ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[Willamena]

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.

I believe in the right of a person to make decisions about their own life, even where those decisions are mistakes, regardless that other lives are affected (which is usually the case in any life decision) and regardless of how horrible I think those mistakes are. Having an abortion would be such a mistake, and so would supporting legislation on a ban on abortions.

That's all I need to say on that.

 

[rojse]

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.

Where do these wonderful statistics come from?

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

Fortunately, the exact opposite occurs. You have spent a few minutes to gain information to either help inform your debate and arguments, or helps you re-examine your argument. I myself have altered several of my arguments following some research on the internet.

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

If you are interested enough in a subject, there's no reason why you can't do some personal research. Learning about science should not, and is not confined to your schooling life.

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

It's a good idea to examine a debate from multiple perspectives, and equally good to reexamine our own arguments in the light of arguments from different areas of endeavour.

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

It might be worth your time to consider the opposite side of the argument - why might a person not want to go to an abortion clinic? Perhaps they cannot afford the doctor's fees, for example. Perhaps they don't want the information disclosed to their parents, as there might be a variety of reasons for this.

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

The difference between a foetus (of an unspecified age) and a fully-developed able-bodied aged person are so astounding, as to render your analogy useless. A foetus has not developed physically, does not have a developed brain, does not have a nervous system developed (which allows the perception of pain), and so many other things that allow us to distinguish between a foetus and a developed person.

Oh, and we have not had the joy of personally being able to associate with the foetus, in contrast to the elderly man.

 

[Copernicus]

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??

The problem with a word like "human" is that it can have so many different meanings and connotations. That is why it is very important to remember what we are talking about here. The question is not when a fetus becomes "human", but when society has an interest in recognizing the existence of a new, independent person with civil rights of its own.

You might be interested in the history of abortion. The Catholic Church actually took a fairly liberal view on the subject until about the 19th century. Before then, the question was over when "ensoulment" took place--the entering of the soul into the fetus. The prevailing view followed St. Augustine's argument that it didn't take place until "quickening" happened--roughly the beginning of the third trimester. Before that point, abortion was not considered "murder" by Church authorities.

So what about being outside the womb? Why is that important? That is when the child officially becomes a citizen with civil rights. It gets a name and a birth certificate. After that point, death requires a death certificate, never before birth. Should we require death certificates and names for miscarriages? That would hardly make sense.

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.

Can you at least clarify one point? Do you consider abortions permissible early in the first trimester? If so, why? That would make your drawing relevant to the discussion, but it would make you vulnerable to the criticism that you define "personhood" on the basis of superficial appearances. If not, then we can dismiss the drawing as irrelevant to the defense of your argument.

Finally, I would like to applaud you for engaging in this discussion. This is a very complex and difficult subject to discuss, and you are doing the right thing in exposing your own opinions to attack, even if the criticisms seem a bit harsh at times. The more you engage in debates like this, the more you will sharpen your reasoning skills. I speak as someone considerably older than you, so I am pleased that you even bother to listen to my opinions.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

What are you referring to? You're saying the same thing we just said. You can do whatever you want, but when there is harm to others involved, there could be problems. Are you referring to not allowing women to have abortions?

 

[Magic Man]

I believe in the right of a person to make decisions about their own life, even where those decisions are mistakes, regardless that other lives are affected (which is usually the case in any life decision) and regardless of how horrible I think those mistakes are. Having an abortion would be such a mistake, and so would supporting legislation on a ban on abortions.

That's all I need to say on that.

Ah. That makes it much clearer. I don't know what impression you got, but I'm not advocating banning abortions or anything. I agree that people should be allowed to live their own lives and make their own mistakes. I don't want to take away the right to abortions, but I do think they're the wrong choice (as you do) in many instances. There are also cases (not necessarily abortions) where you do have to give up some freedom for security purposes. That's part of living in society.

 

[Willamena]

There are also cases (not necessarily abortions) where you do have to give up some freedom for security purposes. That's part of living in society.

Not the freedom to choose --not that one. Unless, of course, you freely choose to give it up, in which case you never really gave it up.

 

[Magic Man]

Not the freedom to choose --not that one. Unless, of course, you freely choose to give it up, in which case you never really gave it up.

The freedom to choose what? You can choose to kill someone or steal something, but then you're also choosing to accept the consequences.

 

[Willamena]

The freedom to choose what? You can choose to kill someone or steal something, but then you're also choosing to accept the consequences.

With every single decision there are consequences. Which decision/which consequences don't matter to my argument.

 

[darkendless]

That's just disgusting. Why the fetuses then huh? Let's kill the old people off, they've lived long enough. You wouldn't be so supportive if it was you being 'population controlled.' Or how about the jewish people, or how about the gay people??

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHO DESERVES TO LIVE.

Don't take it so personally we take it upon ourselves to kill every other animal on earth, why not ourselves. We are animals get used to it. Dont be under some crazy illusion that as humans we are better, its simply not true.
Its not up to you to decide things for people. If they dont want to keep their baby then you having a whinge wont achieve anything.

 

[Sententia]

There are atheists that are against abortion.
There are atheists for a womans right to choose abortion.

Its a silly question. Atheism does not prescribe a particular point of view on the subject. Its like asking what is white persons view of abortion? The fact that their white doesnt mean anything for the question at hand.

In short... CMN.

 

[Willamena]

Don't take it so personally we take it upon ourselves to kill every other animal on earth, why not ourselves.

Because we're "us" and they're "them"?

We are animals get used to it. Dont be under some crazy illusion that as humans we are better, its simply not true.

Yeah, it's not like we've been to the moon or anything. :redx:

 

[Smoke]

Yeah, it's not like we've been to the moon or anything. :redx:

I've never even been to Omaha.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Because we're "us" and they're "them"?

"us" is human kind, "us" is the dutch, "us" is brownhaired creatures, "us" is animals, "us" animals with legs, "us" is animals with 2 legs, "us" is animals with 2 legs longer than arms, "us" is useless without the reason why you use "us".

 

[BucephalusBB]

Yeah, it's not like we've been to the moon or anything. :redx:

So as humans we are better but equal to all the micro organism that went with "us" to the moon ?

 

[darkendless]

Because we're "us" and they're "them"?


Yeah, it's not like we've been to the moon or anything. :redx:

Yeh but we cant see perfectly well in the dark like a cat or swim under water for hours like a fish, i don't get your point.

We're a pathetic animal, that thinks it has to show its superiority by policing the globe the way we do.

 

[Willamena]

"us" is human kind, "us" is the dutch, "us" is brownhaired creatures, "us" is animals, "us" animals with legs, "us" is animals with 2 legs, "us" is animals with 2 legs longer than arms, "us" is useless without the reason why you use "us".

That's the beauty: it works any way you want it to.

 

[Willamena]

So as humans we are better but equal to all the micro organism that went with "us" to the moon ?

Well, I was being facetious: we could arbitrarily choose any reason at all to demonstrate superiority, any of the accomplishments that we as a group are proud of, great things that were done by "us". It's our group identity, our satisfaction as a unit, that makes us superior and it's the reason I see why we would choose to value "us" over "them".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What law are you talking about?

Legally, if your child is in peril - or even certain to die without your intervention - you aren't required to put yourself in peril to save him or her.

 

[Magic Man]

With every single decision there are consequences. Which decision/which consequences don't matter to my argument.

My point is you can always choose something. Even if abortion was illegal, you could choose to do it, just like you can choose to kill someone now. You just choose to face the consequences, too.

 

[Panda]

Legally, if your child is in peril - or even certain to die without your intervention - you aren't required to put yourself in peril to save him or her.

In France you must help someone in need if you can without risking harm to yourself.