The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[Homeless Nutter]

God or no God has nothing to do with this conversation. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. Please don't interject something that is irrelevant to the conversation.

Mmmkay, then...

"If you want to have a baby - find someone who WANTS to have your baby and shoot your load inside her - because that's pretty much the extent of your involvement in the process up until this point."

How's that?

[Kingpin]

God or no God has nothing to do with this conversation. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. Please don't interject something that is irrelevant to the conversation.

Mmmkay, then...

"If you want to have a baby - find someone who WANTS to have your baby and shoot your load inside her - because that's pretty much the extent of your involvement in the process up until this point."

How's that?

Yes better and I agree that sexual partners should discuss their feelings on potential pregnancy.  We all know how babies are made, so it's never an excuse to say, "I didn't think it was possible" or "we were careful".  It's always possible unless either partner cannot reproduce.  

But to say that's the extent of your involvement up until this point is, biologically speaking, accurate.  Anyone can be a dad, but it takes a real man to be a father.  It's a lifetime commitment.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You're right! The mother is a human being, with the absolute right under American law to medical privacy under the First Amendment, and that happens to include the concept of medical privacy, which most Americans find quite dear, and that concept includes the right to control her own body-- including what is allowed to feed off of her uterine wall. Or isn't.

Fetuses, or whatever you wish to call it (in non-medical terms?), are on that list.

We cannot force citizens to unwillingly give up a kidney, at risk to their own life, even if they caused kidney failure in another person and that other person will die without the first individual's kidney. It's unthinkable, under law, because they have bodily integrity. You may think that the person who caused the kidney failure in their friend is a dick for being unwilling to risk his life to save the one who lost both kidneys because of him, but he has that right to refuse, under every concept of law and personal integrity/medical privacy we understand.

Asking a woman to involuntarily risk childbirth or C-section is not one shred different. The risks she takes with her own body, and what she does with it, are entirely hers. There are no ifs, ands, or buts after that sentence.

If we are to say that women are people, then that must necessarily include the bodily integrity concept. You can religiously frown on the practice of birth control, of women being something other than breeders, for that is your right. But knock it off with pushing your religious objection to abortion, in an artificial "we like life!" plea, as an agenda.

The funny thing is, though, your Bible is in no way against abortion. I don't know where y'all get that idea. I really don't. It's all "well if you read it this  way..." but it never says abortion is wrong. In fact, it strongly suggests in some places that God is totally okay with it-- see in Numbers chapter 5, where it appears there is a recipe for inducing a forced miscarriage (read: abortion) in a woman who has been suspected of being unfaithful while her husband was away. (Verses 11-31.)

But again, regardless of whether your Holy Book™ is against the practice, it is irrelevant, because our laws are secular and must remain indifferent to and unbiased toward religious ideologies. Oh, and that whole pesky Bill of Rights which seems to strongly imply that citizens (yes, folks, even women!) have all their rights, all the time.

---

What the fuck does this even mean? What problem?

Plagiarizing Deist concepts from the Declaration, transcribing them into the name of Jehovah, does not constitute an argument. Shame!

You don't just get to throw shit out there and pretend it's sage! All PT said is that Christians claim to have Absolute Truth™, and then by and large live just like the rest of us (for good and for bad), so they clearly make their own moral judgments despite all the rhetoric about "Nature and Nature's God" and the imaginary concept of an Ultimate Lawgiver.

Rocket, 

I don't disagree with your take on abortion and a woman's right for her own body.  I don't care for the argument that likens the fetus to a bacterial parasite.  Everyone knows that fetus is/will be a human being.  Also what is often left out of the abortion discussion is the right of the father who helped conceive that child.  This is why abortion is such a tough topic, because there are a lot of variables.  

I want to throw a hypothetical, purely because I'm curious of your opinion, but I know you and your girlfriend are expecting.  What if she decided that she wants an abortion?  You respect her right for her bodily integrity, but what about your right as the father of that child?

I apologize for taking so long to answer you, Kingpin. It has been a busy workday. I'm also fighting with a customer who keeps swearing the check is in the mail. Literally.

The answer to your question is contained in what I already wrote, above. The answer to Chad's question is also in there. I meant every word of that.

But to specifically answer. I would be devastated if she chose to abort that fetus. I very much want that child. However, I absolutely respect her right to determine what happens to her body. Not I, nor any man, nor anyone else but her, has that right. Period. End of sentence. I control no part of her, including her uterus, and any interaction she has with me is 100% voluntary, or else I am unworthy of her. I am just as free to choose to not be with her as she is with me, but I am not free to control her. Feminism 101.

As to Chad's argument, which states that the reason the fetus/child has no rights is "because it is weak and vulnerable", it's entirely beside the point of this entire argument. It has no rights which could possibly supersede the right to bodily integrity of the mother, no matter what status we grant it, even that of full adult, if we so choose. That's why I used the example of the couple of adult people in which one had caused kidney failure (leading to death) in the other, when the first who caused it has the only set of compatible kidneys on earth. Even in that example, where taking the kidney of the first would allow the life of the second to continue, we do not have the legal right to force the person to give up the kidney in order that the other might live, even though person A caused person B to have a life whose continuance is contingent on person A's body part, regardless of how we might feel about it, or about person A.

[Kingpin]

Rocket, 

I don't disagree with your take on abortion and a woman's right for her own body.  I don't care for the argument that likens the fetus to a bacterial parasite.  Everyone knows that fetus is/will be a human being.  Also what is often left out of the abortion discussion is the right of the father who helped conceive that child.  This is why abortion is such a tough topic, because there are a lot of variables.  

I want to throw a hypothetical, purely because I'm curious of your opinion, but I know you and your girlfriend are expecting.  What if she decided that she wants an abortion?  You respect her right for her bodily integrity, but what about your right as the father of that child?

I apologize for taking so long to answer you, Kingpin. It has been a busy workday. I'm also fighting with a customer who keeps swearing the check is in the mail. Literally.

The answer to your question is contained in what I already wrote, above. The answer to Chad's question is also in there. I meant every word of that.

But to specifically answer. I would be devastated if she chose to abort that fetus. I very much want that child. However, I absolutely respect her right to determine what happens to her body. Not I, nor any man, nor anyone else but her, has that right. Period. End of sentence. I control no part of her, including her uterus, and any interaction she has with me is 100% voluntary, or else I am unworthy of her. I am just as free to choose to not be with her as she is with me, but I am not free to control her. Feminism 101.

As to Chad's argument, which states that the reason the fetus/child has no rights is "because it is weak and vulnerable", it's entirely beside the point of this entire argument. It has no rights which could possibly supersede the right to bodily integrity of the mother, no matter what status we grant it, even that of full adult, if we so choose. That's why I used the example of the couple of adult people in which one had caused kidney failure (leading to death) in the other, when the first who caused it has the only set of compatible kidneys on earth. Even in that example, where taking the kidney of the first would allow the life of the second to continue, we do not  have the legal right to force the person to give up the kidney in order that the other might live, even though person A caused person B to have a life whose continuance is contingent on person A's body part, regardless of how we might feel  about it, or about person A.

I can agree with all of that.  We have no right to say what they do with their own body.  But the debate stems from how the fetus is classified.  I've seen it classified as anything from a human being to a parasite.  I personally think classifying the fetus as anything but a human is disingenuous.  It is and always will be a human.  It is a human in its early stages of development with a beating heart 18 days after conception.  While I have no say over what a woman does to her own body, do I have a say in what she does to my child?  It's tough right?  

Wait I say next will undoubtedly be controversial.  Can you explain why killing a baby in utero is ok based solely on the decision of the mother (as you said you have no say), but killing a baby a minute after its born is murder?  Is it a different baby?  Is it any less dependent on the mother than when in utero?  

I am in no way saying you support any of this, I'm honestly just curious what you think on this. Thanks for the reply

[Catholic_Lady]

Whether you call him/her a fetus, a child, a baby, etc, doesn't matter. There are 2 fixed points in a person's life - conception and death. Between those 2 fixed points, that person is constantly changing and developing. Going from embryo, to fetus, to infant, toddler, school aged, pre teen, teenager, adult, elderly, etc. At no point in any of those stages do we transform from one species to another. You and I were human beings from the moment we came into existence inside our mothers, and we will remain humans from that point on and for the rest of our lives. If it is your opinion that it should be legal to kill this person at any point before birth, then it is your right to hold that opinion. But don't deny the fact that you are supporting the killing of a human being. Being a human fetus doesn't make him/her unhuman any more than being a human teenager or a human adult. Fetus is a stage of life, not a species.

[FatAndFaithless]

CL, that's your definition of life. Not the definition of life, and yours certainly isn't based on any scientific reasoning (brain activity, ability to feel pain, consciousness, etc). So no, I don't have to think that aborting an early term fetus is 'killing a human', thank you very much.

In any case, bodily autonomy is paramount for me in this issue. The rights of the woman to use her own body as she likes supersedes the rights of anyone else, even if we were to agree that a blastocyst had the rights of a human being. You're not asking for equal human rights for an embryo, you're asking for special rights above those that we would give ANY human, from a toddler to the Pope. No human in any situation can claim another's body to use as their own, and there's no reason we should give that 'special' right to a fetus either.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

I apologize for taking so long to answer you, Kingpin. It has been a busy workday. I'm also fighting with a customer who keeps swearing the check is in the mail. Literally.

The answer to your question is contained in what I already wrote, above. The answer to Chad's question is also in there. I meant every word of that.

But to specifically answer. I would be devastated if she chose to abort that fetus. I very much want that child. However, I absolutely respect her right to determine what happens to her body. Not I, nor any man, nor anyone else but her, has that right. Period. End of sentence. I control no part of her, including her uterus, and any interaction she has with me is 100% voluntary, or else I am unworthy of her. I am just as free to choose to not be with her as she is with me, but I am not free to control her. Feminism 101.

As to Chad's argument, which states that the reason the fetus/child has no rights is "because it is weak and vulnerable", it's entirely beside the point of this entire argument. It has no rights which could possibly supersede the right to bodily integrity of the mother, no matter what status we grant it, even that of full adult, if we so choose. That's why I used the example of the couple of adult people in which one had caused kidney failure (leading to death) in the other, when the first who caused it has the only set of compatible kidneys on earth. Even in that example, where taking the kidney of the first would allow the life of the second to continue, we do not  have the legal right to force the person to give up the kidney in order that the other might live, even though person A caused person B to have a life whose continuance is contingent on person A's body part, regardless of how we might feel  about it, or about person A.

---

I can agree with all of that.  We have no right to say what they do with their own body.  But the debate stems from how the fetus is classified.  I've seen it classified as anything from a human being to a parasite.  I personally think classifying the fetus as anything but a human is disingenuous.  It is and always will be a human.  It is a human in its early stages of development with a beating heart 18 days after conception.  While I have no say over what a woman does to her own body, do I have a say in what she does to my child?  It's tough right?  

Wait I say next will undoubtedly be controversial.  Can you explain why killing a baby in utero is ok based solely on the decision of the mother (as you said you have no say), but killing a baby a minute after its born is murder?  Is it a different baby?  Is it any less dependent on the mother than when in utero?  

I am in no way saying you support any of this, I'm honestly just curious what you think on this. Thanks for the reply

We certainly do recognize, in law, that a person has different rights at different stages in their life. For instance, a minor child has many fewer rights than an adult, particularly in terms of bodily autonomy, and the adults who are its caregivers may make decisions of many types that will affect his or her life. However, after being born, the status does change such that they may no longer deprive the child of what it takes to continue living or being healthy; then again, the child does not directly depend on the body of its parent for continued survival, either. It's a crucial difference. And it's why I point out in my kidney example that it wouldn't matter, legally speaking, if the fetus was a child or a full grown adult, in terms of forcing someone to risk their life to continue the life of the other.

Yes, it is significantly less biologically dependent on its mother once born. Anyone can support that child, at that point, and compromising the legal right to bodily integrity/autonomy of another person is never required in order to do so. Economics is another matter, legally speaking-- that's why it takes a criminal court (and the Reasonable Doubt standard of proof, at least in theory) to incarcerate the body of a person, but only a civil court (and a "preponderance of the evidence" standard) to take away their property.

[GrandizerII]

Wait I say next will undoubtedly be controversial.  Can you explain why killing a baby in utero is ok based solely on the decision of the mother (as you said you have no say), but killing a baby a minute after its born is murder?  Is it a different baby?  Is it any less dependent on the mother than when in utero?

Well, once the baby is born, then there's no longer the dilemma of whose rights should trump the other's. Also, most abortions (and the abortions that are legal) tend to occur long before the time of birth (not immediately before).

[Kingpin]

CL, that's your definition of life.  Not the definition of life, and yours certainly isn't based on any scientific reasoning (brain activity, ability to feel pain, consciousness, etc).  So no, I don't have to think that aborting an early term fetus is 'killing a human', thank you very much.

In any case, bodily autonomy is paramount for me in this issue.  The rights of the woman to use her own body as she likes supersedes the rights of anyone else, even if we were to agree that a blastocyst had the rights of a human being.  You're not asking for equal human rights for an embryo, you're asking for special rights above those that we would give ANY human, from a toddler to the Pope.  No human in any situation can claim another's body to use as their own, and there's no reason we should give that 'special' right to a fetus either.

I agree that you don't have to agree with that definition.  

I emphasized the above because you don't really believe that the fetus claimed the woman's body to use as their own out of their own volition?  You do understand the only reason for it's existence was out of a choice that the mother made (not counting cases of rape)?  You don't think that if the mother makes a conscious choice to have consensual sex knowing that pregnancy is always a possibility, she bares no responsibility for the consequence?  And the embryo, fetus, blastocyst (however you want to categorize it) is also equally part of her willing partner.  Does the woman's rights supersede his as well?  Look I've said repeatedly this is not an easy topic so there are not easy answers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait I say next will undoubtedly be controversial.  Can you explain why killing a baby in utero is ok based solely on the decision of the mother (as you said you have no say), but killing a baby a minute after its born is murder?  Is it a different baby?  Is it any less dependent on the mother than when in utero?  

Abortion in the first trimester, which is when the overwhelming majority of abortions take place, does not end the brainwaves of an individual, whereas aborting after about five months almost invariably does. A first-trimester abortion is different from a last-trimester abortion or killing a born child because you are not snuffing out a person with his or her own thoughts.

Not for nothing is our species named Homo Sapiens -- "Man, the Wise". This is because it is not our physiology that differentiates us from animals (we have homologous organs throughout), but because what sets man apart is his ability to think and reason. If a fetus is not thinking, how can it have attained personhood?