ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[leahrachelle]

Yes... because it is.

:no: That looks like a clump of cells, really? I guess I am blind then...

 

[Magic Man]

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

I think you might be being a little harsh on her here. She's young and she's debating. She seems open-minded and willing to learn. Maybe you should giver her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[leahrachelle]

:clap
And there ya have it.

It is arrogant people like you that make atheists look bad.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

Are there enough loving, caring foster families out there for them all? And what about all the kids who instead end up in very abusive and/or neglectful situations?

 

[leahrachelle]

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.

The reason there are limits are because it is not just people doing what they want to do. If it were that simple, there would be no harm. But the fact is, alcohol and drugs can cause destructive, unintelligent behavior which can hurt OTHER PEOPLE. We can't just go around hurting other people. We have to balance freedom and security at the same time.

 

[leahrachelle]

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!

And what, death is the best option for them?

 

[leahrachelle]

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.

The one about adopting kids? Yes, I want to adopt thank you. But what about you? You seem to care so much about their wellbeing so why dont you adopt one?

 

[leahrachelle]

Are there enough loving, caring foster families out there for them all? And what about all the kids who instead end up in very abusive and/or neglectful situations?

Again, how is death better?

 

[Magic Man]

Are there enough loving, caring foster families out there for them all? And what about all the kids who instead end up in very abusive and/or neglectful situations?

I don't know, but killing a baby just because you're irresponsible is not a better option. Remember, I'm just talking here about situations where it's later in the pregnancy and it was just stupidity on the part of the mother.

What about all of those kids, though? That's going to happen regardless. Besides, many of those kids can grow up to be fine, upstanding adults who lead rewarding lives. I'd say that's worth it.

 

[Willamena]

The reason there are limits are because it is not just people doing what they want to do. If it were that simple, there would be no harm. But the fact is, alcohol and drugs can cause destructive, unintelligent behavior which can hurt OTHER PEOPLE.

I don't see abuse based on behavioral changes as a good reason to ban drugs or alcohol, especially as it doesn't happen to everyone who uses. If it's only the case for a few people who drink a few times, in comparison to everyone who drinks, then is it fair to limit it for everyone? Is it responsible, or is it rather controlling (as in dictatorship)? Isn't it better to inform people about the dangers of alcohol abuse and let them come to their own decisions about what is good, to handle each incident as a unique case and lock up those few who would abuse and harm?

Making law to ban it is extreme.

We can't just go around hurting other people. We have to balance freedom and security at the same time.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." ~Benjamin Franklin

In a very real sense, giving up the freedom to make your own decisions about life is giving up being an adult.

 

[leahrachelle]

I don't know, but killing a baby just because you're irresponsible is not a better option. Remember, I'm just talking here about situations where it's later in the pregnancy and it was just stupidity on the part of the mother.

What about all of those kids, though? That's going to happen regardless. Besides, many of those kids can grow up to be fine, upstanding adults who lead rewarding lives. I'd say that's worth it.

That's true. I have seen people in really, really bad situations grow up to be amazing people. Some of the best people I know, even, because they've learned first-hand.

 

[Magic Man]

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." ~Benjamin Franklin

In a very real sense, giving up the freedom to make your own decisions about life is giving up being an adult.

The problem comes in when other people's safety is involved.

 

[Magic Man]

That's true. I have seen people in really, really bad situations grow up to be amazing people. Some of the best people I know, even, because they've learned first-hand.

Along with that, people tend to help others in situations they understand. Many people who help charities and people in need are people who grew up in similar circumstances or had similar experiences.

 

[leahrachelle]

I don't see abuse based on behavioral changes as a good reason to ban drugs or alcohol, especially as it doesn't happen to everyone who uses. If it's only the case for a few people who drink a few times, in comparison to everyone who drinks, then is it fair to limit it for everyone? Is it responsible, or is it rather controlling (as in dictatorship)? Isn't it better to inform people about the dangers of alcohol abuse and let them come to their own decisions about what is good, to handle each incident as a unique case and lock up those few who would abuse and harm?

Making law to ban it is extreme.

Right, I agree with you. What I am saying is that the law we have now for alcohol is perfect. I do think that drugs should be legal, with limitations - just as there is for alcohol.

 

[leahrachelle]

The problem comes in when other people's safety is involved.

Exactly. If it's your own safety, do whatever you want. But we do not have the freedom to do whatever we want to other people.

 

[leahrachelle]

Along with that, people tend to help others in situations they understand. Many people who help charities and people in need are people who grew up in similar circumstances or had similar experiences.

Yes; they have sympathy for others in their situations.

 

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mball1297
The problem comes in when other people's safety is involved.

Exactly. If it's your own safety, do whatever you want. But we do not have the freedom to do whatever we want to other people.

Neither do we have the right to do whatever we want to other people, especially using the law as a tool to rob people of security of person. Hence the guarantee that recognizes liberty and justice for all.

 

[Nepenthe]

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!

What about those who did use contraceptive yet still got pregnant? In the U.S. 54% of women who had abortions had also used a form of contraception. Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6):294–303.

Honestly, if I were trying to be smart I would have done that wouldn't I? Or maybe I'm not trying to be.

I don't follow- being or trying to be smart is a positive in my book.

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.

So I dont know a lot of scientific terms?? I'm 16 years old.

Implied, but I apologize if that's not what you meant.

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.

And I would've made the same suggestion to spend a few minutes actually substantiating their argument with the exact same wording as I did with you.

I do not have to know science to be here

I never implied otherwise.

Especially since my view has nothing to do with science.

But the abortion issue hinges on science. It's an indespensable component here.

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.

As did I. Your answers were offensive and unsupported so I jumped in as well. That's the nature of the online debating beast.

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.

Risking their lives? Whose lives? Abortions are legal, safe and no more medically dangerous than an appadectomy. Only 0.3% of abortion patients require hospitalization.

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...

False analogy. And I suspect you know it....

It is arrogant people like you that make atheists look bad.

Arrogant? How was anything I posted arrogant? You can't play the debate game then accuse someone of arrogance to discredit their arguments. In fact I'm humble enough to realize that only the misinformed confidence of the arrogant can force their decisions on what a women can do with her own womb. I make no such arrogant stance.

 

[leahrachelle]

What about those who did use contraceptive yet still got pregnant? In the U.S. 54% of women who had abortions had also used a form of contraception. Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6):294–303.

In my opinion, if you are not using both birth control AND a condom, you are not being responsible. I'm quite sure that condoms alone are only 97%(?) effective, and then there's the fact that it very often breaks.
With birth control being 99.9%(?) and condoms being 97%(?), that would be a 1 in 33,000 chance of getting pregnant if they are used properly I believe - sorry if my math is wrong on that. 1 in 33,000 isn't even comparible to 3 in 100.

I don't follow- being or trying to be smart is a positive in my book.

Not in mine. Pretending to know something that I don't, in my opinion, is lying.

Implied, but I apologize if that's not what you meant.

I was not saying that I am not old enough to be able to comprehend it. I was saying that I have not been taught that yet or even come across that

And I would've made the same suggestion to spend a few minutes actually substantiating their argument with the exact same wording as I did with you.

OR, they could have kindly explained it to me - like I asked them to...

I never implied otherwise.

I believe you did

But the abortion issue hinges on science. It's an indespensable component here.

But since my reason against it does not have to with it, scientific arguments are not going to affect my stance

Risking their lives? Whose lives? Abortions are legal, safe and no more medically dangerous than an appadectomy. Only 0.3% of abortion patients require hospitalization.

I was referring to abortions not done in clinics I believe in that post

False analogy. And I suspect you know it....

It is false in YOUR opinion. Becuase you dont see the fetus as a human. To someone who does, it is not a false.

Arrogant? How was anything I posted arrogant? You can't play the debate game then accuse someone of arrogance to discredit their arguments. In fact I'm humble enough to realize that only the misinformed confidence of the arrogant can force their decisions on what a women can do with her own womb. I make no such arrogant stance.

I don't understand the purpose of the claps if you were not intending on being conceited.

 

[rojse]

obviously people can't decide on their own because so many people are choosing to do the wrong thing.

The wrong thing being defined as something that leahrachelle does not agree with?