Question for anti-abortion atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2014, 05:46 AM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 07:10 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 07:07 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Yes but who judges intense suffering. With abortion you are also forcing the idea that there death would be better than there life. Nick Vujicic was born without arms or legs and since it was misdiagnosed, his mother didn't have an abortion. He, incidentally is a very strong opponent of abortion.

An embryo is not alive until 6 months, hence it cannot die before that time. You have to be alive to die.

You have to be born in order to legally die. When my child died at 8 months in utero, no death certificate was issued.

I did not mourn the child's death...I mourned the loss of his possibility as my child.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 05:53 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2014 05:58 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If something is growing, regenerating etc then it is alive.

Interesting. A virus replicates, yet it is not alive. Bacteria is alive? Skin cells are alive?

If that is true, then anytime you cut yourself (on accident), those billion or so cells at the wound would have been "killed" and thus a criminal activity?

The problem is that while technically, a tree is alive, we do consider it as alive as something with consciousness.

I think you are using the term more colloquially and less on a technical basis.

Think about it. You are killing something that is apart of a human, the same way stem cells are apart of a human.

So I don't think it's accurate to say that "if something is growing...it's alive"

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 08:12 AM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 08:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And those people don't look towards science for their definition.
But it would be interesting to see if there are atheists whom believe a fetus is not a human being but still are anti abortion.

Actually the medical opinion is they are not alive until they are viable.

I'd essentially agree with that.
I do have some qualms about the period of time from a developed nervous system and brain that can experience pain and viability.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 05:28 AM)Mat0816 Wrote:  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?
I think use of a different word would help to clarify Revenant's position. "alive" has a specific meaning and a fetus is clearly alive.

Maybe he's thinking about "consciousness", which is something entirely different to "alive".

It just sounds really, really silly to say that a fetus isn't alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 02:13 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 01:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 05:28 AM)Mat0816 Wrote:  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?
I think use of a different word would help to clarify Revenant's position. "alive" has a specific meaning and a fetus is clearly alive.

Maybe he's thinking about "consciousness", which is something entirely different to "alive".

It just sounds really, really silly to say that a fetus isn't alive.

And I would suggest that we call a fetus what it is: a potential, but not yet fully developed (or adequately if you prefer to acknowledge the need for viability), human. I think it somewhat odd to stomp your foot and demand sole rights to a word which clearly has many inferences which accompany a defintion which depends, almost entirely, in which subject's textbook your currently studying. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 02:13 PM)Mat0816 Wrote:  And I would suggest that we call a fetus what it is: a potential, but not yet fully developed (or adequately if you prefer to acknowledge the need for viability), human.
It's not just a potential human. It is a human. It's a human fetus.
I guess you could call it a potential human adult?? Maybe even a potential human baby?? but it is certainly a human.

(09-04-2014 02:13 PM)Mat0816 Wrote:  I think it somewhat odd to stomp your foot and demand sole rights to a word which clearly has many inferences which accompany a defintion which depends, almost entirely, in which subject's textbook your currently studying. Laugh out load
I find it very odd to come up with queer word definitions in order to make a case for one's position. It certainly makes dialogue confusing.
In my personal opinion it makes us atheist pro-choicer's position look as awkward and belief based as the theists position.

Do we really need to resort to strange pseudo concepts of "alive", "human", "person"?

Isn't our position simply that it is the mother's own business and hence not our place to interfere?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 05:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 08:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If something is growing, regenerating etc then it is alive.

Interesting. A virus replicates, yet it is not alive. Bacteria is alive? Skin cells are alive?
Virus don't grow and don't regenerate hence they are not alive.
Bacteria are very small plants, they are certainly alive.
Some skin cells are alive and some are dead, depends which ones you are talking about.

(09-04-2014 05:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If that is true, then anytime you cut yourself (on accident), those billion or so cells at the wound would have been "killed" and thus a criminal activity?
Who is talking about criminal activity?
We are discussing the scientific definition of alive.


(09-04-2014 05:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The problem is that while technically, a tree is alive, we do consider it as alive as something with consciousness.
Well, in order to distinguish between tree like alive and animal like alive why don't we say that animals have a consciousness rather than awkwardly suggest that plants aren't alive?


(09-04-2014 05:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I think you are using the term more colloquially and less on a technical basis.

Think about it. You are killing something that is apart of a human, the same way stem cells are apart of a human.

So I don't think it's accurate to say that "if something is growing...it's alive"
I think the intent of the pro-choicers that argue that a fetus isn't alive, is that they are thinking about law. They want abortion to be allowed but at the same time they want the law to protect the lives of all living humans.

It's trying to stack the cards to meet an already wanted ends. It's thus circular logic. I don't think we need to resort to this in order to support abortion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2014 02:51 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's not just a potential human. It is a human. It's a human fetus.
I guess you could call it a potential human adult?? Maybe even a potential human baby?? but it is certainly a human.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course its a human,(as opposed to a canine?) . Its species is irrelevant to the topic though...

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 02:41 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's not just a potential human. It is a human. It's a human fetus.
I guess you could call it a potential human adult?? Maybe even a potential human baby?? but it is certainly a human.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course its a human, its not a canine! Its species is irrelevant to the topic though...
It seems that Captain Obvious needs to don his tights and cape once in a while because there are many pro-choicers who keep insisting that a fetus is not a human but only a potential human. Silly, meaningless statements.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 03:59 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 02:13 PM)Mat0816 Wrote:  And I would suggest that we call a fetus what it is: a potential, but not yet fully developed (or adequately if you prefer to acknowledge the need for viability), human.
It's not just a potential human. It is a human. It's a human fetus.
I guess you could call it a potential human adult?? Maybe even a potential human baby?? but it is certainly a human.

(09-04-2014 02:13 PM)Mat0816 Wrote:  I think it somewhat odd to stomp your foot and demand sole rights to a word which clearly has many inferences which accompany a defintion which depends, almost entirely, in which subject's textbook your currently studying. Laugh out load
I find it very odd to come up with queer word definitions in order to make a case for one's position. It certainly makes dialogue confusing.
In my personal opinion it makes us atheist pro-choicer's position look as awkward and belief based as the theists position.

Do we really need to resort to strange pseudo concepts of "alive", "human", "person"?

Isn't our position simply that it is the mother's own business and hence not our place to interfere?

We are capable of reason. It does us no disservice to utilize that capability.

With your last statement, I wholeheartedly agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: