Atheism & Abortion

Ickle Magoo

Sorry - made perfect sense until I was reading back once posted.

I don't think a woman should be able to walk into a clinic at 34wks & demand an abortion. I do think abortions should be freely & legally available in the first trimester no questions asked. Anything outside of those parameters I'm not so sure on. Does that make any more sense?

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry - made perfect sense until I was reading back once posted.

I don't think a woman should be able to walk into a clinic at 34wks & demand an abortion. I do think abortions should be freely & legally available in the first trimester no questions asked. Anything outside of those parameters I'm not so sure on. Does that make any more sense?

Well, it makes sense to me - but then it's very close to my position on the matter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

coffee_cake

MooseJam wrote: »

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.

You were arguing from potential and saying the only difference is time.
Extending your argument, we're all potentially dead and the only difference is time.
Deal with what a fetus is in the here and now, not what it might possibly be in the future.

Jimitime wrote:

...the risk of murdering someone?

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being - if abortion is legal it's therefore not murder.

Rev Hellfire

Boston wrote: »

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

I'm curious what your stance on this matter is in particular should the 'acceptable' period for an abortion be extended in such a case ? And if so why ?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

I did not say it is the same as an adult human being.

What is it be human? It is obviously not to have a job, to have sexual desires etc, otherwise the unemployed or those uninterested in sex would be less human than the employed and the libidinous.

Neither does viability confer humanity. A paraplegic hooked up to a ventilator may suffer an impaired quality of life, and be dependent upon machines to keep them alive, but they are still human.

Simply looking like a human does not confer humanity. A human being can look distinctly inhuman (eg Brian Cowen).

None of us really knows where humanity begins. (I am speaking here in the context of this thread, ignoring any religious pronouncements on the matter). I have no doubt that when I could feel my daughter kicking inside my wife's womb she was already human. Therefore I reject the moment of birth as being that which confers personhood. I also have no doubt that a sperm or an unfertilised egg are not people. Whatever makes someone a person occurs at some point between the two. That may be conception, or it may be later in pregnancy.

I think it is wiser to err on the side of caution. I have always been opposed to abortion, no matter how early, for similar reasons as to why I think it is wrong to drive after drinking any alcohol, no matter how small the quantity. As soon as we take the 'just one glass of wine won't put you over the limit' approach, then I believe we are taking unacceptable risks and risk killing little unborn people.

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being - if abortion is legal it's therefore not murder.

So the Inquisition didn't murder anyone because laws were in place permitting such killings?

Saddam Hussein argued in court that he could not be charged with murder because, as President of Iraq, he actually had the legal right to kill anyone. A similar argument was used by defendants at Nuremberg.

coffee_cake

PDN wrote: »

So the Inquisition didn't murder anyone because laws were in place permitting such killings?

Saddam Hussein argued in court that he could not be charged with murder because, as President of Iraq, he actually had the legal right to kill anyone. A similar argument was used by defendants at Nuremberg.

There's moral ideas and there's legal definitions

Saddam Hussein et al have nothing to do with abortion or me trying to state a well-used definition, afaik, so give it a rest

Boston

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious what your stance on this matter is in particular should the 'acceptable' period for an abortion be extended in such a case ? And if so why ?

Theres never a time where I'll agree with abortion, That its ok, no harm done. So really I see the business of talking about 2 months Vs 7 months as pointless. I am, however, able to separate principals and harsh reality though. I fully recognise that for some, abortion is the best options, while for others its the only option. I'd rather live in a world where there was genuinely no need for abortions then one where women are criminalised for having them.

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

There's moral ideas and there's legal definitions

Saddam Hussein et al have nothing to do with abortion or me trying to state a well-used definition, afaik, so give it a rest

They have plenty to do with your definition of murder. You quibble with someone else using the word 'murder' on the grounds that murder must be illegal. That's fine so long as you are consistent and never use 'murder' to refer to actions that were technically legal. Otherwise it is hypocrisy.

coffee_cake

PDN wrote: »

They have plenty to do with your definition of murder.

My definition? Is the rest of the world using a different one? The last few dictionaries I checked, murder is unlawful killing. I simply wanted to correct the term, just like I tend to correct the general use of "theory" when people talk about evolution.
I don't care if he says "abortion is wrong".

You quibble with someone else using the word 'murder' on the grounds that murder must be illegal.

Murder is illegal by definition of the word; it's not a synonym for "wrong"

That's fine so long as you are consistent and never use 'murder' to refer to actions that were technically legal. Otherwise it is hypocrisy.

Ok...?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I did not say it is the same as an adult human being.

What is it be human? It is obviously not to have a job, to have sexual desires etc, otherwise the unemployed or those uninterested in sex would be less human than the employed and the libidinous.

Neither does viability confer humanity. A paraplegic hooked up to a ventilator may suffer an impaired quality of life, and be dependent upon machines to keep them alive, but they are still human.

Simply looking like a human does not confer humanity. A human being can look distinctly inhuman (eg Brian Cowen).

None of us really knows where humanity begins. (I am speaking here in the context of this thread, ignoring any religious pronouncements on the matter). I have no doubt that when I could feel my daughter kicking inside my wife's womb she was already human. Therefore I reject the moment of birth as being that which confers personhood. I also have no doubt that a sperm or an unfertilised egg are not people. Whatever makes someone a person occurs at some point between the two. That may be conception, or it may be later in pregnancy.

I think it is wiser to err on the side of caution. I have always been opposed to abortion, no matter how early, for similar reasons as to why I think it is wrong to drive after drinking any alcohol, no matter how small the quantity. As soon as we take the 'just one glass of wine won't put you over the limit' approach, then I believe we are taking unacceptable risks and risk killing little unborn people.

Well, that's a longer version of JimiTime's argument. Perhaps this is where the atheism kicks in for me.

Essentially, you are asking an adult woman (adult only in the sense of born, in this case) to definitely make unwanted changes to their one life, on the off-chance that we might be killing a person.

I appreciate that not everyone accepts you can look at fractions of lives, but that's the way I think about it. If the probability that we're killing a person through abortion is 10%, and on the other side we're asking someone to change 80% of their life, that's the way I would weight the scales.

Preventing someone who wants to have an abortion from having an abortion is not a neutral option.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo

Boston wrote: »

Theres never a time where I'll agree with abortion, That its ok, no harm done. So really I see the business of talking about 2 months Vs 7 months as pointless. I am, however, able to separate principals and harsh reality though. I fully recognise that for some, abortion is the best options, while for others its the only option. I'd rather live in a world where there was genuinely no need for abortions then one where women are criminalised for having them.

Tho funnily enough I don't think whether a child is below average for learning motor skills or language is ever a good reason to abort. Congenital or genetic conditions that would render a child's quality of life as pretty near zero is not, however, retardation.

Boston

Handicapped then, for clarities sake.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not following you Boston, you seem to have an anti-abortion stance then you threw in a Q about handicapped babies. Does your stance change if the child is found to be handicapped?

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

My definition? Is the rest of the world using a different one? The last few dictionaries I checked, murder is unlawful killing.

Apparently you are using different dictionaries to the rest of the world. Most English dictionaries cite legality as a condition of 'murder' as a noun, but also include 'murder' as a transitive verb where legality is not part of the definition. Jimi used the word 'murder' as a transitive verb, not as a noun.

The problem with being pedantic is that you generally meet someone else who is even more pedantic. It's annoying, I know, but those who live by the sword die by the sword (Ooops! Sorry, I'm trying to keep the Bible out of my posts on this thread.)

Boston

It was a challenge to you about the viability comment. To knowingly either end or deliberately bring into existence, a disabled child , is a difficult decision, with no real 'right' answer.

coffee_cake

PDN wrote: »

Apparently you are using different dictionaries to the rest of the world. Most English dictionaries cite legality as a condition of 'murder' as a noun, but also include 'murder' as a transitive verb where legality is not part of the definition. Jimi used the word 'murder' as a transitive verb, not as a noun.

In that case, I stand corrected.
Now perhaps next time you correct someone, you can do it without bringing Saddam Hussein, the inquistion, and whatever else into it so it could be cleared up more quickly.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, that's a longer version of JimiTime's argument. Perhaps this is where the atheism kicks in for me.

Essentially, you are asking an adult woman (adult only in the sense of born, in this case) to definitely make unwanted changes to their one life, on the off-chance that we might be killing a person.

I appreciate that not everyone accepts you can look at fractions of lives, but that's the way I think about it. If the probability that we're killing a person through abortion is 10%, and on the other side we're asking someone to change 80% of their life, that's the way I would weight the scales.

Preventing someone who wants to have an abortion from having an abortion is not a neutral option.

Yes, I think it is reasonable to ask people to inconvenience themselves (thereby making unwanted changes to their lives) in order to avoid the possibility of killing people.

I agree that we all weigh these matters up in terms of percentages. Every time you drive a motor vehicle you run the slight risk of crashing & killing someone. However, most of still drive because the huge inconvenience of never driving outweighs the tiny risk of causing a fatality. Equally, most of us (I hope) would avoid driving while drunk because the smaller inconvenience of avoiding driving on that one occasion is outweighed by the increased risk of killing someone.

I guess you see the inconvenience as outweighing the risk when it comes to abortion. I do not.

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

In that case, I stand corrected.
Now perhaps next time you correct someone, you can do it without bringing Saddam Hussein, the inquistion, and whatever else into it so it could be cleared up more quickly.

I'm just addicted to picturesque language and vivid illustrations. I'm a preacher - I can't help myself.

Ickle Magoo

Boston wrote: »

It was a challenge to you about the viability comment. To knowingly either end or deliberately bring into existence, a disabled child , is a difficult decision, with no real 'right' answer.

Viability of a baby at X wks has absolutely sod all to do with whether on not they may be disabled - I'm still not following your challenge. I don't agree with aborting a child because they are not "perfect", regardless.

Ickle Magoo

Before I get myself into more trouble...I mean I don't think that abortion should be used to pick & choose the children born unless it's in the best interest of the child - not because the parents don't want a handicapped child. It's a whole other issue of designer babies, really.

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Viability of a baby at X wks has absolutely sod all to do with whether on not they may be disabled - I'm still not following your challenge. I don't agree with aborting a child because they are not "perfect", regardless.

It's an extension of the argument for the rights of the parents. Bringing up a disabled child is a much larger burden, and therefore impacts the lives of the parents more. They won't be adopted, and the State may be less than helpful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

Boston wrote: »

I don't get why you have the "millions of children" comment in there, its rather emotive and irrelevant.

Well you see, when I saw the other people jumping off the bridge, I jumped off too.

Rev Hellfire

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's an extension of the argument for the rights of the parents. Bringing up a disabled child is a much larger burden, and therefore impacts the lives of the parents more. They won't be adopted, and the State may be less than helpful.

An interesting response and true one. Bringing up a disabled child certainly is a more challenging task.
But there is a worrying undertone in this that if I'm honest I find somewhat objectionable.
The time limit placed on abortion is there to prevent the termination of a person, anything later and the assumption is that this is a 'person'. But in the case of a handicapped child (and the severity hasn't been specified) this is extended to avoid burdening the parents?
Infering here that a disabled child is less worthy and we can thus move the bar forward?

note: This isn't aimed at Scofflaw post, they just presented a more honest response than others on the issue (imho).

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

An interesting response and true one. Bringing up a disabled child certainly is a more challenging task.
But there is a worrying undertone in this that if I'm honest I find somewhat objectionable.
The time limit placed on abortion is there to prevent the termination of a person, anything later and the assumption is that this is a 'person'. But in the case of a handicapped child (and the severity hasn't been specified) this is extended to avoid burdening the parents?
Infering here that a disabled child is less worthy and we can thus move the bar forward?

note: This isn't aimed at Scofflaw post, they just presented a more honest response than others on the issue (imho).

Which, by inference, leads to the subject of infanticide. If a child's life, or its parents' burden, is affected by disability, then what is the difference between terminating life before birth or after birth?

Of course if you conclude that personhood begins at the point of birth, this is not a problem. You allow abortion up to the last minute before delivery, but not a moment after. If you believe personhood to begin in the womb, then it seems difficult to me to see how you can justify allowing later abortions for a disabled unborn.

Once we allow for the destruction of a human life because it is less valuable, or creates a greater burden on others, then where do we stop? Capital punishment for criminals? Killing female children because they are less valuable economically & will experience more poverty (statistically true in many parts of the world)? Euthanasia for the long-term unemployed?

Gurgle

'Pro-choice', its such a lovely phrase. Gives a nice warm feeling of liberty, democracy and freedom. Probably the best PR trick ever pulled off to link it to killing unwanted babies.

Well I'm pro choice: If you choose not to have a child, don't get pregnant. If you screw up and get pregnant, then choose to give it up for adoption. Theres thousands of couples in this country who would give up everything to have a child, but the only choice they have is to spend years trying to adopt one from asia.

I'm a liberal and pro pretty much everything from divorce to homosexuality, even euthanasia. Anything where everyone involved gets to make their decision. This doesn't include abortion.

Call a spade a spade: Pro-abortion
Pro-abortion isn't about 'the rest of your life'. Its about the six months or so when pregnancy actually affects your life. Its about the stigma attached to having a baby and giving it up. You can have an abortion without anyone knowing, you can't hide a 9-month bump.

Its all about the morality of convenience, you can justify anything that suits you. You can make your arguement that a zygote only becomes a human being when its becomes a foetus, or that a foetus isn't human until its born.

In my reasoned opinion (to be duly ignored by those who it doesn't suit) a human being is created at conception. Any other point to make the distinction is purely arbitrary.

And yes, I am an athiest. And a father.

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote: »

How many would be pro-choice if it meant they would be retroactively aborted.

That is a bit of a non-argument.

You talk about giving up our life for the principle of abortion.

But the whole point is that there is not yet something to give up.

If I don't have sex tonight (a strong possibility) and don't produce a child from that sex that means I'm denying the right to existence to that potential child. Does the child mind? Nope, he doesn't exist to mind. No one would care, because a hypothetical existence isn't an existence at all. If you have never existed in the first place you aren't around to care about not existing.

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

No that isn't the only difference. The sleeping person already has a personality to wake up to. This already exists, it is just in a different state.

The consciousness/personality/personhood (what ever you want to call it) in the foetus has not yet been created.

If this is the property that people hold as the valuable aspect of human existence (which I do) then a "human being" with all the rights associated with that consciousness has not yet been created, and if this process is stopped before it is then nothing that demands rights has been destroyed since it has yet to exist.

It doesn't actually matter if you stop this from being created 5 minutes before it would be or 5 years before it would be.

Boston

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Viability of a baby at X wks has absolutely sod all to do with whether on not they may be disabled - I'm still not following your challenge. I don't agree with aborting a child because they are not "perfect", regardless.

How much experience do you have with dealing with handicapped children? This is not a case off "my baby doesn't have blue eyes, i'll abort".

Rev Hellfire : I didn't specify severity since we're talking about the real world here. Often doctors can not tell you the severity only that theres a high chance that something is wrong. From previous experiences they can give indications of severity, but nothing more.

regardless I asked the questions because I knew someone would reply along the lines of PDN and yourself, about the burden of the parents and how you can't deem one life to be less valuable then another merely due to disability. However, we're not talking about the value of life, pro-choice would argue its not a life, and pro-life would argue it is. We're skirting around the issue here, the ugly ugly truth is that some children are better off never been born. They are born into a life which only knows pain and suffering with no hope of a better future. I'd find it really really difficult to knowingly bring a disabled child into the world, and only because I've first hand experience of what its like on the child and the family. I'm not going to try and justify that with 'Its not a life', it absolutely is one.

Ciaran500

Gurgle wrote: »

'Pro-choice', its such a lovely phrase. Gives a nice warm feeling of liberty, democracy and freedom. Probably the best PR trick ever pulled off to link it to killing unwanted babies.

Just like "pro-life"

Rev Hellfire

Boston wrote: »

How much experience do you have with dealing with handicapped children? This is not a case off "my baby doesn't have blue eyes, i'll abort".

I as it happens also have first hand experience of dealing with a handicapped child. I can testify as I'm sure can you its a thing which dominates the fabric of the whole family.
But the uncomfortable question still does arise that individuals with certain disabilities (such as down syndrome which can be identified prebirth) can lead largely independent lives (with the support of the state) but have a huge burden on their family.
So the question you haven't answered is in these less extreme cases is it valid to terminate at a later date?