Thoughts on Abortion

[xj0hnx]

My buddy and I were laughing together at anti-women's rights folks the other day as he mops up a adult theatre with bleach every night. The horror! Genocide!

So were you just hanging out with him collecting lunch for the next day?

 

[Blackjack200]

So? I admire them for avoiding clinging to the assumed policy positions of their political side. If only there were more true free thinkers like them. Most people are just sheep who flatter themselves into believing they think for themselves.

To an extent, I agree, but it can also result in stubbornness on certain issues. There's a famous physicist (I believe in the field of quantum electo-dynamics) that is famous for global warming skepticism. Either the New Yorker or the Atlantic did a writeup on him a few weeks ago and pointed out that people in his position are often able to make advances by questioning the assumptions in their fields. While this is certainly a good thing, this tendency can misfire and cause a person to be obstinate in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The number of such people is irrelevant; the mere fact they exist demonstrates that not every pro-lifer is a Bible-thumper. There's a secular pro-life argument to be made, but most people avoid it because it's just easier mentally to roll your eyes and mutter "Jesus freaks!" without thinking any more about it.

This reminds me of Dave Chappel's black clansman. Just because they exist doesn't mean their position makes any sense. Don't you think if the secular argument against abortion was compelling there would be a substantial number of pro-life atheists? That's why the number of these people is relevent.

 

[alkemyst]

No matter how much protection it's been proven sex leads to pregnancy for some people.

People have had tubes tied/vasectomies even.

That's the thing about life.

 

[Mursilis]

This reminds me of Dave Chappel's black clansman. Just because they exist doesn't mean their position makes any sense. Don't you think if the secular argument against abortion was compelling there would be a substantial number of pro-life atheists? That's why the number of these people is relevent.

Really? Abolitionists were significantly rarer 200 years ago, but they were as right then as they are now. Most people just don't think about things much deeper than what's on TV tonight, and hold obviously conflicting views. My favorite are pro-choicers who are against drug legalization (of which there are quite a few). Apparently, while the gov't can't tell a woman what to do with her body (as it applies to abortion), it actually can if she wants to smoke a little weed. How does that make sense?

 

[soulcougher73]

So your wife can do it once, but other people can't do it 10 times? What a hypocrite.

So what you are saying is you are for abortions as a form of actual birth control such as the pill is now? One a day? You are gross. At least have some morals.

 

[Mursilis]

So what you are saying is you are for abortions as a form of actual birth control such as the pill is now? One a day? You are gross. At least have some morals.

Where'd I say that? I was merely questioning the logic of "it's OK to abort once, but not 10 times" (or whatever number you're sticking to today).

 

[soulcougher73]

Where'd I say that? I was merely questioning the logic of "it's OK to abort once, but not 10 times" (or whatever number you're sticking to today).

Then maybe you should re-read my posts. I gave very valid logical reasons why i think that. Not my fault you cant keep up.

 

[Blackjack200]

Really? Abolitionists were significantly rarer 200 years ago, but they were as right then as they are now. Most people just don't think about things much deeper than what's on TV tonight, and hold obviously conflicting views. My favorite are pro-choicers who are against drug legalization (of which there are quite a few). Apparently, while the gov't can't tell a woman what to do with her body (as it applies to abortion), it actually can if she wants to smoke a little weed. How does that make sense?

There was always a substantial number of abolitionists, right from the very beginning. Again, if the secular argument against abortion was compelling, why don't we see more atheists arguing for it?

Let me try it this way. What do you think the most compelling secular argument is? (If it's in this thread, just give me the post number.)

I did check atheists for life, and while I did find a listing including a couple of hundred full names and email addresses, I didn't find any concise secular arguments.

 

[Darwin333]

I. The condition of 'life' shouldn't affect a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy.

Agreed, fully agreed, if a person is reluctant or not sure about the baby, it should definitely be aborted. She should not be forced to or emotionally blackmailed into having it. Forcing her to see the ultrasound, hear the heart beat and naming the baby are just outrageous.

II. When does life begin?

Difficult question to answer, my heart and mind are divided. I think its not until the baby is brought into the world during birth (and not abortion) but as a human its very difficult to see a late term abortion fetus, crying ans slowly dying, the feeling in helplessness is just overwhelming in those cases...


III. There shouldn't be exclusivity in an abortion law.
No, there shouldn't, the law should be universal, I fell there should be no laws relating to abortion, govt should not be involved at all. Who ever wants to abort for whatever reason should be free to do so AND whoever (Doctors) does not want to participate, should be free to do so.

Do you think the fathers should, before time of birth, be able to absolve themselves of all responsibilities and rights concerning that fetus?

 

[Atreus21]

There was always a substantial number of abolitionists, right from the very beginning. Again, if the secular argument against abortion was compelling, why don't we see more atheists arguing for it?

Let me try it this way. What do you think the most compelling secular argument is? (If it's in this thread, just give me the post number.)

I did check atheists for life, and while I did find a listing including a couple of hundred full names and email addresses, I didn't find any concise secular arguments.

My argument is entirely secular.

Do you agree with the following -

1. Killing an innocent human being is wrong.
2. A baby immediately after birth is an innocent human being
3. To kill the baby immediately after birth is wrong.

Anything you disagree with?

 

[Blackjack200]

My argument is entirely secular.

Do you agree with the following -

1. Killing an innocent human being is wrong.
2. A baby immediately after birth is an innocent human being
3. To kill the baby immediately after birth is wrong.

Anything you disagree with?

Actually two of them:

"Innocent" is a matter of perspective or opinion (though I would agree that a newborn baby would be, by any definition, "innocent"). I would say that it's wrong to kill any self-aware person. Terry Schiavo, for example, would've been considered by many to be "innocent", but I don't feel that killing her was wrong.

I would not have a problem with fourth trimester abortions. Really, the question of which side of the vagina the baby is on is academic at that point.

 

[Blackjack200]

Do you think the fathers should, before time of birth, be able to absolve themselves of all responsibilities and rights concerning that fetus?

There is no question that he should be able to. For the mother to be able to carry the baby to term and then force money out of him is no less a violation of his rights than forcing the mother to carry the baby to term a violation of her rights.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I've been reading more and more about the abortion topic for school lately, and I've got a bone to pick with some issues.

I. The condition of 'life' shouldn't affect a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy.

While I can understand that the individual cells that make up a fetus or blastocyst are in fact 'living' (biological sense), that they are not an inorganic substance, this conclusion shouldn't affect a woman's right to an abortion. This argument needs to be thrown out of debate because our society is too modern to be held back by definitional constructs of life (biological sense) and death. Saying that an abortion cannot occur because there are "x" many cells, that there is functionality "y", or an age of "z" days is not only superficial but also hypocritical of those that stress the emotional and spiritual argument against abortion.

II. When does life begin?

I believe that life (in a moral sense) begins at birth. Fetuses and zygotes have a potential for life, rather than a state of life (again, in a moral sense). For those that say that draw the line at conception, when does the potential for life begin? Intercourse? Holding hands for the first time? Lover's first glance?

III. There shouldn't be exclusivity in an abortion law.

Currently, there seems to be a consensus that pregnancies that result from incest, or rape should treated differently. People get married for a variety of reasons, be it love, money, or connections, but our government has no right to judge and restrict marriage (I'm not delving into gay rights in this thread, don't prompt it) based off our motives. Why then should laws be enacted that discriminate upon a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy based of her motives?

Let me know what you all think, thanks.

Well there ya go wrongly supposing that we should not be held accountable for our actions . Typical of a futurist without a clue. Your also assuming that we do not have spirits. You can neither prove or disprove either way . Your faith that there isn't goes against my belief we do infact have an energy force inside of us that a mother has no right to snuff out.

 

[Blackjack200]

Well there ya go wrongly supposing that we should not be held accountable for our actions . Typical of a futurist without a clue. Your also assuming that we do not have spirits. You can neither prove or disprove either way . Your faith that there isn't goes against my belief we do infact have an energy force inside of us that a mother has no right to snuff out.

Can you provide any evidence of a "spirit" or "energy force"? Or are we back to abara cadabra bullshit?

 

[Zebo]

I don't like it mainly because it's piss poor planning and selfishness since you're basically saying your convenience is more important than a life. That said if men could have babies this would not even be an issue.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Can you provide any evidence of a "spirit" or "energy force"? Or are we back to abara cadabra bullshit?

Can you prove there is not . That spark which is life is eternal.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well there ya go wrongly supposing that we should not be held accountable for our actions . Typical of a futurist without a clue. Your also assuming that we do not have spirits. You can neither prove or disprove either way . Your faith that there isn't goes against my belief we do infact have an energy force inside of us that a mother has no right to snuff out.

And /thread. It has now officially been derailed

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't like it mainly because it's piss poor planning and selfishness since you're basically saying your convenience is more important than a life. That said if men could have babies this would not even be an issue.

Piss poor planning? Even if the condom failed? Even if the woman was raped?

Selfishness? Isn't it more selfish to give birth to a child you can't support and rely on the goodwill of others to not let your child starve?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Funny world we live in . We give abandand Children to foster parents who do this for a living and many suck at the job there paid to do. Yet many loving people can't get a child because of red tape . and stupid laws outdated laws, unjust laws. Plenty of people would take unwanted children if it didn't cost a fortune just to get said child.

 

[Nemesis 1]

And /thread. It has now officially been derailed

Our avatar doesn't suit you.

 

[Kadarin]

My argument is entirely secular.

Do you agree with the following -

1. Killing an innocent human being is wrong.
2. A baby immediately after birth is an innocent human being
3. To kill the baby immediately after birth is wrong.

Anything you disagree with?

Yes, point #2 on religious grounds: Even immediately after birth, a baby is in fact tainted by Original Sin.

 

[llee]

Unless we criminalize getting/making pregnant outside the intent of having a baby, we cannot and should not ban abortion.

Yes, I support this idea. Hard to enforce, but a sound logic.

To the OP: Are you in favor of partial birth abortion?

I dislike partial birth abortions but I believe that they should nonetheless be available for a mother. This conclusion is based off my thoughts on principles rather than emotional factors.

My argument is entirely secular.

Do you agree with the following -

1. Killing an innocent human being is wrong.
2. A baby immediately after birth is an innocent human being
3. To kill the baby immediately after birth is wrong.

Anything you disagree with?

1. I don't perceive of death as the root of all evil. If death is preferable to a lifetime of torture, I would take it. This question is too subjective to be answered conclusively.
2. Possibly. I'm torn between saying that negligence equates innocence and deciding that innocence needs to be proven through proof.
3. Again, this question is too subjective. Whereas you use the emotional guilt attributed to these acts to slant these questions against a responder, the definitional reality is highly dependent on the circumstances. If I was a woman and was pregnant with a crippled fetus, would I have an abortion in order to save it from a lifetime of pain and double standards? Yes.

It most definitely life, is the very beginning of life.

We are all "clumps of cells", who are you to determine what someone's "potential for life" is?
Yea, so an hour before it's born it still isn't a "life", you're disgusting.
Than maybe you shouldn't have been boning a psycho bitch. Killing babies because they are inconvenient is disgusting.

Suppose this psycho bitch doesn't get an abortion and has the child. What happens when a woman that is unable to control her own life now has control over a precious new one? What do you say when that child grows up in the image of his/her parents? What do you think when other families, forged out of care and dedication, die of starvation as this planet steadily become overpopulated? What do you do when you have to make a pragmatic decision as opposed to an emotional one?

While abortion has the potential to terminate untold numbers of potential lives, it is in itself a buffer to poverty. If a woman wants to have a child, she will eventually have one, birth control or not. If a woman is stupid enough to keep having children with no caution, the decision impacts the rest of society. Birth control (such as abortion) allows a means for our planet to be preserved for future generations, restricting the number of children born into poverty, prostitution, and despair. An unimaginable quadrillion sperm die every day and never become human beings. If an extra million or so have to make the same sacrifice for nothing, so be it. I'd rather have the human race exist longer and culturally healthier. I'm sorry that it's not a perfect world.

 

[llee]

Well there ya go wrongly supposing that we should not be held accountable for our actions.

Mind you I never actually advocated or rejected the notion of abortion in the OP. I am merely stating some grounds that I would like legislation to have.

Typical of a futurist without a clue.

How am I a futurist?

Your also assuming that we do not have spirits. You can neither prove or disprove either way.

When did I even mention spirits exactly?

Your faith that there isn't goes against my belief we do infact have an energy force inside of us that a mother has no right to snuff out.

Good day to you. Freedom of speech is something that I love about America.

 

[Mursilis]

1. Killing an innocent human being is wrong.

Why not just go with "Killing a human being is wrong" - innocence has nothing to do with it.

This is not to say a human may NEVER be killed, but the moral good served by the killing has to be greater than whatever moral good the killed human is threatening. If I'm holding a bunch of people hostage and threatening to kill them, then yes, a police sniper is not morally wrong to kill me. But if I'm, say, merely taking a handicapped parking space undeservedly, then no, the police should not be shooting me.

 

[Mursilis]

I would say that it's wrong to kill any self-aware person.

Self-awareness is not really an objective standard.