the posts, here is my basic position as an atheist against abortion.

I do feel that there is a point where it is acceptable to abort, like the morning after pill does.

I do not agree with the christian view that at the moment of conception it is a life equal to all others, but I also concede that I do not exactly when to make that determination.  That said, the point at which a fetus is unacceptable and immoral to abort comes around the time people realize that they are pregnant, making any abortion that isn't relatively immediate murder.

I would allow for some extremely rare, life and death exceptions.  But as I said, I can only see the atheist point of view being one based on the idea that the child is a human being and it is murder to abort.  If that is your viewpoint, I don't see how you can justify rape as a cause to abort.  Rape + Murder does not equal neutral.


Athene
Troll
Athene's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I'm curious my friend says it's exclusivly a religious issue. 

Well, Eric Schwartz sang:
"It's just believers in the bible that would have abortion banned
Anti-choice agnostics, I could count 'em on one hand"

But while that may be true in relation, that's surely not meant to be taken literally. Because after all, atheism doesn't equate "scientific thinking" or "liberalism". So a teenage atheist girl can actually say something along "Awwww, me likin babbies, you no maek babbies ded!" Also, one can have other, non-religious arguments like "Abortion increases insensitivity towards the value of life" or "The fetus is innocent, even if it came into existence by rape" or "We are going extinct, we need every child" (after a global catastrophe, for example). So the answer is yes, there are atheists against abortions.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I don't like when people use

I don't like when people use it as a form of birth control but I do suppot it in the matter of health problems for mom/baby and rape. The flip side is I do support stem cell research. I know stem cell would help thousands of other living babies survive. I have to imagine that there can't be much worse than finding out your baby has cancer or something else that will probably be fatal.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey 'Becca

 

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I don't like when people use it as a form of birth control but I do suppot it in the matter of health problems for mom/baby and rape. The flip side is I do support stem cell research. I know stem cell would help thousands of other living babies survive. I have to imagine that there can't be much worse than finding out your baby has cancer or something else that will probably be fatal.

 

Why don't you plug the ethics of stem cell question in as a new thread? I'm sure it would have legs of its own. Stem cell research is fascinating from an ethical point of view. I wonder what all our folks might think?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I've had an abortion and I

I've had an abortion and I don't want to discuss that other than to say, I'm glad I did. I am an atheist now but, have always felt that the choice to have an abortion is strictly  between a woman and her doctor and no one should have the right to prevent a woman from doing so if she wants to do it....up to a certain point. If the 'baby' is fully formed, able to survive on it's own, then abortion, imo, would be murder.

What I do want to discuss is the two ruptured tubal pregnancies that I experienced. Both times, I estimate I was about 9 weeks pregnant, experienced excruciating abdominal pain and was rushed to the hospital. The second time it happened, they did a sonogram in the ER. I'll never forget that image as long as I live. Looked something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sj4ltSvPCQ&feature=related

While I was in pain both physically and emotionally, and I was devastated at the reality of losing the 'baby' I also realized, from seeing the image, that it was not actually a baby. It was the idea of losing a potential baby that hurt so bad.

The fetus I saw in the ER and the multiple clots I saw in the commode after spontaneous abortion, none I would consider human beings. (I had been seeing an infertility specialist at the time).

Seeing an image of a fetus at 14 weeks invokes a different feeling...while it appears more 'human', internally, it is still not a complete human being.

I think the bottom line in defining a person and a non-person is whether or, not the fetus is fully developed and can survive on it's own. What it's potential is shouldn't count.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I really have no problem at

I really have no problem at all with a "morning after" pill. Any tiny 'moral' twinge about flushing a few cells away cannot ethically be offset against even a modest likelihood of a child being raised in a dysfunctional or uncaring environment, IMHO.

As the development time-line proceeds, the minimum justification should grow.

I do not actually quite agree that "can survive on it's own" should be a significant factor.

I would emphasize an assessment focussed on the mental development, as far as it can be assessed.

This is always going to have a major subjective component - as with all moral issues, there are no absolutely objectively definable lines to avoid crossing. 

EDIT: The obsession about a 'soul' is the most common problem, which assumes we are discussing a fully 'ensouled' person from the moment of conception, which is why religion is so commonly involved in objections. But that attitude to human conception is the primary driver to objections, not the religious expression of it, although the religious doctrines typically reinforce it enormously.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
For some reason, I couldn't

For some reason, I couldn't edit my last reply but, I just wanted to clarify something...

I'm not 'glad' I had the abortion but, I am glad that I had the option to make that choice.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:And I only

deludedgod wrote:

And I only "dislike" it. I am still pro-choice. Remember, there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". Hopefully, no one thinks abortion is a good thing, pro-choice only means you concede that it is the mother's decision.

Exactly it's the lesser of two evils.

But I could also support mandatory abortion as the lesser of two evils. If we ever have a rational social contract to eliminate all poverty, people would need to agree to limit there family size to get things like medical care, job training. If people did not live up to there obligations, there would need to be consequences.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:deludedgod

EXC wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

And I only "dislike" it. I am still pro-choice. Remember, there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". Hopefully, no one thinks abortion is a good thing, pro-choice only means you concede that it is the mother's decision.

Exactly it's the lesser of two evils.

But I could also support mandatory abortion as the lesser of two evils. If we ever have a rational social contract to eliminate all poverty, people would need to agree to limit there family size to get things like medical care, job training. If people did not live up to there obligations, there would need to be consequences.

 

There is something Orwellian about your reply and it is disturbing.

While I agree there is an over- population problem, your solution would limit children to the wealthy and mandatory abortion/birth prevention to the poor. That's not 'fair'. If you're going to limit the number of births, it should be across the board to all.

They tried your plan in this country back in the 1940's and it didn't work out well.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Uh-oh, here we go. 

Uh-oh, here we go.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:There is

Sandycane wrote:

There is something Orwellian about your reply and it is disturbing.

There is something Orwellian about paying massive taxes for social services for other people's kids. Why is reproductive freedom sacred while economic freedom is not? We can let the tax man come in and invade everyone's private life to pay for the children of men and women that want to have as many kids as they please. We can tell people their responsible for other people's kids but I have no say in who gets to be born? Then leave me the fuck alone if you want me to leave you alone to have as many kids as you want.

Do you serious think the government shouldn't stop the Octomon and the deadbeat dads? We already have laws to quarantine people if they have an infectous disease and mandate they get treated, for the good of the whole society. So how would mandatory birth control be different?

Sandycane wrote:

While I agree there is an over- population problem, your solution would limit children to the wealthy and mandatory abortion/birth prevention to the poor. That's not 'fair'. If you're going to limit the number of births, it should be across the board to all.

I never said I wanted to limit birth restriction to the poor. But the wealth usually don't have large families, a big part of the reason they are wealthy. Perhaps people could pay a tax or prove they can take care of more that 2 kids.

Sandycane wrote:

They tried your plan in this country back in the 1940's and it didn't work out well.

What are you talking about?

So what has worked? We do nothing and watch the country and the world continually suffer, is that your idea? Just let Malthusian catastrophes continually ruin lives?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Uh-oh, here

mellestad wrote:

Uh-oh, here we go.

 

 Have you seen this debate before?


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I agree with exc here but

I agree with exc here but I'm not sure to what extent. As I've stated previously, I have a son with severe special needs. He has severe scholiosis and his chest wall is too small for his lungs to have room for growth. He has to be on medicaid because no insurance companies will allow me to have a policy for him.

So my thing is this. Why do we have so many people with so many kids that they can't take care of? They are all on medicaid, draw food stamps every month and whether they no where the daddy is or not, they can get a check every month to substitute child support.

I've known people personally who get pregnant so that they can get more food stamps or money from the government. That is fucked up in so many ways. I don't work right now but I will and I have. I have paid for these people to be lazy qjd just punch out another kid rather than get a job. It rediculous.

I firmly believe that if you are on medicaid, after kid 3, you should be required to be on birth control at least. I know yiu can't make people do the sterilization but why keep allowing tax payers to support peoples mistakes and sometimes their raping of the system?

The food stamp issue, I'm not sure about. I onow eventually they make you get on a jobs program. It's always after people have drawn them for a year or better though. They don't do anything to enforce it either. They just use it as a tactic to deter people from applying I think.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson wrote:I

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I agree with exc here but I'm not sure to what extent. As I've stated previously, I have a son with severe special needs. He has severe scholiosis and his chest wall is too small for his lungs to have room for growth. He has to be on medicaid because no insurance companies will allow me to have a policy for him. So my thing is this. Why do we have so many people with so many kids that they can't take care of? They are all on medicaid, draw food stamps every month and whether they no where the daddy is or not, they can get a check every month to substitute child support. I've known people personally who get pregnant so that they can get more food stamps or money from the government. That is fucked up in so many ways. I don't work right now but I will and I have. I have paid for these people to be lazy qjd just punch out another kid rather than get a job. It rediculous. I firmly believe that if you are on medicaid, after kid 3, you should be required to be on birth control at least. I know yiu can't make people do the sterilization but why keep allowing tax payers to support peoples mistakes and sometimes their raping of the system? The food stamp issue, I'm not sure about. I onow eventually they make you get on a jobs program. It's always after people have drawn them for a year or better though. They don't do anything to enforce it either. They just use it as a tactic to deter people from applying I think.

Just a point, didn't the recent healthcare bill make it illegal to deny based on pre-existing conditions?  This took effect in September of this year.  If you have a private insurance plan, you can have your child added to it.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.