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
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Conar wrote: »
    Exactly, I wouldn't be opposed to having much more access to birth control.

    Not just access, but education. The amount of people who think it's ok to leave a condom in a wallet for ages...
    It would be great if there were no abortions, because there were no unwanted pregnancies


  • Options
    #93
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


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

    Agreed.
    I see no need for the sarcy eyes there though.
    Regardless I feel that there is a lot more reasoning behind fighting to allow someone the choice to not have their child, than fighting to stop the same person from having a child that you'll never give a **** about once it is born.
    There is more compassion in not wanting to see another neglected child in the world than wanting to see it born cos you don't agree with abortion IMO.


  • Options
    #94
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    bluewolf wrote: »
    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.

    As i said previously. If science can't tell you when its a person, then surely its possible that you are actually murdering a person? The key phrase here being, 'it is possible'. I understand that you believe its not a person, but judging by what has been said as regards not being scientifically able to define such a thing, your definition is just based on your own feelings about it? maybe? Surely you can't berate someone who says it is a person, if you seem certain its not?


  • Options
    #95
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Conar wrote: »
    There is more compassion in not wanting to see another neglected child in the world than wanting to see it born cos you don't agree with abortion IMO.

    ask all the neglected children in the world would they rather be dead, I'm sure nearly 100% would be happy to continue living


  • Options
    #96
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    JimiTime wrote: »
    As i said previously. If science can't tell you when its a person, then surely its possible that you are actually murdering a person?
    Not when it doesn't have a functioning brain, no
    The key phrase here being, 'it is possible'. I understand that you believe its not a person, but judging by what has been said as regards not being scientifically able to define such a thing, your definition is just based on your own feelings about it? maybe? Surely you can't berate someone who says it is a person, if you seem certain its not?
    I wasn't berating anyone. I was pointing out the problem with an argument from potential, which is different to what you are saying.
    MJ wrote:
    ask all the neglected children in the world would they rather be dead, I'm sure nearly 100% would be happy to continue living
    When you learn to communicate somehow with a fetus that doesn't have/barely developing a brain and can ask it questions, then we'll take that as a direct comparision. Otherwise, it doesn't work


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    bluewolf wrote: »
    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.

    lol I think you are getting ahead of yourself there, I never said it makes no odds because we all end up dead, thats your idea.


  • Options
    #98
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Conar wrote: »
    There is more compassion in not wanting to see another neglected child in the world than wanting to see it born cos you don't agree with abortion IMO.

    Oh Dear! Where do you draw the line. Blindness? Deafness? Down Syndrome? Not having an xbox? Needs more thought IMO.


  • Options
    #99
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I wasn't berating anyone. I was pointing out the problem with an argument from potential, which is different to what you are saying.

    No, i wasn't referring to your potential arguement with MJ. I was referring to you defining 'person'. Its not based on science, so its based on what you think? no? My point is, if you can't be certain, then it there is a risk that you are murdering a person? Again key phrase, 'risk that you are'.


  • Options
    #100
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Conar wrote: »
    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)

    If sexual desire and a job are among the things that make us truly human, as opposed to a foetus, then the things that help you maintain said job and desire are helping to keep you human.


  • Options
    #101
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Conar wrote: »
    There is more compassion in not wanting to see another neglected child in the world than wanting to see it born cos you don't agree with abortion IMO.

    And if an unborn child is not really a person then that makes sense. If, however, the unborn child is a person then that changes everything. You might as well say that there is more compassion in not wanting to see another neglected child than wanting to see it continue to live in poverty because you don't agree with infanticide.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PDN wrote: »
    If sexual desire and a job are among the things that make us truly human, as opposed to a foetus, then the things that help you maintain said job and desire are helping to keep you human.

    Perhaps you'd like to outline for me the case that a foetus is the same as an adult human being? As opposed to, say, one of your fingers.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #103
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    PDN wrote: »
    And if an unborn child is not really a person then that makes sense. If, however, the unborn child is a person then that changes everything. You might as well say that there is more compassion in not wanting to see another neglected child than wanting to see it continue to live in poverty because you don't agree with infanticide.

    Which is the impass that I suppose we'll always meet on this.
    It always boils down to whether or at what stage you believe it to be a person.


  • Options
    #104
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Conar wrote: »
    It always boils down to whether or at what stage you believe it to be a person.

    Again I reiterate. If there is doubt whether its a person or not, surely one should air on the side of caution at the risk of murdering someone? no?


  • Options
    #105
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again I reiterate. If there is doubt whether its a person or not, surely one should air on the side of caution at the risk of murdering someone? no?

    Yes and no. It is not that we cannot tell that the zygote or the early stage embryos are not 'persons' in the sense that adults (or babies) are 'persons'. We can.

    What we cannot define very exactly is where the transition takes place - and there indeed most of us err on the side of caution.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #106
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again I reiterate. If there is doubt whether its a person or not, surely one should air on the side of caution at the risk of murdering someone? no?

    I don't doubt it to be the potential making of a human being, but I do not consider it to be one yet.
    Perhaps it is down to my lack of belief in the human soul that makes me so apparently cold, or maybe your belief in one that makes you so adament.

    I wouldn't ever knowingly squash a snail, nor would I trample a flower, yet I wouldn't feel bad about seperating snails about to get funky, nor would I feel any wrong doing in not planting a seed in my garden.

    Thats really what it boils down to for me.
    I apologise if it seems wrong to you but I think it would take a lot to change my mind on this I reckon.


  • Options
    #107
    clally
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭clally


    i am an atheist and i am pro-choice.

    Firstly i have to say, I think it is interesting that so far the focus has largely been on the foetus and its status as a living person. It seems for many the case for or against abortion rests on such issues, without consideration of the other persons involved namely mother and father... both real live functioning beings!

    I would argue for abortion because of the right to a woman's bodily integrity. To my mind those who are against a women's right to choose believe that the foetus is actually superior to her right to control her body and her life.

    On the original issue of atheists being against abortion i would think their argument is not totally distinct from the majority of religious people (by which i mean people who believe in god, an afterlife etc., etc., but don't necessarily believe that homosexuality is wrong or that contraception is a breach of gods greater plan) simply that it is wrong to kill any life whatever its form.

    I think the majority of people would regard this as an issue of morality or maybe even ethics rather than religion.

    I'd be interested to know if anyone is anti-abortion on the grounds of religion alone...? ie., the bible says its wrong!

    Excellent thread, very interesting and wide ranging.


  • Options
    #108
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    clally wrote: »
    I'd be interested to know if anyone is anti-abortion on the grounds of religion alone...? ie., the bible says its wrong!

    An interesting question, but I fear that if we raise it here we will wind up debating the existence of God...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #109
    karen3212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 668 ✭✭✭karen3212


    Boston wrote: »
    .
    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.

    Ok well in order then,
    I am pro the life of the mother
    I am pro the life of the millions children suffering in pain and poverty around the world,
    I don't see the foetus as a human life, so I am would put it last in order of preference for pro-ness.

    So yeah, I want the mother/father to be able to choose for themselves, as I would put the foetus last in order of preference for myself, so almost pro abortion if you will, but I wouldn't have anyone else forced to have one.


  • Options
    #110
    Conar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭Conar


    karen3212 wrote: »
    Ok well in order then,
    I am pro the life of the mother
    I am pro the life of the millions children suffering in pain and poverty around the world,
    I don't see the foetus as a human life, so I am would put it last in order of preference for pro-ness.

    So yeah, I want the mother/father to be able to choose for themselves, as I would put the foetus last in order of preference for myself, so almost pro abortion if you will, but I wouldn't have anyone else forced to have one.

    Ditto


  • Options
    #111
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    karen3212 wrote: »
    Ok well in order then,
    I am pro the life of the mother
    I am pro the life of the millions children suffering in pain and poverty around the world,
    I don't see the foetus as a human life, so I am would put it last in order of preference for pro-ness.

    So yeah, I want the mother/father to be able to choose for themselves, as I would put the foetus last in order of preference for myself, so almost pro abortion if you will, but I wouldn't have anyone else forced to have one.

    I don't get why you have the "millions of children" comment in there, its rather emotive and irrelevant. Also I don't see how having the foetus at the lowest priority equates to being pro-abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I'm pro-choice to a degree.

    Women usually know within a couple of months - way before viability - that they are pregnant. Most would know whether they wanted the baby in the first trimester. Women who get pregnant & do not want to carry a baby to term should have the right to abort - demanding the mother carry the child to term, give birth & then hand the child over to another family is not fair on the mother & not really taking into consideration the baggage an adopted child carries around with them (Well, it doesn't matter that mummy & daddy didn't want you - at least you are here at all, kind of thing). Unnecessary to inflict on either party at that stage.

    When you get into territory of viability & women waiting 7months to decide they don't want to be pregnant (does this actually happen?) then I stop agreeing with their choice & I think adoption would be a more suitable alternative in that situation.

    Viability, rights to life, adoption, abortion...all very emotive topics & there is not black & white, right or wrong, I think. For the most part I think my right not to carry a child that cannot survive without me & that I don't want, outweighs the rights of the child in the first few months at least.


  • Options
    #113
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Why 2 months and not 7 months?


  • Options
    #114
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Was that aimed at me? Did I not say in my post? Viability.


  • Options
    #115
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    foetus will generally not be able to survive on its own at 7 months. Some have been know to, but its certainly not the norm.


  • Options
    #116
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Yeah, it has been known - 2 months or 7 months is the difference between destroying a foetus who will not survive outside the mother & one that could - that's where it all goes a bit grey for me.

    Maybe it's easier to say my stance is that I don't think women should be granted an abortion at any stage in pregnancy & for any reason. I'm pro-choice in early pregnancy when there is no argument for viability. :)


  • Options
    #117
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    What about a situation where it becomes known that the child will be retarded?


  • Options
    #118
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    What about it?


  • Options
    #119
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I don't think women should be granted an abortion at any stage in pregnancy & for any reason.
    Boston wrote: »
    What about a situation where it becomes known that the child will be retarded?

    Would you agree with a later abortion in the circumstances where a child is likely to be born retarded.


  • Options
    #120
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Just to clarify, perhaps my post should have read
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Maybe it's easier to say my stance is that I don't think women should be granted an abortion at any stage THEY WANT in pregnancy & for JUST any reason. I'm pro-choice in early pregnancy when there is no argument for viability. :)

    I think your question is a different question altogether rather than the one of abortion Vs no abortion. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Just to clarify, perhaps my post should have read
    Maybe it's easier to say my stance is that I don't think women should be granted an abortion at any stage THEY WANT in pregnancy & for JUST any reason. I'm pro-choice in early pregnancy when there is no argument for viability.

    That's quite a clarification! I had taken your position to be the reverse of what you indicate...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement