ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[leahrachelle]

There is a fallacy in your reasoning here that you need to acknowledge. Just because something physically resembles a baby, that does not mean that it is the same thing as a baby. It isn't until about the third trimester that enough of the brain develops for the fetus to begin to have some higher cognitive functions. Your criterion for calling the fetus a "baby" at that point is too superficial.

But your actual position seems to oppose abortions before the fetus develops even those superficial characteristics, so the use of that picture doesn't really support the actual position that you are advocating.

What about people whose brains don't fully develop? Are they not human? What about babies that are born only after six months and live perfectly fine? Are they only human because they are outside of the mother's body? What is so significant about being released from your mother's womb if you can possibly live on your own after a certain time? Does some magical spark come and poof your a human as your coming out of your mother??

Also, the point I was trying to prove was that you are not aborting a clump of cellsin most cases, since most abortions occur late in the first trimester - around the time the fetus is starting to look like that picture. And that is not a clump of cells unless I am blind.

 

[Willamena]

You can teach me all the science crap in the world, and it doesn't change the fact that I feel that we don't have the right to say who gets to live or not.

Hm...:yes: that's why I'm pro-choice. The pro-life people want THE say about who gets to live.

 

[leahrachelle]

Hm...:yes: that's why I'm pro-choice. The pro-life people want THE say about who gets to live.

I don't follow. We are trying to STOP people from saying who gets to live.

 

[Willamena]

I don't follow. We are trying to STOP people from saying who gets to live.

"Pro-Life" is a movement, which means a group who are speaking out not just to the public but to government, asking government to make laws dictating what is good for everyone. Is it better for each person to decide for themselves that life is good, or to have it hammered down and enforced by government?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is so significant about being released from your mother's womb if you can possibly live on your own after a certain time? Does some magical spark come and poof your a human as your coming out of your mother??

Let's take a different tack at this: what do you consider to be reasonable criteria for identifying something as a person under the law? Once you say what they are, we can try to decide whether these are present in an embryo, zygote, fetus, etc.

Also, I notice you didn't respond to question I asked before. Seeing how the law considers even a small risk to the parent's life to be justification for not protecting a child's life after the child is born, even if you consider a fetus a person, why would you want to extend it protections over and above those of a fully-born child?

 

[Willamena]

Let's take a different tack at this: what do you consider to be reasonable criteria for identifying something as a person under the law? Once you say what they are, we can try to decide whether these are present in an embryo, zygote, fetus, etc.

Also, I notice you didn't respond to question I asked before. Seeing how the law considers even a small risk to the parent's life to be justification for not protecting a child's life after the child is born, even if you consider a fetus a person, why would you want to extend it protections over and above those of a fully-born child?

Loaded questions, really. A "person" could be someone who lived a thousand years ago, or has yet to be conceived.

 

[leahrachelle]

"Pro-Life" is a movement, which means a group who are speaking out not just to the public but to government, asking government to make laws dictating what is good for everyone. Is it better for each person to decide for themselves that life is good, or to have it hammered down and enforced by government?

But that is the problem - obviously people can't decide on their own because so many people are choosing to do the wrong thing. We expected people to stay away from drugs, alcohol, gambling way back when, but they didn't. You can't expect people to know what is good. You have to have limits.

 

[leahrachelle]

Let's take a different tack at this: what do you consider to be reasonable criteria for identifying something as a person under the law? Once you say what they are, we can try to decide whether these are present in an embryo, zygote, fetus, etc.

Also, I notice you didn't respond to question I asked before. Seeing how the law considers even a small risk to the parent's life to be justification for not protecting a child's life after the child is born, even if you consider a fetus a person, why would you want to extend it protections over and above those of a fully-born child?

What law are you talking about?

 

[Father Heathen]

So what's your solution to the dire baby surplus that the world is currently facing already? What is your solution to help the countless children who are abused, neglected and/or abandoned? What can you do to ensure that those who are forced to give birth will love and raise their children properly, in a safe and healthy environment? When the orphanages become overcrowded, how many do you plan to adopt?

Besides, it's not like babies are hard to make anyway.

 

[Nepenthe]

So I dont know a lot of scientific terms?? I'm 16 years old. Sorry I haven't gone to medical school yet. Sorry I haven't even finished biology.

Honestly, you have internet access, Googling or Wikiing the word would've given you everything you needed to know in mere seconds. Your argument was based on assigning "humanhood" to something based on its possessing DNA, and thus actually understanding the term(s) seemed relevant. Also, being 16 is no excuse; you're debating a complicated and contentious issue so don't feign immaturity to escape the fact that you are not as well informed on the issue as you've convinced yourself to be.

But does my lack of knowledge in science mean I don't know right from wrong?? No.Will learning all there is to know about fetuses change my feelings about abortion?? No.

Not necessarily. But it does mean you don't understand the abortion issue enough to come to an informed opinion.

You can teach me all the science crap in the world, and it doesn't change the fact that I feel that we don't have the right to say who gets to live or not.

Dogmatic certainty is a clear sign of not knowing what the hell one is talking about. :sorry1:

Period. Science has nothing to do with that.

Sure it does. As does philosophy, logic, ethics, psychology, etc.

And if you live your life based on scientific evidence alone, you're just as ignorant as the Christians. Look around you, at the obvious. You don't need science to tell you to be nice to people. You don't need science to tell you not to kill or hurt people.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Sure it does. As does philosophy, logic, ethics, psychology, etc.

Has science ever been able to explain love?

Yes. There's tons of literature and sites on the biology of love. The anthropology of relationships, the sociology of falling in love, the chemistry of attraction- there are thousands of research papers on the subjects. Again, Google it or look at some of the dozens of books on the subject on Amazon.

Can you honestly tell me that if you had an abortion you would not feel one bit guilty about it?

Nope. No guilt. Can you honestly tell me that your decision to block a womans' medical choice would not make you feel guilty? Oh wait, you are the one who shrugged at the violence inflicted on those who suffer under the conditions of illegal abortions. Any guilt?

Does that look just like a clump of cells to you?

Yes... because it is.

It has a head, two arms, two legs, a torso, etc. It has bones and fingernails. It can swallow and kick. All organs and muscles have formed and are beginning to function. Seems to me like it's just like a smaller version of a newborn baby, with the exception of a few minor things.

So if aesthetics determine personhood, does a baby born with no arms or legs but a perfect brain not count as human to you? Why base humanhood on limbs? On eyes? On looking like a human? At what points are the leg nubs of a fetus "human" and "not human"? Again, arbitrary choices..... To quote Copernicus

"It isn't until about the third trimester that enough of the brain develops for the fetus to begin to have some higher cognitive functions. Your criterion for calling the fetus a "baby" at that point is too superficial."

:clap
And there ya have it.

 

[Willamena]

...obviously people can't decide on their own because so many people are choosing to do the wrong thing. We expected people to stay away from drugs, alcohol, gambling way back when, but they didn't. You can't expect people to know what is good. You have to have limits.

Ah, and that's what I meant by some people wanting to have THE say about what goes on in other people's lives, including who gets to live.

 

[Nepenthe]

Besides, it's not like babies are hard to make anyway.

he's right. He just made three as I typed this.....

 

[leahrachelle]

So what's your solution to the dire baby surplus that the world is currently facing already? What is your solution to help the countless children who are abused, neglected and/or abandoned? What can you do to ensure that those who are forced to give birth will love and raise their children properly, in a safe and healthy environment? When the orphanages become overcrowded, how many do you plan to adopt?

Besides, it's not like babies are hard to make anyway.

That is the woman's OWN fault. Like I said, 98% of abortion cases are cases where it was simply that the woman willingly had sex and got pregnant. Only 2% are rape cases or where the baby is going to hurt/kill the mother.
So how about we look to the irresponsible, immature parents here and get them some gosh darn birth control or condoms instead of going to abortion as the sollution? It is their fault for getting pregnant, and it should be there responsibility!

 

[Storm]

That's right. Babies are the natural punishment for fornication. Who cares what happens to the kids, so long as the parents suffer the consequences of their actions!

 

[Father Heathen]

That is the woman's OWN fault. Like I said, 98% of abortion cases are cases where it was simply that the woman willingly had sex and got pregnant. Only 2% are rape cases or where the baby is going to hurt/kill the mother.
So how about we look to the irresponsible, immature parents here and get them some gosh darn birth control or condoms instead of going to abortion as the sollution? It is their fault for getting pregnant, and it should be there responsibility!

If you think they were irresponsible as sexual partners, don't you think they would also be irresponsible as parents? Besides, you still haven't managed to answer my questions yet.

 

[leahrachelle]

Honestly, you have internet access, Googling or Wikiing the word would've given you everything you needed to know in mere seconds. Your argument was based on assigning "humanhood" to something based on its possessing DNA, and thus actually understanding the term(s) seemed relevant. Also, being 16 is no excuse; you're debating a complicated and contentious issue so don't feign immaturity to escape the fact that you are not as well informed on the issue as you've convinced yourself to be.

Honestly, if I were trying to be smart I would have done that wouldn't I? Or maybe I'm not trying to be.. Hmm.. -_-
When was immaturity ever brought up? When did I ever imply that I am too 'immature' to understand what you are talking about. I didn't. Age is an excuse for not knowing a lot about science. But honestly, I would argue that more than half of adults would not understand the terms you were using either..
I do not have to know science to be here. Especially since my view has nothing to do with science. This was not even intended to be a debate even - I was simply asking how atheists felt about abortions. But the answers disgusted me, and so I put my two cents in.

 

[Magic Man]

That's right. Babies are the natural punishment for fornication. Who cares what happens to the kids, so long as the parents suffer the consequences of their actions!

Obviously we care what happens to the kids, but they shouldn't be killed just because of indiscretion on the parents' part. If that means putting them up for adoption, that's an option too. The point is that I don't think anyone disagrees that women should just go around having sex irresponsibly and then getting an abortion because it doesn't fit their life plans.

 

[Willamena]

Age is an excuse for not knowing a lot about science.

Can I quote you on that?

 

[leahrachelle]

Nope. No guilt. Can you honestly tell me that your decision to block a womans' medical choice would not make you feel guilty? Oh wait, you are the one who shrugged at the violence inflicted on those who suffer under the conditions of illegal abortions. Any guilt?

No, not at all. I don't have any sympathy for people stupidly risking their lives just to save themselves from nine months of agony.
But you, are having no sympathy for someone who did nothing at all to deserve death. It's like seeing an old man get hit by a car while walking across the street and you just keep on walking...

 

[Magic Man]

If you think they were irresponsible as sexual partners, don't you think they would also be irresponsible as parents? Besides, you still haven't managed to answer my questions yet.

That's true, but there's always adoption, or in many cases help from grandparents or other relatives.