Atheists and abortion

[Stripe]

"If atheists truly believed in science, logic and reason, they would be overwhelmingly pro-life. There is nothing science, logic or reason can offer to defend the abortion of a human being in the womb. Seeing as atheists are overwhelming pro-choice, it proves that it's not science, logic and reason that leads them to their beliefs, but rather their opposition to God and morality."

 

[Kdall]

"If atheists truly believed in science, logic and reason, they would be overwhelmingly pro-life. There is nothing science, logic or reason can offer to defend the abortion of a human being in the womb. Seeing as atheists are overwhelming pro-choice, it proves that it's not science, logic and reason that leads them to their beliefs, but rather their opposition to God and morality."

Who said that

 

[Sherman]

Atheists claim to have a moral compass. The only compass they have is themselves. This abortion issue is proof positive that self isn't a very good compass.

 

[Tambora]

"If atheists truly believed in science, logic and reason, they would be overwhelmingly pro-life. There is nothing science, logic or reason can offer to defend the abortion of a human being in the womb. Seeing as atheists are overwhelming pro-choice, it proves that it's not science, logic and reason that leads them to their beliefs, but rather their opposition to God and morality."

Yeppers.

 

[Ktoyou]

Atheists claim to have a moral compass. .....

OK, I think they claim to have that compass, but, in fact, lost it on a camping trip!each:

 

[Sherman]

OK, I think they claim to have that compass, but, in fact, lost it on a camping trip!each:

You may have a point there. :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

"If atheists truly believed in science, logic and reason, they would be overwhelmingly pro-life. There is nothing science, logic or reason can offer to defend the abortion of a human being in the womb.
...
"

I'm not really sure what leads you to that conclusion, so I can't really respond to it directly. A woman (i.e. a person, with full human rights) has a quite fundamental right to bodily sovereignty, while a fetus (i.e. a potential person, with rights depending on their development into a person), has no right nor ability to demand the support of a woman's body.

So, let the condemnation commence...

 

[Stripe]

I'm not really sure what leads you to that conclusion, so I can't really respond to it directly. A woman (i.e. a person, with full human rights) has a quite fundamental right to bodily sovereignty, while a fetus (i.e. a potential person, with rights depending on their development into a person), has no right nor ability to demand the support of a woman's body.

So, let the condemnation commence...

Your condemnation is justified.

 

[Kdall]

Your condemnation is justified.

I'll try this again: who is the quote from?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm not really sure what leads you to that conclusion, so I can't really respond to it directly. A woman (i.e. a person, with full human rights) has a quite fundamental right to bodily sovereignty, while a fetus (i.e. a potential person, with rights depending on their development into a person), has no right

That is a very arbitrary dividing line.
Why not expand it a bit.

A black slave is not a person and has no rights, but a white slave owner is a person with full human rights (circa 1830).
A Jew is not a person and has no rights, but a non-Jew is a person with full human rights (circa 1930).

Those are just a few of the modern examples of the exact same line of thought that people have had throughout history.

One group is declared as the favored group, the other group is not even considered as a human, so their deaths are inconsequential in the minds of those killing them.

 

[rexlunae]

Your condemnation is justified.

Great. Good talk.

 

[rexlunae]

That is a very arbitrary dividing line.

I don't think the problem is that it's arbitrary, really. Our laws and customs and morals are already pretty well determined by making a call on who are people and what are not. The problem is that persons are poorly defined. And I admit, that is a problem, but not just for me, nor even most significantly for me.

Why not expand it a bit.

A black slave is not a person and has no rights, but a white slave owner is a person with full human rights (circa 1830).
A Jew is not a person and has no rights, but a non-Jew is a person with full human rights (circa 1930).

They sure seem like people. :idunno:

Those are just a few of the modern examples of the exact same line of thought that people have had throughout history.

And yet, none of them are challenging examples. Obviously, race doesn't make someone anything but a person. Brain development can.

One group is declared as the favored group, the other group is not even considered as a human, so their deaths are inconsequential in the minds of those killing them.

It's interesting that atheists are accused of amorality, but your comment is as morally nihilistic as it could be. We don't distinguish between people and non-people arbitrarily. There is a meaning, sometimes slightly ambiguous, but nonetheless crucial in the distinction. You can't just change the boundaries mindlessly.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They sure seem like people. :idunno:

And yet if you lived in a different time, you would have thought otherwise.

And yet, none of them are challenging examples. Obviously, race doesn't make someone anything but a person.

And yet less than 100 years ago, it was obvious to almost everybody that race did make someone something other than a person.
Why, even Darwin thought that Africans were not much different than apes.

Brain development can.

So, a dolphin can be a person but a moron can not?

 

[Kdall]

Those are just a few of the modern examples of the exact same line of thought that people have had throughout history.

One group is declared as the favored group, the other group is not even considered as a human, so their deaths are inconsequential in the minds of those killing them.

And to expand a bit more, this is the same attitude that many Christians take toward homosexuals, wanting to punish them by execution as the Bible commands

 

[rexlunae]

And yet if you lived in a different time, you would have thought otherwise.

And yet less than 100 years ago, it was obvious to almost everybody that race did make someone something other than a person.

That was never anything like a unanimous opinion, and it was largely based upon misconceptions about the differences between races. Misconceptions can be amended by accurate information, where minds are open. Of course, many of the minds weren't open, either, and that's a separate problem.

Why, even Darwin thought that Africans were not much different than apes.

I would ask for an actual traceable citation, but it doesn't matter. If he did say something to that effect, it would have been ignorant of him.

So, a dolphin can be a person...

Sure. They probably are persons.

... but a moron can not?

The bar is a bit higher than that.

 

[Stripe]

Brain development can [make a person].

That rules you out then.

 

[Charity]

That rules you out then.

so what, Satan use to work for God until he became a father an had his own children. Apparently gods going to destroy them all...

now ill click on post 1 an read what the topics about.

 

[Stripe]

so what, Satan use to work for God until he became a father an had his own children. Apparently gods going to destroy them all...

:AMR:

now ill click on post 1 an read what the topics about.

Perhaps you should put away the bong pipe first. :up:

 

[lucaspa]

"If atheists truly believed in science, logic and reason, they would be overwhelmingly pro-life. There is nothing science, logic or reason can offer to defend the abortion of a human being in the womb. Seeing as atheists are overwhelming pro-choice, it proves that it's not science, logic and reason that leads them to their beliefs, but rather their opposition to God and morality."

SO much wrong with this (and remember I believe in God).

To start with, morality does not depend on God. Again I pose the old question: is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If you take the first (which you seem to do), then morality is the ultimate in relativistic morals. Morality depends on the whim of God. Saying "God is good" or "God is moral" does not help, because that is a tautology. How do we know God is good/moral? In order to say that, you have to have a good/moral standard outside of God to compare Him to!

So morality is independent of God. Which makes sense. God is rational, therefore He would have rational reasons for telling us what is morality. Anyone, atheists included, can figure out those reasons.

Second, abortion is an issue of ethics/morality. Science is NOT an ethical system. Therefore, science cannot decide that ethical issue. More on that later.

Third, logically, it is not enough for your argument that science does not "defend abortion" (even if that were true), but science would have to have evidence to forbid abortion. You never provided that.

Now, the only "scientific" argument I can think of that Stripe is considering is "human life begins at conception". Which, scientifically, would mean that a fertilized ovum has the potential to develop into a baby. BUT, the discussion is not about biology, but about morality. When we say "human life", we mean the term in the ethical, legal sense, not the biological. And science is not an ethical, legal system. Remember, we execute adult humans. They are most definitely "human" in the biological sense, but we decide they are not human in the ethical, legal sense and it is morally acceptable to execute them.

Fourth, let's look at the biology a moment. Fully 75% of fertilized ova NEVER produce a baby. Either the ovum does not implant, and is aborted at the first menstrual period, or suffers various developmental problems along the way and is aborted later. In either case, abortion is a biological process that happens to most "humans". If you believe God specially created humans in their present form, then the inescapable conclusion is that God is an abortionist! Otherwise, He would have designed a system whereby there were no abortions after fertilization. So, if God approves of abortion, then it must be moral. By your own criteria of morality, Stripe.

Now, another part of biology: the embryo is completely dependent upon the mother. It's literally a part of her and cannot survive on its own. Just like any other body part cannot survive on its own. In any other case, we have no moral objection to people cutting off and discarding parts of their bodies. Ever cut off a callus? A mole? Have a tooth pulled? How about radical mastectomy in the case of high breast cancer risk? Any moral problem with having both breasts removed? So, logically, a fetus is no different: it's a part of the body that can be discarded for medical or other reasons.

Now, once the fetus is born and is a baby, no longer a part of another person's body, then it is the logical to consider it a "human being" in the ethical, legal sense and protect it like we would any other "person". But not before.

 

[lucaspa]

That is a very arbitrary dividing line.
Why not expand it a bit.

A black slave is not a person and has no rights, but a white slave owner is a person with full human rights (circa 1830).
A Jew is not a person and has no rights, but a non-Jew is a person with full human rights (circa 1930).

Apples and oranges. Both Jews and slaves had bodily autonomy. They were not dependent on another person's body to keep them alive.

The better analogy for babies would be teeth, toes, fingers, tumors, etc: body parts that we can get along without.

As I said, once the fetus is born and is a baby, then the rights kick in. Thus we don't allow infanticide -- because it is a subclass of murder.

What you have done is arbitrarily decide that fertilized ova and embryos up until birth are "human beings" even though they are unlike all other human beings (i.e. slaves and Jews).