Atheists and abortion

[lucaspa]

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.

The definition -- whatever it is -- is a legal, ethical one. There were laws saying African slaves were not people. There were laws declaring Jews not to be people.

Aren't we trying to decide a law about abortion? After all, isn't it laws that say abortion is illegal? Of course! That's what "illegal" means -- against the law.

What Stripe is trying to find is a scientific justification behind the law.

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

Brain development is one of the criteria we use to decide who is a person and what is not. It is still somewhat arbitrary. People can argue it, as the Terri Schiavo case so publicly illustrated. Terri's parents said she had brain activity. The autopsy reported she did not have the brain tissue to have brain activity. Biologically, there was no doubt she was human. However, I don't remember any anti-abortion group arguing that it was immoral to stop life support after the autopsy report came it. Even they agreed that no brain activity = not a person.

By their own logic, then a fertilized ovum and an embryo up until the brain develops are not people.

But then, for anti-abortion people, it's not really about personhood or abortion. Dig beneath the surface far enough, and you find this is really about sex. They want to use the threat of a possible pregnancy to keep women from having sex.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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

It must please your mother to no end to think of you being nothing more than a tumor that could be surgically removed.
:rotfl:

 

[lucaspa]

It must please your mother to no end to think of you being nothing more than a tumor that could be surgically removed.

Considering how she was often "disappointed" in me, she might have :banana:. But she died several years ago, so all her regrets are past.

BTW, she had at least 4 spontaneous abortions -- does that make her an abortionist? And what does that make all those "people" who were aborted?

The point is that how the woman views the pregnancy is her choice! If she chooses to view the pregnancy as a future human being, she can. However, my argument is that there is nothing inherent in the fetus to compel her -- or the law -- to do so.

I notice you didn't address the actual arguments. Would you like to try again?

 

[Stripe]

I believe in God.

So does Satan.

To start with, morality does not depend on God.

Everything depends on God.

Again I pose the old question: is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?

God commands it because it is moral.

Keep up the easy questions. :up:

How do we know God is good.

Because He is witness to it and we have access to His record.

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.

Atheists looking at the science should conclude that people are killed by abortion, according to science.

That you demand compartmentalization in your worldview does not mean I have to do the same.

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.

That's probably because you're inventing things to add to the argument. Science and reason provide nothing that justifies killing a baby. If you know of something scientific or reasonable that does justify murder, now would be the time to present it. Otherwise, you should just agree with OP. :up:

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.

Making arguments up to tear down is called the straw-man approach; utterly irrational.

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.

Making things up for people to believe is irrational. We prefer sane arguments. :up:

Now, another part of biology: the embryo is completely dependent upon the mother.

Nope. The baby's systems help look after him and also help out the mother. There goes your "biology."

It's literally a part of her.

Half the time, he's a boy. Failed biology, didn't you?

[He] cannot survive on its own.

Therefore... something. You have a "therefore" for these inane points, right? How about you spell it out? A baby is dependent upon his mother, therefore he can be murdered. That's what you want to say, right?

Just like any other body part cannot survive on its own.

A baby is a person, not part of his mother. Baby boys are always a different sex. All babies have their own body. You hate them because they are small enough to convince people they can be excluded.

In any other case, we have no moral objection to people cutting off and discarding parts of their bodies.

Sure, we do. However, your argument failed long before it got to this insanity.

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.

All because you say so, right?

 

[Stripe]

What Stripe is trying to find is a scientific justification behind the law.

Nope.

Making up things for people to believe is irrational nonsense. We prefer a reasonable discussion. :up:

 

[quip]

"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.

Rather quite the opposite. It's science, logic and reasoning that differentiates a zygote from a mewling baby; it's science, logic and reasoning that recognizes that the unborn necessarily subsists within a woman's body to which it's continued sustainability is neither natrually guaranteed nor - legally speaking - a foregone conclusion. It's science, logic and reasoning that denies the attempt to grant unassailable rights replete with a persona to a mass of undifferentiated cells for the covert purposes of maintaining moral control over a woman's freedom of choice regarding sex/abortion....etc.

What does pro-life have to offer......beyond mawkish, emotional sentimentalities, self-righteous moralizing and hyperbole.....that is?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Considering how she was often "disappointed" in me, she might have :banana:. But she died several years ago, so all her regrets are past.

BTW, she had at least 4 spontaneous abortions -- does that make her an abortionist? And what does that make all those "people" who were aborted?

Were those spontaneous abortions the direct result of her trying to snuff out the life of a living human being?

The point is that how the woman views the pregnancy is her choice! If she chooses to view the pregnancy as a future human being, she can. However, my argument is that there is nothing inherent in the fetus to compel her -- or the law -- to do so.

The child in her womb is human (check the DNA if you don't believe it) and is a being (something that exists, by definition), so there is nothing in any rational argument that could be used to classify the unborn child as anything other than a human being.

I notice you didn't address the actual arguments. Would you like to try again?

I didn't notice any actual arguments from you, would you like to try again?

 

[Stripe]

I didn't notice any actual arguments from you, would you like to try again?

To be fair, he did write plenty of words.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Rather quite the opposite. It's science, logic and reasoning that differentiates a zygote from a mewling baby; it's science, logic and reasoning that recognizes that the unborn necessarily subsists within a woman's body to which it's continued sustainability is neither natrually guaranteed nor - legally speaking - a foregone conclusion.

I have a 30 year old son who necessarily subsists within my house to which his "continued sustainability is neither natrually guaranteed nor - legally speaking - a foregone conclusion."
According to your logic and reasoning, that gives me a right to terminate his life, right?

It's science, logic and reasoning that denies the attempt to grant unassailable rights replete with a persona to a mass of undifferentiated cells

If you trot out the "mass of undifferentiated cells" argument as an excuse for abortion, then you are against what science tells us about the stage of development that an unborn child reaches by the time the woman is able to determine she is pregnant and the bloody pieces of hands, feet, arms, legs, head, and torso that are dragged out of the woman's womb by the abortionist.

for the covert purposes of maintaining moral control over a woman's freedom of choice regarding sex/abortion....etc.

I can see how your desire for women to be complete sluts would be a key point in your justification for those women to kill their babies.

 

[quip]

I have a 30 year old son who necessarily subsists within my house to which his "continued sustainability is neither natrually guaranteed nor - legally speaking - a foregone conclusion."
According to your logic and reasoning, that gives me a right to terminate his life, right?

You tell me....once you relate this misplaced rhetoric to abortion. Is your 30 year old son necessarily in your womb? :rotfl:

Strike one!

If you trot out the "mass of undifferentiated cells" argument as an excuse for abortion, then you are against what science tells us about the stage of development that an unborn child reaches by the time the woman is able to determine she is pregnant and the bloody pieces of hands, feet, arms, legs, head, and torso that are dragged out of the woman's womb by the abortionist.

Is this vague point of developement where you commence the right-to-life for the unborn or is it at the point of conception? Where is this emotional rant is going?

Strike two!

I can see how your desire for women to be complete sluts would be a key point in your justification for those women to kill their babies.

Self-righteous indignation, hyperbole, appeals to emotion.

Strike three! Yeeer out!

Really guys? Get some new material, you're only providing evidence against the OP's claim.....:up:

 

[genuineoriginal]

To be fair, he did write plenty of words.

Okay, I will look at them again.

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

Is the argument that anyone that receives nutrients through a tube (umbilical cord, feeding tube, intravenously) can be killed?
If so, I disagree with that premise.

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

Are there two arguments here?
Would the first argument be that healthy body parts can be amputated, so we can kill babies since people can't understand the science that says babies are not body parts?
Would the second argument be that babies are no different than a malignant cancerous tumor that is killing a person?

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.

I am guessing that the argument is that there is a miraculous transformation of a malignant cancerous tumor into a human when it leaves the womb, right?

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).

It appears that the argument is that an unborn baby is not able to complain about its treatment, so that means it should be ripped apart and scraped out of the womb with aplomb.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Really guys? Get some new material, you're only providing evidence against the OP's claim.....:up:

There is no need for new material.

Have a look and see what your "mass of undifferentiated cells" looks like:

Spoiler

 

[quip]

There is no need for new material.

Have a look and see what your "mass of undifferentiated cells" looks like:

Spoiler

Case/point.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Case/point.

From the OP:
"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."

The images I posted prove the argument in the OP.

 

[Rusha]

The point is that how the woman views the pregnancy is her choice! If she chooses to view the pregnancy as a future human being, she can.

Oh. So if one chooses to view another human being as something other than human, presto chango, that person is not human. Oh ... btw, do you realize women have a *choice* not to become pregnant? Why do you suppose that *choice* is always an afterthought? :think:

However, my argument is that there is nothing inherent in the fetus to compel her -- or the law -- to do so.

If RvsW were overturned and law mandated that a women carry their pregnancy to term, then according to you, she should do so. Correct?

 

[quip]

From the OP:
"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."

The images I posted prove the argument in the OP.

They prove that you're attempting to sway my argument via an appeal to emotion.

Take a good look at your own pic.....what do you feel when you see it....what emotions were you attempting to manipulate by posting it?

don't fool yourself...nor attempt to do so with me.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They prove that you're attempting to sway my argument via an appeal to emotion.

Take a good look at your own pic.....what do you feel when you see it....what emotions were you attempting to manipulate by posting it?

don't fool yourself...nor attempt to do so with me.

It is evidence similar to the pictures shown to juries in court.

The jury is supposed to view the evidence impartially, which is exactly what I expect you to do as well.

If you feel some emotional response when you view those images, it only proves that somewhere hidden in your heart is a real person that knows what he is seeing.

 

[quip]

It is evidence similar to the pictures shown to juries in court.

The jury is supposed to view the evidence impartially, which is exactly what I expect you to do as well.

If so, Then it's simply a fact of abortion...you should have no problem with abortion then...correct?

If you feel some emotional response when you view those images, it only proves that somewhere hidden in your heart is a real person that knows what he is seeing.

Of course I do. The same emotions I feel when I see gruesome pictures of war or victims of car accidents...etc. Those emotions are incidental to the overall issues surrounding aborton and should not serve as the sole primary criteria for anti-abortion legislation....as you're wont to suggest.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If so, Then it's simply a fact of abortion...you should have no problem with abortion then...correct?

What makes you think I should have no problem with abortion, when the goal of abortion is to kill a living human being without just cause?

Not a single person on the pro-abortion side of the argument has provided any real reason for aborting a baby.

Would you like to start over?

 

[quip]

What makes you think I should have no problem with abortion, when the goal of abortion is to kill a living human being without just cause?

Not a single person on the pro-abortion side of the argument has provided any real reason for aborting a baby.

Would you like to start over?

There's ample reasons...you just want to "start over" (deflection) when you're supplied them.