(March 10, 2013 at 8:21 am)Zen Badger Wrote: In order to give this conversation some context for me Mo, can you answer the following questions please?

Should apostates from Islam be put to death?

Should women be whipped or stoned as adulterers if they are raped?

Should blasphemers be put to death?

Should women be covered in public and what should their punishment be if they aren't?

Should a man be free to beat his wife for disobedience?

Should homosexuals be executed?

I wish to know what YOU think or believe, not the quaran or some mullah.

Thanks in advance.....

This thread is specifically regarding Atheists and their views on the death penalty and abortion. I have created another thread in the Islam section titled "any questions on Islam?".

That's a long list.

(March 10, 2013 at 8:32 am)mo66 Wrote:

(March 10, 2013 at 8:21 am)Zen Badger Wrote: In order to give this conversation some context for me Mo, can you answer the following questions please?

Should apostates from Islam be put to death?

Should women be whipped or stoned as adulterers if they are raped?

Should blasphemers be put to death?

Should women be covered in public and what should their punishment be if they aren't?

Should a man be free to beat his wife for disobedience?

Should homosexuals be executed?

I wish to know what YOU think or believe, not the quaran or some mullah.

Thanks in advance.....

This thread is specifically regarding Atheists and their views on the death penalty and abortion. I have created another thread in the Islam section titled "any questions on Islam?".

And I require an understanding of your thought process's in order to give the thread context.

Or are the answers too embarrassing for you?

(March 10, 2013 at 8:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(March 10, 2013 at 8:32 am)mo66 Wrote: This thread is specifically regarding Atheists and their views on the death penalty and abortion. I have created another thread in the Islam section titled "any questions on Islam?".

And I require an understanding of your thought process's in order to give the thread context.

Or are the answers too embarrassing for you?

As I stated before, I consider those questions to be derailing my thread, I have created another thread for purposes of answering general questions about Islam.

The very fact that you consider my future answers "embarassing" and are insistent upon seeing responses here makes me doubt your sincerity. Perhaps you have specific motives in trying to make me answer general questions about Islam on here. This is the internet, as such I'm not under any obligation to answer anything to anyone. My responses are not a right. You are not entitled to them and I have stated that I will not be answering general questions about Islam on this thread I have created.

Ok, I've just posted all the questions in the thread requested.

Now go and answer them as you said you would.

(March 10, 2013 at 4:36 am)genkaus Wrote: The survival needs of one human being do not confer any sort of unchosen obligation upon another human being to fulfill them.

If you are hungry or dying, I'm not obligated to feed you or save your life. Not unless I have consciously accepted such responsibility. Even if the fetus was considered a fully autonomic and human life-form, it still wouldn't create any obligation upon the mother to continue letting it leach off her body. If she wants it out of her body then she should be allowed to make that choice. If it cannot survive outside the mother - that's reality for you. It does not guarantee a life for every possible human being.

So let me get this straight. You are saying in a situation where my life depends on you alone, you don't have an obligation to save me. My beliefs is the opposite. If I and you were in a situation were you were in danger and no one but me can save you, I would be obligated to save you.

Quote: If you value the potential life it could be so highly, then figure out a way to extract the fetus and support its life yourself - do not expect her to suffer for sake of your morality and your values.

As I stated, a month year old born baby has about the same intelligence as an animal. We value it more then animal because of the potential life it can live. We value the seed for the tree it can become in the situation. You haven't refuted the logic I've shown.

Quote:but the negation of her agency would be an even greater immorality. Your arguments about valuing the life it could be are irrelevant unless the woman herself holds the same values.

Why is that. And even this was true, and she should be afforded the choice, it won't change it being wrong and the same as murder.

Quote: Babies and fetuses would be similar in that context - no one is obligated to support their continued existence unless they value the potentiality of higher life.

Yes...

Quote:The difference is that in case of babies, others are willing and able to assume responsibility (the state for example), whereas in case of the fetus, that is not possible and you'd have it forced upon someone who does not choose it.

I don't see how this refutes the reasoning. Besides, having sex, you know there is a chance of a baby. Therefore, there was an element of choice and responsibility except in cases of rape.

---

I would also add that a mother and father have even more responsibility towards their child then other people. Blood relations are important. Even if you believe there is no basis to blood bond and relationships, no one knows that for sure.

Another thing is that precaution is sometimes the best policy. In the situation, murder vs inconvenience/hardship of raising a baby upon the mother....you don't want take a chance of murder.

Therefore precaution seems more reasonable.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: So let me get this straight. You are saying in a situation where my life depends on you alone, you don't have an obligation to save me. My beliefs is the opposite. If I and you were in a situation were you were in danger and no one but me can save you, I would be obligated to save you.

As long as you understand that you cannot impose your beliefs on me without giving a rational justification, we should be fine.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: As I stated, a month year old born baby has about the same intelligence as an animal. We value it more then animal because of the potential life it can live. We value the seed for the tree it can become in the situation. You haven't refuted the logic I've shown.

First of all, you have not presented any logic - simply stated your belief. You value a month year old baby (a month year old? Seriously?) based on its future potential - not me. And not necessarily the woman in question. You have not given any reason for me to adopt your values.

Second of all, I'd value the newly born not on basis of future potential but the current capacity. Theoretically, atleast, it is capable of human level intelligence since all the hardware for it is in place. However, I'd accept that my views upon it are not fully formed.

Thirdly, we are not talking about a month year old baby, we're talking about the unborn fetus. The fundamental difference between the two is that one can exist outside the mother - thus the burden of responsibility of its existence can be placed upon those who value its future potential, while the other cannot - thus that value must be held by the one supporting it.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Why is that. And even this was true, and she should be afforded the choice, it won't change it being wrong and the same as murder.

Are you kidding me? Are you knowingly attempting circular reasoning or is it just a happy coincidence?

First of all, murder is specifically defined as an unlawful killing of a human being. For abortion to be murder, a fetus must be declared human and the act of abortion must be illegal. Both contentions are being debated and rejected here. You cannot assume their validity for the sake of your argument.

And secondly, it'd wrong according to your morality - not the woman's. You consider it wrong because it goes against your values - which you are free to do as long as you understand that you are not free to impose either upon her.

And thirdly - no one is afforded the choice to murder. If authorities have any knowledge of your intention to kill, they are obligated to stop you - not allow you to choose and punish afterwards. So your idea of allowing her the choice and then charging her with murder fails as well.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I don't see how this refutes the reasoning.

It doesn't have to. Your reasoning did not address the difference I pointed out. And the one you gave above addressed babies that are already born.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Besides, having sex, you know there is a chance of a baby. Therefore, there was an element of choice and responsibility except in cases of rape.

If I go out on the street there is a chance I'd get hit by a car. That does not mean I've assumed responsibility for whatever happens if I do. Knowledge of risk does not mean you've to accept the consequences unconditionally.

---

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I would also add that a mother and father have even more responsibility towards their child then other people.

Yeah - because they've chosen that responsibility by becoming the parents.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Blood relations are important. Even if you believe there is no basis to blood bond and relationships, no one knows that for sure.

Shifting the burden of proof now, are we? You can't know for sure, therefore its true? Does this even require a refutation?

(March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Another thing is that precaution is sometimes the best policy. In the situation, murder vs inconvenience/hardship of raising a baby upon the mother....you don't want take a chance of murder.

Therefore precaution seems more reasonable.

If only because abortion carries greater health risks - yes precaution is better. Its also irrelevant to the question before us. And as corrected above - murder is not an option here.

I think we've reached a stand still but I just want to bring one more point.

It's the burden of supporters of abortion to show it's right in this case, not those against to show it's wrong. The reason why is because precaution should be taken (don't want to risk something like murder or similar to murder if you don't agree it's murder) where it's not decisive.

Also, I think if you are saying it's OK to not a save a life when your the only one who can save it, and are under no obligation too, then it just shows how desperate one is to prove a legislation with little objectivity.

And I am not willing to force my views on anyone nor am I one to follow the crowd (simply because non-religious people support it, I then should support it type feeling) nor am I easily influenced by charisma in form of conjecture (like Obama's argument from ignorance regarding this issue) but I am allowed to express my opinions and try to convince as much as people as I want about it and the majority has the right to legislate laws they believe in.

(March 10, 2013 at 10:19 am)MysticKnight Wrote: It's the burden of supporters of abortion to show it's right in this case, not those against to show it's wrong. The reason why is because precaution should be taken (don't want to risk something like murder or similar to murder if you don't agree it's murder) where it's not decisive.

Actually, it's the reverse, because you guys are the one making the claim, namely that's it's wrong. Even the pro-choice side doesn't think abortion is a moral good, just that it should be an option if it's needed. We think it's got no inherent morality; it's the other side that's trying to force a position upon it.

Besides which, in a democratic society one errs toward freedom when making laws. Your side is the one seeking to restrict an action, therefore you need to prove why that should be so. Imagine making your point above in any other context. Try restricting any other behavior while tossing the burden of proof to the side advocating freedom. It doesn't work.

I'm against the death penalty and some types of abortion.