ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh I understand it looking at it from this side. Obviously you give your age from your date of birth, but that is just the norm in most social settings.

In fact, it's the norm in every setting except the abortion debate.

Look at even the Catholic Church... have you ever heard of anyone seriously trying to devise some method (maybe with some sort of long plastic syringe filled with water) to baptize fetuses in the womb? Of course not. When it comes to the problem of Original Sin, the Church is apparently content to leave that "child's" soul in peril for the nine months of that child's life when he or she is probably at most danger of dying... and therefore of being at risk of being consigned to Hell for dying unbaptized. It's apparently only on the abortion issue where the Church apparently cares enough to do anything for the welfare of the "child" in the womb.

Imagine we started counting from conception, in our society. Then we would give our age dependent on when we were conceived rather than born. I appreciate that in modern society it can be hard to tell when a child is conceived...Something I dislike intensely, but what can I do.

So... because the actual start of life is hard to pin down precisely, rather than just make a best guess at when conception occurred, we base everything off a measure that's wildly wrong, but relies on a fixed, determinate point?

Back on the point, I suppose it all depends on your definition of life. If living is physically 'being', then I guess it starts at conception from my point of view.

Why?

I somewhat understand the standard theist position: a soul is what makes something a person, and conception is the moment in time that God sticks the soul in.

... but what's the rationale for an atheist to claim that life begins at conception?

And wasn't the embryo "being" as a separate egg and sperm before fertilization?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

And wasn't the embryo "being" as a separate egg and sperm before fertilization?

You're quite right, but the zygote has different DNA to the individual cells that created it.

... but what's the rationale for an atheist to claim that life begins at conception?

Ok well basically my take on it is that if you take 2 gamete cells and together they create a single cell called a zygote. The zygote has a new set of DNA, a combination of the original DNA. So, for me, the reason I say that a new human is created as conception is because a 'new person', if you like, has their own DNA.

So... because the actual start of life is hard to pin down precisely, rather than just make a best guess at when conception occurred, we base everything off a measure that's wildly wrong, but relies on a fixed, determinate point?

No that's not what I think. People tend to consider life to begin on their date of birth, and like I have said, it depends what you consider to be life. If your talking about things that can be experienced then life begins on your birthday, and you are 100% correct. However, when it becomes 'Can you consider a child to be a different organism' then I think that moment is conception.

Look at even the Catholic Church...

I don't have a lot of similarity with the views of the catholic church. My views on abortion are different to theirs. My best guess is that they just don't think about it the same way that I do.

GhK.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And wasn't the embryo "being" as a separate egg and sperm before fertilization?

And this is why I asked about contraceptives and women exercising their right to have their tubes tied.

I'm all for abortion in the case of rape or incest. She should definitely be able to exercise her right to an abortion.

I'm for it if the mother's life is in danger.

Should a woman, who has unprotected sex, be allowed to have an abortion? Well, I believe she has every right to make the decision for herself.

Here's my question....I think it was said earlier that certain characteristics or brain function are noticeable at 3 months....Should this be the crux of the debate here? I mean if that is the case then I can see denying her the right to an abortion because "the law" would say...No...this is a baby and you've reached the point of no return. Is this still an infringement on her rights?

 

[DallasApple]

....Should this be the crux of the debate here? I mean if that is the case then I can see denying her the right to an abortion because "the law" would say...No...this is a baby and you've reached the point of no return. Is this still an infringement on her rights?

It should be the crux.IMHO.

And no it wouldnt be an infringment on her rights if she continued on with the pregnancy If she had the right to abort early and didnt..There is a point of "no return".

Sorry to break in..not debating..JMHO.

Love

Dallas

 

[leahrachelle]

No, not everybody, but that's not the point.

Then what is the point?

 

[leahrachelle]

I couldn't agree more here. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you had to have a license to have kids?

Yet I'm the one that wants to control people..???

 

[leahrachelle]

I understand and so am I. I oppose abortions for the most part, too, but don't want them to be illegal. However, I would think that if I saw them as human beings right from the start, it would be hard for me to accept abortions at all.

Ahh, so you see where I'm coming from then?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok well basically my take on it is that if you take 2 gamete cells and together they create a single cell called a zygote. The zygote has a new set of DNA, a combination of the original DNA. So, for me, the reason I say that a new human is created as conception is because a 'new person', if you like, has their own DNA.

Okay, but why does this confer "personhood"? A dead body also has unique DNA, but it isn't considered a "person" under the law.

No that's not what I think. People tend to consider life to begin on their date of birth, and like I have said, it depends what you consider to be life. If your talking about things that can be experienced then life begins on your birthday, and you are 100% correct.

In fact, if we're talking about virtually anything other than abortion, I'm still correct.

 

[leahrachelle]

Okay, but why does this confer "personhood"? A dead body also has unique DNA, but it isn't considered a "person" under the law.

I don't understand the purpose of the dead body. If it is dead, it has no need for rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand the purpose of the dead body. If it is dead, it has no need for rights.

Okay... if you're having trouble with my previous post, I'll put it more simply: what makes a person a person?

My point from before is that it's not unique human DNA, because we can find unique human DNA in things we don't regard as people.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Okay, but why does this confer "personhood"? A dead body also has unique DNA, but it isn't considered a "person" under the law.

Of course, but a dead 'person' is still a 'person' when it was alive? DNA was not my answer to what is considered to be alive, btw, just what is considered to be a new organism. But a living person must be functioning. But I guess we obviously dont agree on what life is, right?

In fact, if we're talking about virtually anything other than abortion, I'm still correct.

If you are conceived, you are considered to be, in my opinion:
1) Alive, 2) A unique person
You are not right just because you can take this outside of context. If were debating this outside of abortion, say, on the issue of personhood, or what is considered to be living, or whatever (Any other possible debate you could engage me on this topic) then I would have the same view. And my view is that, my view.

How can you possibly argue that you are certainly correct on an issue that is debatable?

GhK.

 

[Magic Man]

Yet I'm the one that wants to control people..???

It was a joke. I have no interest in actually doing that.

Ahh, so you see where I'm coming from then?

Yes, that's why I'm saying that the idea that they're humans at conception is misguided. However, I would expect you to oppose all abortions, if you really believe that. Should I kill my one-year-old son, if I find out he's the result of my wife being raped? If not, how is that situation different from having an abortion because of rape (if you believe that the zyygote or fetus is already a human)?

Of course, but a dead 'person' is still a 'person' when it was alive? DNA was not my answer to what is considered to be alive, btw, just what is considered to be a new organism. But a living person must be functioning. But I guess we obviously dont agree on what life is, right?

Yes, exactly, they were a person, just as the fetus will be a person. When the dead body was a person, they had rights just like any other person, and when the unborn one becomes a person, it will also have those rights.

If you are conceived, you are considered to be, in my opinion:
1) Alive, 2) A unique person
You are not right just because you can take this outside of context. If were debating this outside of abortion, say, on the issue of personhood, or what is considered to be living, or whatever (Any other possible debate you could engage me on this topic) then I would have the same view. And my view is that, my view.

How can you possibly argue that you are certainly correct on an issue that is debatable?

I think you should rephrase that. "If you are conceived, I consider you to be:"

No one is arguing that they are certainly correct. The idea that you seemed to be missing is that most people don't consider the unborn "child" to be a person with rights yet in any context other than abortion. So, it's a little contradicting.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I think you should rephrase that. "If you are conceived, I consider you to be:"

I consider 'I consider you to be...' and 'You are, in my opinion' to be the same sentence simply worded differently, so I would be perfectly happy to say that as it is exactly what I mean.

The idea that you seemed to be missing is that most people don't consider the unborn "child" to be a person with rights yet in any context other than abortion. So, it's a little contradicting.

And the idea that you seem to be missing is that I am not representative of anybody other than myself, so I don't really care if most people disagree with me, I can still have that opinion regardless of whether other people think differently. I understand people think differently and I respect that.
I understand what you are saying: That I would probably not state this opinion in any other context... But that is irrelevent because I would probably not be asked in any other context. Even so, I would probably have the same opinion.

Is that wrong?

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

People tend to consider life to begin on their date of birth, and like I have said, it depends what you consider to be life. If your talking about things that can be experienced then life begins on your birthday, and you are 100% correct. However, when it becomes 'Can you consider a child to be a different organism' then I think that moment is conception.

I think you're right, that "life" and "living" are words that should be taken in distinct contexts. I would suggest, though, that there doesn't have to be a point when 'a different living organism' begins. There is never a point, from the time prior to the mother's conception to the time the child dies, when the physical components that people are attempting to examine, in whatever combination, to define the "beginning" of this "person" in this manner are not 'living'.

I don't think the 'living' argument is significant.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I don't think the 'living' argument is significant.

Probably not significant to your point of view, just like the woman's right to choose what happens to their body is not significant to mine. To me, it matters greatly whether something is alive or not alive. I would be perfectly happy to slaughter unborn children if they were not living, why shouldn't I be? If it isn't living then nobody should care, in fact, it cannot be considered as killing because In that case I life has not been ended...

Actually, that's a question: Do you consider abortion to be taking life? If a foetus is not alive then is abortion actually killing? Is that what you have meant all along? That it doesn't matter because no life is actually being taken?

Sorry if i'm being insanely obtuse, it's not uncommon.

GhK.

 

[leahrachelle]

Okay... if you're having trouble with my previous post, I'll put it more simply: what makes a person a person?

My point from before is that it's not unique human DNA, because we can find unique human DNA in things we don't regard as people.

Are they LIVING creatures though?

 

[leahrachelle]

It was a joke. I have no interest in actually doing that.



Yes, that's why I'm saying that the idea that they're humans at conception is misguided. However, I would expect you to oppose all abortions, if you really believe that. Should I kill my one-year-old son, if I find out he's the result of my wife being raped? If not, how is that situation different from having an abortion because of rape (if you believe that the zyygote or fetus is already a human)?

I do oppose all abortions... When did I say I didn't?

 

[logician]

The real question here is, is the question posed as is the fetus alive or dead, or is the question posed as does the woman have a right to control her own body.

I choose the latter.

 

[Mathematician]

Sweet Yeshua, I can't even comprehend how such a thread pushed out 50+ pages. I'm not going to read all the posts, just answer the original question: I'm pro-choice because 1.) I don't see human life as any more sacred than the common house pet, and a steak dinner is more conscious than a fetus 2.) I don't see the point in punishing women for abortion, which stems from my belief that prison is ultimately rehabilitation.

 

[Magic Man]

I do oppose all abortions... When did I say I didn't?

You said it is acceptable to have an abortion after rape (and I think someting else, but I'm sure about rape). If you really think it's murder, then there should never be a good enough reason for it, not even rape.