Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Asiaprod wrote: »

What is it with you that you seem to think you have to continually score points over others. So sorry for kicking your soapbox.
Take my three words to heart "bullying, condescending or even plain ignorant," now add sarcasm to the list, I would hate to have go through that process of you having to ban yourself again to win a point.

Go answer the questions others here have asked and earn yourself some of that respect you pine for.

I think I have posted quite extensively and dealt with most questions. Granted, I cut some of Wicknight's out but that was agreed. Asia you are in one of your anti - Tim's moods again. Perhaps sometime when you take a minority position on an emotive issue and debate with 7, 8, 9 people some of whom won't read arguments you reference (because they are written better than they can be re-written), but will scoff at you at ease you might be more objective and understanding.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Hmm... Thinking about it, not really. Not that I don't treasure or love anything, but I think to apply axiomatic sacredity to anything would be a logical fallacy.

OK fair enough. This opens up a philosophical debate about axioms.
Logical fallacies are usually between the premise and conclusion, but I see where you are coming from. I am not qualified to give an intellectual rebuttal.

Asiaprod

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Asia you are in one of your anti - Tim's moods again.

Last comment from me Tim. I am not anti you, I am enjoying this thread.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Asiaprod wrote: »

Last comment from me Tim. I am not anti you, I am enjoying this thread.

Well I am not asking for anyone to bow down to me. Just some common decorum. This is an emotive issue for all of us. We all have friends who were adopted. People who have enriched our lives. And we all have friends or friend's girfriends who have had abortions. So its a sensitive issue for most people.

As for me not answering questions, I haven't seen any of the pro - choicers coming up with a good answer for exactly when life begins yet? Any of the one's who say once the baby pops leaves the mother's womb have retracted or side stepped or equivocated when I challenged them on the validity of having an abortion one hour before birth.

I have nubbed my arguments down to:
1. Life being sacred
2. Abortion not being a good idea as it invalidates 1.

No if you don't agree life is sacred, you won't agree with me.
But if you think life is sacred, you must therefore argue exactly when you think life begins and why.

So it's a disjunction that the pro- choicers must solve:
1. Life is not sacred
2. Life is sacred but only begins at X time because of Y.

You can squeeze me all you like on the rape issue, but you still have to solve the disjunction.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You can squeeze me all you like on the rape issue

Hmmm....

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

To answer a question with a question -- is there a point after implantation before which, in your opinion, the embryo is not a human? Or do you think that once it is implanted in the uterus, it is a human?

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

"This is an emotive issue for all of us. We all have friends who were adopted. People who have enriched our lives. And we all have friends or friend's girfriends who have had abortions. So its a sensitive issue for most people."

So lets not try to post pictures of unborn babies. There are actually people here who have had an abortion too, ya know?


"Any of the one's who say once the baby pops leaves the mother's womb have retracted or side stepped or equivocated when I challenged them on the validity of having an abortion one hour before birth. "

Yes actually answered that one. Its not ok one hour before birth because its more like a baby. It is a baby. There is a grey area for me about how late abortion should be allowed but I would say before 11 weeks. Before brain is there. NO tim, do not try to twist this.
Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I thought I gave you my view earlier... maybe Im wrong...or maybe you just chose to ignore it.
Therefore your comment was invalid and moot.

PDN

somethingwitty wrote: »

So lets not try to post pictures of unborn babies. There are actually people here who have had an abortion too, ya know?[/SIZE]

If abortion is perfectly OK, and the foetus is just a clump of cells, then why should a picture of that clump of cells be a matter of such sensitivity?

BTW, this is not an argument but a genuine question. I've never understood the logic behind this.

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

PDN wrote: »

If abortion is perfectly OK, and the foetus is just a clump of cells, then why should a picture of that clump of cells be a matter of such sensitivity?

BTW, this is not an argument but a genuine question. I've never understood the logic behind this.

Because they look disgusting... Because it's a traumatic experience to have an abortion and nobody wants to relive it... I can't imagine many cancer patients would be keen to see pictures of a malignant tumor.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dave! wrote: »

To answer a question with a question -- is there a point after implantation before which, in your opinion, the embryo is not a human? Or do you think that once it is implanted in the uterus, it is a human?

If you define a human something that can't be put in the freezer, well then it's not human. If you define it as something which has complete DNA of human and has replicating cells, it is.

So you have raised a complicated philsophical question, which to my knowledge most philosophers anser by referring to sentinence.

I would agree with this, but also would consider potentiality.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

somethingwitty wrote: »

"This is an emotive issue for all of us. We all have friends who were adopted. People who have enriched our lives. And we all have friends or friend's girfriends who have had abortions. So its a sensitive issue for most people."

So lets not try to post pictures of unborn babies. There are actually people here who have had an abortion too, ya know?


"Any of the one's who say once the baby pops leaves the mother's womb have retracted or side stepped or equivocated when I challenged them on the validity of having an abortion one hour before birth. "

Yes actually answered that one. Its not ok one hour before birth because its more like a baby. It is a baby. There is a grey area for me about how late abortion should be allowed but I would say before 11 weeks. Before brain is there. NO tim, do not try to twist this.
Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I thought I gave you my view earlier... maybe Im wrong...or maybe you just chose to ignore it.
Therefore your comment was invalid and moot.

Can you write in normal text please?

Tim Robbins

Undecided

robindch wrote: »

Hmmm....

LOL

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

Why?

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

PDN wrote: »

If abortion is perfectly OK, and the foetus is just a clump of cells, then why should a picture of that clump of cells be a matter of such sensitivity?

BTW, this is not an argument but a genuine question. I've never understood the logic behind this.

If one is not sufficiently accustomed to seeing pictures of fetuses, they might mistake them for actual babies* and their emotions might cloud their logic.


*Given that it is their belief or understanding that fetuses are not the same as babies in the first place.

Personally, I don't have much problem looking at a picture of a dead fetus, since I understand what it actually is.

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

PDN wrote: »

If abortion is perfectly OK, and the foetus is just a clump of cells, then why should a picture of that clump of cells be a matter of such sensitivity?

Because its cruel to people who may have had an abortion, or considering one. I dont think that anyone would say its just a clump of cells... Even if youre pro choice. Its a potential child. Abortion is a tough decision for most and nobody needs a constant reminder about what may have been.
Very few will be absoltly positive they have made the right choice. Its scare mongering.

Asiaprod

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No if you don't agree life is sacred, you won't agree with me.

Sacred implies connected with God, or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving of veneration. If this is what you mean then as a Buddhist I cannot agree with you since I do not believe in a God. I am Pro-choice since my path decrees that the parents of the said fetus must take the responsibility for their own actions and deal with any consequences. On the issue of rape, all can say is that one of the parties was not a willing participant and I can well appreciate and understand the woman's desire to have an abortion. In Buddhist terms, the fetus is not innocent and it is its Karma from a previouse life that causes it to have to suffer in this ways.
Following this line, it is immaterial to me in this debate at what point life starts, though I have always been led to believe that the sperm is considered to be a live thing once it has been produced by the man. I will leave it to the sciences to try to work out where life actually begins.

Mark Hamill

Malari wrote: »

Yes. See, feel, etc.

You can feel a baby when its inside you (it moves). You can see it with an ultrasound, here its heartbeat too. Are you suyre this is not a case of you choosing not to see or feel the foetus.

Malari wrote: »

No, maybe not depending on the woman. But a happily pregnant woman is not a woman considering an abortion. Also she can become pregnant again and have a baby, never having known a child that she lost. There is more than a subtle difference, come on.

Have you ever met a woman who had a miscarrage? They don't act like someone whose TV has just packed it in, "Ah sure, I can always get another one". One child cannot be an emotional replacement for another, and any one who acts like this is merely displacing their lingering feelings for one child onto another and thats not healthy, for parent or child.
There is a difference between a happily pregnant woman and a pregnant woman considering abortion, but there is very little difference between a happily pregnant woman who has a miscarrage and a new mother whose newborn has died.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Asiaprod wrote: »

Sacred implies connected with God, or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving of veneration. If this is what you mean then as a Buddhist I cannot agree with you since I do not believe in a God. I am Pro-choice since my path decrees that the parents of the said fetus must take the responsibility for their own actions and deal with any consequences. On the issue of rape, all can say is that one of the parties was not a willing participant and I can well appreciate and understand the woman's desire to have an abortion. In Buddhist terms, the fetus is not innocent and it is its Karma from a previouse life that causes it to have to suffer in this ways.
Following this line, it is immaterial to me in this debate at what point life starts, though I have always been led to believe that the sperm is considered to be a live thing once it has been produced by the man.

Well Asia, you'd pulled out the dictionary in a previous post, but if you pulled it out again, you'd see sacred does not have to religious connotation.
I feel sacrity is a very important concept to both the religious and the irreligious.

I will leave it to the sciences to try to work out where life actually begins.

I think they can't and it's back the philosophers.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

If one is not sufficiently accustomed to seeing pictures of fetuses, they might mistake them for actual babies* and their emotions might cloud their logic.


*Given that it is their belief or understanding that fetuses are not the same as babies in the first place.

Personally, I don't have much problem looking at a picture of a dead fetus, since I understand what it actually is.

The only difference between a one hour old baby and one hour pre-baby is location. There is no other difference w.r.t. sentinence or biology.
They can mistake a 7 month old fetus for a baby, because they are very similar, which is something "pro - choicers" don't like to be reminded about.

Out of sight and out of mind and all that.

robindch

Asiaprod wrote: »

I will leave it to the sciences to try to work out where life actually begins.

A lot of the disagreement here occurs because people have varying understandings of the word "alive" as it applies to a foetus, sperm, egg and so on. Hence, there are differing points at which people can reasonably claim the rights we believe are inherent to us all (or "life begins" if you're religious), apply to the foetus.

For myself, and for no especially good reason, I take the point of implantation as being the start of life, and that occurs around 90% of the time within two weeks or so of conception, so that's my limit.

There's no science per-se which will back up this, as it's simply a choice I've made regarding this issue. The debate on this topic would perhaps be less heated if more people realized that the choices that are made, and the bases upon which they're made, are to a large extent, arbitrary.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

somethingwitty wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

If abortion is perfectly OK, and the foetus is just a clump of cells, then why should a picture of that clump of cells be a matter of such sensitivity?

Because its cruel to people who may have had an abortion, or considering one. I dont think that anyone would say its just a clump of cells... Even if youre pro choice. Its a potential child. Abortion is a tough decision for most and nobody needs a constant reminder about what may have been.
Very few will be absoltly positive they have made the right choice. Its scare mongering.

If someone thinks its ok to kill a fly is it very offensive and insensitive to show pictures of a dead fly?
If someone thinks its ok to kill a human is it very offensive and insensitive to show pictures of a dead human?
If someone thinks its ok to kill [insert here] is it very offensive and insensitive to show pictures of a dead [insert here]?

Here's the inconsistency:
If someone thinks its ok to kill a fetus is it very offensive and insensitive to show pictures of a fetus?

So we have two unanswered questions from the pro-choicers now.
PDN, for rape what's your view?

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You can feel a baby when its inside you (it moves). You can see it with an ultrasound, here its heartbeat too. Are you suyre this is not a case of you choosing not to see or feel the foetus.

You're misinterpreting what I've said. I know you can see and feel and hear a foetus at a certain age. What I said what that the earlier you abort, the less you feel.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you ever met a woman who had a miscarrage? They don't act like someone whose TV has just packed it in, "Ah sure, I can always get another one". One child cannot be an emotional replacement for another, and any one who acts like this is merely displacing their lingering feelings for one child onto another and thats not healthy, for parent or child.
There is a difference between a happily pregnant woman and a pregnant woman considering abortion, but there is very little difference between a happily pregnant woman who has a miscarrage and a new mother whose newborn has died.

Again, that's not what I said at all. Yes, I know women who've had miscarriages. Several miscarriages, in fact. I also know a woman whose child died before it's 1st birthday. No, one child is not an emotional replacement for another, but I do not believe the loss to be the same.

Please don't do the Tim thing of saying "so a woman whose baby dies an hour before birth does not lose as much as a woman whose child dies an hour after birth".

There is a varying scale of emotional attachment.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think they can't and it's back the philosophers.

I'm actually with you on this. As I said so waay back in this thread, it's about humans trying to apply their human concept of life and morality to a purely biological process.

I've no doubt everybody is clear on what you are trying to get across in comparing a 1hr after conception 'baby', and one 8 months old... There is no definitive delineating time when it becomes 'sacred'.

But like you and the rape-baby issue, people have opinions that aren't based on pure biology or maths. Your demand for scientific clarification is at odds with your own stance on that particular side issue.

Asiaprod

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well Asia, you'd pulled out the dictionary in a previous post, but if you pulled it out again, you'd see sacred does not have to religious connotation.

Ooops, my bad, my dictionary lied to me, I'm going to complain.:) I understand now, thank you.

I feel sacrity is a very important concept to both the religious and the irreligious.

That word is not in my dictionary, I need to buy a new one,

I think they can't and it's back the philosophers.

There you go, we agree on something. That proves I am not anti-Tim:)

Here's the inconsistency:
If someone thinks its ok to kill a fetus is it very offensive and insensitive to show pictures of a fetus?

I have an answer to that one. Here, yes it is because it is is also being show to others who do not think it is ok to kill a fetus so it is in fact offensive and insensitive to the feelings of those others.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

robindch wrote: »

A lot of the disagreement here occurs because people have varying understandings of the word "alive" as it applies to a foetus, sperm, egg and so on. Hence, there are differing points at which people can reasonably claim the rights we believe are inherent to us all (or "life begins" if you're religious), apply to the foetus.

For myself, and for no especially good reason, I take the point of implantation as being the start of life, and that occurs around 90% of the time within two weeks or so of conception, so that's my limit.

There's no science per-se which will back up this, as it's simply a choice I've made regarding this issue. The debate on this topic would perhaps be less heated if more people realized that the choices that are made, and the bases upon which they're made, are to a large extent, arbitrary.

There are some matters of fact though:
1. All DNA code, chromozones and genes for human are there upon conception and none of them ever change.
2. The Brain is there from week 11.
3. The probability of reaching personhood changes.

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

Ill address your question Tim when you address mine. Actually my 2...

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Asiaprod wrote: »

That word is not in my dictionary, I need to buy a new one,

You're absolutely correct. The noun is sacredness.

Gegerty

Undecided

I'm an Athiest. I disagree with abortion in most cases, in other cases such as rape and incest I am undecided. I'd imagine if someone close to me was in that situation I would be pro abortion.

I do not see what abortion has got to do with religion. My reasons for being anti-abortion are more of a scientific nature. I tend to think of life in the 4th dimension, i.e the foetus of today is simply the early stages of the adult. Although it may just be a foetus today, in the future it is an adult. I hope that makes sense because I'm not going any deeper than that

Another reason is this: how many potential Einsteins have been aborted? How many aborted foetuses would have gone on to do great things such as cure cancer or how many aborted foetuses would have gone on to be the ancestor of someone who does great things. This is not a religious viewpoint it is a survival of the fittest viewpoint. There can be no doubt that due to the enourmous numbers of abortions we are eliminating some of the greatest minds of mankind whether it be directly or through eliminating the ancestoral trail.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dades wrote: »

I'm actually with you on this. As I said so waay back in this thread, it's about humans trying to apply their human concept of life and morality to a purely biological process.

I've no doubt everybody is clear on what you are trying to get across in comparing a 1hr after conception 'baby', and one 8 months old... There is no definitive delineating time when it becomes 'sacred'.

But like you and the rape-baby issue, people have opinions that aren't based on pure biology or maths. Your demand for scientific clarification is at odds with your own stance on that particular side issue.

I disagree. I have delineated: Rape or no Rape. They have not. Too late or not to late seems mildly vague.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So we have two unanswered questions from the pro-choicers now.
PDN, for rape what's your view?

As you know I'm no atheist, but my views on this are not particularly connected with my religion.

I don't think it's the baby's fault that the father committed rape. So I'm all for punishing the rapist - castration would be a fitting, if somewhat politically incorrect, punishment. But I don't see the point in punishing, or even killing, the baby.