RE: How to shut up people who are against abortion
June 1, 2013 at 4:40 am
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2013 at 4:52 am by Creed of Heresy.)
(May 31, 2013 at 5:39 pm)catfish Wrote: There's a difference between crying and laughing. I find it wildly amusing watching an atheist bring scripture into a debate, especially while using the literal fundamentalist stance. I thought you atheists were sick of having scripture quoted to you? Why the fuck should I believe his interpretation, what authority blah blah blah (you know the whiny drill...).
Sit back, enjoy life, see the humor in an fundy atheist using the Bible as an authority, it really is funny.
I dunno, you say laughing but all I hear from you is:
Also "fundy atheists," eh? Do tell me, what are the fundamental aspects of atheism? Unless you refer to atheists who use biblical quotes to disprove standpoints that followers of the Abrahamic cults tend to stand upon? Reason for that, of course, is because the bible is considered the canon source of information on the Abrahamic cults, particularly the old testament parts.
Or is there some fundamentalist view at the root of atheism that certain members here are prescribing to? If so, I would love to hear about it...mostly so I can have a good belly laugh.
(June 1, 2013 at 4:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Science (not religion) states that person exists from conception. Any choice you make regarding that person cannot be excused as anything less. Just because it doesn't yet have feelings, or isn't yet able to live independently, for example.
What science? And in what way do you mean "person?" Do you mean, the potential to become a fully-formed human being? Or...a person as in a self-aware entity? See, we get into a bit of a philosophical conundrum when we begin discussing what makes a person, well, a person [hence the reason for the debate-gridlock that tends to take place in regards to the ethics of abortions], because you have to define what a person is. For the first month at the least, what is developing in the uterus looks nothing like a person, and it lacks any characteristics of what would be a person. It's mostly just an assemblage of stem cells. The definition of what makes a person, well, a person, is...er, a personality, typically speaking. This tends to become one of those things where you end up with different viewpoints as to what a person is, hence the usual conundrum in regards to abortion; different viewpoints, with their own reasons for validity.
It's fine if someone is against abortion for ethical concerns. "It is something that can become a self-aware human being" is actually a valid standpoint. But so is "It's not self-aware and is therefore not a human being."
The title of the thread isn't exactly valid, because it assumes that there is a way to invalidate all anti-abortion stances, and...there isn't, because it is a matter of philosophical debate. I'm pro-choice but it's because my definition of what makes a person is being a self-aware, individually-functioning entity. I don't say abortion is GOOD, but I don't say it's bad, either. I don't put the weight of responsibility on someone who is just simply not capable of being responsible for something, and a fetus falls into that category of not being capable of responsibility.
