Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism & Abortion

Options
13567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


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

    I think statements like the above are best kept to the Humanities forum, where this subjected has been discussed at great length more than once.

    Your above comment is emotive and prone to exaggeration in my view.
    An organism made up of a few cells is nothing more than that. It has the potential of growing into something more, but until then, it's a few cells. Cells die in and on our body daily.


  • Options
    #63
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    I'm against abortion as it's the ending of someones life and in principle this is a bad thing mmkay. I find it distasteful that those deciding on the ultimate fate of the unborn have safely passed through this phase of their life and are now happily condemning others passing through this phase to death. How many would be pro-choice if it meant they would be retroactively aborted.


  • Options
    #64
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Once again a debate on abortion, even one as civilised and reasoned this shows how blurred the lines are. When is a baby a foetus? When is a zygote a life? When does a foetus feel pain? etc.,

    With all these unanswered questions I think, for now, I'd like to remain on the side of caution and disagree with abortion, except where the life of the mother is threatened.


  • Options
    #65
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    MooseJam wrote: »
    How many would be pro-choice if it meant they would be retroactively aborted.

    Thats like saying, who would be pro-roads if it meant you would get knocked down while crossing them.

    Of course people are going to have a hard time giving up their existing life in order to facilitate peoples choice to not follow through with a pregnancy, but that proves nothing.


  • Options
    #66
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    PDN wrote:
    Isn't the death rate from abortion always 100%? (From the baby's perspective)
    Scofflaw wrote:
    I was hoping to avoid emotive statements like that one.
    Beruthiel wrote:
    I think statements like the above are best kept to the Humanities forum, where this subjected has been discussed at great length more than once.

    Your above comment is emotive and prone to exaggeration in my view.
    An organism made up of a few cells is nothing more than that. It has the potential of growing into something more, but until then, it's a few cells. Cells die in and on our body daily.

    Why are words like 'baby', 'human being' and 'death' considered emotional? We have already stated that there is no scientific answer as to when a foetus can be considered a baby. So why are words like 'termination' preferable to 'death'? Imagine if we used language in a similar way when talking about the mothers - that illegal abortions will result in more "female humanoids becoming non-viable". Such euphemisms would create an outcry, because we are framing the debate in such a way as to have prejudged at outset that the mother is fully human but her baby is not.

    As for the argument that foetus is a "few cells", doesn't that apply to every living thing? Isn't your brain a clump of cells?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    well you should be prepared to accept the same fate as that you would put onto others


  • Options
    #68
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    MooseJam wrote: »
    well you should be prepared to accept the same fate as that you would put onto others

    Removed my comment because I'm just getting silly now.
    Apologies.


  • Options
    #69
    Crucifix
    Registered Users Posts: 3,437 ✭✭✭Crucifix


    By retroactive abortion do you mean killing them now, or time travelling abortionists?

    The whole debate tends to hinge on timing really, so I don't think the former is necessarily comparable.


  • Options
    #70
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    Crucifix wrote: »
    By retroactive abortion do you mean killing them now, or time travelling abortionists?

    The whole debate tends to hinge on timing really, so I don't think the former is nessicerly comparable.

    Exactly, and besides he is talking about someone agreeing to kill themselves to facilitate a choice that I feel someone should be able to make.
    Why should I have to hypotecially kill myself just because I feel that someone should be allowed to make a choice to terminate a pregnancy.
    I do not consider it to be a living human being in the first trimester at least and do not consider it to be similar to killing a human.
    Crucifix wrote: »
    well you should be prepared to accept the same fate as that you would put onto others.

    Yes but "others" implies that they are people but I don't think they are at that stage.


  • Options
    #71
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Crucifix wrote: »
    By retroactive abortion do you mean killing them now, or time travelling abortionists?

    The whole debate tends to hinge on timing really, so I don't think the former is necessarily comparable.

    either, just that their life would come to an end, how many would be pro-choice if the same fate that they wish to put upon others would await them


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Crucifix
    Registered Users Posts: 3,437 ✭✭✭Crucifix


    MooseJam wrote: »
    either, just that their life would come to an end, how many would be pro-choice if the same fate that they wish to put upon others would await them
    I think they're very different things. I'm not sure where I stand on abortion, but I don't think I'd care about opening myself up to the possibility of time travelling abortionists, but I'd certainly care if someone tried to kill me now because I wasn't wanted then.

    In the time travelling case it gets into the vagueness about what constitutes the person. Even if you were to go back in time and delay my parents from conceiving me you would have killed me. A different sperm and egg, a different person.


  • Options
    #73
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Conar wrote: »
    Yes but "others" implies that they are people but I don't think they are at that stage.

    I'd consider an unborn baby to be in a similar position to a sleeping person, both are going to awaken, just at different times, the sleeping person will awaken in a few hours, the unborn in a few months. Why can't I kill a sleeping person, are they human ? how much brain activity is there there if any ?


  • Options
    #74
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    MooseJam wrote: »
    I'd consider an unborn baby to be in a similar position to a sleeping person, both are going to awaken, just at different times, the sleeping person will awaken in a few hours, the unborn in a few months. Why can't I kill a sleeping person, are they human ? how much brain activity is there there if any ?

    Pretty much none for the first month or two in a fetus. In a sleeping person, there is a lot of brain activity. The difference is so profound I find the comparison absurd.

    As for wanting to kill people now, we are talking about abortion, not murder/homicide.


  • Options
    #75
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PDN wrote: »
    Why are words like 'baby', 'human being' and 'death' considered emotional? We have already stated that there is no scientific answer as to when a foetus can be considered a baby. So why are words like 'termination' preferable to 'death'? Imagine if we used language in a similar way when talking about the mothers - that illegal abortions will result in more "female humanoids becoming non-viable". Such euphemisms would create an outcry, because we are framing the debate in such a way as to have prejudged at outset that the mother is fully human but her baby is not.

    Indeed - but then the phrase "Isn't the death rate from abortion always 100%? (From the baby's perspective)" also begs exactly the same question. Since virtually no-one wishes to kill babies, but not everyone defines a foetus as a baby, you preclude argument by assuming every abortion involves a baby.
    PDN wrote: »
    As for the argument that foetus is a "few cells", doesn't that apply to every living thing? Isn't your brain a clump of cells?

    If thine eye offendeth thee, pluck it out! Wait, that's some cells too, with human DNA. Hmm, what about cancers? What about your appendix?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #76
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    MooseJam wrote: »
    either, just that their life would come to an end, how many would be pro-choice if the same fate that they wish to put upon others would await them

    By the same logic, every act of contraception kills a potential human life.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #77
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Lets keep time traveling out of this, its of topic.
    Thanks
    Asia


  • Options
    #78
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Pretty much none for the first month or two in a fetus. In a sleeping person, there is a lot of brain activity. The difference is so profound I find the comparison absurd.

    There is as much consciousness in a non dreaming sleeper as there is in a foetus


  • Options
    #79
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    MooseJam wrote: »
    There is as much consciousness in a non dreaming sleeper as there is in a foetus

    Except someone asleep has a brain and a fetus(early)... doesn't.


  • Options
    #80
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Have to say, from a non-emotive side. If scientifically, the moment that the life begins cannot be defined, then surely its irresponsible to think its not a person?? At the risk of it murdering a defenceless person no? Pain, feeling etc has little to do with it. From a non emotive, atheist stance, surely its logical to conclude that you do not wish to risk it being murder?


  • Options
    #81
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Except someone asleep has a brain and a fetus(early)... doesn't.

    yes, a brain thats going to start working again in a few hours, and the foetus will have a working brain in a few months, the only difference is time


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    MooseJam wrote: »
    I'd consider an unborn baby to be in a similar position to a sleeping person, both are going to awaken, just at different times, the sleeping person will awaken in a few hours, the unborn in a few months. Why can't I kill a sleeping person, are they human ? how much brain activity is there there if any ?

    In what way are they similar?
    You're going a little loopy if you think that a fertalized egg is similar to a sleeping person.
    If you wanted to compare them to a person that has suffered severe brain damage and is lieing motionless and thoughtless on a hospital bed while hooked up to a life support machine then I think you would be closer to the mark, but still way off.
    Regardless I will use that comparison and say that yes, you may kill that person too.


  • Options
    #83
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    MooseJam wrote: »
    yes, a brain thats going to start working again in a few hours, and the foetus will have a working brain in a few months, the only difference is time

    Yes but the first will have memories, experiences, family, loved ones, a job, sexual desire and pretty much everything else that differentiates between a foetus and a person.


  • Options
    #84
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Conar wrote: »
    Yes but the first will have memories, experiences, family, loved ones, a job, sexual desire and pretty much everything else that differentiates between a foetus and a person.

    We should be grateful that the Celtic Tiger and Viagra can combine to help us retain our humanity then.


  • Options
    #85
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Conar wrote: »
    Yes but the first will have memories, experiences, family, loved ones, a job, sexual desire and pretty much everything else that differentiates between a foetus and a person.

    they have the potential to have all those thing, if left unharmed, as will the foetus


  • Options
    #86
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    MooseJam wrote: »
    they have the potential to have all those thing, if left unharmed, as will the foetus

    Yes but potential to be something and being it are 2 very different things.
    Every child in poverty stricken parts of Africa has the potential for better things but reality dictates that this will not usually happen.
    I think that the energy spent by some factions trying to stop abortion would be much better spent looking after the needy that are already suffering in our grossly overpopulated world.


  • Options
    #87
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Conar wrote: »
    Yes but potential to be something and being it are 2 very different things.
    Every child in poverty stricken parts of Africa has the potential for better things but reality dictates that this will not usually happen.
    I think that the energy spent by some factions trying to stop abortion would be much better spent looking after the needy that are already suffering in our grossly overpopulated world.

    Indeed, the energy could be better spent increasing access to contraception, since that's the only thing that actually reduces the rate of abortion. Making it illegal merely increases the risk to the mother.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #88
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    PDN wrote: »
    We should be grateful that the Celtic Tiger and Viagra can combine to help us retain our humanity then.

    Sorry but that's gone right over my head, can you explain what you mean?
    (I hope its not an obvious one that I'll kick myself over :D)


  • Options
    #89
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    MooseJam wrote: »
    they have the potential to have all those thing, if left unharmed, as will the foetus

    You know what else we have the potential for? Death. So using your little argument from potential, it doesn't matter a damn what we do to the fetus since we'll all end up under the ground anyway. The only difference is time.


  • Options
    #90
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Indeed, the energy could be better spent increasing access to contraception, since that's the only thing that actually reduces the rate of abortion. Making it illegal merely increases the risk to the mother.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    equally the energy spent fighting the case for abortion could be better spent in the same way :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Indeed, the energy could be better spent increasing access to contraception, since that's the only thing that actually reduces the rate of abortion. Making it illegal merely increases the risk to the mother.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Exactly, I wouldn't be opposed to having much more access to birth control.
    In fact, in the Netherlands they start their sex-ed as young as 5 years old, concentrating at first on matters of love etc.
    We should raise awareness about pregnacy, contreception, STD's....get rid of the taboo's of discussing sex etc and tackle matters that way, not try to stop women that accidentally found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy from chosing to have it terminated.

    Like it or not we have an overpopulated world and our resources are already overstretched, its about time we even started to stop and think about the morality of being anything above population neutral (2 kid per couple).


Advertisement