Question for anti-abortion atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 02:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 05:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

Bacteria are definitely not plants.

Quote: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.

I don't know what he meant or meant to say, but I suppose he meant it is not a living organism, not a separate entity.

It is not about stacking the deck, it is about defining what a person is. At what point is a human fetus a human being?

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-04-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 03:59 PM)Mat0816 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.

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.

And I wholeheartedly disagree. Until there is a functioning brain and nervous system, it is not a person, not a human being.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-04-2014, 05:26 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  Bacteria are definitely not plants.
Fair enough, I was simplifying plant vs animal vs mineral.

(09-04-2014 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know what he meant or meant to say, but I suppose he meant it is not a living organism, not a separate entity.
A fetus is a separate entity. It is not part of the woman's body. For one, it has different DNA. point 2. the woman's body must turn off its self defense system in order to stop attacking the fetus as a foreign body.
A fetus is no more a part of the woman's body as is any parasite living off her body. They are separate living entities.

(09-04-2014 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not about stacking the deck, it is about defining what a person is. At what point is a human fetus a human being?
Its a human being from the point of conception. But what relevance does this have to anything regarding abortion? If you think that the definition of human being is relevant then you are stacking the deck.
e.g.
We aren't allowed to kill human beings
We want mothers to be allowed to kill fetus if they want.
Therefore we don't classify a fetus as a human being Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 05:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  And I wholeheartedly disagree. Until there is a functioning brain and nervous system, it is not a person, not a human being.
Because at that point you would then interfere in the woman's choice. You would have the police (your hencemen) forcibly stop her from having an abortion, simply because you don't like it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 05:34 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 05:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  Bacteria are definitely not plants.
Fair enough, I was simplifying plant vs animal vs mineral.

(09-04-2014 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know what he meant or meant to say, but I suppose he meant it is not a living organism, not a separate entity.
A fetus is a separate entity. It is not part of the woman's body. For one, it has different DNA. point 2. the woman's body must turn off its self defense system in order to stop attacking the fetus as a foreign body.
A fetus is no more a part of the woman's body as is any parasite living off her body. They are separate living entities.

They are not actually separate. The placenta connects them allowing oxygenation of the fetal blood. Also cells from the fetus enter the mother's body and survive for decades. And until very late in development, the fetus cannot live on its own, so that's not really a separate organism.

Quote:
(09-04-2014 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not about stacking the deck, it is about defining what a person is. At what point is a human fetus a human being?
Its a human being from the point of conception.

So you think that RU-486 kills people?

Quote:But what relevance does this have to anything regarding abortion? If you think that the definition of human being is relevant then you are stacking the deck.
e.g.
We aren't allowed to kill human beings
We want mothers to be allowed to kill fetus if they want.
Therefore we don't classify a fetus as a human being Big Grin

You can call it 'stacking the deck', I will call it being rational.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-04-2014, 07:17 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  They are not actually separate. The placenta connects them allowing oxygenation of the fetal blood.
When a person is hooked up to a dialysis machine, they are still considered a separate entity from the machine even though they are dependent on it and it performs a helpful function.

(09-04-2014 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Also cells from the fetus enter the mother's body and survive for decades.
That's interesting

(09-04-2014 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  And until very late in development, the fetus cannot live on its own, so that's not really a separate organism.
There are bacteria that can't live long outside the human body and they are separate organisms.

(09-04-2014 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Its a human being from the point of conception.

So you think that RU-486 kills people?
Depends on what you mean by "people".
The drug causes pregnancies to terminate and does result in the death of the human zygote, human blastocyst, human embryo, human fetus...

So ultimately it does kill the unborn human.


(09-04-2014 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:But what relevance does this have to anything regarding abortion? If you think that the definition of human being is relevant then you are stacking the deck.
e.g.
We aren't allowed to kill human beings
We want mothers to be allowed to kill fetus if they want.
Therefore we don't classify a fetus as a human being Big Grin

You can call it 'stacking the deck', I will call it being rational.
I'm not sure which bit of your stance is classified as rational.

Let's say the fetus has developed to such a point that Chas would classify it as a "human being", but yet it is still just a fetus and still inside the mother's womb.
What is your rational reason for wanting to interfere in this mother's life and to tell her that you endorse the police forcing her to continue with her pregnancy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 08:34 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 07:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not sure which bit of your stance is classified as rational.

Let's say the fetus has developed to such a point that Chas would classify it as a "human being", but yet it is still just a fetus and still inside the mother's womb.
What is your rational reason for wanting to interfere in this mother's life and to tell her that you endorse the police forcing her to continue with her pregnancy?

The same rationale we use against murder.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 08:47 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(09-04-2014 08:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The same rationale we use against murder.
I have a rational explanation as to why I want a society where people don't go around killing each other, its because I personally don't want to be murdered.

Within that same rational it doesn't extend to a human fetus because I am no longer a human fetus, I am not in danger of being aborted and I recognise that if mothers have abortions it doesn't make society dangerous, so I personally see no need to interfere.

That's how I rationalise it. I think that's easy to understand.

But I don't understand why you would say that an insistence to stop a mother aborting her fetus once Chas labels that fetus as a human being has the same rationale that we use against murder.
How does Chas labelling a fetus as "human being" all of a sudden make it dangerous for me if the fetus' mother consequently aborts it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 01:41 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 06:57 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 06:46 PM)Dom Wrote:  How on earth do you figure that? I most certainly don't share that sentiment, it makes no sense.

Perhaps you have not felt true empathy with actual suffering?

What do you mean by actual suffering. That seems to be a meaningless phrase. All suffering is a spectrum. So have I suffered? Yes. I can to a certain extent extrapolate that to more intense suffering. I personally believe that at no point is suffering worse then living no matter what. I think existence itself is the greatest wonder.

I agree. Existence is the one thing I cherish above all other states. To live is better than to have never lived at all, I say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(17-10-2011 02:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am pro-abortion but I would hazard a guess towards the preservation of all human life being a big reason for anti-abortion sentiments among the non-believing groups. I am anti-war and anti-death penalty but pro-choice. The last one is the only one that does not really fit if you stop and think about it. I would assume that there are those who simply value all life above death because this life is the only one we get. As a result they may tend to side with pro-life in the sense that it is better for an individual to be born and given a chance at life (with the mother or through adoption) as opposed to never experiencing the one life they will get. Good question though.

That sums me up pretty well.

I am pro-life in theory, but due to the number of variables and loopholes, I am pro-choice in practice. I belief adoption is preferable to killing a fetus, and it upsets me that the practice is often taken so lightly. However, to outlaw all abortions wouldn't stop them and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to have one. I hope that makes sense...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bible Belt Brawler's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: