Question for anti-abortion atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2014, 07:20 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 07:03 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 06:46 PM)Mat0816 Wrote:  I disagree. I don't have the right to any part of your body to extend my own life, nor does any other human have the *right* to any part of my body to extend its own life. Bodily autonomy is a difficult issue to get around in the conversation of whose rights are more valuable. In order to extend rights to a life form which cannot exist without your body, YOU are forced to give up your rights to your own body. No one should be forced to do that. Once you do that, a woman's uterus becomes a potential crime scene once a month.

In terms of secular argument, I think that in cases of rape then one could make the argument that abortion is permissable, but other than that you made the choice to bring support the existence of this life and as such have the duty to see it through until it is viable.

Also I did not understand the last sentence.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 07:20 PM)Mat0816 Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 07:03 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  In terms of secular argument, I think that in cases of rape then one could make the argument that abortion is permissable, but other than that you made the choice to bring support the existence of this life and as such have the duty to see it through until it is viable.

Also I did not understand the last sentence.

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 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
08-04-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
Also thank you for clarifying your second point.

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
08-04-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 06:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-10-2011 03:37 AM)Hierophant Wrote:  How do you reconcile being an atheist with the fact that the proposition "life/consciousness/personhood/beingness/etc begins at conception" can only be justified by an implicit or explicit belief in ensoulment at conception?
That's a strawman.

(17-10-2011 03:37 AM)Hierophant Wrote:  ...can be justified by some other means than an implicit or explicit belief in ensoulment at conception, then what is this justification? (I do not believe that such a justification exists, but I am open to suggestions)
Maybe they believe that killing human beings is immoral and they recognise that a human fetus is a human being (thus no requirement for a belief in a soul).

And many do not agree that a human fetus is 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
08-04-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 07:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.
Do you think the following should be a criminal offense:
Prostitution
Gay sex
Lying
Sex outside marriage
Extra Marital affairs
Swearing
Gambling
Consumption of alcohol
Working on Saturday/Sunday
Being disrespectful to your parents
Believing in/worshiping gods other than TarzanSmith's god

Do you recognise that many people don't hold on to your beliefs, do you recognise that trying to force your beliefs onto them is an act of violent aggression? Do you realise you are the instigator of violent aggression against people?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
08-04-2014, 08:00 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 07:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

I highly doubt that. Anyway you are in the minority even among you particular religion who holds that view. Even the vatican endorses the rhythm method of birth control.

(08-04-2014 07:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

Here is where you are wrong. In countries where all abortion is illegal women can/and often are prosecuted for "suspicious miscarriages". The rest of what you wrote is all red herring and irrelevant to the discussion.

(08-04-2014 07:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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 could make a damn good case that Catholicism is horribly immoral. In fact you were unable to defend against that during one of the recorded skype calls. By that logic we should outlaw catholicism. It would cause much less suffering than what you propose.

(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, 08:00 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 07:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  And many do not agree that a human fetus is a human being.
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 07:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  And many do not agree that a human fetus is a human being.
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.

(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, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014 08:13 PM by Stevil.)
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.
Are you sure?
That is a poor definition of alive.
Are you talking about "biological life" or a belief in "right to life"?
Do you have a reference regarding this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: Question for anti-abortion atheists
(08-04-2014 08:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 08:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Actually the medical opinion is they are not alive until they are viable.
Are you sure?
That is a poor definition of alive.
Do you have a reference regarding this?

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 based around viability as the legal point of being alive (late term abortions tend to be after this point and thus require a medical necessity) whereas only the so called personhood bills seek to use your definition.

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: