Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

Leave the thread if you don't want to debate the issue. The rest of us are here for a rational discussion.

mollydolly271

I am against abortion entirely

yet again a load of men debating womens issues like the load of men in the church making these rules and (mostly men) in the goverment who havent changed them... when r people going to realise that the only person who can really make the final call on any abortion is the woman that is pregnant... and no i am by no means a man hater or anything like it before some smart arse says it

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How early?

Well before you have a baby, obviously.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have. The two issues are potentiality and sentience. In both cases there is a categorical difference.

A zygote isn't sentient. And the sperm that created you had the potential to do so, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

P (Sperm fertilizing with sex with Condom): 0.01 out of a million.
P (Sperm fertilizing with sex without Condom): : 1 out of a million.

Again you are ignoring that if you have a million sperm the odds of producing a child is 1 out of 1

If your maths was correct it wouldn't be necessary to use a condom because you would only have a 1 in a million chance of getting pregnant.

The sperm that produces the child is contained in the million sperms you kill with your condom. You aren't killing one sperm at a time and saying no harm because it is very unlikely that specific sperm would ever produce a child.

You are killing millions at a time, and you know one of them had as much potential to become a baby as a zygote. You don't know specifically which one, but that doesn't matter because you are destroying all of them.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's mathematics.

Its flawed mathematics (see above)

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Correct.

One what grounds would the State decide a specific woman should abort her baby? How would that even work?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I already did.

No you didn't. You just said it did and then criticized me for arguing from assertion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I know what it means. You asserted the "other factors" were irrelevant.

And then explained why they were.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can you clarify when? 11 weeks when the fetus has brain cells, 24 weeks when some other poster thought so because that is what many Euro countries stipulate?

No, I can't, not specifically, I'm not a medical biologist. If this was going to become a law I would expect a lot of medical research to go into narrowing down as close as we can when a fetus has no chance of producing the characteristic human brain abilities, and when it gets hazy. When it gets hazy I say air on the side of caution.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You mention brain capacity, but are unclear when exactly this is, as the brain is present at the 11th week. If you stopped equivocating and delineating, then it would be clear exactly what you meant.

I think I am being perfectly clear Tim, I think you are rushing to assume what people mean rather than taking the time to read their posts.

I don't know when a fetus developed the characteristics that I consider the valuable part of human existence. As I said, I'm not a biologist. Not knowing when this happens doesn't actually change the fact that it is the valuable quality in human life (in my opinion).

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is a bit stupid. You said:
"Evolution creates emotional responses, not logical ethical decisions. "

Evolution created humans with an emotional capacity and capacity for logic.

And ... ?

Are you suggesting that because evolution created humans therefore evolution also created anything that humans created? Did evolution created Devil May Cry 4 that I just spent the last 4 hours playing on my Xbox 360? Did evolution created the Xbox 360?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes I have.

Again you haven't.

You explained why human being may have an instinctive human emotion to value life, but that isn't the same thing, as I explained.

Human may also have an instinctive emotional tendency to be suspicious of foreign people, but I doubt that could be used to argue that foreign people are not to be trusted is an ethical axiom.

There is a difference between emotional instinct and ethics.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well where is this going?

I'm not following...?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You don't agree with late abortion because the brain has reached a certain stage, but you cannot say when this stage manifests?
Correct?

Correct.

Dades

Jeez! you step out for 5 minutes... :pac:

somethingwitty, watch what you say. You have been warned.

mollydolly271, stop typing in caps - it's annoying for everyone and doesn't make your points more valid.

mollydolly271 wrote: »

yet again a load of men debating womens issues like the load of men in the church making these rules and (mostly men) in the goverment who havent changed them... and no i am by no means a man hater or anything like it before some smart arse says it

If you don't want to be seen as a man hater, stop sounding like it. And you ignored my point that most pro-lifers are in fact women. You might also be surprised to know that the government can't legalise abortion without a referendum.

Lastly, as someone with a 7 mth pregnant wife I don't subscribe to the notion that fathers can't express an opinion - which is all that is going on here. I doubt Emily Davison stepped in front of the King's horse with that in mind.

Anyhoo...

Tim, sending people off to read links for 15 minutes just doesn't fly. If you can't articulate your own argument then you shouldn't be making it - and certainly not criticising others for not agreeing with it.

And I'm still curious as to how you think it's okay to bend the rules for 'children' conceived by rape. Seems to fly in the face of that logic you're so fond of.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dave! wrote: »

Tim how can u justify aborting a child that is a product of a rape? If it's a life then surely its irrelevant whos it is... You would allow it be killed so that the rape victim isn't upset?

That's a very good question. I think that rape is so abhorrant I would feel reticent forcing the same rules as everyone else and for every other case.
Perhaps illogical and irrational or else I can't articulate it.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Wicknight wrote: »

Again you are ignoring that if you have a million sperm the odds of producing a child is 1 out of 1

I dumbed down the maths. It's much higher than 1 / million as other factors such as probability of the egg been in correct part of the cycle have been omitted.

Killing an individual sperm isn't the same as killing a fetus. I presume you agree with that?

What you are disputing is killing a million sperm?
Can you clarify that?

The sperm that produces the child is contained in the million sperms you kil
Its flawed mathematics (see above)

The Maths was dealing with an individual sperm, and I dumbed it down by leaving out other factors, if I included them, it would have even ,ower probability. I'll go throught the Maths again if you agree that potentiality
must consider probability, because in earlier threads you didn't.

One what grounds would the State decide a specific woman should abort her baby? How would that even work?


No you didn't. You just said it did and then criticized me for arguing from assertion.


And then explained why they were.


No, I can't, not specifically, I'm not a medical biologist. If this was going to become a law I would expect a lot of medical research to go into narrowing down as close as we can when a fetus has no chance of producing the characteristic human brain abilities, and when it gets hazy. When it gets hazy I say air on the side of caution.


I think I am being perfectly clear Tim, I think you are rushing to assume what people mean rather than taking the time to read their posts.

I don't know when a fetus developed the characteristics that I consider the valuable part of human existence. As I said, I'm not a biologist. Not knowing when this happens doesn't actually change the fact that it is the valuable quality in human life (in my opinion).



And ... ?

Are you suggesting that because evolution created humans therefore evolution also created anything that humans created? Did evolution created Devil May Cry 4 that I just spent the last 4 hours playing on my Xbox 360? Did evolution created the Xbox 360?


Again you haven't.

You explained why human being may have an instinctive human emotion to value life, but that isn't the same thing, as I explained.

Human may also have an instinctive emotional tendency to be suspicious of foreign people, but I doubt that could be used to argue that foreign people are not to be trusted is an ethical axiom.

There is a difference between emotional instinct and ethics.


I'm not following...?


Correct.

You have a habbit of making about 15 points per post. Which is ok, in a logical sense. But if I answer to all 15 it gets very disjointed and nausiating. This is because, a lot of them have come down to:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes I did

Wicknight wrote:

No you didn't.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes I did

Wicknight wrote:

No you didn't.

and because neither of us are using, the indented quote feature. i.e.

Wicknight wrote:

You never said 1 + 1 = 2.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes I did

Wicknight wrote:

No you didn't.

I don't know about you, but I am finding I am having to jump back pages to answer the sub points nausiating.

So I suggest we:
1. Deal with one point at a time per post (or max 3). start with the Maths.
2. Try to use the inline quoting when appropriate.

If anything it's only fair to others who are reading.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

somethingwitty wrote: »

I think Tim Robbins should piss off... just because people dont have your approach to the issue, and your indepth knowladge... you pick on everything! You sound so self important. I think that the mother should have the right to choose. End of story. I dont care about how closely the fetus and the baby are alike and if they have fingernails or not. You dont have to pick on everything and try to twist it.

Well that really is quite sad. You justify an action and consider yourself immune from rationally challenging it. And you call me self important?

Tim Robbins

Undecided

mollydolly271 wrote: »

yet again a load of men debating womens issues like the load of men in the church making these rules and (mostly men) in the goverment who havent changed them... when r people going to realise that the only person who can really make the final call on any abortion is the woman that is pregnant... and no i am by no means a man hater or anything like it before some smart arse says it

The gender of the fetus is determined by the man's sperm and happens at conception. So the gender can be man, before either man / women makes any decision.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's a very good question. I think that rape is so abhorrant I would feel reticent forcing the same rules as everyone else and for every other case.
Perhaps illogical and irrational or else I can't articulate it.

A woman who is raped still may want to keep the child, or then again, may want to abort it. You are pro-choice with regard to rape.

The choice is still the same for any other pregnancy, i.e. a woman who either does or does not want to have the child. Surely, if life is sacred, your position should be the same for both, as the sanctity of life does not depend on the circumstances surrounding its conception.

giddyup

Can someone answer this for me as I'm curious - what's the purpose of a poll like this? It's obviously generating some debate but there should be no correlation between a person's athiesm and their views on abortion. To me it's like asking do athiests like badgers? Nothing could be concluded from the results.

pH

I am against abortion entirely

giddyup wrote: »

Can someone answer this for me as I'm curious - what's the purpose of a poll like this? It's obviously generating some debate but there should be no correlation between a person's athiesm and their views on abortion. To me it's like asking do athiests like badgers? Nothing could be concluded from the results.

In theory I guess it's to see what people think of abortion when religious teaching and indoctrination are not influencing the decision.

As for correlation, I would imagine that opinions on atheism and abortion are correlated (statistically speaking) with atheists having in general a more liberal outlook on social issues than the general population. Note this is correlation not causation.

On the other hand, if you were really cynical, you could argue that the purpose of the poll was to allow Tim have yet another of his arguments about arguments.

Dades

Tim, fwiw, I had a similar debate with wicknight earlier in this thread. I argued that a sperm or an egg on their own were inherently different than a zygote, and after a bunch of posts (I think) we agreed to disagree. We both knew the facts - just disagreed on what they represented. Your argument seems to be very similar.

giddyup wrote: »

Can someone answer this for me as I'm curious - what's the purpose of a poll like this? It's obviously generating some debate but there should be no correlation between a person's athiesm and their views on abortion. To me it's like asking do athiests like badgers? Nothing could be concluded from the results.

The tenuous connection, is that so often abortion debate is overshadowed by the religious element, so the thought was to see what the non-religious thought.

Of course we all know that internet debates are the second least useful thing on the internet; the least useful of course being internet polls.


(lol at pH ^^)

Tim Robbins

Undecided

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

A woman who is raped still may want to keep the child, or then again, may want to abort it. You are pro-choice with regard to rape.

The choice is still the same for any other pregnancy, i.e. a woman who either does or does not want to have the child. Surely, if life is sacred, your position should be the same for both, as the sanctity of life does not depend on the circumstances surrounding its conception.

Yes life is sacred, but rape is the ultimate evil. So they sort of cancel each other out.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes life is sacred, but rape is the ultimate evil.

That sounds all very biblical.

Surely murder is the ultimate evil?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I dumbed down the maths. It's much higher than 1 / million as other factors such as probability of the egg been in correct part of the cycle have been omitted.

Killing an individual sperm isn't the same as killing a fetus. I presume you agree with that?

It depends on the sperm, as I've been trying to explain.

Killing a random sperm isn't the same as killing a fetus, because a random sperm most likely isn't going to do anything except be a random sperm and then die.

On the other hand, killing the specific sperm that will fertilize an egg and produce a zygote is exactly like killing a fetus, at least in terms of destroying a potential baby.

No sperm, not potential baby. You cannot produce a baby without a sperm, and if you kill the specific sperm that would end up producing the baby you are stopping that baby from existing.

The issue that when you use a condom you are not simply killing a random sperm. You are killing millions of sperm, and in those millions it is quite probable, lies the one specific sperm that would produce a baby if you didn't use a condom.

In the process of killing all the non-important random sperms you also end up killing the one important sperm That action has the seem effect, again in the context of potential babies, as killing the fetus.

Your maths fail because you are ignoring that if the odds are a million to 1, and you have a million entities, the odds are 1 to 1, just like the fetus (dumb down maths obviously).

Killing the specific sperm that produces the zygote is the same as killing the fetus, and if you kill enough of them odds are you will kill this specific sperm.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So I suggest we:
1. Deal with one point at a time per post (or max 3). start with the Maths.
2. Try to use the inline quoting when appropriate.

Fair enough.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Wicknight wrote: »

It depends on the sperm, as I've been trying to explain.

Killing a random sperm isn't the same as killing a fetus, because a random sperm most likely isn't going to do anything except be a random sperm and then die.

On the other hand, killing the specific sperm that will fertilize an egg and produce a zygote is exactly like killing a fetus, at least in terms of destroying a potential baby.

No sperm, not potential baby. You cannot produce a baby without a sperm, and if you kill the specific sperm that would end up producing the baby you are stopping that baby from existing.

The issue that when you use a condom you are not simply killing a random sperm. You are killing millions of sperm, and in those millions it is quite probable, lies the one specific sperm that would produce a baby if you didn't use a condom.

In the process of killing all the non-important random sperms you also end up killing the one important sperm That action has the seem effect, again in the context of potential babies, as killing the fetus.

Your maths fail because you are ignoring that if the odds are a million to 1, and you have a million entities, the odds are 1 to 1, just like the fetus (dumb down maths obviously).

Killing the specific sperm that produces the zygote is the same as killing the fetus, and if you kill enough of them odds are you will kill this specific sperm.

No there's still a difference in probability. Let's denote person as baby after birth.
P(Fetus becoming a Person) = 4 / 5.
P(Sperm from an ejaculation during sex [i.e. million of spems] becoming a fetus) != 1 it's < 1.

=>
P(Sperm from an ejaculation during sex becoming a Person) < 4 / 5.

Q.E.D.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dades wrote: »

That sounds all very biblical.

Surely murder is the ultimate evil?

I would see them as similar.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I am against abortion entirely

you see murder and rape as similar?

oh, please do explain.. this should be fun.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

you see murder and rape as similar?

oh, please do explain.. this should be fun.

Perhaps you could first explain how you measure evil?

karen3212

I am against abortion entirely

Dades wrote: »

That sounds all very biblical.

Surely murder is the ultimate evil?

No tortured to death, surely?:pac:

For those that say engaging in sex and having intercourse is a choice, do you think it's a free will-y kinda choice? It's just that I don't think it is.

If it were possible to totally resist sexual urges, then surely all the time and effort the Canadians have spent on convicted Paedophiles would not still result in a % of recidivism? I think it's 3%, but I would need to check that.

Has anybody mentioned the fact that the consequence of the 'inconvienient' 9 months could be death of the mother, as in their is still a greater risk from carrying a child to term, than having an abortion.

Whatever way you look at it, the punishment for giving in to natural instincts to procreate is much greater for a woman than for a man. Even legally the punishment for a man in Ireland is maintenance/financial, for a woman physical, emotional and a lifetime of pain if she feels she has to give up her child(which in most cases she will fall in love with as a consequence of afterbirth hormonally stuff).

Abortion causes far less suffering - for society as a whole, in my considered opinion.

Yeah, I know, there's prob no logic there.meh.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No there's still a difference in probability. Let's denote person as baby after birth.
P(Fetus becoming a Person) = 4 / 5.
P(Sperm from an ejaculation during sex [i.e. million of spems] becoming a fetus) != 1 it's < 1.

=>
P(Sperm from an ejaculation during sex becoming a Person) < 4 / 5.

Q.E.D.

Well Jez Tim, I don't know the exact probability of a person getting pregnant. It obviously isn't a dead cert, people have unprotected sex all the time and don't get pregnant. I was using your own dumb down maths. It isn't a dead cert that either an embryo or a fetus make it to full term either.

My point is using a condom isn't simply stopping a million to one shot, and therefore of little consequence as you implied with your comment that using a condom isn't selfish but having an abortion is.

You can't really say there is much difference in terms of selfishness between killing a fetus with a 4 out of 5 chance of producing a baby (that statistics is incorrect by the way) and killing a sperm with 3 out of 7 (or what ever) shot of producing a baby.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I am against abortion entirely

my definition of evil is answering a question with a question.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps you could first explain how you measure evil?

What?! You brought it up!

OK-Cancel-Apply

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes life is sacred, but rape is the ultimate evil. So they sort of cancel each other out.

Well rape is pretty evil, but not as evil as dropping a nuclear bomb on a country, or torturing someone to death.

But still, how does the circumstance of the conception affect the sacredness of the life created? Life is either sacred or it isn't. It still comes down to a woman deciding she doesn't want to keep the child. I don't see why rape victims should have a choice if accidentally pregnant women shouldn't.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Wicknight wrote: »

Well Jez Tim, I don't know the exact probability of a person getting pregnant. It obviously isn't a dead cert, people have unprotected sex all the time and don't get pregnant. I was using your own dumb down maths. It isn't a dead cert that either an embryo or a fetus make it to full term either.

My point is using a condom isn't simply stopping a million to one shot, and therefore of little consequence as you implied with your comment that using a condom isn't selfish but having an abortion is.

You can't really say there is much difference in terms of selfishness between killing a fetus with a 4 out of 5 chance of producing a baby (that statistics is incorrect by the way) and killing a sperm with 3 out of 7 (or what ever) shot of producing a baby.

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.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

my definition of evil is answering a question with a question.

Well if you want to enter discourse with me you can treat me with some respect. i.e. less of your: "this should be a laugh".

Dades

You might get more respect if you addressed people questions, rather than continually sidestepping.

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

Dades wrote: »

You might get more respect if you addressed people questions, rather than continually sidestepping.

Plus, you chastise somethingwitty for not challenging his/her beliefs rationally, and then go on to justify aborting a baby in the event of a rape... based on emotion!!!

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Oh dang, I've missed 24 hours of this discussion!

But I agree with a lot of Somethingwitty's early posts. I think I should be able to have an opinion on whether abortion should be a choice without having a black and white cut-off point.

If I found out I was pregnant and decided to have an abortion quickly that to me is an entirely different situation than if I become pregnant, then say end up in a coma for several months following a car crash (silly, I know, but just trying to make a point!).

The decision after 4 or 5 months to have an abortion would be an entirely different thing - more traumatic, more disturbing because you can see more recognisable features of the foetus, you have a bump, etc. Why does it have to be a black and white thing?

I'm not a vegetarian but I might just become one if I actually had to go down to the slaughterhouse and kill my own cow in order to get a steak. I'm sorry if people think it's double-standards but I think that attitude is quite common.

Mark Hamill

karen3212 wrote: »

Has anybody mentioned the fact that the consequence of the 'inconvienient' 9 months could be death of the mother, as in their is still a greater risk from carrying a child to term, than having an abortion.

I included this in my first post (about 6 pages back now:pac:).

karen3212 wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it, the punishment for giving in to natural instincts to procreate is much greater for a woman than for a man.

It's not a punishment, its a consequence. No-one is punishing someone for procreating by making them pregnant, its procreating that makes people pregnant. And while more of the difficulty of pregnancy and birth is going to be on the woman who has to bear the child, you can't blame men for how human biology works, only for what they do for the woman they get pregnant. I'd be absolutely disgusted with any man who isn't willing to help the mother of his child any way he could.

karen3212 wrote: »

Even legally the punishment for a man in Ireland is maintenance/financial, for a woman physical, emotional and a lifetime of pain if she feels she has to give up her child(which in most cases she will fall in love with as a consequence of afterbirth hormonally stuff).

Do you think theres no pain if you give up a child before its born? Thats pretty cold.

karen3212 wrote: »

Abortion causes far less suffering - for society as a whole, in my considered opinion.

Can you explain why?

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dades wrote: »

You might get more respect if you addressed people questions, rather than continually sidestepping.

1. Not every murder is the same. You might murder someone, because he was about to kill 1,000 people or you might murder just because you're bored.

2. You may murder to to save yourself. Someone breaks into your house, has a gun about to kill you. Not the same as just killing someone because you are bored.

3. You may murder out of revenge. Your daughter was raped by someone.

So w.r.t. to murder, there are a range of intents and consequences which must alter the level of evil or absence of morality.

W.r.t. rape there isn't the same range of intent and consequences, it's just intrinsically evil. There's also a major bias in that, men statistically, biologically and physically are more likely not to get raped. It can never be a "fair fight" (for want of a better term), it can never be motivated by revenge, or it can never be done for utilitarian reasons.

Are they exactly the same level of evil? I don't think that's a helpful question - "exact" outside mathematical contexts usually isn't.

I would simply say they are both usually very evil. But if you'd prefer to be raped then murdered, your choice on that one.

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you think theres no pain if you give up a child before its born? Thats pretty cold.

I don't think there's no pain, but surely you agree there's less pain the earlier you get rid of it (for want of a better phrase).

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Malari wrote: »

But I agree with a lot of Somethingwitty's early posts. I think I should be able to have an opinion on whether abortion should be a choice without having a black and white cut-off point.

Are you sure about that?
Mod's:
Would it be appropriate if we included pictures of fetus's?

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you sure about that?
Mod's:
Would it be appropriate if we included pictures of fetus's?

Don't trouble yourself, I've seen them.

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

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.

!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????????????????????????

Tim, that seems to be exactly what you are doing the whole time!!!
You are being extremly hypocritical of peoples views and it seems that you are the one who lacks respect. And I actually do explain my beliefs clearly and I can rationalise....
Even though I think its OK when somebody cant....
SOmetimes people just have a feeling that something is right or wrong, no matter how much they rationalise. You seem to think that people need to be able to justify every opinion. Its ok to question things, like you said thats the point of ethical philosophy... but you are just being a bit overbearing.

But just so you know, I did explain my views rationally. I think an abortion is OK. Yes it probably is murder, I dont really know when life begins. I dont think science can answer this because everyone has their own beliefs about when life begins. If I had to say... moment of conception. But even thought it is murder, I dont think its as bad because, as I said earlier, I dont think life begins until the baby is born. Thats just my opinion.
And until the baby is born, the mother comes first. Because she already has a life. And I think people are entitled to live their lives how they want.
That doesnt include the fetus, perhaps when it is closer to being born. Not because it looks more like a baby, but because it is more like a baby. It will have begun to develop a personlity by then. I dont care too much about the exact science of it because at the end of the day, I think mother comes first. I really hope I made that simple enough for you.
And what was that bull**** about my view on location being moot? That made absolutly no sense.
I am happy to discuss and debate, but I have no time for someone like you.
But anyway, that is my view broken down as much as possible, just for you Tim. Hope you can understand and accept. I dont really think there are any flaws in my opinion, but I'm sure you'll find something.

Mark Hamill

Malari wrote: »

I don't think there's no pain, but surely you agree there's less pain the earlier you get rid of it (for want of a better phrase).

Why? Because you can't see a foetus and you can see a baby? Do you think that a happily pregnant woman who has a miscarriage is in less pain than a woman with a baby who dies at a few days old?

OK-Cancel-Apply

I am against abortion entirely

Tim could you please address what I said in #275 re life being sacred? I said:

But still, how does the circumstance of the conception affect the sacredness of the life created? Life is either sacred or it isn't. It still comes down to a woman deciding she doesn't want to keep the child. I don't see why rape victims should have a choice if accidentally pregnant women shouldn't.

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why? Because you can't see a foetus and you can see a baby?

Yes. See, feel, etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you think that a happily pregnant woman who has a miscarriage is in less pain than a woman with a baby who dies at a few days old?

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.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So w.r.t. to murder, there are a range of intents and consequences which must alter the level of evil or absence of morality.

Just because there are situations when murder can potentially be justified, does not lesson the 'evil' in the situations where it is not.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would simply say they are both usually very evil. But if you'd prefer to be raped then murdered, your choice on that one.

I'd prefer neither but if there was a gun to my head I'd drop my pants, thanks.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Mod's:
Would it be appropriate if we included pictures of fetus's?

Fetus pictures will be deleted. This is a discussion, not a rally.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Dades wrote: »

Just because there are situations when murder can potentially be justified, does not lesson the 'evil' in the situations where it is not.

Correct if we can objectively decide it is not justified. That said, the question was murder vis a vi rape.

I'd prefer neither but if there was a gun to my head I'd drop my pants, thanks.

Fair enough. Although anecdotal, I have heard many women said they would choose the other.

Fetus pictures will be deleted. This is a discussion, not a rally.

That begs / raises the question is this an out of sight out of mind issue.

Asiaprod

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Mod's:
Would it be appropriate if we included pictures of fetus's?

For me, no thank you, though I would leave the final word on that to my fellow mod.
I would much rather your verbalize your answers since this is not a biology class. I would also ask you, as Dades pointed out, to answer the questions you were asked. Please do it verbally, equations and maths are fine on a blackboard, but really come across as bullying, condescending or even plain ignorant in the way you often use them. The onus is on you to verbalize in a manner that can be understood by all you hold dialogue with, that is one thing that will earn you respect.

Also to correct your last post a little

1. You might murder someone, because he was about to kill 1,000 people

How is that murder? I disagree with your definition.

2. You may murder to to save yourself. Someone breaks into your house, has a gun about to kill you.

Again, how is that murder? I disagree with your definition

Before you try to blind me with the dictionary definition of murder. Let me define it for you Murder = The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another; Premeditated = to think out or plan .
Therefore, going by this definition you are incorect. No 1 and 2 above are not premeditated, and No 2 is called self-defense

[edit] Sorry Dades, we both replied together so did not see your post re the images]

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That begs / raises the question is this an out of sight out of mind issue.

Does that make it less valid?

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That begs / raises the question is this an out of sight out of mind issue.

You may post an image of a fetus, as long as you post a second image of a fetus conceived by 'the ultimate evil', and then explain why one has a right to live and other doesn't.

BennyLava

I am against abortion entirely

I personally would be pro chioce, not that I am pro abortion, it's all situational anyway, there are too many variables that can be taken into account for either argument, pro or anti.

One thing that I have noticed from reading this thread, there are many arguments re the rights of the fetus v. the rights of the mother,

where do the rights of the father come into play. It takes two to make a baby, and where decisions need to be made, the fathers choice should be heard, its not just a women's health issue

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1. Not every murder is the same. You might murder someone, because he was about to kill 1,000 people or you might murder just because you're bored.

2. You may murder to to save yourself. Someone breaks into your house, has a gun about to kill you. Not the same as just killing someone because you are bored.

3. You may murder out of revenge. Your daughter was raped by someone.

4. You might conceive a baby you don't want, so you may murder it before it is born?

You stated that life was sacred. Is it not in some cases? Is it that innocence, rather than life is sacred? Is this an axiom or can you explan why?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That begs / raises the question is this an out of sight out of mind issue.

Might be to some people. To people like you and I, I suspect it's due to different emotional responses when we see said pictures. I'm usually rather indifferent to them (and they're displayed on O'Connell St. very often).

Tim Robbins

Undecided

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

But still, how does the circumstance of the conception affect the sacredness of the life created? Life is either sacred or it isn't. I don't see why rape victims should have a choice if accidentally pregnant women shouldn't.

Good question, because it only has complicated answers. The victim of rape shouldn't have to obey the same moral standards as non rape. I am sorry if I can't give a more intelligent answer. It would be interesting to see what the various intellectuals on this.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Asiaprod wrote: »

For me, no thank you, though I would leave the final word on that to my fellow mod.
I would much rather your verbalize your answers since this is not a biology class. I would also ask you, as Dades pointed out, to answer the questions you were asked. Please do it verbally, equations and maths are fine on a blackboard, but really come across as bullying, condescending or even plain ignorant in the way you often use them. The onus is on you to verbalize in a manner that can be understood by all you hold dialogue with, that is one thing that will earn you respect.

Also to correct your last post a little


How is that murder? I disagree with your definition.


Again, how is that murder? I disagree with your definition

Before you try to blind me with the dictionary definition of murder. Let me define it for you Murder = The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another; Premeditated = to think out or plan .
Therefore, going by this definition you are incorect. No 1 and 2 above are not premeditated, and No 2 is called self-defense

[edit] Sorry Dades, we both replied together so did not see your post re the images]

You're argument doesn't stack up for 1. That's clear cut. You could have plenty of premeditation and unlawfullness. For 2, you could pick anything apart and argue there is level of pre-meditation there. May only be 5 minutes but it's still pre-meditation. It's up to courts and lawyers to examine the validity of it.

As for the Maths, I have 7, 8 , 9 people arguing with me. Sorry I don't have time to hire an editor, I am trying to reply to all these arguments and work at the same time. Furthermore, we were discussing probability so Maths had to come into it unfortunately.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

4. You might conceive a baby you don't want, so you may murder it before it is born?

Is this saving other lifes? No
Is it motivated by revenge? No

You stated that life was sacred.

Correct. Do you think anything is sacred? Or are you nihilist?

Asiaprod

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sorry I don't have time to hire an editor, I am trying to reply to all these arguments and work at the same time.

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.

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do you think anything is sacred?

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.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Or are you nihilist?

Somewhat, I suppose.