Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[EGross]

The primary language one this seems to be concern for the life of the mother, rape, and incest as exceptions.

Incest has always been a weird one. From my point of view, it seems to be a statement of religious belief, rather than rape (the woman did not want to have a child from a violent attack), or life of the mother (which indicates her as the primary life form).

If a daughter gets pregnant from her brother or father, and not because of any force, but because of a weird mindset of that family, then she is permitted to get an abortion and continue that behavior unchecked.

So I have wondered if that is a religious argument rather than a logical one, especially if the girl is no longer a minor, and perhaps not even living at home.

So is this indirectly encouraging incest?

Because despite our arguments of being separate from church and state, church does seem to have its hooks into state more than I would like.

[Mystic]

Here is a reasoning I came up with with regards to my other point, that it's not like prevention pills.

Well a human life is distinguished from lower life forms such as a cow, in that the latter, humans don't believe it's huge crime (over all don't) to kill and eat it. The reason has to do with it's intelligence.

Now a baby doesn't have much intelligence, as far as intelligence goes, it's not too advanced.

But still we don't kill a baby and consider it insignificant like that of killing an animal (be it wrong or right), because we give value to what it can become and the journey it can go through.

Now if this is true, the same logic should apply to why we should give respect to an embryo, because it's on it's way to life...it's heading there.

Moreover, the genetics are determining a specific person...it's on it's way to a specific person.

This is not the same decision of a couple deciding not have a baby.

The instinct of humans is that human life is a journey well worth preserving. Even humans who believe in after life don't believe it's ok to stop a human from the journey of life.

Now an embryo is very much on it's way to life.

A baby is not like us with the same intelligence, but it's on it's way. This is why we don't consider killing it, like killing an animal even if the animal is just as intelligent as that baby.

Anyways, all this cold thinking and justifying is not the real reason.

There is something more to it - something that I can't explain - but every part of my soul tells me it's wrong.

[genkaus]

All your doing is harping on autonomy.

An important aspect of being human

Accept science, no mater what the stage of developement is, it's the same DNA and organism that was formed at fetilization.

Good thing we consider humans to be more than just DNA - otherwise you'd be held guilty of mass-murder every time you jacked off.

If you want to harp on autonomy, then you must recognise that even a new-born still relies on others for it's survival.

And the others have refusing to support it. At the very least, the same choice should be afforded to the woman during pregnancy.

A seed has enough energy from it's parent that it can live for several days with nothing once it's germinated.
Whether or not an embryo, fetus, or a "bunch of fucking cells" can survive on it's own is irrelevant to fact that it is an independant living organism.

If it was an independent living organism then it wouldn't be dependent upon the mother. Thus, by definition, it is not independent.

A newborn cannot survive on it's own once outside the womb, nor can a coma patient on life support.

But the responsibility of supporting them is not forced onto anyone.

All you're doing is making an excuse for taking human life when the only difference in that lifeform is it's age and abilities.

No. As has been indicated over and over again, the difference is not being a parasite.

Says you...

Say the facts.

---

Well a human life is distinguished from lower life forms such as a cow, in that the latter, humans don't believe it's huge crime (over all don't) to kill and eat it. The reason has to do with it's intelligence.

I'd say it was the capacity for intelligence that is considered - not intelligence itself. If intelligence was the criteria, Catfish would be on the menu.

Now a baby doesn't have much intelligence, as far as intelligence goes, it's not too advanced.

But it does have all the hardware required for it - thereby having the capacity for intelligence.

But still we don't kill a baby and consider it insignificant like that of killing an animal (be it wrong or right), because we give value to what it can become and the journey it can go through.

Fair enough.

Now if this is true, the same logic should apply to why we should give respect to an embryo, because it's on it's way to life...it's heading there.

That's where you'd be wrong. The baby does not exist as a parasite upon the mother. It can exist outside her and go on to become a human being and the mother is not obligated to provide for it if she chooses not to. She is free to give it up anytime. The embryo, on the other hand, does exist as a parasite - from sucking nutrients from the host to causing her a host of health problems. It'd be unconscionable to force her to continue hosting it simply for the sake of what it might become. The math is simple - you can 'value' the embryo all you like as long as it does not infringe upon the woman's autonomy.

Moreover, the genetics are determining a specific person...it's on it's way to a specific person.

All the more justification for not allowing a 'person' to infringe upon the rights of another.

The instinct of humans is that human life is a journey well worth preserving. Even humans who believe in after life don't believe it's ok to stop a human from the journey of life.

Given that we don't consider every 'instinct' worth following, why should we consider this one?

Now an embryo is very much on it's way to life.

And for the part of the way it exists as a parasite, the decision of what to do with it should be up to the host.

A baby is not like us with the same intelligence, but it's on it's way. This is why we don't consider killing it, like killing an animal even if the animal is just as intelligent as that baby.

As I said, that is not why.

Anyways, all this cold thinking and justifying is not the real reason.

There is something more to it - something that I can't explain - but every part of my soul tells me it's wrong.

We don't listen to voices in our heads.

[catfish]

Let's simplify this for those more intelligent than I...

Does a zygote have it's own unique human DNA? Well, it sure as Hades isn't a canine, or a fish, or a plant. To deny that a zygote is NOT an individual human life form is just plain weird. To deny that would require you to prove to me it's something other than human (or that it didn't exist up till your abortion cut-off point)... A zygote is part of the human lifecycle. If you kill the zygote (or fetus), no child will be born and this you are quite aware of. Unlike your masturbating reference, it is unique in DNA and biology. It's gets oxygen and nutrients from it's host, it is not the host...

You know exactly what it(the human lifeform) is and have no problems killing it, but you find sex-selection of a living being that you don't even consider as being human morally wrong. That's what is messed up...
.

[EGross]

Is abortion by sex selection based on religious dogma (boys are better than girls) or is it something else?

[Esquilax]

Does a zygote have it's own unique human DNA? Well, it sure as Hades isn't a canine, or a fish, or a plant. To deny that a zygote is NOT an individual human life form is just plain weird. To deny that would require you to prove to me it's something other than human (or that it didn't exist up till your abortion cut-off point)... A zygote is part of the human lifecycle. If you kill the zygote (or fetus), no child will be born and this you are quite aware of. Unlike your masturbating reference, it is unique in DNA and biology. It's gets oxygen and nutrients from it's host, it is not the host...

Actually, you haven't said a single thing that isn't also true of the original sperm and egg, so...

[EGross]

As an aside, according to Jewish legalism, the unborn is exactly that, and so the killing of that which had not yet taken a breath outside of the body is not murder. On the other hand, because of the religion of it, since the child was desired by the Creator, then if the reason for aborting it is not in line with the principals of that faith, then it is a sin to abort it - not because it is a living soul, but because God wouldn't like it. Therefore, you have Chareidim who, upon knowing that the baby will most likely be born with Down Syndrom, run it to full term, and then abandon it shortly after birth, for others to find it, lest they be burdened with it (in that world, almost noone will marry into a family with such a child, so disposing of it on someone elses doorstep is a good thing from that point of view!)

It's just an alternative point of view to toss into the mix.

[catfish]

Is abortion by sex selection based on religious dogma (boys are better than girls) or is it something else?

I think the example cited was China's policy and the effects on people's decisions.

---

Does a zygote have it's own unique human DNA? Well, it sure as Hades isn't a canine, or a fish, or a plant. To deny that a zygote is NOT an individual human life form is just plain weird. To deny that would require you to prove to me it's something other than human (or that it didn't exist up till your abortion cut-off point)... A zygote is part of the human lifecycle. If you kill the zygote (or fetus), no child will be born and this you are quite aware of. Unlike your masturbating reference, it is unique in DNA and biology. It's gets oxygen and nutrients from it's host, it is not the host...

Actually, you haven't said a single thing that isn't also true of the original sperm and egg, so...

An egg has only the female's DNA, a sperm has only the father's. A zygote has unique DNA from the fertilization. If the egg splits, we have multiple individual organisms with identintical DNA that differs from that of both parents.
Do you agree with the above or not?

[pocaracas]

As so often is the case, I'm late for this party (and didn't read all the 10 pages so far! )
My 2 cents.

Death penalty - against it. The judicial system can never be 100% sure that they've got the right man... and no crime deserves such a penalty.... also it has been shown not to be a deterrent for anything.

Abortion - tough one... The truth is, it's incredibly easy to become pregnant. Of course, it involves sexual intercourse, so the people involved should be old enough to know better, but that's not always the case. Nowadays, "old enough to now better" is a very undetermined age. Just because you're old enough to fuck, doesn't mean you're old enough to have a child and take care of it and raise it and pay for its diapers, etc... These fuckwits must be allowed to abort, or else.... idiocracy looms closer. Then there are a myriad of other reasons for people to terminate their pregnancies and I'd wager that a small minority fit the "delayed contraceptive method" bill. So, although I recognize that abortion is the termination of a human life, I don't think that the people (read women) who choose to do it should not be criminalized for it, or, at least, not in the same way as an ordinary murderer.

[TromboneAtheist]

I have actually(unlike pocaracas :p) read all 10 pages. *whew* that was a lot. I have decided personally, I am against the death penalty. Just because I can imagine being framed or just being innocent for a specific crime, and then being sentenced to death. It would suck major balls.

Abortion is a significantly more difficult topic. From what I can gather from the back and forth argument going on, catfish can't seem to comprehend what the others are trying to get across. They think(correct me if I'm wrong) that having an abortion isn't morally wrong if it is for the sole reason that the host doesn't want children. Obviously it's also ok in the case that the host could die from the pregnancy or the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. On the other hand, when mothers choose to terminate a pregnancy because their baby is going to be a girl, it is morally wrong. This is because it promotes sexism which affects independant adult women. Though they view this as wrong, they will not press for a law against this form of abortion because it is conflicting with the independant women's freedom and autonomy. It's the same idea that Voltaire expressed when he said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", or something like that. I tend to agree with them.