ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[leahrachelle]

No, but it wasn't uncommon until relatively recently in the United States, and there are still several states in the United States where girls aged 15 or even younger can be married with parental or judicial consent. In some countries girls aged 12 or even younger can be married with parental consent.
Okay, but this is not a common thing at all so it is not relevant.

I didn't say it was your answer, I said it was the answer of people who oppose both abortion and contraception.

There arn't many of those people. ESPECIALLY not the majority. That is completely wrong.

 

[leahrachelle]

Oh? Then why do people commit suicide? I don't recall anyone ever saying "WOW things sure are great, welp time to finish loading this gun so I can shoot myself now!". I don't think I ever met a poor child that didn't want to be loved by their parents, neglected children develop personality problems, then they become society's problems. You can't close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen forever.

I reapeat, who are you to say that they'd be better off dead?

You don't act like it.

Obviously this fact doesn't affect my deicision then

Life is unfair, cruel, and hard.

So we should make it that way for other people too??

Get over it

Nahh. I'm not gonna live with stuff like that, I'm gonna find a way around it.

Have you ever met a child who had to grow up like this? Have you ever had to meet someone with all hope stripped from them? I have, in fact I had to go to school with a girl who used to have to sleep in a car every night, or in a homeless shelter when it was too cold, until she just didn't come to school anymore because she was taken away from her parents. It is something that I'd hope no child would ever have to go through, but their are plenty out there that do. Some little half formed glob of cells that isn't even aware of it's own existence being destroyed is far less cruel than forcing them into a hopeless life where becoming a prostitute and/or junkie is the highlight. There are fates far worse than death. Why don't you try sleeping in your car for month, not having a dime to your name, no health insurance, hoping that the shelter might be giving out food if you get there early enough on Wednesday and scrapping what you can out of the McDonald's dumpster until then, then you can talk to me about what's better than death.

Ha, what, do you think I grow up in a first-class town or something? I see this every day. I see kids come to school with the same shirt and pants on every single day; washed once a week, maybe. I see this all the time. I don't see any less happiness in them, though. People take what they have and make the best of it. To see that they would be better dead is absolutely not in your rights and it is completely selfish. YOU do not know what is best for them, THEIR MOTHER does not know what is best for them. The only person that has the right to make that choice is THEM.

 

[leahrachelle]

Yes, it's beyond your control, but if a law ignores reality, it's not going to do what you want.

You said that you wanted to prohibit abortion in order to save what you consider to be human lives; my point is that many of these "lives" won't be saved at all; the abortions will just happen in a different place. Yes, you can't stop this, but it still means that your hypothetical law loses quite a bit of its point.

Everyone finds a way around breaking laws, though. I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

You referred to other ineffective laws as support for the idea that this ineffective law you're suggesting would be okay. My point is that this is like saying that the fact that there are broken-down cars driving around makes it okay to buy a broken-down car.[/quote]
I really don't understand what your definition of ineffective is. It seems that you're saying (though you're probably not), that any law people find a way to break is ineffective and that just doesn't make sense.

 

[Willamena]

Leah, it's not about getting you to change your mind. Ignore posts that seem to say that. The only goal should be to have a discusion and learn about the topic, and more importantly learn what other people think and feel about it.

 

[leahrachelle]

Didn't you say that where you are it's illegal to teach safe sex? My point is that all of the points you mentioned earlier that could help reduce abortions are not in practice, and some of those which are in practice are not in practice enough. You say it's not working currently, but we're not doing what you said. So, how could you say it's not working when we're not even doing it?

Thats how hypocritical the world is. They say they support that ^ so much (rather than banning abortion) but they dont want to be the ones to get off their butts to go plan a class.

 

[leahrachelle]

The thing is that they're not killing someone, they're getting rid of something. Most of those who get abortions don't see them as people yet.

And some convince themselves that it's not a person just so they can justify what they are about to do.

 

[leahrachelle]

But one is more sacred?

Obviously we are going to think that we are more sacred - especially since we have to eat them to live
But thats our nature. We think that we are more important.

 

[leahrachelle]

Leah, it's not about getting you to change your mind. Ignore posts that seem to say that. The only goal should be to have a discusion and learn about the topic, and more importantly learn what other people think and feel about it.

But that's not always everyone's goal

 

[Willamena]

But that's not always everyone's goal

It should be yours, and it's mine. Everyone else is everyone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everyone finds a way around breaking laws, though. I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

Yes, no law is 100% effective; if it were, we wouldn't need police or courts. My point is that the worth of a law is judged on its actual effect, not its hypothetical effect if everyone obeyed it perfectly.

If a law can't be properly enforced, it's a bad law. If people can avoid complying with a law just by jumping into another jurisdiction, it's a bad law. Here's another analogy:

A bit over 10 years ago, the City of Toronto tried to make all bars and restaurants non-smoking. It didn't work. It was hard to enforce, so some bar patrons ignored the ban and smoked anyway. Others drove the extra 15 minutes to bars just outside the city limits (this was before the surrounding municipalities were amalgamated into Toronto, so the city was much smaller) and smoked there legally. After a couple of months, the law was repealed because it had no point.

This situation was a lot like what you're suggesting: some abortions will continue in the US illegally (and with much greater harm associated with them, BTW) and others will just move to where they remain legal.

I really don't understand what your definition of ineffective is. It seems that you're saying (though you're probably not), that any law people find a way to break is ineffective and that just doesn't make sense.

My point is that it's set up to fail. In other places where one country prohibits abortion but another nearby country continues to offer them, this is what's happened: women just go out of the country to have their abortions.

Any law has costs associated with it; it may or may not have benefit. The trick is demonstrating that the benefit outweighs the cost.

Here's what prohibiting abortion would do:

- cost: it would create a limitation on freedom.
- benefit (arguably): it would reduce the number of abortions... but only those abortions that don't happen anyhow (i.e. illegal or out-of-country abortions).
- cost: it would increase the number of illegal abortions, which have much greater risk of harm for the woman them than legal ones.
- cost: it would increase the birth rate of unwanted children.

So... if you want to show that prohibiting abortion would be a good thing, what you need to do is demonstrate that the benefits of the prohibitions would outweigh the cost. This likely means you need to do a couple of things:

- quantify the benefit of preventing a single abortion. Just about everyone here, including the pro-choice people, think that there would be some benefit associated with this. The point of contention is how much benefit (which is where the question of whether the fetus is a person usually comes in)
- estimate how many abortions this prohibition would actually prevent (which is where my point comes in: if an abortion just happens somewhere else, you haven't prevented it).
- quantify the value of the other things involved, like freedom and the risk to the life of the woman of a back-alley abortion.

 

[leahrachelle]

It should be yours, and it's mine. Everyone else is everyone else.

But if they're trying to change me, then I'm gonna stand up for myself, of course.

 

[Smoke]

There arn't many of those people. ESPECIALLY not the majority. That is completely wrong.

There are plenty of those people. Your ideas have no relation to reality. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion, but I really can be bothered any further with this discussion. You are simply not equipped to discuss it.

 

[leahrachelle]

There are plenty of those people. Your ideas have no relation to reality. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion, but I really can be bothered any further with this discussion. You are simply not equipped to discuss it.

Excuse me?? You want to speak for the pro-life group and what WE belive in but you obviously dont know anything about what we believe.
Your argument is COMPLETELY irrelevant. There are people who believe all different things about abortion that are for abstinance-only education. That point does not represent us.
You sir, are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

speaking personally, I have never met or heard of anyone who was pro-choice on abortion and who advocated abstinence-only sex ed.

 

[leahrachelle]

speaking personally, I have never met or heard of anyone who was pro-choice on abortion and who advocated abstinence-only sex ed.

There are definately many on both sides, though. But the point is, that fact does not represent each group since it is 1.) not the majority and 2.) Part of both groups and many sub-groups.

 

[Willamena]

But if they're trying to change me, then I'm gonna stand up for myself, of course.

Yeah, but then the discussion is over.

 

[Sententia]

Yeah, but then the discussion is over.

I concur.

 

[Magic Man]

Thats how hypocritical the world is. They say they support that ^ so much (rather than banning abortion) but they dont want to be the ones to get off their butts to go plan a class.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What I was saying is that the plan you talked about that could help lower abortions is not in place currently, so we don't know how well it works. That idea is only supported by the fact that in your area one can't even teach safe sex.

And some convince themselves that it's not a person just so they can justify what they are about to do.

I'm sure some of them do, but I'd bet they're not the majority.

Obviously we are going to think that we are more sacred - especially since we have to eat them to live
But thats our nature. We think that we are more important.

We weren't talking about the difference between us and animals.

You seem to think an unborn baby's life is more sacred than that of a woman who makes, in your opinion, a bad decision. Why is that?

 

[Magic Man]

But if they're trying to change me, then I'm gonna stand up for myself, of course.

This kind of attitude isn't going to help you with the "learning" part of your title. You should share your views, but you shouldn't be afraid of change, and you certainly shouldn't assume everyone is trying to change you. It's a discussion/debate. Everyone puts in their ideas and the best way to approach it is to absorb the others' ideas. If you disagree with them after reflection, then, by all means, object.

 

[leahrachelle]

I'm sure some of them do, but I'd bet they're not the majority.

No, of course, but I would say there's a good bit.

You seem to think an unborn baby's life is more sacred than that of a woman who makes, in your opinion, a bad decision. Why is that?

I don't personally find a person's life to be important if they take away the rights of anothers. I don't support the death penalty, but if they are killed, I could care less.