Abortion Discussion

doctoremma

Jan T. wrote: »

Can an atheist be anti-abortion ?

Asks question.
Posts video answering own question.

Genghiz Cohen

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why not?

Atheists only thing in common with each other is that they do not believe in a god.

After that all bets are off I'd imagine.

I DISAGREE!

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

But that principle doesn't apply across the board in practice. We don't always save lives where it is technically possible to do so. We don't always use "viability" to dictate treatment choices. Why is "viability" a primary argument for dictating the need for care of a fetus but not a primary argument against the DNAR that currently sits on my mother-in-law's medical records?


Probably the same answer as above.

Again, I'm arguing morality here, not practicality or what happens. Morally, we should always save lives where it is technically possible to do so, as long as it doesn't interfere with the individual's choice. I'm not going to comment on your mother-in-law's DNAR as it is probably an incredibly complex issue I don't have the facts on and is also probably an emotional one too.

doctoremma wrote:

Agree. But someone will point out historical cases where humans have most definitely not been given moral consideration, nor the right to life, so I was just pre-empting that....

I know, I was just sorry you had to.

doctoremma wrote:

I don't follow, could you please clarify your point?

Recipients of new organs get them on the basis that they are viable to get it. If they're old for example, they probably won't get their heart transplant and be let die. Morally, everyone should be able to get the best medical treatment possible, regardless of age. Practically, that's not the case.

El_Duderino 09

It's perfectly conceivable that one could arrive at a pro life position without belief in gods.

I agree with the point he repeats in this video that 'unborn child' has meaning. I also think a woman has a right to choose what goes on in her body and I feel the woman's right trumps the unborn child's right to use her body.

Whilst holding a pro-choice position myself, I don't think an abortion is a good thing, I think it remains a woman's right to choose.

Gumbi

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I DISAGREE!

By definition, you're wrong

Jan T.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's perfectly conceivable that one could arrive at a pro life position without belief in gods.

I agree with the point he repeats in this video that 'unborn child' has meaning. I also think a woman has a right to choose what goes on in her body and I feel the woman's right trumps the unborn child's right to use her body.

Whilst holding a pro-choice position myself, I don't think an abortion is a good thing, I think it remains a woman's right to choose.

The problem is :

Has an unborn child any right to life / protection ?

Does the right to choose to kill the unborn child, trump the the unborn child's rights ?

kylith

Jan T. wrote: »

The problem is :

Has an unborn child any right to life / protection ?

Does the right to choose to kill the unborn child, trump the the unborn child's rights ?

There's a whole thread on this already, you know.

Jan T.

kylith wrote: »

There's a whole thread on this already, you know.

Yes, but it seems to be more about religion than abortion.

mickrock

From an atheist point of view there is no objective morality so a pro or anti stance are no different.

After all, any opinion on abortion or on anything else is just the product of meaningless brain activity.

kylith

Jan T. wrote: »

Yes, but it seems to be more about religion than abortion.

It seems fairly about abortion to me. The last few posts are about the morality of viability, not religion.

El_Duderino 09

Jan T. wrote: »

The problem is :

Has an unborn child any right to life / protection ?

Does the right to choose to kill the unborn child, trump the the unborn child's rights ?

I think by acknowledging the term 'unborn child', you give it similar rights to any other child. The difference is that it requires the body of another human to survive.

So yes, the child has a right to life, and yes, the mother has a right to decide what her body is used for. I think the mother has a right to refuse to be used to incubate the unborn child.

We would never force a mother to donate a kidney to save a child. We would acknowledge her right to choose whether she wants to undergo the process.

So I accept the argument that Hitchens is putting forward as coherent, but I disagree with the conclusion, on the grounds that the mother's right trumps the child's.

Bannasidhe

mickrock wrote: »

From an atheist point of view there is no objective morality so a pro or anti stance are no different.

After all, any opinion on abortion or on anything else is just the product of meaningless brain activity.

Did a whistleblower in Atheist HQ slip you the official hive mind policy?

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did a whistleblower in Atheist HQ slip you the official hive mind policy?

Religious Person: Do you believe in my god?

Atheists: No.

Religious Person: Hivemind! You all think the same thing!

mickrock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did a whistleblower in Atheist HQ slip you the official hive mind policy?

I'm just trying to follow typical atheist ideas to their logical conclusions.

Bannasidhe

mickrock wrote: »

I'm just trying to follow typical atheist ideas to their logical conclusions.

You failed.

gaynorvader

mickrock wrote: »

I'm just trying to follow typical atheist ideas to their logical conclusions.

I think you actually followed a theistic idea to its logical conclusion if antitheists were right. I don't think there are too many atheists who would view brain activity as meaningless.

Jan T.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think by acknowledging the term 'unborn child', you give it similar rights to any other child. The difference is that it requires the body of another human to survive.

So yes, the child has a right to life, and yes, the mother has a right to decide what her body is used for. I think the mother has a right to refuse to be used to incubate the unborn child.

We would never force a mother to donate a kidney to save a child. We would acknowledge her right to choose whether she wants to undergo the process.

So I accept the argument that Hitchens is putting forward as coherent, but I disagree with the conclusion, on the grounds that the mother's right trumps the child's.

But does the does the precieved right to kill the unborn child, trump the the unborn child's rights ?

Bannasidhe

Jan T. wrote: »

But does the does the precieved right to kill the unborn child, trump the the unborn child's rights ?

Does the fact that a fetus is in a woman's womb trump her rights to body autonomy?

El_Duderino 09

Jan T. wrote: »

But does the does the precieved right to kill the unborn child, trump the the unborn child's rights ?

That's pretty much exactly what I said in both posts. I base it on my opinion that a mother has a right to choose whether she allows her body to be used by the unborn child.

Do you see what I mean?
What's your opinion?

mickrock

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think there are too many atheists who would view brain activity as meaningless.

The neuro-chemical activity of your brain must be giving you the illusion that anything has meaning.

Dades

@ Jan T.

I've banned the three other similar accounts you set up today. As you've only posted using this one, you can keep this account as long as you post within the site/forum rules.

Any more new accounts will see all of them banned.

gaynorvader

mickrock wrote: »

The neuro-chemical activity of your brain must be giving you the illusion that anything has meaning.

Nope, the "neuro-chemical activity" provides enough meaning in and of itself.

Bannasidhe

mickrock wrote: »

The neuro-chemical activity of your brain must be giving you the illusion that anything has meaning.

It appears to be giving you the impression that a disparate group of individuals who happen to all believe there is no god (or 'intelligent designer') also not only agree on everything else but think exactly the same way.

aloyisious

mickrock wrote: »

From an atheist point of view there is no objective morality so a pro or anti stance are no different.

After all, any opinion on abortion or on anything else is just the product of meaningless brain activity.

Such a waste of sarcasm :rolleyes:

Morag

kylith wrote: »

That's it, isn't it? Get them born. Who gives a toss what happens to them afterwards?

Well if you are the type of christian who think the whole notion of the earth and mankind was to settle a dispute between their god and satan, the winner at the end being the one who has the most souls, then yes you will want as many born as possible and baptised and a short life should mean less chance to sin.

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

The neuro-chemical activity of your brain must be giving you the illusion that anything has meaning.

Currently, we are applying the neurochemical activities of our brains to the problem of whether fetal viability is of moral significance in the development of a human being, and how this threshold should or shouldn't be applied to abortion policy.

What does your particular neurochemistry think?

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

The neuro-chemical activity of your brain must be giving you the illusion that anything has meaning.

Hey Mick - unless you begin to engage in some discussion, rather than, say, just delivering a bunch of hopelessly cheapass trollshots, you'll be carded, banned, have your posts moved or deleted or something.

The only reasons this hasn't happened yet is because your clueless ravings make atheism look good, and that's something that's actually quite helpful.

Anyhow, do try to be serious, if you can.

Turtwig

Mickrock,

Any more evolution, creation, big bang, atheism posts in this thread will be carded and deleted. I moved that last one as a courtesy for you.

Jan T.

@ Dades

Thanks, when I was registering the computer kept crashing, I didn't think the other accounts even registered. I'm wondering though why this is a public message in this thread about abortion ? Is there private messaging on this site ? Other forums I have used have them and ususally these conversations are held that way ? I'm not sure of the etiquette here regarding whats on topic ?

doctoremma

gaynorvader wrote: »

Morally, we should always save lives where it is technically possible to do so, as long as it doesn't interfere with the individual's choice.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm also not sure I'm equipped for the complexities but what the hell...

I think morally, we should always save lives where it is technically possible to do so ("viability"), as long as it is in the individual's best interests ("person"). It seems that your statement is slightly different (I assume to account for the right of a patient to withdraw or refuse treatment?). Nonetheless, it seems that both statements acknowledge that "viability" is secondary to "person".

"Viability" determines that something COULD be done, if it is determined that the something SHOULD be done. In itself, "viability" cannot say what SHOULD be done. I am not sure we'll reach an agreement here because I suspect we just have different "neurochemical illusions of meaning" about this.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on your mother-in-law's DNAR as it is probably an incredibly complex issue I don't have the facts on and is also probably an emotional one too.

I shouldn't have brought anything personal into it unnecessarily - it's not usually the done thing for me. However, as a concept, a DNAR is interesting, because it acknowledges that the medical care team could technically preserve and extend life, but that it is not always in the patient's best interests to do so. Do you think DNARs are morally wrong?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Recipients of new organs get them on the basis that they are viable to get it. If they're old for example, they probably won't get their heart transplant and be let die. Morally, everyone should be able to get the best medical treatment possible, regardless of age. Practically, that's not the case.

I think it's a different sense of the word "viable" though. In the case of organ transplants, I suspect everyone on the waiting list is deemed to be a "viable" candidate i.e. able to handle surgery and certain to see health benefit. It's addressing the viability of the surgery, not the viability of the person...

...However, organs are in short supply and prioritising has to be done. In the UK, teens and young adults are prioritised over pensioners (if all other factors - tissue compatibility and so on - are equal). Is a teenager deemed more "viable" than an older person? I don't think that seems the right way to define it. It will be considered as a cost:benefit ratio - how can we maximise the number of years of quality life with this one kidney?