ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[leahrachelle]

Depends on what you mean by "ok", but no, it's not okay with me because I value my life. If it's someone else we are talking about, then it's their decisions to make about their lives, and that includes their mistakes to make.

Taking on a role of limiting someone's choices, and hence the possiblity of their making a mistake by choosing something other than what 'I' want them to choose, is adopting the role of a parent to a child, and using the law as discipline. It robs them of their adult status, and even takes responsiblity for their actions. Both those results are unacceptable. People have the right to decide their own lives and make their own fate.

Do you think that teenagers should be able to have abortions then with parent consent?
Just curious.
I don't. In general I'm for more youth rights, but I have personally seen that teenagers do not come close to having the maturity to make this decision..

I honestly heard someone today at school say that baby bumps were cute and sometimes she wishes she were pregnant so she could have one -_-

 

[leahrachelle]

I think this question of a scenario that didn't occur is just an appeal to emotion.

I think it really is a great argument because if you say that abortion is acceptable and then you say that it wouldn't be acceptable if it were you, you are being a hypocrite.

 

[leahrachelle]

Neither does an unfertilized egg. What is it about implantation of a sperm cell that confers "personhood"?

What about it doesn't?

 

[Magic Man]

I think it really is a great argument because if you say that abortion is acceptable and then you say that it wouldn't be acceptable if it were you, you are being a hypocrite.

That's why I used the handy-dandy example of stealing and going to jail. Anyone who's been convicted of stealing would obviously choose something other than going to prison. On the other hand everyone who hasn't been convicted of such can agree that such a person should go to prison. Reasonable people in those situations would understand the need fo them to go to prison. This is the same principle as why they don't allow people connected in any way with the people involved in a crime to be on the jury.

 

[Magic Man]

They intentionally had him, though. It wasn't an accident

That's beside the point, though. The point was that there are cases where not having existed at all would be deemed by most as a better option than living the life that was led.

You can't technically tell when that is though

Sure you can. It's generally somewhere around 24 weeks.

 

[leahrachelle]

That's why I used the handy-dandy example of stealing and going to jail. Anyone who's been convicted of stealing would obviously choose something other than going to prison. On the other hand everyone who hasn't been convicted of such can agree that such a person should go to prison. Reasonable people in those situations would understand the need fo them to go to prison. This is the same principle as why they don't allow people connected in any way with the people involved in a crime to be on the jury.

Ehh, I see what you're trying to say, but I think that the criminals are being hypocrites as well...

 

[leahrachelle]

That's beside the point, though. The point was that there are cases where not having existed at all would be deemed by most as a better option than living the life that was led.

But who are you to say what is best for that child..? Who are any of us to say that? How do we know that that child would have it better being dead, and how do we know that that child would rather be dead if he/she knew what their life would be like? None of us have the right to say what THEY would choose


Sure you can. It's generally somewhere around 24 weeks.[/quote]
Generally is the key word here. There is no possible way to know for sure

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about it doesn't?

Everything. Nothing that I consider to be a requisite part of a "person" is present in a single cell. None of it is present even in two cells stuck together.

 

[Willamena]

Do you think that teenagers should be able to have abortions then with parent consent?
Just curious.
I don't. In general I'm for more youth rights, but I have personally seen that teenagers do not come close to having the maturity to make this decision..

If parental consent is required, then the parents have the decision. Even if the parents aren't involved, though, I wouldn't favour robbing the teenager of an opportunity to make an adult decision provided, of course, they want that responsibility.

I think it really is a great argument because if you say that abortion is acceptable and then you say that it wouldn't be acceptable if it were you, you are being a hypocrite.

A hypocrite professes something they don't really believe. If the person really believes in allowing people to make their own decisions, whilst knowing what their own decision would be, that's not hypocrisy.

 

[Magic Man]

Ehh, I see what you're trying to say, but I think that the criminals are being hypocrites as well...

The point is that everyone tends towards a different opinion if they're in the situation themselves. As for this one, it's impossible to say since wouldn't be able to think to say whether I was ok with it. All I can say is that I'm OK with the idea of having been aborted. Just like I'd be OK with going to prison for committing a crime.

Can you say that you'd be fine with going to prison, if you committed a crime? If so, then good, you'd understand the need for the abortion then, too. If not, then by your own standards, you'd be a hypocrite.

But who are you to say what is best for that child..? Who are any of us to say that? How do we know that that child would have it better being dead, and how do we know that that child would rather be dead if he/she knew what their life would be like? None of us have the right to say what THEY would choose

We don't know for sure. The point is that there are certain situations that are bad for a child to come into, and that was an example of one. Sometimes, depending on the situation, it makes more sense to have the abortion rather than bring them into such a situation.

Generally is the key word here. There is no possible way to know for sure

You can have a pretty good idea. I said generally because that's an average. You can look at each case individually and have a better idea. You never know for sure whether a baby is going to make it on its own, not even at 40 weeks. However, at around 24 weeks they start to have all of the necessary parts and functions to do so.

This is a really odd argument from you, and I'm not really sure what it's meant to prove. The question was when they become human, and the answer was when they can function on their own. I think it's a little dishonest to say that they are fully human when they are conceived. When they're capable of functioning on their own, it's impossible not to consider them fully human.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But who are you to say what is best for that child..? Who are any of us to say that?

Yea...that's the whole point of the argument. This is why the decision is left to her. It's hers and hers alone to deal with. "Who are any of us to say that" she doesn't have the right to choose?

How do we know that that child would have it better being dead, and how do we know that that child would rather be dead if he/she knew what their life would be like?

We don't and this question is pointless because one will never know. The child could be born and live a healthy and productive life. On the other hand the child could grow up to be a serial killer. Who knows.....but in the grand scheme it's not important because we don't and should not get to make that decision for the mother.

None of us have the right to say what THEY would choose

And no one should have the right to say what the women should be able to choose. And because she chooses abortion we should not have the right to say otherwise.

 

[yearningknight]

Considering the fact that I consider us to be animals it doesn't matter to me. For some mothers' of animals kill their young whether it be intentional or not. Plus I think that it should be up to the mother to decide whether she wants to abort her child or not. Because let's say two adolesents have unprotected sex and the girl becomes pregnant and decides that it would be better to abort the kid because it would only be hindering her and her boyfriend's life. Now her other option is to have the babe and give it up for adoption or allow her parents to raise it until she is out of high school and can get a job to support herself and her child. So I am prochoice it is up to the person on whether it is right or wrong.

 

[leahrachelle]

provided, of course, they want that responsibility.

We want to gamble
But because we arn't mature enough to make good decisions with it, we can't

 

[leahrachelle]

We don't know for sure. The point is that there are certain situations that are bad for a child to come into, and that was an example of one. Sometimes, depending on the situation, it makes more sense to have the abortion rather than bring them into such a situation.

What seems logical to you could very well be taking away what would be a very amazing and happy life.

You can have a pretty good idea. I said generally because that's an average. You can look at each case individually and have a better idea. You never know for sure whether a baby is going to make it on its own, not even at 40 weeks. However, at around 24 weeks they start to have all of the necessary parts and functions to do so.

If the woman takes care of her body, the delivery goes fine, and the baby has no health issues, they will be perfectly fine.

This is a really odd argument from you, and I'm not really sure what it's meant to prove. The question was when they become human, and the answer was when they can function on their own. I think it's a little dishonest to say that they are fully human when they are conceived. When they're capable of functioning on their own, it's impossible not to consider them fully human.

'Functioning on their own' could honestly mean anything. Can you please explain? Because from my view, a newborn baby cannot 'function' on its own. It can breathe and poop, but it can't feed itself; it can't move about.

 

[crystalonyx]

It really boils down to a religious question(is life sacred?), and if you aren't religious, you shouldn't be held to someone else's beliefs.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It really boils down to a religious question(is life sacred?), and if you aren't religious, you shouldn't be held to someone else's beliefs.

This is true. I do believe somewhere back a few pages she said she used to be a catholic.....can't remember.........maybe some of that is still coursing through her veins....

EDIT: Here is its....(Page 114)

 

[crystalonyx]

The argument that you might abort a possible Einstein, Beethoven, or Newton is countered by the argument that you could have aborted a possible Hitler, Manson, or Saddam Hussein. In other words, the first argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Willamena]

We want to gamble
But because we arn't mature enough to make good decisions with it, we can't

I'll believe that the day I believe that you speak for all teenagers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We want to gamble
But because we arn't mature enough to make good decisions with it, we can't

If that's the case, then why should we take your decisions on this matter seriously?

 

[Magic Man]

What seems logical to you could very well be taking away what would be a very amazing and happy life.

It could be. It's much more likely in some situations that it would be taking away a very sad, useless and destructive life.

If the woman takes care of her body, the delivery goes fine, and the baby has no health issues, they will be perfectly fine.

I'm not sure what your point is here. My point was that I consider a baby to be fully human whenever it is capable of living on its own. That is usually around 24 weeks.

'Functioning on their own' could honestly mean anything. Can you please explain? Because from my view, a newborn baby cannot 'function' on its own. It can breathe and poop, but it can't feed itself; it can't move about.

"Functioning on their own" means not needing to be attached to their mother. At that point any person on the planet who knew anything about babies could take care of it. If you'd rather, I could say "When it no longer needs its mother to survive". In other words, when it is capable of living outside of the womb. I think at this point, you're just arguing to argue, though.