Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

techdiver

Don't really know if I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't look at abortion from a religious point, but from a moral point.

I'm completely against abortion in most cases, as I firmly believe it is murder plain and simple.

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

Gegerty wrote: »

how many potential Einsteins have been aborted?

How many potential Einsteins have been caught out with an unplanned pregnancy?

Tim Robbins

Undecided

PDN wrote: »

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.

Let's say there is no Christian God, what would your views be?
Do you see a belief in God the only thing forming your views on this hot topic?

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There are some matters of fact though:

I'm not denying any of these, but simply saying that there's a balance to be struck between the fact of the existence of the foetus and its genetic material, its inability to survive without the mother, the mother's feelings concerning the father, the chances of spontaneous abortion (between 25% and 50% up to six weeks), the partial state of the foetus, the possibility of genetic disease and so on and so on. You can twiddle your feelings concerning these factors as you wish and come up, as I suspect I've done, with a post-hoc rationalization for a pre-existing notion.

But regardless of that, since people at this point do not agree upon which factors are inputs, nor upon the relative merits of the factors, people will consequently be unable to come to any agreement upon how they should judge the issue overall. Until agreement is reached upon the input factors, disagreements will continue to be as heated as they are irreconcilable.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Let's say there is no Christian God, what would your views be?
Do you see a belief in God the only thing forming your views on this hot topic?

As far as I remember I was opposed to abortion before I believed in God. I've always had a soft spot for the underdog - and you don't get much more helpless than a baby.

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

Gegerty wrote: »

Another reason is this: how many potential Einsteins have been aborted?

Ahh come on, how many Hitlers, Stalins, and Bushes (:p) have been aborted?!

Something that's puzzled me -- when people say they're against abortion except for rape and incest: do ye include consentual incest, because of the risk of deformity? Or when ye mention incest is it with the assumption that it's also a rape?

Just wondering, cos I never bothered to ask for clarification on that before.....

Tim Robbins

Undecided

robindch wrote: »

I'm not denying any of these, but simply saying that there's a balance to be struck between the fact of the existence of the foetus and its genetic material, its inability to survive without the mother, the mother's feelings concerning the father, the chances of spontaneous abortion (between 25% and 50% up to six weeks), the partial state of the foetus, the possibility of genetic disease and so on and so on. You can twiddle your feelings concerning these factors as you wish and come up, as I suspect I've done, with a post-hoc rationalization for a pre-existing notion.

But regardless of that, since people at this point do not agree upon which factors are inputs, nor upon the relative merits of the factors, people will consequently be unable to come to any agreement upon how they should judge the issue overall. Until agreement is reached upon the input factors, disagreements will continue to be as heated as they are irreconcilable.

If life was such that, abortion wasn't possible and infanticide was, would we be having similar debates about that?

I accept it's difficult to delineate when life begins objectively, but where should the benefit of doubt lie? Also, who should the burden of proof be on, those that wish to kill the fetus or those who do not?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

4 / 5 > 3 / 7
Q.E.D.
you're wrong. You can dress it up and hide behind some elongated verbal exhange - but them the facts.

Umm, yes. You are being rather pedantic now, consider we were talking about how selfish someone is.

Are you seriously suggesting that 4 out of 5 (again you do know that number is technically wrong) is selfish where as 3 out of 7 is not?

Or are you just trying to win some pissing contest ... ?

OK-Cancel-Apply

I am against abortion entirely

I don't think there's anything intrinsically 'sacred' about life, and I don't think any meat-eaters do either.

Zombrex

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.

Personally I have no problem looking at aborted fetuses. I do often wonder what people who are shocked by these pictures though aborted fetuses look like.

Having said that any picture that contains blood and guts and various other bodily parts can be a bit disturbing for some people, not necessarily because it is an aborted fetus per say, but simply because it is a bit gross (like the pictures in some lads mags of people with open gashes in their legs, or fingers sawn off).

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm, yes. You are being rather pedantic now, consider we were talking about how selfish someone is.

Are you seriously suggesting that 4 out of 5 (again you do know that number is technically wrong) is selfish where as 3 out of 7 is not?

Or are you just trying to win some pissing contest ... ?

Are is it you can't just admit when you are wrong? You went to great lengths arguing there was no difference, but quite clealy there is.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I accept it's difficult to delineate when life begins objectively, but where should the benefit of doubt lie? Also, who should the burden of proof be on, those that wish to kill the fetus or those who do not?

You've missed my point. At the one end, there are people who don't regard abortion almost up to the point of delivery as "killing", while at the other end, there are people who regard a cell as having the rights of a fully-formed human being. Phrasing the argument to one side, using the terminology of the other -- as you've done here -- will produce heat, but no light.

Zombrex

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I don't think there's anything intrinsically 'sacred' about life, and I don't think any meat-eaters do either.

I imagine neither do veg-eaters either, considering you kill thousands of bacteria in your stomach when ever you eat a carrot.

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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

Yes there is. An hour before birth a fetus is in a state of complete sensory deprivation. It does not breathe, eat, nor excrete as a human ex utero would. The difference between a fetus an hour before birth and a newborn baby is huge.

Gegerty wrote:

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.

That seems to be quite a religious argument, along the lines of "we shouldn't change fate".

Also:
It might just be a sperm/egg today, but in the future it is an adult.....

Is contraception wrong? According to your logic I think it would be.

Gegerty wrote: »

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.

So is homosexuality wrong then, since it eliminates the ancestoral trail?
I find this to be a silly argument. In theory, we could strive to create as many humans with different DNA as possible by having as many children as possible, in the hope that some of them might be geniuses. However, this is ridiculous IMO.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are is it you can't just admit when you are wrong? You went to great lengths arguing there was no difference, but quite clealy there is.

I am going to great length to argue there is no difference in the context of how selfish it is to use a condom vs abort a fetus


Both actions are to stop a child that there is a high likelihood may be produced if the person doesn't take those actions.

You are arguing there is a difference because your made up odds of how likely each one is to produce a baby are slightly different

As I said you are simply being pedantic now.

I seriously doubt you think there is much difference in terms of selfishness of stopping something that has a 3 out of 7 chance of happening (made up statistic) and something that has a 4 out of 5 chance of happening (made up statistic)

Tim Robbins

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes there is. An hour before birth a fetus is in a state of complete sensory deprivation. It does not breathe, eat, nor excrete as a human ex utero would. The difference between a fetus an hour before birth and a newborn baby is huge.

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
Breathing from week 11. Not for Oxygen but to develope lungs.
The fetus gets Oxygen from nutrients from the mother, through placenta and the umbilical chord.

Weeks 28 - 40:
"Thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, form."

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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

'Rape or no rape' isn't a delineation, it's a stance based purely on human distaste for an act of sexual violence. It in no way addresses the pregnancy term moral issues that you are trying to drag out of others.

Mark Hamill

Malari wrote: »

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.

Fine, does a woman who looses a baby one hour after birth feel less than a woman who looses her child when he/she is 1 years old? or 5 or 10? Where does the scale begin and end? Why does the scale begin and end?

It seems to me that this argument stems from people thinking that a foetus grows into a human child. I do not believe the foetus grows into a human child, I believe that the foetus is a human child and merely grows, and needs the love and protection of its parents every step of the way.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dades wrote: »

'Rape or no rape' isn't a delineation.QUOTE]
It is delineation, whether it's justifiable you can debate, but it's a delineation alright.

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The fetus gets Oxygen from nutrients from the mother, through placenta and the umbilical chord.

And that is the massive difference.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

whether it's justifiable you can debate

Just not with you, it would appear.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dades wrote: »

Just not with you, it would appear.

Go **** yourself. If that's all you can come up. ****ing Dick head.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Go **** yourself. If that's all you can come up. ****ing Dick head.

Indeed :rolleyes:

Tim if you look back over the last few pages it is you who are coming up with glib non-responses to genuine objections and queries to the assertions in your posts.

If you either can't or don't want to expand on what you are asserting in this thread that is fine.

But you seem to be taking the very annoying stance that everything you say should be perfectly clear and obvious (its obviously our fault we aren't some how getting it) and getting annoyed when people say "Er, hang on a minute, what about ... "

Dades

Although Tim's participation in this forum is over for the foreseeable future, this thread is still open to those who can keep their head.

Gegerty

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That seems to be quite a religious argument, along the lines of "we shouldn't change fate".

Whats fate got to do with religion?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It might just be a sperm/egg today, but in the future it is an adult.....

Is contraception wrong? According to your logic I think it would be.

No because the sperm has not met the egg. The person will never be, it never has a chance to be in existence. When its a foetus it is the beginnings of what will later become the person.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So is homosexuality wrong then, since it eliminates the ancestoral trail?
I find this to be a silly argument.

No homosexuality doesn't eliminate anything. There is no foetus for which to evolve into an adult. Nothing has been aborted. I don't think you understand my argument.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

In theory, we could strive to create as many humans with different DNA as possible by having as many children as possible, in the hope that some of them might be geniuses. However, this is ridiculous IMO.

I'm not saying keep having babies in the hope of producing an Einstein. I'm saying let nature take its course.

You could argue that we are part of nature therefore our decisions are that of nature taking its course. This would be a good argument against what I am saying but I don't think that is what your point is. What I would say to that is yes its part of nature but its a destructive part of nature, something which hinders our evolution. Abortion does potentially eliminate the Hitlers as well as the Einsteins, but if there is a Hitler it can be eliminated in other ways and at a point of which we know for a fact that the person is a Hitler.

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

-- edited so you avoid the same fate as the subject of your post --

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Gegerty wrote: »

Whats fate got to do with religion?

It's a belief.

Gegerty wrote: »

No because the sperm has not met the egg. The person will never be, it never has a chance to be in existence. When its a foetus it is the beginnings of what will later become the person.

Why does it matter that the sperm has not met the egg? You said you saw fetuses as future adults, so we have no right to abort them. Why can't you say that we have no right to use contraception and prevent sperm from naturally meeting an egg and producing a person? I mean, by the same logic, we shouldn't do anything to anything and let nature take its course.

Gegerty wrote: »

No homosexuality doesn't eliminate anything. There is no foetus for which to evolve into an adult. Nothing has been aborted. I don't think you understand my argument.

But by choosing to be with a man rather than a woman, a man eliminates a potential child with his DNA.

Gegerty wrote: »

I'm not saying keep having babies in the hope of producing an Einstein. I'm saying let nature take its course.

Why? What's logical about letting nature take its course?

Gegerty wrote: »

something which hinders our evolution.

What individual gives a **** about evolution? We only live for 80 years.

hussey

Undecided

I am an Agnostic and I guess I am against it expect in cases of

Rape
Incest

Also I am not sure how to full describe this
A child born with a (potential) diminished life
e.g. Child born living on streets
Into a drugs envirounment
HIV/AIDS etc

Gegerty

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It's a belief.

Its a belief which has nothing to do with religion. You brought up fate not me. I'm talking about life in the 4th dimensional sense. There's nothing religious about what I'm saying.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Why does it matter that the sperm has not met the egg?

Why can't you say that we have no right to use contraception and prevent sperm from naturally meeting an egg and producing a person? I mean, by the same logic, we shouldn't do anything to anything and let nature take its course.

But by choosing to be with a man rather than a woman, a man eliminates a potential child with his DNA.

None of these are preventing nature from taking course. There's nothing to take course. The sperm is sperm, the egg is an egg. you're not killing off something which has already started.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You said you saw fetuses as future adults, so we have no right to abort them.

you have the right to do whatever you like. I'm not telling you what you can and can't do, I'm saying I don't agree with abortion. If you want to have an abortion its none of my business.

Another reason I'm against it is that I am the type of person who takes responsibility for his actions. If you don't want a baby then don't get pregnant, its a very very easy thing to prevent. Otherwise, if it were me, I would live with the consequences. Obviously rape and incest is a different story.

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fine, does a woman who looses a baby one hour after birth feel less than a woman who looses her child when he/she is 1 years old? or 5 or 10? Where does the scale begin and end? Why does the scale begin and end?

I'm talking about through the pregnancy and to birth. I think it begins and ends because of the increased tangibility of a foetus as the pregnancy continues.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems to me that this argument stems from people thinking that a foetus grows into a human child. I do not believe the foetus grows into a human child, I believe that the foetus is a human child and merely grows, and needs the love and protection of its parents every step of the way.

I have to say, well done, you are the first person I ever heard to state your reason for being against abortion so lucidly. I don't view a foetus this way, but I'd prefer to hear someone say this, rather than try to force someone who is pro-choice into delineating when they are just going to disagree with them anyway.