ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[leahrachelle]

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.

Okay but 'society' also includes the baby that she's carrying.

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.

Well I guess it would mean any time an important person is killed and he isn't putting you in harm Which is most cases of course.

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?

Again, this simply comes down to whether the fetus is considered a human or not :/

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?[/quote]

Like I said, you are thinking about society as a whole because you do not feel the baby is human yet. I, on the other hand, see 2200 human beings from our society being killed each and every day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like I said, you are thinking about society as a whole because you do not feel the baby is human yet. I, on the other hand, see 2200 human beings from our society being killed each and every day.

Why? What makes you consider a fetus at any and all stages of developement to be a "human being"?

Seeing how we're talking between atheists, I assume that it's not on the basis of religious beliefs about when its "soul" enters or anything like that. I just wonder what your criteria are; what characteristics should something have for it to be considered to be a person either ethically or legally?

 

[leahrachelle]

And yet so helpless.

What do you mean?

 

[leahrachelle]

But are you prepared to make it illegal?

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

It shouldn't be illegal to NOT SAVE someone. It should be illegal to KILL.

 

[leahrachelle]

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

Yes it is the man's fault as well.
But as for as abortion goes, the argument is that 'the woman has the right to do what she wants to her own body'
And so the man has nothing to do with this argument

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It shouldn't be illegal to NOT SAVE someone. It should be illegal to KILL.

If by "kill" you mean "cause to die by failing to sustain life", then we're talking about the same thing.

 

[leahrachelle]

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.

No, they probably legally have to put this information on the box. And so it is accurate.
If you don't like the statistics, go find your own.

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

I never said that I did, did I

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.

For the last time, seriously (I have said this like 5 times already), the picture was not part of the argument that abortion is wrong. It was a completely different and seperate argument - that the fetus was not simply a clump of cells at the time most women have abortions. It had nothing to do with this argument.

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.

You should agree that that is simply an opinion, though

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean?

Something as tiny as a germ could wipe us off the face of the planet.

 

[leahrachelle]

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

Thats why we can kill them all off if we wanted to right? Along with every other creature. And not because we are stronger than every other animal, because we have the intelligence to create things that can be the 'strength' for us.

 

[leahrachelle]

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

Humans made the nukes.

 

[leahrachelle]

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.

How does this change anything..? What point are you trying to make?
I still think the worlds flat.
It's still not true.

 

[leahrachelle]

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.)

Right. That's what I meant

 

[leahrachelle]

Why? What makes you consider a fetus at any and all stages of developement to be a "human being"?

Seeing how we're talking between atheists, I assume that it's not on the basis of religious beliefs about when its "soul" enters or anything like that. I just wonder what your criteria are; what characteristics should something have for it to be considered to be a person either ethically or legally?

This is what I answered to this earlier:

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.

 

[Willamena]

Why? What makes you consider a fetus at any and all stages of developement to be a "human being"?

Seeing how we're talking between atheists, I assume that it's not on the basis of religious beliefs about when its "soul" enters or anything like that. I just wonder what your criteria are; what characteristics should something have for it to be considered to be a person either ethically or legally?

I'd like to address this, with my own ideas. I see people, especially that which we call the "person", as the social construct. The physical body isn't what makes one human: one could lose an arm or a leg and be no less human; Steven Hawkins paralyzed with Parkinson's is no less human; I could even reduce "you" to a brain in a vat with full capability to go about your life as you otherwise would and you'd be no less human.

We construct the world around us of ideas about it, and we similarly construct our "selves" of ideas. "Our DNA" is our ideas about DNA; "physical form" is our ideas from sensory input; "society" is our collective ideas about ourselves. In that sense, there can be a case of a builder for whom there is no significant distinction to be made between you as I construct you and the potenial child as I construct it. Both are real as constructs of knowledge, constructs of the mind. Both are held together, bonded in existence in essentially the same manner.

We are only "less human" in our idea of "being less human" that we construct about ourselves. I, though, see that too as part of the social construct that is being human.

 

[leahrachelle]

If by "kill" you mean "cause to die by failing to sustain life", then we're talking about the same thing.

Not saving does not automatically mean that they arn't going to die though

 

[leahrachelle]

Something as tiny as a germ could wipe us off the face of the planet.

Not necessarily, though, because we have the means of fighting it off - unlike other organisms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is what I answered to this earlier:

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.

Okay, but why? You're essentially asking that your opinion be given the weight of law, so I think it should be based on something more than just a feeling if we're going to declare that it should supercede everyone else's opinions.

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.

Only if it is a person, and so far, the only basis you've given for that claim is an unsupported feeling.

Let me try this another way: you have one opinion; other people have conflicting opinions. Why should we put so much weight on your opinion that we declare it wrong for those other people to act on their opinions?

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.

No, I think it does apply.

First off, exactly what laws are you talking about with regard to alcohol? There are offenses that relate to alcohol like underage drinking, DUI, and public intoxication, but I can't think of any law that stops someone sitting at home from drinking until they're physicially capable of drinking any more, and then repeating this every night for as long as they want. There's no provision I'm aware of in the law that stops a person normally considered legally capable of making their own decisions from causing as much self-inflicted harm with alcohol as he or she wants.

Second, you can't look at the effect of the law without looking at the reasoning behind it. Yes, there are laws that address what a person can and can't do to themselves, but that doesn't mean that any law that addresses this is right or just. In a free society, any limitation on freedom must be justified; what's the justification for the specific limitation on freedom you're proposing? Simply saying "its effect is no worse than this other thing" doesn't work.

 

[Willamena]

Not saving does not automatically mean that they arn't going to die though

If they're in a building that's going to burn to the ground, then it would.

 

[Willamena]

Not necessarily, though, because we have the means of fighting it off - unlike other organisms.

We also do "not necessarily" have a means of fighting it off.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd like to address this, with my own ideas. I see people, especially that which we call the "person", as the social construct. The physical body isn't what makes one human: one could lose an arm or a leg and be no less human; Steven Hawkins paralyzed with Parkinson's is no less human; I could even reduce "you" to a brain in a vat with full capability to go about your life as you otherwise would and you'd be no less human.

We construct the world around us of ideas about it, and we similarly construct our "selves" of ideas. "Our DNA" is our ideas about DNA; "physical form" is our ideas from sensory input; "society" is our collective ideas about ourselves. In that sense, there can be a case of a builder for whom there is no significant distinction to be made between you as I construct you and the potenial child as I construct it. Both are real as constructs of knowledge, constructs of the mind. Both are held together, bonded in existence in essentially the same manner.

We are only "less human" in our idea of "being less human" that we construct about ourselves. I, though, see that too as part of the social construct that is being human.

Do you think that this brings us to a position on the abortion issue?

What I get out of what you wrote is that because "humanity" is a social construct, when it comes down to it, the only real definition of "human" we have is the one that we've agreed to as a society, right?

One way of interpreting that might be to say that abortion only kills a person if you think it does, and if you think it does, it certainly does kill a person. Is that what you were getting at?

Not saving does not automatically mean that they arn't going to die though

A lot of negatives to sort through there, but assuming I get your meaning: it might. You can legally walk away from your child in a certainly fatal situation if you don't want to risk your own life to save him or her.