(July 25, 2013 at 2:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 25, 2013 at 12:18 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: whether or not you think by calling it life it deserves something is a whole other issue (I call it life, I don't think it deserve anything), which is actually the one you're arguing for, right?

Wrong.

(July 25, 2013 at 12:18 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Because you think that if life begins at conception, it should have some sway in the decision, correct?

Incorrect

Wrong.

(July 25, 2013 at 1:25 am)Minimalist Wrote: on the other we have people who are "pro-life" right up to birth

And even this is a lie/pretext. That many of them "allow" abortion in the case of rape shows me they don't really think the unborn is a being with rights to life.

You can't morally execute children for the crimes of the parent, although the OT "morality" often gives the green light for that sort of behavior.

This isn't pro-life. It's pro-getting-to-shove-our-sexual-morality-onto-others.

(July 24, 2013 at 6:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 24, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Chas Wrote: There are various views on this, all scientific.

Great. Please show us them.

• Conception
  
• Implantation
  
• When the heart starts beating
  
• When the nervous system as developed
  
• When the brain has developed
  
• Viability outside the womb
  

(July 25, 2013 at 8:38 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 25, 2013 at 1:25 am)Minimalist Wrote: on the other we have people who are "pro-life" right up to birth

And even this is a lie/pretext. That many of them "allow" abortion in the case of rape shows me they don't really think the unborn is a being with rights to life.

You can't morally execute children for the crimes of the parent, although the OT "morality" often gives the green light for that sort of behavior.

This isn't pro-life. It's pro-getting-to-shove-our-sexual-morality-onto-others.

My main point Deist is not to make a case either way of what is moral. I do not think I am qualified to judge what is moral or not beyond what is reasonable and rational. Personally I think there are reasonable arguments made on both sides. You made some valid points yourself concerning time of conception and what constitutes as a "person". However, I think renaming or trying to find moral justification is the problem on the pro-choice side. I think just being honest and stating we are terminating a potential life, it does not make it anyless of what the reality is.A fetus is not a tumor as the DNA is not of the host, it might be classified as a "parasite"; a fetus however is its own enitity regardless of the stage. However, with that said based on arguments presented by yourself and others there is really no moral issues with a fetus that does not have brain activity, that a termination is or is not ethically wrong. I personally think the pro-choice does not need to justify itself against the religious.

I know the religious try to present a moral argument, and they have some justifications towards it. Partial birth abortions well past 20 weeks is in my opinion infanticide. I think in the light of domestic tranquility both sides need to side down and examine this with logic and reason. For example, the pro-choice side has made great resistance to reasonable restrictions to abortion. They have had protests to the 20 week cut off. While the foot notes to those bills closed down clinics (which is wrong) I find the resistance to compromise to any degree as a stain to their cause. On the religious side, they apparently want to legislate morality. They make subjective meanings to “what is life” and force it on others. That is an undeniable fact, and they also seem uncompromising. I feel this topic in our country has not been reasonably discussed, and most are met with high emotions on both sides. I appreciate your civility DeistPaladin, I hope this clarifies what I am trying to point out. We need mediation here, we have differences that should build us not divide us. Feel free to ask questions, I am just sick and tired of division when unity will bring about progress.

(July 25, 2013 at 10:48 am)Chas Wrote:

(July 24, 2013 at 6:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Great. Please show us them.

• Conception
  
• Implantation
  
• When the heart starts beating
  
• When the nervous system as developed
  
• When the brain has developed
  
• Viability outside the womb
  

I don't want your opinion I want information and source.

Fun fact: according to economist Steven Levitt, legalized abortion has a positive and significant effect on crime rate in the US. Which makes perfect sense, considering not all children are born equally. The couples who want abortions are more likely to live in deprived areas, more likely to give birth to a child in the middle of a shithole, for lack of a better term. When abortion was legalized, the crime rate of the 21st century that was supposed to double, decreased by fifty percent. Because the future teenage criminals never made it out the whomb.

Just a fun fact I wanted to share in this thread. However, I'm not using it as a defense for my pro-choice stance. Just something I wanted to add, since the abortion debate has been beaten to death on this forum. Not once have I seen anybody's opinion changed. It's that kind of topic. It's up there with religion and music taste. It's incredibly difficult for someone to see the other side of an argument in these topics.

Since it is the woman bearing the child, it should be her choice whether or not she would like to go through 9 months of pregnancy and a painful birth. It is agreed upon that a fetus, in its early stages of development, is not a human being. Otherwise abortion wouldn't be legal in the first place, because it would be murder. What you're ending with an abortion is potential human life. And I am perfectly okay with a woman deciding to end a potential human life. It is her child, and it is her responsibility, and sometimes, to be honest, depending on the environment the mother is living in: the child would have been better off dead. Now, that is an assumption, and does not apply to all cases. But if the impact of legalized abortion on crime rate is any indication...that scenario may be true a lot of the time.

Pro-lifers like the ones in this topic can tell me it's not that simple. Of course nobody would want it to sound so simple, we're talking about ending a potential human life. But I see it is that simple.

In the end, what's the point of debating a topic that's already been enacted? Abortion isn't going anywhere any time soon.

(July 24, 2013 at 7:44 pm)catfish Wrote: It's not "potential" human life, it IS human life.

Right, right...

(July 25, 2013 at 12:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 25, 2013 at 10:48 am)Chas Wrote:

• Conception
  
• Implantation
  
• When the heart starts beating
  
• When the nervous system as developed
  
• When the brain has developed
  
• Viability outside the womb
  

I don't want your opinion I want information and source.

These are all points at which various people define the beginning of human life, usually in the context of the abortion debate, and each has a pretty obvious scientific basis.

Your opinion is that it starts at conception, but there is no guarantee that that fertilized egg will result in the birth of a human being. It is contingent on not implanting in the fallopian tunes, successfully arriving in the uterus, successful implantation, and on and on.

A rather large percentage of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted. Were those people?

The topic is not as simple as you appear to be making it.

The point Chas is that it isn't my or anyone's opinion but the prevalent scientific explanation. "obvious" just doesn't cut it as a refutation I'm afraid.

"There's no guarantee" - no shit Sherlock. You think that I'm proposing that nature has an ethical responsibility?!

The topic still appears to be quite simple.

This argument I stumbled across today. I found it in the logic textbook I mentioned earlier. It was having me just analyze it for validity (not soundness) but I did find it somewhat compelling and it reflects my general inclinations on the abortion debate. I'm still fairly undecided on the matter but this line of reasoning is what I tend to lean towards.


All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.
All beings capable of desiring continued existence have a concept of themselves as a continuing subject of experiences.
No human fetus has a concept of itself as a continuing subject of experiences.
Therefore, No human fetus has a right to life.

My analysis. The asterisks are left over from the "Star" analysis method of determining validity.
All B* is E
All E* is S
No F* is E*
Therefore, No F is B.

Valid.

It has always seemed to me that while atheism itself assumes no shared doctrine, when an atheist/agnostic/skeptic claims to be pro-life we are met with hostility the likes that has been displayed in this thread thus far. No, I am not decrying victimhood here, it is merely an observation. It is interesting to me as I have been in the pro-choice camp, regarding abortions as merely a procedure that removes a fetus and does not raise any issues regarding human rights. My mind changed because the more I questioned my beliefs on the issue, the more I realized justifying abortion as a necessary evil was preposterous in itself. Here we all are, uncaring for complete humans that only need time and nourishment to grow into what we are today. I think the stance 'not sentient now = no rights', is a grand example of our attempts to dehumanize the growing fetus in order to be able to marry our conscience with a despicable act. Because if we take that safety net away, we have to admit that we have been killing humans and even endorsing the killing of humans all along. Then what separates us from monsters?

Does it sound like I am demonizing abortion? Are you offended? If not offended, are you amused that someone would take a bunch of cells to mean so much even though they have no brain, no CNS? They are just a clump of cells after all, nothing more right? I might as well be lobbying for the rights of tumors to remain in their host's bodies, and that curing cancer is as much of a crime as abortion is. Well, that is absurd. You cannot liken a tumour, a tonsil, nor any other body part with that of a growing fetus. A human life.

This also isn't about claiming science to be 'on our side' and that is an infantile argument. We (we meaning those of us who oppose abortion, unless absolutely necessary) are able to utilize the discoveries that science grants us just as equally as the pro-choice camp do. We may arrive at different conclusions using the same source material, but that is the point. Abortion is a question of ethics and human rights. It isn't a black and white subject. And I do not think that discussing and debating a topic that brings into question the ethics of taking human life as far as abortion is concerned, is a pointless feat because it is 'here to stay'. What is to say that abortion should always be necessary? Could it not instead be that male contraception, such as that of RISUG being currently trialed among countless others, are the necessary steps we must take in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions instead? We live in the 21st century. There are innumerable methods of birth control that prevent the sperm from meeting the egg. Yes, accidents happen, and perhaps that is why in instances where even preventative measures could not stop the need for abortion, that they be made legal and safe to do so.

I would hope that given that we live in an age where we are taught about birth control and the risks associated with sex, that we also be aware that every action we take has a consequence, and that pregnancy should be an accepted consequence of sex. That old chestnut, 'with rights come responsibilities'. People have a right to use their body as they wish and no one here is arguing to the contrary. But just as we take precautions when driving in a car, and are held liable for any lives we take with varying severity of sentences depending on the matter in which we take said life on the road, so should we start taking responsibility for the lives we take as a result of having unwanted pregnancies and aborting them. I disagree outright that this is squarely a women's rights issue, and feel that those who argue this are avoiding the crux altogether. This also isn't about demonizing women (though that is the popular argument it seems, and has become an accepted rhetoric unfortunately) and to vilify them because fuck women. As a woman, it is your duty to take precautions and practice safe sex. I'm not talking about rape here either, before someone decides to jump down my throat and call me a pawn of the patriarchy. I'm talking about statements such as these: "Oh yeah, it's the woman's fault that the guy she slept with didn't like to use condoms", ergo she was well within her right to abort the baby. It is the woman's fault if she falls pregnant, all cases of forced sex aside. If you don't want a baby, either use some form of contraception (or two, even better), or don't have sex until you are ready to assume responsibility for a child. We wait until teenagers reach a certain age before allowing them behind the wheel. Why should sex be any different? Why don't we care about protecting the rights of growing human life?

Miscarriages are a natural part of life, and an unfortunate one, but no one here is arguing that women who miscarry are murderers, either. That too is a tired argument and I see it thrown around in these kinds of debates as though we should accept artificial abortions as as much a part of the natural order of things as miscarriages. Pardon me, but take that bullshit elsewhere, because it don't fly.

Quote:“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”
-Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

Pro-life isn't a stance reserved for the religious.