To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women on abortion?

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

It answered the question asked.

No you didn't. As I said, it is quite clear that I was asking what the biblical arguments are. You did not infer this and I cannot understand why.

I think the attempt to take this thread off on a tangent is childish and I would have thought that you would have infered from my responses so far that there is no desire to do so.

My posts were on topic. They were regarding the extent to which religious belief influences women's stance on abortion. Whether anti-abortion is an explicit necessity, or an implicit suggestion in Christianity is important to understand when answering the question.

That religion may influence a person is one thing. That the Bible may influence a person is another. Neither has any influence on a pro-life atheist.

This thread is not about pro-life atheism, or about the scientific case for the pro- or anti-abortion stance. It is about the extent to which religious belief can influence a woman's stance on abortion. The relationship between Christianity and the abortion issue is complex, with many subtleties.

http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/11/can_christians_.html

What the Bible or theology or Catholicism or Christianity or science has to say is in my opinion not relevant to this thread as the scope is quite specific. As Fanny suggested a thread with a less wide scope than the current one in humanities may be a better option.

I would be more than happy to engage the matter in another thread. I will leave the decision to you.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

How condfident are you of those figures? As I understand it the figures come from the abortion clinics and are based on the address provided.
As far as I am aware the clinics do not record PPS SSN or any other form of "hard" identity and are more concerned that the mother is of an age and that the service they are providing has been legally ticked of by the requisite number of doctors in the UK.

In short the validation and verification of those numbers is difficult.

Consider how easy it would be for a UK resident to give an Irish address for the sake of anonymity.
Consider those from other countries in Europe who travel to the UK to avail of their more lax laws. Do they always give a true home address or do they also want to preserve some level of anonymity?

I have no evidence either way but unless a check is put on all Irish persons returning from the UK and questioning them as to what their business abroad was there is no way anyone can be certain that the statistics are valid.

Another question that is not answered by these statistics is the religion of the person providing an Irish address.

If it were me I would not provide a correct address or my religion unless I was legally compelled to do so.


Please also bear in mind the vested interests of those providing the statistics.

Please bear in mind the vested interests querying those statistics.

Also the figure provided is probably understated as it cannot include those Irish women that gave english addresses

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is that God knows people from before birth. God forms human life, it isn't ours to destroy frivolously. There are many more Scriptures that I've listed also.

How does that work with the concept of free will. I mean if you have already existed in part of God's plan then your parents having sex with each other is some what irrelevant, as is them having an abortion. This would, again, be part of God's plan. Your parents could not have sex the night they were going to and you wouldn't be born, or they coudl have an abortion after, and you wouldn't be born. Both are choices your parents made, but must some how fit into God's plan? Or God can't control it at all and thus doesn't decide.

Jakkass wrote: »

If abortion didn't involve the death of another human being I'd be all for it in every case. I don't think most pro-choicers actually give proper consideration to why pro-lifers are clearly opposed to it.

To be honest I've really struggled to find a coherent argument in most of the positions I've heard from the anti-abortion side, including the one you just gave above. That is not just the religious arguments, arguments like it is when the DNA rearranges and such are just as arbitrary. So possibly what you see as lack of consideration is just actually frustration at the ignoring of the contradictions and inconsistencies.

Not that the pro-choice side are much better, there are some whoppers of bad arguments on that side as well, such as it is ok if the woman has been raped, or it is ok if it is incest.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

No you didn't. As I said, it is quite clear that I was asking what the biblical arguments are. You did not infer this and I cannot understand why.

You asked a closed question.

Morbert wrote: »

My posts were on topic. They were regarding the extent to which religious belief influences women's stance on abortion. Whether anti-abortion is an explicit necessity, or an implicit suggestion in Christianity is important to understand when answering the question.

Abortion is not a religious or theological issue therefore what the Bible says has no bearing beyond "thou shalt not kill"

Morbert wrote: »

This thread is not about pro-life atheism, or about the scientific case for the pro- or anti-abortion stance. It is about the extent to which religious belief can influence a woman's stance on abortion. The relationship between Christianity and the abortion issue is complex, with many subtleties.

Religous belief can influence anyone on anything.

Morbert wrote: »

I would be more than happy to engage the matter in another thread. I will leave the decision to you.

First off, you're the one asking the questions.

Secondly you appear to be pro-abortion couched as pro-choice. Why should I indulge you?

neuro-praxis

Abortion is quite simply, even from a philosophical perspective, indefensible. There just is no coherent argument whatsoever in its favour, other than as an emergency measure to save the life of the mother. The right to choose ethic is a nonsense "middle ground" based on the value of autonomy over the value of life itself. It is a raging contradiction. For there to be choice, there must first be life.

However if to you life has no intrinsic value then I can understand being in favour of abortions. Hey, let's all have one.

But I have yet to meet anyone so consistently Nietzschean that they deny the intrinsic value of human beings. Even the most decrepid humans seem to love someone...

neuro-praxis

PS Peter Singer is the only "philosopher" who actually dares to take the pro-choice argument to its logical conclusion, and he is considered a hyperbolic joke by academics.

marienbad

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Abortion is quite simply, even from a philosophical perspective, indefensible. There just is no coherent argument whatsoever in its favour, other than as an emergency measure to save the life of the mother. The right to choose ethic is a nonsense "middle ground" based on the value of autonomy over the value of life itself. It is a raging contradiction. For there to be choice, there must first be life.

However if to you life has no intrinsic value then I can understand being in favour of abortions. Hey, let's all have one.

But I have yet to meet anyone so consistently Nietzschean that they deny the intrinsic value of human beings. Even the most decrepid humans seem to love someone...

That would be your philosophical perspective I assume, and no argument coherent or otherwise that you can accept ?

Festus

neuro-praxis wrote: »

But I have yet to meet anyone so consistently Nietzschean that they deny the intrinsic value of human beings. Even the most decrepid humans seem to love someone...

...themselves at least

antiskeptic

Immaculata wrote: »

Well, I'm fervently pro-choice and I'm Christian. But while I support the right of other women to have an abortion if they feel the need, I'd never have an abortion myself. So it's not as simple a question as you'd think.

Hi Immaculata..

How does that work, precisely? If the reason you wouldn't have an abortion stems from the view that the taking of anothers life constitutes murder, then how would you support another person doing the same?

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Abortion is quite simply, even from a philosophical perspective, indefensible. There just is no coherent argument whatsoever in its favour, other than as an emergency measure to save the life of the mother. The right to choose ethic is a nonsense "middle ground" based on the value of autonomy over the value of life itself. It is a raging contradiction. For there to be choice, there must first be life.

Very few on the pro-choice side, unless they are really silly, claim that the death of something alive doesn't occur.

But then every time you eat a piece of food you kill millions of life forms, and you don't care.

So people say well it is different because the fetus is human. Ok, so how does that change anything, what makes a human special and a bacteria not special.

A lot of people, including myself, would say that the defining characteristic of humanity that makes it wrong to kill a human being is the personality, memory, sentience, consciousness what ever you want to call it, of that person stored in their brain.

Which is why we have little trouble destroying a life if it has no brain, and have increasing trouble destroying life the more of this quality it begins to possess (destroying an ant is not regarded in the same light as destroying a dolphin). Also if the person is brain dead because we believe they are already gone and have little ethical trouble turning off life support machines.

Depending on the age of the fetus up to a particular point in time it does not have a brain or at least not have a brain that is capable of forming memory and personality and other higher human functions.

As such destroying this before that point is not destroying a life form with the valuable characteristics of life, it is destroying a life form without the valuable characteristics of life, and as I said we have no problem doing that we do it all the time.

While it is true that the life form may eventually possess these that has never been a convincing argument not to stop a natural process from eventually producing a life form with these valuable characteristics, which is why we use condoms despite this stopping the process as well. Potential to exist has never been considered the same as actually existing.

There, a non-religious argument for pro-choice that (I hope) is coherent and easy to understand. You may disagree but to be honest I've yet to hear an argument that is as coherent to counter this argument. It is very difficult to argue that the brain isn't the thing we value in human life. Arguments that it is the DNA and such just end up contradicting themselves since all life has DNA.

We are probably 150 years away from the idea of a full brain transplant. I'm pretty certain that when that day comes we will consider the "person" as remaining with the brain, not the body they leave. The body will probably be discarded without the notion that a human being has died.

You will notice it also doesn't allow for late term abortions, something I am against.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

However if to you life has no intrinsic value then I can understand being in favour of abortions. Hey, let's all have one.

Life by itself has no intrinsic value, right now you are killing millions of bacteria and I'm pretty sure you don't care.

So it is the characteristics of certain life that gives it value over other forms of life. So the next question is what are these characteristics. I think most people would, if they thought about it, agree that it is the characteristics of the life form's brain.

No brain = little value, as demonstrated by the utter lack of remorse we feel destroying bacteria.

The greater the brain power the organism actually has at that moment the greater we value the organism.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

But I have yet to meet anyone so consistently Nietzschean that they deny the intrinsic value of human beings. Even the most decrepid humans seem to love someone...

True, but you are not asking the question why we consider human life valuable and ant life or bacteria life or lukeworm life not valuable.

Hint, it isn't because we are alive and they aren't, so the argument about valuing "life" is a non-starter. None of us value life in of itself. Even a vegan who only eats green leafs is destroying life.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

You asked a closed question.

No I didn't. It is quite clear that I was asking what the biblical arguments are. You refusal to accept this leads me to believe you are deliberately being childish about it.

Abortion is not a religious or theological issue therefore what the Bible says has no bearing beyond "thou shalt not kill"

You said there are Biblical arguments that life begins at conception. Now you are saying the Bible has no bearing on it. Which is it?

First off, you're the one asking the questions.

You asked the question about scientific arguments.

Secondly you appear to be pro-abortion couched as pro-choice. Why should I indulge you?

This is irrelevant rhetoric.

neuro-praxis

Way to go missing the point Wicknight.

I will make one clarification and one only. Human life. I was talking about human life. Anyone could see that, but thanks for a bucketful of red herrings and straw men.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

So it is the characteristics of certain life that gives it value over other forms of life. So the next question is what are these characteristics. I think most people would, if they thought about it, agree that it is the characteristics of the life form's brain.

No brain = little value, as demonstrated by the utter lack of remorse we feel destroying bacteria.

The greater the brain power the organism actually has at that moment the greater we value the organism.

I think it often has more to do with cuteness. I've yet to see a campaign to protest against the killing of octopus - even though they are incredibly intelligent (and also very very tasty). Yet people get all worked up about hitting a baby seal with a club, even though the seal is so unbearably dim that it shuffles up to its killer.

Festus

Immaculata wrote: »

Well, I'm fervently pro-choice and I'm Christian.

Is Christ pro-choice?

Festus

PDN wrote: »

I think it often has more to do with cuteness. I've yet to see a campaign to protest against the killing of octopus - even though they are incredibly intelligent (and also very very tasty). Yet people get all worked up about hitting a baby seal with a club, even though the seal is so unbearably dim that it shuffles up to its killer.

and very very tasty...

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

No I didn't. It is quite clear that I was asking what the biblical arguments are. You refusal to accept this leads me to believe you are deliberately being childish about it.

Your question was...

Morbert wrote: »

Is there any Biblical argument that life begins at conception?

That is a closed question. You received an honest if closed answer. If you wanted a Biblical argument presented you should have said so. You did not present such a request.

Morbert wrote: »

You said there are Biblical arguments that life begins at conception. Now you are saying the Bible has no bearing on it. Which is it?

Both. Why does it matter if there is a Biblical arguement? This is about human life. Either human life is disposable or it is not.

Morbert wrote: »

You asked the question about scientific arguments.

As a rhetorical rebuttal. Both of us know the answer to the question.

Morbert wrote: »

This is irrelevant rhetoric.

Please yourself mate but you don't come across as being pro-life or anti-abortion

yellowlabrador

In my experience, from talking to women who've had abortions, their religiosity didn't form part of their decision. it was more a radical solution to a major problem.It could be financial pressure or family shame or rejection by the father but that didn't balance out with their religious views. I think that it's best that you maybe talk to women who've actually been through this experience.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

A lot of people, including myself, would say that the defining characteristic of humanity that makes it wrong to kill a human being is the personality, memory, sentience, consciousness what ever you want to call it, of that person stored in their brain.


Depending on the age of the fetus up to a particular point in time it does not have a brain or at least not have a brain that is capable of forming memory and personality and other higher human functions.

As such destroying this before that point is not destroying a life form with the valuable characteristics of life, it is destroying a life form without the valuable characteristics of life, and as I said we have no problem doing that we do it all the time.

Discrimination based on developmental stage.
Why not destroy everything that is developing and growing yet not yet fully developed?

I'm sure there are some bacteria we should eradicate now to stop evolution in it's tracks and protect the humans of the future from any competition from a higher life form.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

No brain = little value, as demonstrated by the utter lack of remorse we feel destroying bacteria.

Isn't this nothing more than a rehash of similar logic deployed the best part of a century ago?

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

So people say well it is different because the fetus is human. Ok, so how does that change anything, what makes a human special and a bacteria not special.

The same thing that says a Christian is special and an atheist isn't.

The logic is simple. Christians believe that all humans, even atheists have an immortal soul. Christians believe that if an atheist dies and persists in their rejection of God they may in all probablity spend eternity in Hell. Atheists love probablility. And quantum theory.
Christians believe that the presence of the human soul is what separates us from the animals. Christians believe that killing a human is wrong but killing an animal is not wrong.
Atheists do not believe they have a soul therefore atheists are not human and are merely the highest form of animal life on the planet. Therefore atheists by atheistic definition are animals and hence are not entitled to any protection or right to life.

To an atheist a human is nothing more than another species. Nothing special.

If someone in power in a country decided that was their ideology and set about killing all atheists within that country there would be outcry but no-one would do anything about it as long as no international law was broken and the power that was destroying atheists stayed within it's own borders.
So, within the confines of that country atheists can be legitimately defined as animals by their own definition and treated accordingly.
What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that regardless of what atheists think the rest of humanity has a different opinion and one that protects all humanity including the atheist whether they want that protection or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why we have little trouble destroying a life if it has no brain,

Which is why similar logic can be used to allow the killing of atheists.

Wicknight wrote: »

No brain = little value, as demonstrated by the utter lack of remorse we feel destroying bacteria.

Which is why atheists can be killed with no remorese.

Wicknight wrote: »

The greater the brain power the organism actually has at that moment the greater we value the organism.

Which is why only those atheists with an IQ score above an arbitrary value may not be killed.


Are any of the above statements distasteful? I hope so.
Are any of the above statements ridiculous? Of course not. They have been used time and time again when one party wants to exert power over another.

All atheists are human.
All atheists were once nothing more than a single cell growing and developing.
All atheists were once nothing more than a brainless foetus.
All atheists have the potential to find God.

Either all of us are human and equally deserving of the same right to life or none of us are. Define one element of humanity as being undeserving of a right to life and you negate that right for everyone.

[Disclaimer: the above is meant to be taken as a whole. No partial edits will be entertained by this poster for discussion purposes or any other. The reference to atheists is by way of example and should not be taken personally. Please feel free to substitute Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Irish or anything you feel suits your argument as desired. The poster reserves the right to amend this dislaimer as required at any time for any reason]

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

The same thing that says a Christian is special and an atheist isn't.

The logic is simple. Christians believe that all humans, even atheists have an immortal soul. Christians believe that if an atheist dies and persists in their rejection of God they may in all probablity spend eternity in Hell. Atheists love probablility. And quantum theory.
Christians believe that the presence of the human soul is what separates us from the animals. Christians believe that killing a human is wrong but killing an animal is not wrong.
Atheists do not believe they have a soul therefore atheists are not human and are merely the highest form of animal life on the planet. Therefore atheists by atheistic definition are animals and hence are not entitled to any protection or right to life.

To an atheist a human is nothing more than another species. Nothing special.

If someone in power in a country decided that was their ideology and set about killing all atheists within that country there would be outcry but no-one would do anything about it as long as no international law was broken and the power that was destroying atheists stayed within it's own borders.
So, within the confines of that country atheists can be legitimately defined as animals by their own definition and treated accordingly.
What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that regardless of what atheists think the rest of humanity has a different opinion and one that protects all humanity including the atheist whether they want that protection or not.




Which is why similar logic can be used to allow the killing of atheists.



Which is why atheists can be killed with no remorese.




Which is why only those atheists with an IQ score above an arbitrary value may not be killed.


Are any of the above statements distasteful? I hope so.
Are any of the above statements ridiculous? Of course not. They have been used time and time again when one party wants to exert power over another.

All atheists are human.
All atheists were once nothing more than a single cell growing and developing.
All atheists were once nothing more than a brainless foetus.
All atheists have the potential to find God.

Either all of us are human and equally deserving of the same right to life or none of us are. Define one element of humanity as being undeserving of a right to life and you negate that right for everyone.

[Disclaimer: the above is meant to be taken as a whole. No partial edits will be entertained by this poster for discussion purposes or any other. The reference to atheists is by way of example and should not be taken personally. Please feel free to substitute Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu or anything you feel suits your argument as desired. The poster reserves the right to amend this dislaimer as required at any time for any reason]

Yea ,well , a foetus is neither atheist or a christian, it is just a foetus, so all of the above is irrelevant . It that not the real issue ? when does life begin ? And people will never, ever agree on that , so maybe best left to individual concience.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Yea ,well , a foetus is neither atheist or a christian, it is just a foetus, so all of the above is irrelevant . It that not the real issue ? when does life begin ? And people will never, ever agree on that , so maybe best left to individual concience.

When will your life begin?

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

When will your life begin?

Oh, I have a life my dear Festus and it is interesting enough that I dont have to go peeking in to others to enjoy it.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Yea ,well , a foetus is neither atheist or a christian, it is just a foetus, so all of the above is irrelevant . It that not the real issue ? when does life begin ? And people will never, ever agree on that , so maybe best left to individual concience.

So if someone decides that live doesn't start until a child is 5 years old, then should it be left up to their conscxience whether they kill their 4 year old or not?

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

So if someone decides that live doesn't start until a child is 5 years old, then should it be left up to their conscxience whether they kill their 4 year old or not?

No, if after medical exam there were found to be not a lunatic, they would be correctly tried for infanticide.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Your question was...

"Is there any Biblical argument that life begins at conception?"

That is a closed question. You received an honest if closed answer. If you wanted a Biblical argument presented you should have said so. You did not present such a request.

Yes I did.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69576880&postcount=30

After you said there are Biblical arguments, I asked what the Biblical arguments were.

Both. Why does it matter if there is a Biblical arguement? This is about human life. Either human life is disposable or it is not.

That makes no sense. If there are Biblical arguments that life begins at conception, then the Bible has more of a bearing on the issue than "thou shalt not kill". And it matters if there is a Biblical argument because this thread is regarding the influence Christianity has on the abortion issue. It determines whether Christians are strictly compelled to be anti-abortion.

(I am waiting to see if this thread is going to be locked by the mods before I weigh in on the secular arguments for/against abortion rights)

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

No, if after medical exam there were found to be not a lunatic, they would be correctly tried for infanticide.

Ah, so you aren't really in favour of it being left to the individual's conscience to decide when life begins or whether to terminate that life?

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Way to go missing the point Wicknight.

I will make one clarification and one only. Human life.

I know, that clarification is not needed. You are talking about the value of human life without the detail of why human life is valuable. It isn't simply because it is alive.

The point is that human life has value for specific characteristics not present in other life forms, characteristics that are not present in the early form fetus.

You may disagree with that statement, or you may believe human life is valuable just because, but to say this is not a coherent pro-choice argument would be foolish in my opinion.

PDN wrote: »

I think it often has more to do with cuteness. I've yet to see a campaign to protest against the killing of octopus - even though they are incredibly intelligent (and also very very tasty). Yet people get all worked up about hitting a baby seal with a club, even though the seal is so unbearably dim that it shuffles up to its killer.

Agreed, I was almost going to say something on that subject but thought it might just muddle the water a bit. Arguments against abortion based on pattern matching to baby forms (cuteness as you say) tend to be largely emotional rather than rational. I personally find them rather annoying, anyone who is pro-choice and switches to anti-abortion because they see a picture of a fetus and shock horror is looks like a baby makes me feel like asking when you were pro-choice what did you think it looked like.

Similar some what to an atheist who is an atheist because priests molested children, as if that has anything to do with the question of whether God exists.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Discrimination based on developmental stage.

Yes, based on the characteristics the fetus has at the moment of abortion.

Festus wrote: »

Why not destroy everything that is developing and growing yet not yet fully developed?

What do you mean by "everything"?

Last night I destroyed approx 2 million sperm. Do you care?

And before you say sperm is different, I know it is that is the point. Discrimination based on development stage, as you said.

Festus wrote: »

I'm sure there are some bacteria we should eradicate now to stop evolution in it's tracks and protect the humans of the future from any competition from a higher life form.

I've no idea what that is supposed to refer to, my post mentioned nothing about evolution or threat from other life forms.

Festus wrote: »

Isn't this nothing more than a rehash of similar logic deployed the best part of a century ago?

I would imagine there was a lot of logic deployed a century ago so you are going to have to be a bit more specific.

Festus wrote: »

The logic is simple. Christians believe that all humans, even atheists have an immortal soul. Christians believe that if an atheist dies and persists in their rejection of God they may in all probablity spend eternity in Hell. Atheists love probablility. And quantum theory.
Christians believe that the presence of the human soul is what separates us from the animals. Christians believe that killing a human is wrong but killing an animal is not wrong.

The issue in that logic though is a lot of people, Christians included it seems, believe killing animals such as Great Apes and Dolphins is immoral. If we go simply on what you just said it shouldn't be. So why do you think many view it as immoral?

Festus wrote: »

Therefore atheists by atheistic definition are animals and hence are not entitled to any protection or right to life.

Not entitled to protection by Christians standards of the immortal soul characteristic. But since atheists don't use Christians standards that is rather irrelevant.

It would be nonsensical to argue that atheists reject one thing Christians say (humans have an immortal soul) but are bound to another thing they say (humans only have value if they have an immortal soul).

Festus wrote: »

So, within the confines of that country atheists can be legitimately defined as animals by their own definition and treated accordingly.
What is wrong with that?

Well as I pointed out already very few people view classifying something as an animal a justification for killing it, apart from you it seems.

So we find ourselves in the some what surreal, though unfortunately rather common, position of a theist trying to argue the moral high ground and ending up actually arguing a rather indefensible moral position, that being that all animals no matter their characteristics can be killed at will because they don't have an immoral soul.

What is wrong with that one would have thought barely needs mentioning, but apparently it does. I, like most people, view the value of a life form based on the characteristics that it holds, not whether it falls into "has immortal soul"/ "doesn't have immortal soul"

We are all animals but I reject your argument that all animals have no value and can be killed at will. That is a Christian argument (or more specifically an argument from a Christian as I doubt many Christians agree with it), not an atheist one.

Similar logic as yours has in the passed been used to justify killing people of other human races who were considered "just animal" as they were viewed as not containing a soul.

The problem was that this was Christian logic, used by Christians in the past to kill people they viewed as not possessing a soul, because after all what is the harm in doing that, life without a soul has no value, correct?

So you ain't doing your side much favours there. As I said most people, including Christians, no longer view the value of life in those terms.

Festus wrote: »

Are any of the above statements distasteful? I hope so.

Yes, the ones where you define it ok to kill anything that, in your opinion, doesn't have a soul.

Festus wrote: »

Are any of the above statements ridiculous? Of course not. They have been used time and time again when one party wants to exert power over another.

Atheists don't use Christian dogma they don't believe in to justify anything, that is nonsensical.

I would challenge you to find any atheists who has ever said according to Christianity it is moral to kill anything without a soul and since I don't believe in the soul therefore it is moral to kill anyone :rolleyes:

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Feel free to comment on the disclaimer too :rolleyes:

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so you aren't really in favour of it being left to the individual's conscience to decide when life begins or whether to terminate that life?

Yes I am completely in favour of the individuals right to choose, and this is really not a valid argument as where life begins is an open question. The life of a 4 year old is not open to question. And please lets not go down the road of 3 year old , a 1 year, 24 weeks etc. I may even agree with you at some point, but the difference is I have no wish to impose that on everyone else.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Yes I am completely in favour of the individuals right to choose, and this is really not a valid argument as where life begins is an open question. The life of a 4 year old is not open to question. And please lets not go down the road of 3 year old , a 1 year, 24 weeks etc. I may even agree with you at some point, but the difference is I have no wish to impose that on everyone else.

No, you are being illogical.

You say that the life of a 4-year old is not open to question. Why not? In my book, the life of a foetus is not open to question.

In China, for many centuries, the like of a girl was open to question. In Nazi Germany the life of a gypsy child was open to question.

Once you choose to go down the subjective road of individual conscience then you have to follow it to its logical end - not just when you agree with it.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Feel free to comment on the disclaimer too :rolleyes:

The disclaimer seems just clarifying that by "atheist" you mean non-Christian. I have no issue with that, so there is nothing to comment on.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

No, you are being illogical.

You say that the life of a 4-year old is not open to question. Why not? In my book, the life of a foetus is not open to question.

In China, for many centuries, the like of a girl was open to question. In Nazi Germany the life of a gypsy child was open to question.

Once you choose to go down the subjective road of individual conscience then you have to follow it to its logical end - not just when you agree with it.

I am being completely logical, it all depends on where you believe life begins. Forget the nazis, china, gypsy, why muddy the waters ? nothing to do with it. You believe that life begins at point A, that fact that there is no concensus on that , scientific, medical,moral , dos'nt seem to trouble you. Point A it is for you and so it will be for everyone else !

The key point is 'in my book'' as you say , it is your book .

See, I dont have that certitude, I may even agree with you, but as 'I have no window to look into other mens souls' I dont feel the need to impose my beliefs on them.

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

Yes I am completely in favour of the individuals right to choose, and this is really not a valid argument as where life begins is an open question. The life of a 4 year old is not open to question. And please lets not go down the road of 3 year old , a 1 year, 24 weeks etc. I may even agree with you at some point, but the difference is I have no wish to impose that on everyone else.

Have to agree with PDN here. There is only a "right" to choose after a consensus that a fetus does not have the same rights as an older baby and that abortion is acceptable. By the time you get to a right to choose bit the decision as to abortion must have already been made.

This is highlighted, as PDN says, by the fact that a parent does not have the right to kill their 5 year old child, so there is no choice there. You can choose to kill your child but you will be thrown in jail.

You cannot have the right to choose to abort a baby unless you have already established you have the right to choose to abort a baby. Then there is a choice. You can then decide to abort or not, but you cannot be left to decide if you have the right to abort in the first place. If that was the case people would decide on an individual bases they have the right to "abort" their 2 year old child.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice for early term abortions. I just wish people would think through the argument a bit further. The pro-choice side fall back on this argument about choice far too much without thinking does the choice actually exist in the first place, and how can that be justified.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

See, I dont have that certitude,

If you don't have certitude then why aren't you erring on the side of caution?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

See, I dont have that certitude, I may even agree with you, but as 'I have no window to look into other mens souls' I dont feel the need to impose my beliefs on them.

Fine, then don't impose your beliefs on others by telling them they can't kill 4-year olds.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

The disclaimer seems just clarifying that by "atheist" you mean non-Christian. I have no issue with that, so there is nothing to comment on.

for the benefit of those capable of reading and synthesis

Festus wrote: »

[Disclaimer: the above is meant to be taken as a whole. No partial edits will be entertained by this poster for discussion purposes or any other. The reference to atheists is by way of example and should not be taken personally. Please feel free to substitute Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Irish or anything you feel suits your argument as desired. The poster reserves the right to amend this dislaimer as required at any time for any reason]

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you don't have certitude then why aren't you erring on the side of caution?

How do you know I dont. ? All you know for certain id that I dont impose my beliefs on others .

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Fine, then don't impose your beliefs on others by telling them they can't kill 4-year olds.

I dont impose my beliefs on anyone, I leave that to you.

marienbad

Wicknight wrote: »

Have to agree with PDN here. There is only a "right" to choose after a consensus that a fetus does not have the same rights as an older baby and that abortion is acceptable. By the time you get to a right to choose bit the decision as to abortion must have already been made.

This is highlighted, as PDN says, by the fact that a parent does not have the right to kill their 5 year old child, so there is no choice there. You can choose to kill your child but you will be thrown in jail.

You cannot have the right to choose to abort a baby unless you have already established you have the right to choose to abort a baby. Then there is a choice. You can then decide to abort or not, but you cannot be left to decide if you have the right to abort in the first place. If that was the case people would decide on an individual bases they have the right to "abort" their 2 year old child.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice for early term abortions. I just wish people would think through the argument a bit further. The pro-choice side fall back on this argument about choice far too much without thinking does the choice actually exist in the first place, and how can that be justified.

Not at all Wicknight, how far back do one have to go, as you said yourself you killed a couple of million last night ! That is the problem with either or arguments , life is not like that, so why not leave it to the individual.

Otherwise it is just angels on the head of a pin stuff.

prinz

marienbad wrote: »

How do you know I dont. ? All you know for certain id that I dont impose my beliefs on others .

So you've never voted on any referendum? Or any elections?... and you never will?

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

How do you know I dont. ?

You said as much in your post.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

I dont impose my beliefs on anyone, I leave that to you.

I'm not sure who you think I've imposed my beliefs on - unless while I was asleep last night there's been a coup and I've been appointed as dictator over Ireland.

I do have beliefs about what should be enshrined in law, just as you do. It just appears that I admit that we're doing the same thing whereas you pretend to be different.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

for the benefit of those capable of reading and synthesis

I imagine they read it the first time, the issue isn't reading the disclaimer the issue is figuring out what the heck you want to discuss in relation to it.

Perhaps you now appreciate the mistake you made in your original post, assuming an atheist who rejects Christians principles would continue to follow a Christian principle, and now just wish to discuss anything else but that, including your disclaimer that no one has issue with.

Here is the complete works of Shakespeare. Discuss :pac:

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all Wicknight, how far back do one have to go, as you said yourself you killed a couple of million last night ! That is the problem with either or arguments , life is not like that, so why not leave it to the individual.

Because, as we have already said, I and others (and I imagine you) don't want individuals deciding that little 4 year old Johnny doesn't, according to them, possess the characteristics that confer rights to him and it is ok to kill him.

In order to say it is up to the individual whether they want to abort the fetus you first have to establish that aborting a fetus is acceptably, morally.

Saying we will leave it up to the individual is fine if the choice is doing it or not.

It isn't fine if the choice is if it is moral or not. Leaving morality up to individuals is unworkable. A bank robber may feel that it is moral to rob a bank. Saying well that is up to him is unworkable.

marienbad

prinz wrote: »

So you've never voted on any referendum? Or any elections?... and you never will?

Of course I have, your point ?

prinz

marienbad wrote: »

Of course I have, your point ?

Congratulations you have imposed, or at least attempted to, your beliefs on others.

marienbad

Wicknight wrote: »

Because, as we have already said, I and others (and I imagine you) don't want individuals deciding that little 4 year old Johnny doesn't, according to them, possess the characteristics that confer rights to him and it is ok to kill him.

In order to say it is up to the individual whether they want to abort the fetus you first have to establish that aborting a fetus is acceptably, morally.

Saying we will leave it up to the individual is fine if the choice is doing it or not.

It isn't fine if the choice is if it is moral or not. Leaving morality up to individuals is unworkable. A bank robber may feel that it is moral to rob a bank. Saying well that is up to him is unworkable.

your are conflating all morality, some issues are individual choice with no implications for society, some are societal choices, the issues are which is which . Bank robbers etc have nothing to do with it.

marienbad

prinz wrote: »

Congratulations you have imposed, or at least attempted to, your beliefs on others.

I assumed that was what you were going to say, and lets just agree to disagree, as I said elsewhere this is just angels on the head of a pin stuff.