Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[Mystic]

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

I'm against death penalty because innocents can sometimes get killed.

---

Besides which, in a democratic society one errs toward freedom when making laws.

Is there any reason why precaution should not be favored over freedom here? Because I think I've shown a sound reason why it should be, you don't want society allowing and doing something similar to murder or same as murder. If it's not proven either way, then it maybe similar to murder. Therefore it's logical to not take that chance.

Imagine making your point above in any other context.

You will have to show me an example.

[genkaus]

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

If we reach a standstill in a debate, the one with arguments left uncountered wins. I've addressed all your points so far - differentiating between which are invalid and which are simply inapplicable - while you have ignored quite a few of mine.

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.

No, actually, the burden would be on supporters and detractors alike. The default position here would be that abortion is amoral. Taking precaution is not a moral imperative and it is a gross mis-characterization to regard it as anything remotely like murder. In fact, given the parasite-host type of relationship and all the health problems caused by it, a better case can be made for self-defense, in which case, every abortion would be the moral thing to do. But, since I don't seek to impose my values upon others and I don't assume my conclusions from the start, I didn't make that argument.

Further, it is not the morality of abortion itself that is under discussion. I' say that in some cases it is the moral choice and in others it is immoral. The question before us is if it is immoral enough to justify negating a woman's agency. Even if we stipulate that abortion is generally immoral (and I stipulate no such thing), it is your contention that it is bad enough for us to legally prevent her from doing so and that is your burden to prove, not mine to disprove.

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.

What does that even mean - 'to prove a legislation with little objectivity'? Do you think that I'm making that statement up just for sake of argument?

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.

That's where you are wrong. Majority does not have the right to legislate laws that infringe upon individual liberties. Such laws are often struck down by the courts and rightly so. The majority can make all the rules they want about the public streets, but their rights stop at my front door.

---

Besides which, in a democratic society one errs toward freedom when making laws.

That's not entirely accurate. Given a free reign, even a democracy would often move to curtail individual liberties in favor of popular morality. What keeps that in check is the thin line of constitution and courts.

---

Is there any reason why precaution should not be favored over freedom here?

Because precaution should never be favored over freedom. Especially here where the precaution has been shown to be empty.

Because I think I've shown a sound reason why it should be, you don't want society allowing and doing something similar to murder or same as murder. If it's not proven either way, then it maybe similar to murder. Therefore it's logical to not take that chance.

Your so called 'sound reason' has been refuted. Its not anything remotely like murder - anymore that eating antibiotics can be considered to be like murder. I've provided arguments for why it is like self-defense and refuted your arguments that it is like murder (were there any in such regard?), so don't hide behind the excuse that it is not proven either way. Your reasoning isn't even remotely sound.

[NoraBrimstone]

I'm completely against the death penalty because I don't believe anybody should have the right to kill another person. They may have done something bad, but they are still a human being with feelings, and they may also be someones parent, child, sibling or friend. It also seems hypocritical to me. If a person is executed for murder, then why shouldn't the executioner also be tried for murder? How can you say one person should be put to death for killing one person, yet not an executioner who may have ended dozens of lives? It just seems like a barbaric way to deal with crime to me.

As for abortion, I don't think I could ever have one myself. I'm too sure I'd spend the rest of my life wondering "what if...?" and regretting it. If someone else is pregnant and wants to abort, that's their right. A foetus doesn't know it exists. It has no thoughts or feelings, it has nobody to miss it. It's alive only in the same way as some small insignificant creature most people kill regularly upon finding them in their home. I have issues with late-term abortion where there is nothing wrong with the mother or baby (after the point where it could be born and survive, I personally consider it a baby rather than a foetus. Probably because my sister was born at 27 weeks and one of my cousins at 24 weeks) just because it doesn't sit well with my morals, but the law here seems to agree with that, so that's not an issue. If that were to change, I'm not sure how I'd feel towards a friend or relative who did it... I'd like to think I'd still support them no matter what, but I dunno that I could. Then again, if I couldn't, I'd get over it eventually.

[EGross]

I am againt the killing of anyone, whether as a potential or a complete life. The debate as to when does life begin is a religious one and not one that is useful here.

But given that, I am against the legislation of religious ideas. Saying it's okay to kill because of incest, for example, is a religious argument, since "it is abominable to the Lord". God would want that offspring killed, so a believer likes that one.

You could go down the list for the exceptions, but they come down to what is each persons comfort level. "Rape, incest, the life of the mother" are the new definitions of acceptance levels. And the religious are defining these and influencing laws to have their theology be kept by the non-believer.

[catfish]

I am againt the killing of anyone, whether as a potential or a complete life. The debate as to when does life begin is a religious one and not one that is useful here.

But given that, I am against the legislation of religious ideas. Saying it's okay to kill because of incest, for example, is a religious argument, since "it is abominable to the Lord". God would want that offspring killed, so a believer likes that one.

You could go down the list for the exceptions, but they come down to what is each persons comfort level. "Rape, incest, the life of the mother" are the new definitions of acceptance levels. And the religious are defining these and influencing laws to have their theology be kept by the non-believer.

You can't go speaking for someone else and say any judgement is from a religious standpoint. I would not object to abortion in the case of incest for genetic reasons and in the case of rape for mental health reasons (I guess for incest too).
.

[EGross]

I said that defining when life begins is a religious one (some hold it begins with intent!). I also said that the exclusion for incest, is defined by religious dogma.

But I would never say that all judgements are religious. God forbid!

[catfish]

And why would you assign any decision as a religious one? I don't think anyone here has used any religious excuse for their views...
.

[NoraBrimstone]

When life begins is not a religious question. As soon as fertilisation occurs, that's a life. When that life begins to mean and be worth more than the "life" in the dirt under my fingernails is another question.

[EGross]

Would you consider "in the exception of incest" as a religious addition? As I said, trying to define when life begins has been under debate by both sides and that discussion is not the useful one. I find the incest one more telling.

[catfish]

Would you consider "in the exception of incest" as a religious addition? As I said, trying to define when life begins has been under debate by both sides and that discussion is not the useful one. I find the incest one more telling.

Read above ^^^^^^

---

As you actually said...

...The debate as to when does life begin is a religious one and not one that is useful here....