ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In France you must help someone in need if you can without risking harm to yourself.

Neat - I didn't know that. But they don't require you to subject yourself to harm, do you?

What I'm getting at is this: picture a circumstance where a baby is in peril. It's sitting on a tree limb over a raging river or it's inside a house that's on fire, whatever... just pick some threat where the baby would definitely die if intervention doesn't happen, but with the same risk of harm and death as there is for a pregnant woman carrying the baby to term and giving birth to it. Would it be legal for the parent to choose not to climb out onto the creaking limb or not run into the smoke-filled house? Of course it would.

I don't doubt that most parents would do these things in a heartbeat, but the law wouldn't force a parent to take these risks.

So... why should the law demand that a pregnant woman take these risks for a child that isn't even born yet? If you want to argue that a fetus is equal in value to a person, I disagree, but that's one thing. Demanding that a woman take the fetus to term places a higher value on the fetus than it does on any other person, which is a whole other thing altogether.

 

[Panda]

Neat - I didn't know that. But they don't require you to subject yourself to harm, do you?

No, I just thought it was a nice wee bit of trivia mildly related to what you were saying.

 

[rojse]

Dont be under some crazy illusion that as humans we are better, its simply not true.

Yeah, it's not like we've been to the moon or anything.

Williamena, define the word "better".

 

[leahrachelle]

The wrong thing being defined as something that leahrachelle does not agree with?

I am entitled to use opinion words in my posts, am I not?

 

[leahrachelle]

Where do these wonderful statistics come from?

Condoms: have heard this dozens of times
Birth Control: its on the back of the box
Both: my own math
You do notice that I put question marks behind them though to inform that I am not completely sure

Fortunately, the exact opposite occurs. You have spent a few minutes to gain information to either help inform your debate and arguments, or helps you re-examine your argument. I myself have altered several of my arguments following some research on the internet.

Well that is you thats not me

If you are interested enough in a subject, there's no reason why you can't do some personal research. Learning about science should not, and is not confined to your schooling life.
I never said that is was. And obviously I am not interested in it enough to look it up, there you go.

It's a good idea to examine a debate from multiple perspectives, and equally good to reexamine our own arguments in the light of arguments from different areas of endeavour.

Thats fair

It might be worth your time to consider the opposite side of the argument - why might a person not want to go to an abortion clinic? Perhaps they cannot afford the doctor's fees, for example. Perhaps they don't want the information disclosed to their parents, as there might be a variety of reasons for this.

But this does not matter to me because I do not feel it is right under any circumstances.

The difference between a foetus (of an unspecified age) and a fully-developed able-bodied aged person are so astounding, as to render your analogy useless. A foetus has not developed physically, does not have a developed brain, does not have a nervous system developed (which allows the perception of pain), and so many other things that allow us to distinguish between a foetus and a developed person.

Again, if you consider a a fetus a human, there is no reason why this analogy is false, unless you cruely think that older people are more important than younger people.

 

[leahrachelle]

The problem with a word like "human" is that it can have so many different meanings and connotations. That is why it is very important to remember what we are talking about here. The question is not when a fetus becomes "human", but when society has an interest in recognizing the existence of a new, independent person with civil rights of its own.

You might be interested in the history of abortion. The Catholic Church actually took a fairly liberal view on the subject until about the 19th century. Before then, the question was over when "ensoulment" took place--the entering of the soul into the fetus. The prevailing view followed St. Augustine's argument that it didn't take place until "quickening" happened--roughly the beginning of the third trimester. Before that point, abortion was not considered "murder" by Church authorities.

Thank you for this information, I do appreciate it, but I'm afraid the Catholic view does not apply to me much. If you feel that it does, please explain how.

So what about being outside the womb? Why is that important? That is when the child officially becomes a citizen with civil rights. It gets a name and a birth certificate. After that point, death requires a death certificate, never before birth. Should we require death certificates and names for miscarriages? That would hardly make sense.

Since you are pointing out that the US does not consider fetuses to be human, I must also point out that you can be charged with murder if you punch a woman in their stomach in their stomach and kill their baby. The law kind of contradicts itself with this.

Can you at least clarify one point? Do you consider abortions permissible early in the first trimester? If so, why? That would make your drawing relevant to the discussion, but it would make you vulnerable to the criticism that you define "personhood" on the basis of superficial appearances. If not, then we can dismiss the drawing as irrelevant to the defense of your argument.

No, I feel that abortion is not right at any such time.
And my point of the illustration was simply to show that it is not a clump of cells, that is all. I did try to point out, though, that it is a lot like a newborn baby (mainly for sympathy purposes I guess), but I was not trying to set a criteria for what a human is like what some thought.

Finally, I would like to applaud you for engaging in this discussion. This is a very complex and difficult subject to discuss, and you are doing the right thing in exposing your own opinions to attack, even if the criticisms seem a bit harsh at times. The more you engage in debates like this, the more you will sharpen your reasoning skills. I speak as someone considerably older than you, so I am pleased that you even bother to listen to my opinions. [/quote]
I appreciate that Ha, that last sentecne is interesting, though, because I would listen to someone who is older than me any day before someone who is younger. Especially since most people my age are completely useless when it comes to intelligence

 

[leahrachelle]

Don't take it so personally we take it upon ourselves to kill every other animal on earth, why not ourselves. We are animals get used to it. Dont be under some crazy illusion that as humans we are better, its simply not true.
Its not up to you to decide things for people. If they dont want to keep their baby then you having a whinge wont achieve anything.

Does the fact that we can control all of the other organisms on earth not prove that we are somehow better? Or is that just a complete coincidence.

 

[leahrachelle]

Yeah, it's not like we've been to the moon or anything. :redx:

I wanna see monkeys try to build a rocket.

 

[leahrachelle]

So as humans we are better but equal to all the micro organism that went with "us" to the moon ?

Without us, they would have never gone to the moon -_-

 

[leahrachelle]

Legally, if your child is in peril - or even certain to die without your intervention - you aren't required to put yourself in peril to save him or her.

That's pretty sad if you dont...

 

[Copernicus]

Thank you for this information, I do appreciate it, but I'm afraid the Catholic view does not apply to me much. If you feel that it does, please explain how.

I didn't mean to imply you were Catholic. Back when St. Augustine formulated his liberal policy, almost all Christians belonged to the Roman church. What is interesting about it is that the RCC now takes such a rigid stand against abortion, and that stand is at odds with the policy it tended to follow for centuries. But this issue of pegging the sinfulness of abortion to a stage of pregnancy, rather than the entire pregnancy, has long been debated by theologians. Personhood was defined in terms of when the soul was thought to enter the body, and some have felt that that occurred roughly at the beginning of the third trimester, when "quickening" takes place. Ironically, that is roughly where the Supreme Court has ruled that government can begin to interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Since you are pointing out that the US does not consider fetuses to be human, I must also point out that you can be charged with murder if you punch a woman in their stomach in their stomach and kill their baby. The law kind of contradicts itself with this.

I have never heard of such a law. Is there such a law in your state? BTW, I never said that the US does not consider fetuses to be human. It doesn't consider them legal persons until birth.

No, I feel that abortion is not right at any such time. And my point of the illustration was simply to show that it is not a clump of cells, that is all. I did try to point out, though, that it is a lot like a newborn baby (mainly for sympathy purposes I guess), but I was not trying to set a criteria for what a human is like what some thought.

But appeal to emotion is a fallacy, so your use of that drawing can be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion. Since you oppose a woman's right to choose abortion even when it is just "a clump of cells", you should argue in favor of that position. Just why do you oppose the abortion of a fertilized egg, blastula, or embryo? They don't even look human, and they certainly don't experience consciousness.

I speak as someone considerably older than you, so I am pleased that you even bother to listen to my opinions.

I appreciate that Ha, that last sentecne is interesting, though, because I would listen to someone who is older than me any day before someone who is younger. Especially since most people my age are completely useless when it comes to intelligence

Well, I was in my teens in the 1960s. Back then we had a saying: "Don't trust anyone over 30." I realize that times have changed.

 

[Willamena]

Williamena, define the word "better".

As a noun, something with more good than something with less good.

Now I suppose you'd want me to define "good". Good is what is valued or beneficial to the observer.

 

[leahrachelle]

I didn't mean to imply you were Catholic. Back when St. Augustine formulated his liberal policy, almost all Christians belonged to the Roman church. What is interesting about it is that the RCC now takes such a rigid stand against abortion, and that stand is at odds with the policy it tended to follow for centuries. But this issue of pegging the sinfulness of abortion to a stage of pregnancy, rather than the entire pregnancy, has long been debated by theologians. Personhood was defined in terms of when the soul was thought to enter the body, and some have felt that that occurred roughly at the beginning of the third trimester, when "quickening" takes place. Ironically, that is roughly where the Supreme Court has ruled that government can begin to interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Hmm, thats interesting. I guess the Supreme Court is secretly siding with religion then, hmm.. -_- Not surprising though

I have never heard of such a law. Is there such a law in your state? BTW, I never said that the US does not consider fetuses to be human. It doesn't consider them legal persons until birth.

I believe it is a national thing..?
But maybe it's one of those laws that simply allows the state to choose if they want to enact it.
But ive heard of several cases of that here.
Im also Im not POSITIVE that its a law - maybe those people were just trying to sue

It should definately be illegal, though, in my opinion because despite whether you want to argue that the fetus has rights, the mother surely does, and you are taking away her rights.

But appeal to emotion is a fallacy,

Not if it works it isnt.

so your use of that drawing can be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion

Like I said Since you oppose a woman's right to choose abortion even when it is just "a clump of cells" you should argue in favor of that position

Right, but regardless, I was trying to approve that in most cases it WASN'T just a clump of cells. That just bothered me for some reason

Just why do you oppose the abortion of a fertilized egg, blastula, or embryo? They don't even look human, and they certainly don't experience consciousness.

Like I said, I don't consider appearance part of my criteria, it was mainly for sympathy..
I don't know exactly how to describe my view, but basically, if its going to be born into that organism - human, monkey, whatever, thats what it is the moment of conception no matter how small or undeveloped it is. And since every human has the right to live, and I feel that it is a human, I feel that it is unconstitutional to murder it.
I understand that it is the woman's body but we can set laws that affect what a someone does to their body if it affects other humans - like drugs & alcohol for example. So im my opinion, that argument does not apply.

Well, I was in my teens in the 1960s. Back then we had a saying: "Don't trust anyone over 30." I realize that times have changed.

Haha, thats really funny =]

 

[Willamena]

...is a fallacy.

Not if it works it isnt.

Haha! Can I quote you on that?

 

[leahrachelle]

Haha! Can I quote you on that?

Lol a debate technique is not false if it works

 

[Copernicus]

It should definately be illegal, though, in my opinion because despite whether you want to argue that the fetus has rights, the mother surely does, and you are taking away her rights.

I agree, although I wouldn't call it murder. The crime would be against the mother, not the fetus.

Not if it works it isnt.

That depends on what you mean by "works". If persuasion is your only goal, then I agree. If truth is your goal, then I disagree. You can arrive at the truth through fallacious reasoning, it is just not the best method to use for arriving at truthful conclusions.

Right, but regardless, I was trying to approve that in most cases it WASN'T just a clump of cells. That just bothered me for some reason

It bothered you because the picture (an "artist's conception") allowed you to feel empathy for the unborn fetus. That is perfectly understandable, but it is unreasonable. It distracts from your real position, which is that even the "clump of cells" ought not to be subject to abortion.

Like I said, I don't consider appearance part of my criteria, it was mainly for sympathy..

Sympathy caused by appearances. You are slippery, but I am patient.

I don't know exactly how to describe my view, but basically, if its going to be born into that organism - human, monkey, whatever, thats what it is the moment of conception no matter how small or undeveloped it is...

That is true. And you raise an interesting question. Exactly what is the difference between a monkey embryo and a human embryo other than what it might or might not become one day? You are basing your argument now on potential, but even sperm have potential. Should we allow the death of half-persons? If human cloning from skin cells were perfected, would we need to make body piercings illegal? That way lies madness.

And since every human has the right to live, and I feel that it is a human, I feel that it is unconstitutional to murder it.

There are many different senses of "human", and I think that you are equivocating here. That is you use "human" in different senses but treat them as the same for the purpose of your conclusion. In terms of DNA and potential, an embryo is human. In terms of having thoughts and feelings, it is not. The word "murder" is less ambiguous than "human", but I think that you are also stretching what it means here. Not all killing is murder. It is not murder to kill livestock for food, and it is not murder to stop a pregnancy from coming to term before it develops into a being mature enough to feel pain or have thoughts of the world.

I understand that it is the woman's body but we can set laws that affect what a someone does to their body if it affects other humans - like drugs & alcohol for example. So im my opinion, that argument does not apply.

Only because you have prejudged the embryo or fetus to count as a "person" in every sense of the word. Until birth, the developing embryo/fetus has no real membership in human society. Its only significant relationship lies with its parents and their immediate family. That is why pregnancy rights are considered a matter of privacy and not government concern.

 

[Panda]

Does the fact that we can control all of the other organisms on earth not prove that we are somehow better? Or is that just a complete coincidence.

Here is a quote for you.

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.

I would also like to know what you mean by control?

 

[Panda]

As a noun, something with more good than something with less good.

Now I suppose you'd want me to define "good". Good is what is valued or beneficial to the observer.

Define beneficial :run:

 

[leahrachelle]

That depends on what you mean by "works". If persuasion is your only goal, then I agree. If truth is your goal, then I disagree. You can arrive at the truth through fallacious reasoning, it is just not the best method to use for arriving at truthful conclusions.

But truth is an opinion

It bothered you because the picture (an "artist's conception") allowed you to feel empathy for the unborn fetus. That is perfectly understandable, but it is unreasonable. It distracts from your real position, which is that even the "clump of cells" ought not to be subject to abortion.

But like I said the main point was not the sympathy/empathy? I was trying to prove that in most cases it was not a clump of cells. It had nothing to do with my argument that abortion is not right - it was a completely seperate argument.

Sympathy caused by appearances. You are slippery, but I am patient.

I mean how people look at little newborn babies and think of how precious they are. A lot of people would never be able to hurt 'such a cute little thing.' Seeing that a fetus looks very similiar could bring on the same thoughts.

That is true. And you raise an interesting question. Exactly what is the difference between a monkey embryo and a human embryo other than what it might or might not become one day? You are basing your argument now on potential, but even sperm have potential. Should we allow the death of half-persons? If human cloning from skin cells were perfected, would we need to make body piercings illegal? That way lies madness.

Okay but what is different between sperm is that it is possible potential. Once concieved, they have set potential. They will be born under normal circumstances. And you cant argue their chance of miscarriages, etc. because it is the same for someone who is already born. Everyone has a risk of dying or developing problems.
I dont understand what you mean by body piercings

There are many different senses of "human", and I think that you are equivocating here. That is you use "human" in different senses but treat them as the same for the purpose of your conclusion. In terms of DNA and potential, an embryo is human. In terms of having thoughts and feelings, it is not. The word "murder" is less ambiguous than "human", but I think that you are also stretching what it means here. Not all killing is murder. It is not murder to kill livestock for food, and it is not murder to stop a pregnancy from coming to term before it develops into a being mature enough to feel pain or have thoughts of the world.

The reason that it is ambiguous is because it is an opinion. My personal definition of murder is a human killing another human with negative intentions. And I feel that abortion is negative. This goes the same way for livestock. We feel killing them is ultimately positive but a vegetarian would look at it as murder because they dont think it is right to kill them - just as i dont think abortion is right.

Only because you have prejudged the embryo or fetus to count as a "person" in every sense of the word. Until birth, the developing embryo/fetus has no real membership in human society. Its only significant relationship lies with its parents and their immediate family. That is why pregnancy rights are considered a matter of privacy and not government concern.[/quote]
But I still feel that it is a human and I still feel that a person does not have a right to kill another person.

 

[leahrachelle]

Here is a quote for you.
I would also like to know what you mean by control?

Good point, but still there is the fact that we can control all of them - and that is whatever we want it to mean. We could kill them all, we could make them do whatever we want. We are so powerful compared to them it is rediculous.