The reason religion is so powerful

[The Grand Nudger]

What is the moral instruction of the church supposed to be? Don't abort because god, and you don't think that's relevant? You don't think it's concern for souls? A general worry for the disposition of the sacred in society?

[Ranjr]

No one here is using an argument based on god-given immortal souls.

Not openly.  The question remains.

[Mister Agenda]

If you use force to prevent a robbery it's, wait for it, use of force. Even if you think abortion is murder, making it illegal is still forcing women to give birth against their will. It is what it is. If you're not comfortable with the language, maybe don't support forcing women to give birth against their will.

I'm comfortable with language that is accurate, which this is not.

Preventing an abortion is not equal to inducing labor, agreed?

If the woman (and/or doctor) is punished for for choosing to get an abortion, how is the labor she undergoes later not forced? If she is prevented from getting an abortion, the birth following is against her will and therefore forced. I don't understand what is supposed to be inaccurate about this.

---

Evolutionarily speaking, we're better off restricting women's role in society to procreation and sex. A sure-fire way to increase offspring and thereby our chances of survival.

Many of us try to be aware of common logical fallacies and try to avoid them. The naturalistic fallacy is one that's particularly easy to avoid once you're aware of it. That something is natural or artificial is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong. Evolution is what happens in nature, it is not a dictate we're supposed to follow or anything we're supposed to plan on.

Not to mention I fancy my personal chances of survival to be better if I avoid such cockamamie goals in a world where men have to sleep sometime and women can easily devise reliable and likely creative methods of taking advantage of that.

---

Should women do this, NO

Why not?

Because the vast majority of women who are pregant and choose to remain so want to have a healthy baby. You act like this is mystifying, but it's clearly an act.

---

Ultimately he's attempting to trick people..

Guilty as charged—I want to see the limits of people's convictions.

Well, I am under the impression that online disengenousness is the Christian way, so carry on.

---

Fuck off, you twit.

You should be thanking me, I am being so generous:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people

Also from peter singer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pG01ASb...l=imadix14 (Bestiality is fine)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piNnP8NtQzk
Quote : "

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah" 

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/richard-daw...-arbitrary

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...p?t=218937 (Atheist Dan Barker says child rape could be moral)


Let me know if you want some more.

Let me know when you figure out none of those people are representative of atheists any more than the Ayatollah Khomenei is representative of Muslims (“If a person has intercourse with a cow, a sheep, or a camel, their urine and dung become impure and drinking their milk will be unlawful”). If you want to pour on citations irrelevant to what we actually think, knock yourself out.

---

And I bet crack cocaine has caused fewer deaths than nicotine. Doesn't mean one is less dangerous than the other.

It's true that no conclusion in favor of religion could be drawn from this. But according to this chart, a non-religious country is more likely to go to war than a religious country.

You might want to take a closer look at that reasoning since most countries today and throughout history have been majority religious. That chart cites religion as the primary motivating factor, it does not distinguish between religious and nonreligious countries.

---

I love how his whole argument is. See these atheists said this therefore you should agree with them.

Nope. The argument is that you atheists can justify anything including rape and bestiality. I don't think you can refute Peter Singer's (a professional philosopher, BTW) rationalization of raping disabled people, that's what atheism offers you : arbitrary morality. Enjoy.

Most philosophers are atheists, but Singer is a minority of one. Ever wonder why that is?

[vulcanlogician]

If she didn't ask my advice would I ever force my concerns about teratogens upon her? No.

You have to admit that's a funny answer lol. Look, everything has its limits—every conviction, every moral judgment, every belief. Failure to recognize this puts us one step away from fanaticism. The antidote is recognizing the nuance of complexity, and avoiding an absolutist mentality.

I'm not sure I follow. 

Nor do I think have an absolutist mentality. I have principles, sure. And if someone wants to challenge my principles, great. The matter is open for discussion. Maybe my principles need some adjustment (or maybe they don't).

In a better world than this, forcing one's will upon a pregnant woman would be a non-issue. But in this world (in my country) it's an issue. I really try my best to relate to pro-lifers and their concern for the rights of an unborn child. I have reservations about late term abortions and such because, after all, at some point we are dealing with a living sentient being who simply hasn't been born yet. I try to appreciate all those nuances on you guys' side of the debate. So why don't we try to get on the same page?

It's slightly disingenuous to pretend that a woman's right to her body isn't at issue here. It's worth bringing up in this discussion. As I see it, there are two main issues to address. The personhood of a zygote/fetus. And a woman's right to determine what happens with her own body. The former is philosophical, and the latter political.

As far as the personhood of the fetus is concerned, we may be able to find some common ground. Remember that my position is that there is no clear moment when the zygote becomes a person. (At any rate, it ain't conception.) But that vagueness concerning personhood is also present concerning late term pregnancy. After all, a baby that has been born is uncontroversially a person. But just like fertilization of the egg is not some "magic event" that bestows personhood, neither is childbirth.

We might find some common ground on the philosophical side of the debate, even though we disagree that personhood begins at the fertilization of the egg.

I'm not sure what your views are concerning the political side, or how you feel about a woman's right to her own body. Sorry if you stated this elsewhere. I didn't see it. So let me ask: do you see any merit to the notion: "It's her body. It's her decision what happens to it.".....?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I'm comfortable with language that is accurate, which this is not.

Preventing an abortion is not equal to inducing labor, agreed?

If the woman (and/or doctor) is punished for for choosing to get an abortion, how is the labor she undergoes later not forced? If she is prevented from getting an abortion, the birth following is against her will and therefore forced. I don't understand what is supposed to be inaccurate about this.

---

Evolutionarily speaking, we're better off restricting women's role in society to procreation and sex. A sure-fire way to increase offspring and thereby our chances of survival.

Many of us try to be aware of common logical fallacies and try to avoid them. The naturalistic fallacy is one that's particularly easy to avoid once you're aware of it. That something is natural or artificial is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong. Evolution is what happens in nature, it is not a dictate we're supposed to follow or anything we're supposed to plan on.

Not to mention I fancy my personal chances of survival to be better if I avoid such cockamamie goals in a world where men have to sleep sometime and women can easily devise reliable and likely creative methods of taking advantage of that.

---

Why not?

Because the vast majority of women who are pregant and choose to remain so want to have a healthy baby. You act like this is mystifying, but it's clearly an act.

---

Guilty as charged—I want to see the limits of people's convictions.

Well, I am under the impression that online disengenousness is the Christian way, so carry on.

---

You should be thanking me, I am being so generous:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people

Also from peter singer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pG01ASb...l=imadix14 (Bestiality is fine)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piNnP8NtQzk
Quote : "

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah" 

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/richard-daw...-arbitrary

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...p?t=218937 (Atheist Dan Barker says child rape could be moral)


Let me know if you want some more.

Let me know when you figure out none of those people are representative of atheists any more than the Ayatollah Khomenei is representative of Muslims (“If a person has intercourse with a cow, a sheep, or a camel, their urine and dung become impure and drinking their milk will be unlawful”). If you want to pour on citations irrelevant to what we actually think, knock yourself out.

---

It's true that no conclusion in favor of religion could be drawn from this. But according to this chart, a non-religious country is more likely to go to war than a religious country.

You might want to take a closer look at that reasoning since most countries today and throughout history have been majority religious. That chart cites religion as the primary motivating factor, it does not distinguish between religious and nonreligious countries.

---

Nope. The argument is that you atheists can justify anything including rape and bestiality. I don't think you can refute Peter Singer's (a professional philosopher, BTW) rationalization of raping disabled people, that's what atheism offers you : arbitrary morality. Enjoy.

Most philosophers are atheists, but Singer is a minority of one. Ever wonder why that is?

Not to mention overpopulation is evolutionarily disadvantageous as it causes resources to become scarce. That's why some species hold off having offspring when times are tough. In humans there, no advantage to having women purely for reproduction when our species in its current form has little need for a larger population for its survival.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, I think that one might be more malthusian fantasy than biological reality. There's definitely still an advantage to controlling the breeding population and..basically, fucking the other guy to death. That's always been why the abrahamics are so concerned with the issue.

When islamists put girls in breeding pens to pump out a couple more generations of islamists, we'll have ourselves a real world demonstration to that effect. In fact, we already have. The trick to seeing this quickly and clearly, is to remember that evolutionary advantages aren't necessarily good things. You might think it would be good to curb overpopulation - but you'll lose that argument (and in fact every argument) to the population that outbreeds you over evolutionary time. You might think..well, that's conflict between humans, the contention is that it would be advantageous to humans....another trick, advantageous to the humans that are left - and conflict between humans is already advantageous to human populations. You could always cast the rest of life and indeed the earth itself as the hated other guy, as well, if that helps. It's never the case with human beings that more human beings isn't fundamentally helpful to human populations. We're what they call a hypersocial species. There aren't alot of us because we're successful - we're successful when there are alot of us.

Give us a few mild winters and generally low predation, and every other living thing is going to have a human problem on it's hands. The rocks and sand themselves will have a human problem. I think that might be why we believe in bootstrapping. An animal who's population exploded because more of them were shitting on more crops more of the time with fewer interruptions, rinse and repeat.

[John 6IX Breezy]

So let me ask: do you see any merit to the notion: "It's her body. It's her decision what happens to it.".....?

Yes; my position has been that every variable must be accounted for and understood prior to reaching a conclusion. I see merit in the concept of bodily autonomy, but I likewise see exceptions and limitations.

Edit to add: My feeling is that the "choice argument" is somewhat of a red herring. For example, would you be against abortion if a viable alternative was developed? Meaning that the embryo can be safely extracted and developed outside the womb, and given back to the mother after the full term? My feeling is that nobody actually cares about my body, my choice—they simply don't want to raise a child.

[Astreja]

Evolutionarily speaking, we're better off restricting women's role in society to procreation and sex. A sure-fire way to increase offspring and thereby our chances of survival.

If you want just large numbers of children, being reared by unhappy women in a land where the standard of living is in freefall, headed to the Dark Ages and beyond, you'll find out very quickly that the pediatric survival rate and overall life expectancy drops very fast.

Better for women to choose to reproduce, and to raise only the children they want to raise.  It is preferable to have one child with a high level of education and material prosperity than ten children all doomed to die without contributing anything of value to society.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes; my position has been that every variable must be accounted for and understood prior to reaching a conclusion.

Nope her choice is the bottom line 

 I see merit in the concept of choice, but I likewise see exceptions.

In this instance, there are no exceptions.

[HappySkeptic]

Yes; my position has been that every variable must be accounted for and understood prior to reaching a conclusion.

Nope her choice is the bottom line 

 I see merit in the concept of choice, but I likewise see exceptions.

In this instance, there are no exceptions.

When Canada's abortion laws were struck down, it bothered me that some sort of logical conclusion couldn't be reached as to when fetal rights begin.  I was naive into thinking that one could actually solve such a problem.

I have since seen the wisdom in the Canadian model -- its up the woman and the ethical codes of the medical establishment.  Medical ethics requires the attempt to keep a viable fetus alive, but otherwise its the woman's body.

The only arguments I see against this model are religious ones, and my answer to that is "because it is the woman's body, her religious views trump yours".