ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[Copernicus]

But truth is an opinion

Belief is an opinion, but not all opinions are true. As the late Senator Moynihan famously remarked, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Opinions are more useful when they are justified by sound reasoning.

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 not a sound basis for telling people who do not share your same feelings that they must act according to your feelings and not theirs. You need something more to defend your case than your subjective feelings.

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

Body piercings destroy live skin cells, which can theoretically be cloned into full human beings. As for your "possible" versus "set" potential distinction, that is just splitting hairs. One could also argue that a pregnancy is only a "possible" potential until the fetus can live on its own outside of the womb. If it can, then it has a "set" potential.

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...

You have just defined capital punishment and killing on the battlefield as murder. I'm not criticizing you for such a broad definition. I'm just pointing out that there is more to our conventional understanding of murder than just killing with negative intentions. (Here's an irrelevant, but interesting question for you to ponder: When does a murder become an assassination?)

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.

Fair enough. That is a perfectly good argument why you should never under any circumstances have an abortion. It is not how all other women feel, and they are also entitled to their feelings. The question from the perspective of law is when society has a right to interfere with a woman's private choice in the matter. When can the law disregard a citizen's feelings? My answer would be that it is a matter of when the decision has bad consequences for society and not the individual. What bad consequences do abortions have for our society?

 

[leahrachelle]

Belief is an opinion, but not all opinions are true. As the late Senator Moynihan famously remarked, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Opinions are more useful when they are justified by sound reasoning.

All opinions arn't true.. People that live in the middle of nowhere that have never had contact with other people - they may think the worlds flat. That's their opinion. Its not true though. People think a lot of things that arn't even close to true.

That is not a sound basis for telling people who do not share your same feelings that they must act according to your feelings and not theirs. You need something more to defend your case than your subjective feelings.

That's why it was not my only argument...

Body piercings destroy live skin cells, which can theoretically be cloned into full human beings. As for your "possible" versus "set" potential distinction, that is just splitting hairs. One could also argue that a pregnancy is only a "possible" potential until the fetus can live on its own outside of the womb. If it can, then it has a "set" potential.

I don't understand the point that it's not set.

You have just defined capital punishment and killing on the battlefield as murder. I'm not criticizing you for such a broad definition. I'm just pointing out that there is more to our conventional understanding of murder than just killing with negative intentions.

I guess it would depend on how you look at it. Some people see war killing as negative, but some positive - they feel it is needed to protect our own lives. But if they feel it is negative, then yes, it is technically murder.

(Here's an irrelevant, but interesting question for you to ponder: When does a murder become an assassination?)

I don't understand what you mean. I know assassination as the killing of an important person.

Fair enough. That is a perfectly good argument why you should never under any circumstances have an abortion. It is not how all other women feel, and they are also entitled to their feelings. The question from the perspective of law is when society has a right to interfere with a woman's private choice in the matter. When can the law disregard a citizen's feelings?[/quote]

 

[leahrachelle]

Fair enough. That is a perfectly good argument why you should never under any circumstances have an abortion. It is not how all other women feel, and they are also entitled to their feelings. The question from the perspective of law is when society has a right to interfere with a woman's private choice in the matter. When can the law disregard a citizen's feelings? My answer would be that it is a matter of when the decision has bad consequences for society and not the individual. What bad consequences do abortions have for our society?[/quote]

Ehh, I don't agree with that, though. Especially since most people are too selfishly involved just with their own lives to care about anyone else...
Obviously it doesn't affect the society. But it affects other people involved (in my opinion of course.) Just as alcohol and drugs do, and thats why there are limitations/bans.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't understand the point that it's not set.

All I was saying was that your distinction between "possible" and "set" potentials was arbitrary. The distinction between a gamete and zygote need not be the only "set/possible" distinction to be made. One could make the same distinction in terms of whether the fetus is able to survive outside the womb.

I guess it would depend on how you look at it. Some people see war killing as negative, but some positive - they feel it is needed to protect our own lives. But if they feel it is negative, then yes, it is technically murder.

I agree. So the real issue here is where society ought to intervene and impose a resolution of different perspectives. In a free society, that is an extremely difficult and complex question to answer. From the government's perspective, the question is when a decision has an impact on society, as opposed to the life of an individual. The pregnant woman suffers the greatest impact from an abortion. The question is where society has a legitimate interest in that decision.

I don't understand what you mean. I know assassination as the killing of an important person.

This is a bit of a derail on my part. It is just that word meanings are not so easy to determine. If George Bush were to threaten your life, and you killed him in self-defense, that would not be an assassination. So what is the meaning of "assassination"? That is not such an easy question to answer.

Ehh, I don't agree with that, though. Especially since most people are too selfishly involved just with their own lives to care about anyone else...

I don't know about most people. I don't think that one should base a law on speculation about the attitudes of "most people". It is quite possible that we mistake a decision made under extreme agony as "selfish", when it is really just a very difficult decision to make for the individual facing her individual circumstances. Certainly, some people will have abortions for frivolous reasons, by our standards. But should society intervene to override a decision just because it might be frivolous? What about those cases where it is not? How is the law to distinguish?

Obviously it doesn't affect the society. But it affects other people involved (in my opinion of course.) Just as alcohol and drugs do, and thats why there are limitations/bans.

I agree. The problem is that legal limitations and bans don't always work out for the best. Consider Prohibition. Alcoholism can have a devastating impact on individual lives, but government attempts to put an end to all use of alcohol caused even worse problems than they solved. On the other hand, cocaine use used to be perfectly legal, and the government ban against that worked. It wasn't a perfect solution, and we still need to rethink our laws against drug abuse.

You still haven't told me what adverse impact you think abortion has on society. I can see the impact of drug and alcohol abuse. I don't see it in the matter of abortions. Those women who want an abortion should be able to get one safely. Those who do not have a perfect right to carry pregnancies to term. I just don't see why there should be a law against abortion. What are the consequences for society?

 

[Willamena]

Define beneficial :run:

"Good!"

 

[Willamena]

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.

And yet so helpless.

 

[Willamena]

But truth is an opinion

Belief is an opinion...

I truly believe that it's my opinion that I have an opinion on both truth and opinon.

(i.e. it's neither)

 

[Copernicus]

I truly believe that it's my opinion that I have an opinion on both truth and opinon.

(i.e. it's neither)

Willamena, I completely agree with you that that is your opinion, but only because you say it is. You could be lying or self-deluded, but I take what you say on face value.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's pretty sad if you dont...

But are you prepared to make it illegal?

You do realize that you're asking for a legal double standard here, don't you?

 

[DallasApple]

Right, but if she 'willingly' had sex with him, than it isn't technically his fault. In a sense, yes, but the girl knew what she was doing as well...

Im not trying to debate..Im just curious what you mean by this.It sounds like to me what you are saying is that if a woman "willingly" has sex with a man and gets pregnant its her responsiblity(fault) not his because he didnt rape her????

So he can "willingly" have all the sex he wants and its not his responsiblility or "fault" if he imprgnates someone.(because she was "willing")and its not his "fault".But if she chooses to "willingly have sex" and becomes pregnant shes resoponsible and at "fault" and her consequences are being legally forced to carry to term a 6-to -10lb baby and give brith to it ??(Oh and she can "give it away" to further add to her suffering over "willingly" having sex")

Thats scary..Because if you apply the same princible to women who opt to carry on with the pregnancy and keep the child he is off the hook to support the pregnancy and delivery and for child support because she "knew what she was doing as well"

The man could simply say.."look I didnt rape you..you knew what you were doing "as well" so its not my "fault" you let yourself get pregnant..

Also by the way I would recommend you go talk to women who have had abortions.By far the majority have the complete support and backing and many times the encouragement of the ones that had no "fault in it".(the men who deposited their DNA into the mix)

Love

Dallas

 

[darkendless]

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.

Only if you're stupid enough to believe that what we do to those poor things is "better."

We are probably the least elegant creature on earth, natural selection in this case has favoured an ugly duckling. Sadly we did not turn into a swan like the fairytale.

 

[rojse]

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

You are allowed to have opinions, certainly (everyone on here does), but simply because people disagree with your opinion does not make them wrong - think about the experience that other posters might have in this area.

 

[rojse]

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

I see posts on here every day that a poster says that God has appeared to him. I don't accept this as evidence, so why should I accept your assertation as evidence?

As for the writing on the back of a cardboard box, this is hardly verified reseach, and would not treat this as any serious figure, as the writers are working for the company that is selling the contents based on what is on and in the box.

Well that is you thats not me

Does that mean leahrachelle never researches the internet for information, or leahrachelle never changes her mind in an argument?

I never said that is was. And obviously I am not interested in it enough to look it up, there you go.

Surely your argument has less weight when you are unwilling to examine the scientific evidence against your argument?

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

Then your argument and picture about the appearance of a three-month foetus is both contradictory and unnecessary. Either the superficial appearance of a foetus is an important aspect of your argument, or, as you state here, the appearance of a foetus is not an aspect of your argument at all.

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.

I think that someone whom has experienced many years of life is far more important than an unborn foetus, but I don't have a position for the comparison between a child and an adult.

And no, I am not an old man, either.

 

[rojse]

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.

I probably deserved that for such a silly question, but in what way do you see humans as being better than monkeys? We have less hair? We invented cars, trains and planes? We wear shorts or dresses (neither being exclusive to each sex)?

 

[rojse]

Here is a quote for you.

Remember that humans were only the third most intelligent species, and dolphins the second.

 

[rojse]

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.

So, people with nukes are by this definition better than those without nukes?

 

[rojse]

All opinions arn't true.. People that live in the middle of nowhere that have never had contact with other people - they may think the worlds flat. That's their opinion. Its not true though. People think a lot of things that arn't even close to true.

For a moment here, go into roleplay mode, and pretend that you are that person in the middle of nowhere and have not had contact with other people.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

I think the big difference is that a fetus or embryo doesn't need anything special for it to turn into a human (or other animal). A sperm needs to be actively helped to become something more. If you just let the fetus do its thing, it'll automatically turn into a human. If you do the same with a sperm, it'll just die, or at the very least stay a sperm. (Not that I'm arguing one way or the other here. I just wanted to point this out.)

 

[Magic Man]

So, people with nukes are by this definition better than those without nukes?

People who have the ability to make nukes are better in some ways than those who don't have that ability.

When one says that humans are better than animals, one is not saying that we are morally superior or better in every way. One is only acknowledging that we have the ability to accomplish so much more than any other animal. Whether we do good or bad with that ability is another question.

 

[Willamena]

I probably deserved that for such a silly question, but in what way do you see humans as being better than monkeys?

We're us. The social construct that we call "us" (or "me") is composed of all the ideas we have about ourselves, and it's when we see those same ideas expressed in others (or other creatures) that we recognize ourselves in them. Our identity as humans is primary to our continued existence as the social construct, hence beneficial.