Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

Tim Robbins

Undecided

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Tim, could you please clarify your position on why abortion is ok for incestuously conceived foetuses?

I am actually not sure about incest, if abortion should be permitted.
Rape, I would bend the rules for.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

mollydolly271 wrote: »

I'm sure we all have better ways to spend 15 mins!!!!!!!!!! I know i do.

This is the kind of thing I find really annoying about boards.ie. People all too easy to give their opinions with certitude think they are right; think they're experts but when it comes to doing some simple research, it's sneered at.

It's actually quite an intelligent, thought provoking piece, far better put than anything in this entire discourse. And, I am sure you have spent far more than 15 minutes in this thread so far.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And at what stage do you think a foetus starts wanting a career, to travel, and more? 11 weeks after conception? 24 weeks? How about after birth? Have you seen a baby a few weeks old? All they do is eat and sleep and cry if they get hungry, cold or soil themselves. If you justify abortion on the basis of the foetus not having any desires beyond the the basic animal desires, then you have to include infants.

Mark, do you ever think that there's a bit out of sight, out of mind going on here. People think because they don't see a fetus, killing it is not the same as killing a baby?

Bilogically, humans evolved so that babies are delivered quite early in their development cycle. A human baby is dependent on its Mother (or other humans) up until at least 3 years whereas other species after a matter of weeks, the child can fend for itself. The reason for all of this is because when human head size grew, the width size of hips didn't, this meant the baby popped had to pop sooner.

Ergo, there is very little difference between a young baby and a fetus. Biologically they are almost identical, as you pointed out.

mollydolly271

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I find really annoying about boards.ie. People all too easy to give their opinions with certitude think they are right; think they're experts but when it comes to doing some simple research, it's sneered at.

It's actually quite an intelligent, thought provoking piece, far better put than anything in this entire discourse. And, I am sure you have spent far more than 15 minutes in this thread so far.

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE RESEARCH AND COME OUT WITH SOME FANCY DANCY(YES I SAID FANCY DANCY) WORDS DOESNT MAKE UR OPINIONS ANY MORE RIGHT THAN MINE. IF ITS MY OPINION I DONT NEED TO RESEARCH IT I KNOW I FEEL.I JUST THINK THAT U ARE BEING QUITE CONDESENDING IN YOUR POSTS

Tim Robbins

Undecided

mollydolly271 wrote: »

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE RESEARCH AND COME OUT WITH SOME FANCY DANCY(YES I SAID FANCY DANCY) WORDS DOESNT MAKE UR OPINIONS ANY MORE RIGHT THAN MINE. IF ITS MY OPINION I DONT NEED TO RESEARCH IT I KNOW I FEEL.I JUST THINK THAT U ARE BEING QUITE CONDESENDING IN YOUR POSTS

I am sorry you find me condesending. I just find it very irratating that people can have such strong opinions on such a serious life / death issue and couldn't give a toss about how much / little research they do.

What are your motives in this thread? To challenge your own views or just make a bit of noise?

mollydolly271

I am against abortion entirely

NEITHER, JUST TO GIVE MY OPINION AND TO SEE OTHERS,WHY WHATS YOURS?

Tim Robbins

Undecided

mollydolly271 wrote: »

NEITHER, JUST TO GIVE MY OPINION AND TO SEE OTHERS,WHY WHATS YOURS?

To have a debate and examine my own opinions.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am actually not sure about incest, if abortion should be permitted.
Rape, I would bend the rules for.

Fair enough.. perhaps this particular question hangs on the other issue, and indeed, the other thread.

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

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?

somethingwitty

I am against abortion entirely

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.

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.