Atheism & Abortion

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

I'll refrain from off colour jokes on this one.

However, the difference, in my opinion, is that while in the womb it is a parasite and when outside (asuming you mean born and separated from the umbilical) it can take responsibility for its own continued existance (by breathing mainly)

Asiaprod

I am not interested in debating the when does life begin issue.
Nice post Breu.
I am interested in debating the original post

Asiaprod

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

Jimi, this thread has become my new baby, I will be very protective of it:)

Conar

I'm extremely pro choice, but its not a choice I would ever make.

Hivemind187

Calibos wrote: »

I'd probably be in the emotively against abortion camp. I just find it distasteful. slicing and dicing and hoovering out a little potential human. I'd be pro abortion in the very early stages of gestation and in some other limited circumstances.

I think you are pushing the rabid pro-life angle their a little with the slicing and dicing. But it does raise the question, is it an issue you have with the perception of pain or suffering on behalf of the foetus that causes you distress?

Calibos wrote: »

ie. To show you how arbitrary my reasoning is. I'd be against abortion after the eyes and fingers and toes have formed. Maybe thats strangely linked to my attidue to food. I can't eat anything that looks like it did when it was alive. I can eat a steak but not a crab etc. Once the fetus starts to look human I start to get grossed out at the thoughts of aborting it......or eating it

Is it perhaps that you are attributing characteristics etc to the assortment of cells that constitute the foetus? Also, it might seem facetious but why is it when it is a human it is an abortion and when its a chicken its an omlette?

Calibos wrote: »

I'd be pro-abortion later in gestation in the case of severe disability where the fetus/baby/child would have no quality of live or would not live long after birth. I would be against the abortion of Downs Syndrome fetus' for instance but would be for the abortion of a fetus that might live a year or two after birth but would spend its short life hooked up to tubes in a hospital in pain etc

I'm pretty certain you mean pro-choice (although I have met some people who make a good argument for pro-abortion)

From the reading of this you appear to be more pro-choice than pro-life. You hold similar opinions to many people who are pro-choice.

coffee_cake

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

There's no "baby" in the womb...?

That and there's quiiiite a difference between
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg
and
http://z.about.com/d/huntsville/1/0/G/g/1/BabyKineticaJoulePeer.jpg

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote: »

However, the difference, in my opinion, is that while in the womb it is a parasite and when outside (asuming you mean born and separated from the umbilical) it can take responsibility for its own continued existance (by breathing mainly)

Its not really a viable example you give there Hivemind since an infant is not capable of sustaining its own life, and by your definition remains a parasite for a number of months (if not arguably years).

Dave!

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I think you are pushing the rabid pro-life angle their a little with the slicing and dicing. But it does raise the question, is it an issue you have with the perception of pain or suffering on behalf of the foetus that causes you distress?




Is it perhaps that you are attributing characteristics etc to the assortment of cells that constitute the foetus? Also, it might seem facetious but why is it when it is a human it is an abortion and when its a chicken its an omlette?



I'm pretty certain you mean pro-choice (although I have met some people who make a good argument for pro-abortion)

From the reading of this you appear to be more pro-choice than pro-life. You hold similar opinions to many people who are pro-choice.

You need to lay off the George Carlin, man!

Ahh no, I refrained from responding to Calibos's post because she acknowledged that it's emotion (and I would probably go further and say "irrationality") that leads her to her current stance.

There is of course no difference between eating a crab and a steak, but irrational human emotion makes you think twice about eating something that has eyes and is looking at you!
(I seem to remember Carl Sagan using this as it relates to Heikegani, the 'samurai crab', to explain natural selection )

Calibos may not see a logical reason to be pro-life, but at the end of the day the thought of destroying something (and by gruesome methods) that you can associate with a living being is icky.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not really a viable example you give there Hivemind since an infant is not capable of sustaining its own life, and by your definition remains a parasite for a number of months (if not arguably years).

Ah Rev, you misunderstand. Allow me to explain.

By taking "responsibility" for your own continued existance I mean "breathing, swallowing, excreting etc" I do not mean holding down a job in McDonalds.

Essentially, during gestation a foetus is a parasite, it contributes nothing and takes everything. It relies solely on the altruism of the host to sustain it.

The host chooses to take responsibility for the parasite, it is not imperative to the host to continue to do so rahter it is at the hosts descretion. Therefore, should the host choose to, it can divest itself of the responsibility of supporting the parasite.

Once the host ceases to support the parasite it is then up to the parasite to take responsibility for its own existance. It must breathe for itself or perish. Once it chooses to take responsibility to breathe for itself then it has earned the right to continue to do so without interference. No one can have the right to interfere with that breathing since they have no responsibility for it.

The parasitic relationship ceases upon birth since the infant is capable of taking the said responsibility. Further to this the infant is also responsible for its own swallow function and waste management. While it still relies on the altruism of a more capable being it must still make the effort to live itself rather than relying solely on draining the host and therefor it is no longer a parasite.

It is an abstract concept and an instinctive drive in humans to protect what we percieve as a helpless infant however, objectively, it is owed no special treatment.

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The parasitic relationship ceases upon birth since the infant is capable of taking the said responsibility. Further to this the infant is also responsible for its own swallow function and waste management. While it still relies on the altruism of a more capable being it must still make the effort to live itself rather than relying solely on draining the host and therefor it is no longer a parasite.

It is an abstract concept and an instinctive drive in humans to protect what we percieve as a helpless infant however, objectively, it is owed no special treatment.

It’s a small point but one I’d still like to see elaborated upon.
Your premise seems to be that before birth we are dealing with a parasite since it provides nothing and is totally reliant on the mother to sustain its life, I fail to see how this is much different in the time immediately after birth. A newborn child is incapable of self-sustainment and relies on the resources of the mother for food(breastfeed for example), shelter and warmth without providing anything in return. Surely it still matches your definition of a parasite, its just on one or two additional tasks.
Perhaps it’s the element of choice which provides the difference for you in that a mother has no choice but to sustain the child before birth but after can afterwards abandon it (maternal instinct not withstanding) ? Ie. Is it the element of choice that you see as important matter ?

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It’s a small point but one I’d still like to see elaborated upon.
Your premise seems to be that before birth we are dealing with a parasite since it provides nothing and is totally reliant on the mother to sustain its life, I fail to see how this is much different in the time immediately after birth. A newborn child is incapable of self-sustainment and relies on the resources of the mother for food(breastfeed for example), shelter and warmth without providing anything in return. Surely it still matches your definition of a parasite, its just on one or two additional tasks.
Perhaps it’s the element of choice which provides the difference for you in that a mother has no choice but to sustain the child before birth but after can afterwards abandon it (maternal instinct not withstanding) ? Ie. Is it the element of choice that you see as important matter ?

Its the element of responsibility. Essentially the parasitic organism is not taking any responsibility for itself, it relies on anothe organism to do the work for it. Once it takes responsibility for its own breathing then it has the right to continue to do so without interference.

This is not the same as being fed etc since the relationship becomes a parent child/scenario where the parents gives the food but it is up to the child to swallow it and then excrete it. Also, at this point, there are emotional bonds etc developing which may be construed as being of mutual benefit creating a more symboitic rather than parasitic relationship.

My argument refers specifically to the gestation period and to "the right to life/responsibility for that life" paradigm.

I understand it may seem slightly cold to some.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote: »

I am not interested in debating the when does life begin issue.
Nice post Breu.
I am interested in debating the original post

I think we all agree that "killing a baby" is unacceptable. I'm certainly not interested in debating when a baby becomes a baby rather than a foetus - an argument that is interminable.

I am interested in why abortion is unacceptable to those atheists who find it unacceptable. I accept Calibos' argument from emotion as a valid post, but the argument over when an organism is 'parasitic' and when 'viable' is strictly off-topic. Please bear that in mind when posting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think we all agree that "killing a baby" is unacceptable. I'm certainly not interested in debating when a baby becomes a baby rather than a foetus - an argument that is interminable.

Surely thats the crux of it no? I'm not taking a stand here btw, i'm just curious as to when a baby is 'technically' a baby? Surely, even if I was an atheist I could present an anti-abortion stance based on this question? I am against abortion as I do believe its the killing of a baby, which is why i was asking, is there a 'scientific' stance on when you can call the child a human being? i don't want to carry it off down a pro -anti arguement, but is there an answer to my afore-mentioned question? As I said, I don't want opinion, I'm just checking if there is a scientific answer?

Zombrex

I believe, as anyone who has read my posts on this topic before, that the valuable quality of human existence is the consciousness, the "self", the "being", contained in the human brain.

Until a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm pro-choice

After a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm against abortion.

Do I know exactly when this actually happens in the development of the fetus? Nope, so don't even bother asking. I do know that it isn't when the child is a zygote or embryo, and I'm pretty sure it is before the child is born. As soon as the embryo starts to develop a brain that shows clear evidence of higher brain activity I start to get very nervous about the idea of aborting that child.

So people might say that this is too wishy-washy an argument to be useful, but then that is largely irrelevant. It is an argument from base principles, from the question "Why do humans deserve life and the protection of life?"

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I believe, as anyone who has read my posts on this topic before, that the valuable quality of human existence is the consciousness, the "self", the "being", contained in the human brain.

Until a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm pro-choice

After a baby has developed the ability to produce this I'm against abortion.

Do I know exactly when this actually happens in the development of the fetus? Nope, so don't even bother asking. I do know that it isn't when the child is a zygote or embryo, and I'm pretty sure it is before the child is born. As soon as the embryo starts to develop a brain that shows clear evidence of higher brain activity I start to get very nervous about the idea of aborting that child.

So people might say that this is too wishy-washy an argument to be useful, but then that is largely irrelevant. It is an argument from base principles, from the question "Why do humans deserve life and the protection of life?"

So am I to gather from this that there is no scientific answer? Sorry Scofflaw and Asiaprod, I'm not looking to debate this, I'd just like an answer and I'll be on my merry way.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

Surely thats the crux of it no? I'm not taking a stand here btw, i'm just curious as to when a baby is 'technically' a baby? Surely, even if I was an atheist I could present an anti-abortion stance based on this question? I am against abortion as I do believe its the killing of a baby, which is why i was asking, is there a 'scientific' stance on when you can call the child a human being? i don't want to carry it off down a pro -anti arguement, but is there an answer to my afore-mentioned question? As I said, I don't want opinion, I'm just checking if there is a scientific answer?

In brief, the problem is that there is no scientific answer. What defines a baby from a foetus is at root a matter of opinion.

We can take a scientifically measurable criterion, such as development of the organs, viability outside the mother, having tiny fingers and toes, etc etc - but each and every such criterion yields a slightly different answer.

The problem is that while the measurement we use can be scientific and objective, the reason for using that particular measurement isn't. In the reductio ad absurdum of such "scientific criteria" for determining whether something is a human being, we have to wait until the organism proves it can successfully interbreed with established Homo sapiens examples - because that is the only current definition of being a Homo sapiens, and "human beings" are currently defined as only Homo sapiens.

We can assume that the offspring is Homo sapiens, because its parents are Homo sapiens - but that is an assumption only, since we are bound by the logic of evolutionary theory to accept that reproductive lineages need not remain within a species boundary.

This is why the argument is interminable...because there is no universally established objectively measurable criterion for being a human being except the species test. All we can uncover by having such an argument is what people regard as the best defining test for 'humanity'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

In brief, the problem is that there is no scientific answer. What defines a baby from a foetus is at root a matter of opinion.

We can take a scientifically measurable criterion, such as development of the organs, viability outside the mother, having tiny fingers and toes, etc etc - but each and every such criterion yields a slightly different answer.

The problem is that while the measurement we use can be scientific and objective, the reason for using that particular measurement isn't. In the reductio ad absurdum of such "scientific criteria" for determining whether something is a human being, we have to wait until the organism proves it can successfully interbreed with established Homo sapiens examples - because that is the only current definition of being a Homo sapiens, and "human beings" are currently defined as only Homo sapiens.

We can assume that the offspring is Homo sapiens, because its parents are Homo sapiens - but that is an assumption only, since we are bound by the logic of evolutionary theory to accept that reproductive lineages need not remain within a species boundary.

This is why the argument is interminable...because there is no universally established objectively measurable criterion for being a human being except the species test. All we can uncover by having such an argument is what people regard as the best defining test for 'humanity'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So am I to gather from this that there is no scientific answer?

Depends on what you mean. Science will only give you an answer if you ask a specific question that has specific parameters.

It seems to be we haven't figured out what the specific question is yet. When we do the answer should be easy, relatively speaking.

Before one decides if an unborn child is or is not a "human being" (ie not just a human life form, but a being with rights), one has to look at how we first define a "human being", by asking the question what makes us, humans, special and deserving of rights and where these rights "live" in us (for want of a better word).

For example we turn off life support for brain dead humans, even if the body can be kept alive on life support. Why? What has happened to that person that we consider it perfectly acceptable to in essence, abort them?

Or another example, we transfer organs from one person to another, without transferring rights from one person to another. If I receive a kidney from a French person I don't get a French passport.

Pretty soon (ie next 100 years) a brain transplant may be possible. This raises the question of if your brain was transfered into another body, who would be "you" Would it be your old, brainless body, or would "you" be the brain that has gone into the new body (I would say it is the latter).

We have to know what a "human being" is defined by before we know if an unborn human is or is not a human being.

If we define this based on something testable then science can tell us when an unborn human becomes a "human being"

Scofflaw

So, coming right back round again - for those atheists who disagree with the abortion of foetuses, why?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

In brief, the problem is that there is no scientific answer.

Yes and we could go a step further and point out that there is no agreed defintion on what life actually is.

Aristotle said that a baby had a soul after 3 months if it was a man and nine months if it was female. This was the position by the RC Church until a certain Pope (can't remember name) decided it was the moment of conception.

The DNA for life is present the moment of conception, so some use this piece of scientific information to decide it is conception.
There is no change in the DNA code from this point on. The instructions to build the human are set.

But at that stage you can also put the embryo into the freezer.

Some people find it hard to reconcile the concept of putting life into the freezer for a long time and then putting by into the womb.

Crazy stuff really.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dades wrote: »

I'm somewhat abnostic.

However if it came to the crunch I would probably be pre-choice. But I would really hate to see it become a form of contraceptive for ignorant teens. Especially knowing personally good people who have had difficulty conceiving.

People commonly quote this, seems impossible to me.

Boy: "Lets have sex, you can have an abortion"

Girl: "Well actually I'd prefer a condom"

Boy: "We have none"

Girl "Morning after it is"

Now I'm not suggesting the morning after pill is a sensible method of contraception, I'm saying that if people were to use abortion as a contraception, why not use the morning after instead?

On the topic I'm pro-choice because it's the woman's body & no one else's business. I'd really rather they did it before the foetus has a nervous system. because I don't like the idea of unneccesary pain.

Fallen Seraph

To borrow Dades' phrase, I'm also abnostic. But I would perhaps lean a little towards the "abortion is wrong" side. I'm still very undecided on the matter though.

Were I to vote on the matter, however, I'd vote pro-choice, becuase while I don't necessarily agree with it, it's obvioulsly a matter on which some people legitimately believe in and so I feel that it's their business to decide what is morally correct.

Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

People commonly quote this, seems impossible to me.

Boy: "Lets have sex, you can have an abortion"

Girl: "Well actually I'd prefer a condom"

Boy: "We have none"

Girl "Morning after it is"

Now I'm not suggesting the morning after pill is a sensible method of contraception, I'm saying that if people were to use abortion as a contraception, why not use the morning after instead?

On the topic I'm pro-choice because it's the woman's body & no one else's business. I'd really rather they did it before the foetus has a nervous system. because I don't like the idea of unneccesary pain.

On that note, it appears that the incidence of abortion is lower where contraception and information is freely available. Legislation against abortion, on the other hand, does not affect the rate of abortion, but increases the death rate from it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

On that note, it appears that the incidence of abortion is lower where contraception and information is freely available. Legislation against abortion, on the other hand, does not affect the rate of abortion, but increases the death rate from it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Isn't the death rate from abortion always 100%? (From the baby's perspective)

Boston

I'm pro-life, and not for any religious or spiritual. When life begins or the business of souls I find irrelevant to a real world issue. when I say I'm pro-life, thats not really right, I'm more anti-pro choice.

PDN: The point being raise is that illegal back street abortions will happen anyway, however this puts the mother at a greater risk of death.

Bottle_of_Smoke: You're persuming a certain level of education on the reality of abortions. There are people with the attitude outlined.

Scofflaw

Boston wrote: »

I'm pro-life, and not for any religious or spiritual. When life begins or the business of souls I find irrelevant to a real world issue. when I say I'm pro-life, thats not really right, I'm more anti-pro choice.

So, why then? What are the non-religious, non-spiritual reasons for being 'anti-pro-choice'?

PDN wrote:

Isn't the death rate from abortion always 100%? (From the baby's perspective)

PDN, if you want to start a thread arguing the merits or criminality of abortion, by all means do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

I'm pro-choice because I could never make that kind of decision for another person/persons.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

PDN, if you want to start a thread arguing the merits or criminality of abortion, by all means do.

My mistake. I did not realise that this thread was confined to atheists. Since my opposition to abortion is primarily on non-religious grounds (it always causes death to another human being), and indeed preceded my conversion to Christianity, I had thought it was relevant. Apologies for intruding.

Boston

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, why then? What are the non-religious, non-spiritual reasons for being 'anti-pro-choice'?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm pro life because I just couldn't do it myself. It would kill me if someone I was with aborted my potential child. Its as simple as that, not big meaning of life stuff, I just know that when it came down to could I support that decision, no would be the answer. I can see how in certain situation that makes me out to be weak, but its at least honest.

karen3212 wrote: »

I'm pro-choice because I could never make that kind of decision for another person/persons.

You should really separate "I don't believe in abortion" from "I believe people should be legally forced not to have an abortion". You can be pro-life without the desire to control the actions of strangers. Time and time again people see pro-life as "I want to power to take decisions away from you". Actually all this pro choice and pro life talk is fairly miss leading, you can be pro-life and pro-choice without any conflicting believes.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

My mistake. I did not realise that this thread was confined to atheists. Since my opposition to abortion is primarily on non-religious grounds (it always causes death to another human being), and indeed preceded my conversion to Christianity, I had thought it was relevant. Apologies for intruding.

It's not confined to atheists, but I was hoping to avoid emotive statements like that one.

Essentially, your view is that the foetus is always a human being? Is that once implanted, or does it extend to the fertilised zygote?

cordially,
Scofflaw