Question for anti-abortion atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are claiming that it is alive from conception without references, so no I am not going to dig into a ton of case work without an equal effort from you. The legal framework right now is...
I'm not talking about politics.
I'm talking about science.

If something is growing, regenerating etc then it is alive.
There is a bit more to it than this. But to say a fetus isn't alive, that is either pseudo science or politics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:20 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 08:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are claiming that it is alive from conception without references, so no I am not going to dig into a ton of case work without an equal effort from you. The legal framework right now is...
I'm not talking about politics.
I'm talking about science.

If something is growing, regenerating etc then it is alive.
There is a bit more to it than this. But to say a fetus isn't alive, that is either pseudo science or politics.

No more so than a tumor.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:20 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
Someone make a poll on what stage in a fetus's growth should be considered the abortion/euthanasia tipping point.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:20 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Someone make a poll on what stage in a fetus's growth should be considered the abortion/euthanasia tipping point.
I think this is a two question thing.

1. At what point would you never consider having an abortion yourself?
2. At what point would you make it illegal for other people to have abortions?

I don't think the answer is necessarily the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:20 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 08:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not talking about politics.
I'm talking about science.

If something is growing, regenerating etc then it is alive.
There is a bit more to it than this. But to say a fetus isn't alive, that is either pseudo science or politics.

No more so than a tumor.
Great, so we have established that scientifically it is alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:28 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014 08:51 PM by Mat0816.)
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 07:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 07:20 PM)Mat0816 Wrote:  Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is a bi-product, accidental in nature, of sex but it is not the goal of sex. We are one of a few species which engages in sex for recreation. To my mind, if you're going to argue against abortion then the only logical position to hold is that ALL abortion, regardless of the means of conception, is wrong. As Santorm said "rape is just another means of conception" right? Saying only raped women didn't choose to become pregnant discounts completely the invention of birth control, including the rythym method.

But more to the point, you didn't touch at all on my assertion that criminalizing abortion turns a woman's uterus into a potential crime scene once a month. Not every egg a woman produces will be fertilized, regardless of whether birth control is used. So if a presumably fertile, sexually active woman menstruates regularly, is she menstrauting due to perfectly natural reasons (assuming birth control wasn't used) or did she induce an abortion? What about when a woman has a miscarriage? Does a criminal proceeding then take place to determine whether the miscarriage was due to nature or induced? What about a woman who doesn't yet know she's pregnant, gets drunk or rides a roller coaster and has a miscarriage, where on the scale does that fall? If you cause a car accident and the other driver is a pregnant woman and neither of you die but she miscarries, have you committed involuntary manslaughter? What if you bump into a pregnant woman and knock her down and she miscarries?

The issue of choice is a moral issue, and morality is subjective. What you determine as the starting point of being a human may not be what *I* determine the starting point to be and since science cannot answer this question for us definitively, your feelings in that regrad should not enter into the question of whether or not you believe any person has the same right to own their body that you do.

The first part was in response what I saw as being the argument about being forced to keep someone else alive. The analogy being waking up and finding yourself connected to some machine that was keeping someone else alive. Following said analogy, I think one could argue that if one was hooked up against their will then I would not hold them to it. But if one voluntarily hooked themselves up then I think they would have a duty to stay hooked up. Also I believe that sex should not be used recreationally for the very reason that a child could occur. That's why even if I were an atheist (possibly) I would still believe in abstinence outside of marriage.

For the second part I did in fact respond to you. I said I didn't understand what you wrote. In response, first of all an unfertilized egg is not at all human. It is lacking another set of DNA. And second, last I checked there was legislation in some areas regarding most of the things you covered. As I recall smoking while pregnant is illegal in California and I think most places recognize forcefully inducing a miscarriage to be chargeable, at least when it comes to assault. If there is no such legislation, then yes I am in favour of it. Also I would like to mention that several of the things you mentioned would be considered accidents and as such would not be considered a chargeable offense.

In response to the third point, I believe the Aristotlean position that the purpose of laws is to make us moral, as such i believe i have every right to enforce my opinions on others. After all I only hold these opinions because (I believe) they are right.

I'm still figuring this board out and don't know how to do the "snip" feature yet, so please be patient with me.

Building on your waking up and finding yourself attached to a machine postulation, we do have donor registries available. That's about as close as we can get to your illustration because we have a concept of bodily autonomy. The fact that we have a donor registry a) does not compel all persons to sign up, or b) compel a person who has signed up to follow through once typed as a match. The individual being asked to donate their body to keep another person alive always has the implied and perceived right to back out. The reason, quite simply, is because as a society we believe that no person can be compelled to donate their body to keep another person alive until you lace the question with morality vis a vis what some perceive as a baby.

What you believe sex is or should be is what I mentioned before, subjective morality. Are you now going to suggest that all people should abide by your views of sex and only engage for the purposes of procreation? You have every right to perceive someone who engages in sex for fun as whatever you choose, but you don't posses the percieved right to insist that person must mitigate their behavior to flatter your opinions. Additionally, some people choose not to procreate to vehemently that they choose sterilization as their method of birth control. Under your views of the purpose of sex, are these people not allowed to engage in sex any longer since they can only engage in recreational sex? Their connection to their partner is irrelevant if sex is only to be used for procreation. What of naturally infertile individuals?

You're right, an unfertilized egg does simply lack it's "other" set of DNA. What does that matter when we're deciding that the potential for life is all that matters? An egg has the *potential* to become a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and assuming it survives labor and delivery (which is not at all a guarantee even past the commonaly accepted stage of viability), an autonomous human being. That is kind of the point, in that when you set the bar too low, it becomes far too easy to meet and exceed.

Yes, some of the things I mentioned would be considered accidents. But in the history of abortion, which is as old as the human race (some plants no longer exist due to their abortificient properties) induced injury is just one method of inducing abortion. Throwing oneself down a flight of stairs. Having someone punch you in the stomach repeatedly until you miscarry. Postulate this: given that abortion has been occuring since it became women who got pregnant, do you think that criminalizing abortion will end it? If your answer is "no" which I believe is the only correct answer, then why is the potential for life more valuable than the human being you can reach out and touch? Given your views on the morality of sex, is it possible that your views on abortion are colored more by your views on the morality of sex and less on anyone's rights, born or unborn?

We've already had an exercise in the viability of laws whose sole purpose is to attempt to legislate morality. Prohibition. Abject failure. The purpose of laws is not to make us moral. The purpose of laws is to proctect individual rights. It's not illegal to steal from me because it's immoral, but because I have the perceived right to possess my property, and if you want something that I have you have the perceived right to go out and purchase one for yourself. Some people believe it's immoral to dance. Do they have the right to force you never to dance? I believe it's immoral to seek any legislation which would deprive another person of their basic rights. So this must mean we have reached an impasse. Now we have to decide which one of us is morally superior. That could take a while. Or we could simply decide that each of us has the right to live our lives and conduct our affairs free from the legislated opinions of anyone else, so long as we are not infringing upon their rights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mat0816's post
08-04-2014, 08:33 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 08:20 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No more so than a tumor.
Great, so we have established that scientifically it is alive.

No, because by your definition a human body is alive for days after organ shutdown. It is reductio ad absurdum.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:39 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No, because by your definition a human body is alive for days after organ shutdown. It is reductio ad absurdum.
If its alive then it is alive.

I think your definition is absurd.
Even though it is alive, it isn't alive because Revenant77x says so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:45 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
A lot to respond to but need sleep and study. Don't know if I'll get back to you guys in a timely manner but I'll try.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

Up to the heretic, smack, smack, smack!
Down to the jail went Good St. Nick!

When people say WWJD just remember that flipping tables and whipping people is still a valid option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2014 05:34 AM by Mat0816.)
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 08:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No, because by your definition a human body is alive for days after organ shutdown. It is reductio ad absurdum.
If its alive then it is alive.

I think your definition is absurd.
Even though it is alive, it isn't alive because Revenant77x says so.

I think you're missing Revenant's point. What constitutes being "alive"? Is it merely ability to function in a prescribed fashion? What constitutes being alive in a human being? Are you more or less alive than a person whose body continues to function only because it's plugged into a machine, allowing it's brain to conduct its most basic functions?

Your definition may fit into a scientific peg on a board somewhere, but if that were the only possible defintion then why would we, as a species, invent a DNR order or living wills? A DNR order states that you do not wish to have "extraordinary means" used to resusicitate you once your organs shut down, which seems to suggest that "if it's alive then it's alive" is insufficient somehow; a living will means you don't ever want to be kept alive solely by machines.

Cells dividing may be "alive", and functioning in their prescribed fashion, but are they alive the same way we are?

Is the weakeness of our ability to unilaterally define the state of being alive the reason why medical science uses terms like "viability", which indicate a development stage where medicine can intervene once a fetus is removed from its envrionment and use "extraordinary means" to allow it to keep developing? In your weak defintion of "alive", we can take a fertilized egg and freeze it, and it will stay "alive" so long as it is frozen, but what are the moral implications of keeping a "human being" frozen simply for the sake of keeping it alive?

In invitro fertilization often times more than one fertilized egg is implanted, prompting a culling to allow the vigorous to survive (remember Octomom, or John and Kate plus 8?). Is this immoral? Or was it "more immoral" for Octomom to risk the most viable fertilized egg(s) to do something the human body really wasn't meant to do (would she have carried to fetal viability 50 years ago? 100? 25?)?

The fact of the matter is that we have grown quite spoiled in this modern first world of medical science in which we live. For centuries, and still in some third world countries, the number one killer of women was childbirth. To this day, even with all our medical advances, pregnancy remains statistically more dangerous to a woman than abortion (statistics available at Guttmacher, for anyone interested in verifying independently). I've also provided a link below to a CDC chart which shows that in 2009, pregnancy was the 6th leading cause of death among women aged 20-34. So what are the moral implications of forcing a woman to go through with a procedure which carries a greater risk to her health than abortion, for the potential that the fetus will survive labor and delivery, which again we may believe to be a resolved issue due to medical science advances but upon examination is actually not "settled science"?

http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2009/09_all_women.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: