Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

johnnyskeleton

Sintend wrote: »

Typically when people say they attended college they proudly display it. "Some college in Carlow" oddly I've never heard of it?

Mod note:

Did you read the mod warning in the OP or the charter?

1. Stay on topic

2. Dont personalise the debate.

Edit:

I can add to that based on your follow up posts:

3. If youve a problem with moderation please use PM rather than raise it on thread.

4. If someone asks you for a source give a link and a brief discription. Dont just copy and paste a wall of text.

Please read the charter. Final warning.

Overheal

The author, David C Reardon is by no surprise an abortion activist - but what is surprising is that he is an electrical engineer with no background in psychology or in medicine, with his PhD in biomedical ethics coming from an unaccredited school in Hawaii that does no classroom instruction. The American Psychological Association, meanwhile, refutes his findings especially noting that there is no appreciable increase in suicide among those who have had abortion versus those that have not. I’m inclined to err with the peer reviewed and accredited body over the one man army on this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reardon

Here is a link to one such longitudinal study performed under accepted standards that contradicts his claims, which appear to be an amalgamation of cherry picked citations from dozens of others research, as if writing a research paper for history 201, but not actually conducting any research himself.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1298850/

sydthebeat

Sintend wrote: »

The name of the study is: Abortion Is Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion
By: David C. Reardon, Ph.D. Before I was so rudely interrupted!

The STAKES study also found that 14 (5 percent) of the 281 women were killed by
another person. Most of these deaths occurred among women who had undergone an
abortion. As shown in Figure 4, the risk of dying from homicide for post-abortive
women was more than four
times greater than the risk of
homicide among the general
population. This finding,
especially when combined with
the suicide and accident
figures, once again reinforces
the conclusion that women who
abort are more likely to engage
in risk-taking behavior.

Overheal

sydthebeat wrote: »

The STAKES study also found that 14 (5 percent) of the 281 women were killed by
another person. Most of these deaths occurred among women who had undergone an
abortion. As shown in Figure 4, the risk of dying from homicide for post-abortive
women was more than four
times greater than the risk of
homicide among the general
population. This finding,
especially when combined with
the suicide and accident
figures, once again reinforces
the conclusion that women who
abort are more likely to engage
in risk-taking behavior.

Weird guy for sure. “They were more likely to be murdered, and therefore, more likely to be risk-takers.” What?!

SusieBlue

Sintend wrote: »

The annual suicide rate from 1987-1994 per 100,000 women in Finland, aged 15-49 was:

All women in the general population: 11.3

Women who had given birth in prior 12 mos: 5.9

Women who had a miscarriage in prior 12 mos: 18.1

Women who had an abortion in prior 12 mos: 34.7

Statistics such as these can be seen in any country that has legalised abortion. I never gotten a good explanation as to why that is from any repealer! And this is the last time I will be getting information for ye. If you want any more information there's a free thing called Google I'm sure you've heard of it! Educate yourselves!

And yet here we have a study done on Irish women published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology that confirms that 97% of women who have had abortions do not regret their choice.

Almost every woman questioned (97%) felt they had made the right decision in accessing and using the medication at home and 98% said they would recommend it to others in a similar situation.
The most commonly reported feelings after having completed the procedure were relief (70%) and satisfaction (36%).

Over a quarter said they were happy (26.8%) and 22% said they were pleased (22%).

sydthebeat

Overheal wrote: »

Weird guy for sure. “They were more likely to be murdered, and therefore, more likely to be risk-takers.” What?!

The problem with the assertion that "abortion leads to suicide" in that study is that, if you believe that cause / resultant relationship, then you must also believe that abortion leads to four times more women dying from accidents, or abortion leads to four times more women being killed by others.

Which is patently ridiculously.

Or you could just use occams razor and suggest that the higher incidents of suicide, death by accidents and being murdered in women who have had abortions is down to those unfortunate women living high risk lifestyles.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

So why should get to continue to live if there's no scientific basis to do so?

I don't give that right. That right is inherent with it; I'm acknowledging those rights. Just like I acknowledge your inherent right to live. When did your right to your life begin? I never said consciousness begins at conception or implantation. Life clearly does though. Look up the definition of life and you'll find it applies to a human fetus.

It will be conscious when left to it's natural processes, eventually. You know new born babies usually don't show glimmers of consciousness until about 5 months old? Is it ok to kill a baby ten minutes after it was born?

What about if you end up in a temporary coma? You're not conscious. Can I kill you?

None of these arguments are theistic. To claim so is dishonest and to try and claim im a catholic so you can feel better about ignoring them is even more so. I know I'm not a Catholic, so I don't really care if you think I am. If you can't see that these are secular arguments and that there validity doesn't depend on who makes them, then you don't understand the rules of conversation.

They may not be theistic but they are certainly not atheist.

I acknowledge that you claim no longer to be a Catholic. However, what seems apparent to me is that you cling to vestiges of Catholic teaching even though you renounce the existence of God. It is a bit like claiming to be atheist but believing in heaven.

Belief in the afterlife requires a non-scientific quasi-religious or spiritual approach to the world. Similarly, belief that an inherent right to life commences at the moment of implantation also requires a non-scientific quasi-religious or spiritual approach to the world, it is certainly not a secular one.

Your definition of life is too broad to be of any use. You speak of non-interference in the natural processes. That would mean that amputation as a treatment should be outlawed. I have previously pointed to how transplants would be affected by your approach but so would blood donations which are also an interference in the natural processes of life. In fact, it is questionable whether a philosophy of non-interference in the natural processes of life would allow for any medical treatment. What I am trying to say is that there is no logic or sense to your arguments unless you introduce some other spiritual dimension to them.

Hitman3000

Sintend wrote:

If you don't believe me maybe you'll believe a news source favourable to your cause. I have a long memory when it comes to these things.

Just on a point of clarity has the law being introduced, I am aware one was proposed I think the government's mind may preoccupied with other matters at the moment. Now if the law has been enacted I'm sure with your excellent memory you can supply me with the date the law become active.

spacecoyote

The more I read these threads on Boards, I become progressively more depressed about the state of Ireland.

When marriage equality came in, there were likely a lot of people who thought..."Yes, finally, Ireland is moving into the 21st century"

But this issue has just proven that we're still largely that backward little country on the corner of Europe.

• If you're raped, yes the perpetrator should be punished, but the victim has to deal with the consequences because the potential child is the real victim here
• If you're a victim of incest, again, tough, the potential child is the real victim here
• Sure, there's only a few hundred reported rapes in Ireland every year, adoption, or hiding the child in the family is plenty of cover to handle the results
• A doctor on TV referred to a scenario of a 12 year old being raped as a "Young Woman" & wouldn't say that he would support her right to an abortion
• People whooping, laughing & back-clapping on TV over a perceived point scored in a debate
• If you consent to sex, take every precaution under the sun, and are still unlucky enough to get pregnant, that's just tough for you, you knew what you were getting involved with, so you've a lifetime of consequence to deal with
• People pushing their ideology on everyone and saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and you have no right to make a choice in relation to your own life"
• People referring to abortions as if they are a "social" or casual decision that'll result in queues around the corner
• People implying that there will be forced abortions on people who have consensual pregnancies
• Posters with provable lies on them being shoved in peoples faces

And that's only a portion of the awful vitriol that's come out.

So much for the advancement of society

blanch152

Sintend wrote: »

Yes that is the figures for finalised adoptions but that doesn't take into account other family members accepting the child to raise as their own such as grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc. Generally in these situations family will step in to lend support to the woman. In 2017 there were 655 reported rapes of males and females in Ireland. Even including males in these figures it is easy to see how adoption would be able to cater for this along with family support and counselling. Once a life has been ended there is no going back and that is why there is such a high suicide rate among women who've chosen to have an abortion.

It is a very middle-class perspective of the world to think that family will step in to lend support to the woman.

It simply isn't true outside of some protected urban enclaves.

You are also mistaken in relation to other members of the family stepping in - that requires legal adoption too.

The other problem at the deep root of adoption as a solution to the abortion crisis is the rights of the father. Man rapes woman, woman becomes pregnant, State refuses abortion, woman suffers through pregnancy, woman gives birth and suffers health consequences, woman wants to give up baby for adoption, man refuses consent as State requires his consent, woman is stuck with child, mother and child suffer life-long harm.

blanch152

spacecoyote wrote: »

The more I read these threads on Boards, I become progressively more depressed about the state of Ireland.

When marriage equality came in, there were likely a lot of people who thought..."Yes, finally, Ireland is moving into the 21st century"

But this issue has just proven that we're still largely that backward little country on the corner of Europe.

• If you're raped, yes the perpetrator should be punished, but the victim has to deal with the consequences because the potential child is the real victim here
• If you're a victim of incest, again, tough, the potential child is the real victim here
• Sure, there's only a few hundred reported rapes in Ireland every year, adoption, or hiding the child in the family is plenty of cover to handle the results
• A doctor on TV referred to a scenario of a 12 year old being raped as a "Young Woman" & wouldn't say that he would support her right to an abortion
• People whooping, laughing & back-clapping on TV over a perceived point scored in a debate
• If you consent to sex, take every precaution under the sun, and are still unlucky enough to get pregnant, that's just tough for you, you knew what you were getting involved with, so you've a lifetime of consequence to deal with
• People pushing their ideology on everyone and saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and you have no right to make a choice in relation to your own life"
• People referring to abortions as if they are a "social" or casual decision that'll result in queues around the corner
• People implying that there will be forced abortions on people who have consensual pregnancies
• Posters with provable lies on them being shoved in peoples faces

And that's only a portion of the awful vitriol that's come out.

So much for the advancement of society

It has been the most soul-destroying campaign because of the above, I fully agree with you.

dr.fuzzenstein

Overheal wrote: »

Weird guy for sure. “They were more likely to be murdered, and therefore, more likely to be risk-takers.” What?!

It's classic Tiger Rock logic. It argues that correlation = causation.
Which is of course patent nonsense. The oft-cited six year old child from many internet debates could tell you that.
But of course for some people it is more important to find any facts that look like they'll support their viewpoint, rather than looking at the facts logically.
Flat Earthers use the same way of arguing.

Pete29

bubblypop wrote: »

This sounds like something straight out of a school religion book.
You may not be Catholic now, but it's clearly very hard to get rid of the deep seated beliefs that were put there in your youth.

I would appreciate it if you could actually engage my arguments on the merits, instead of associating them with religion, so you can feel more comfortable dismissing them and not actually having to think about them.

I'm conservative, but I'm not religious, unless you define religious as having a set of beliefs and values derived from philosophical considerations of the world. If that's the case, then every atheist in this thread is religious.

Also, by that definition pro-choicers are members of the "women can do whatever they want with their bodies" religion.

I was actually pro-choice for a long time after I became an agnostic atheist, but I reconsidered the subject and changed my mind.

Even if my pro-choice views were deeply rooted from my up bringing, which they're not because I used to be pro-choice, it would be irrelevant. Attacking someone's background is just a personal attack and isn't a counter argument. It's an ad hominem attack.

I assume you're against assaulting people on the street for no reason? Catholics are also against this. Does this mean you're secretly a Catholic or harbor deeply rooted Catholic views from childhood?

LirW

Okay Pete, enlighten us: If you'd be the law maker, how would you handle crisis pregnancies of rape victims, domestic violence victims, women that are mentally unstable, women that don't have the means to support their children, women that would have serious health issues in pregnancy due to autoimmune diseases and the like? Genuinely interested how you would advise them once they're already pregnant and how you'd set up the laws around it.

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

They may not be theistic but they are certainly not atheist.

What does that even mean?

I acknowledge that you claim no longer to be a Catholic. However, what seems apparent to me is that you cling to vestiges of Catholic teaching even though you renounce the existence of God. It is a bit like claiming to be atheist but believing in heaven.

I don't cling to Catholic teaching. I have no problem with contraception or the morning after pill. I don't renounce the idea God - I don't even know what most people mean when they use the word since there's no clear definition of what God is or isn't. I'm an agnostic Athiest, I lack a belief in a personal, mono-theistic supernatural being because of lack of justification for such a being existing. Could such a being exist? Maybe, but I can't make any claims of knowledge about it. You can easily believe or make claims for heaven or an afterlife without a conception of a God

Belief in the afterlife requires a non-scientific quasi-religious or spiritual approach to the world. Similarly, belief that an inherent right to life commences at the moment of implantation also requires a non-scientific quasi-religious or spiritual approach to the world, it is certainly not a secular one.

You can make philosophical arguments for the afterlife if you wanted. It seems to me you're simply trying to attach my arguments to some idea of spiritual/religion justification for them and attempting to refute by some dint of guilt by association. This is dishonest. My argument is a secular philosophical one, just like yours is. There's no scientific justification for killing an implanted embryo, so you're using a philosophical argument.

Your definition of life is too broad to be of any use.

It's not my definition of life, it's a standard biological definition of life.

That would mean that amputation as a treatment should be outlawed. I have previously pointed to how transplants would be affected by your approach but so would blood donations which are also an interference in the natural processes of life. In fact, it is questionable whether a philosophy of non-interference in the natural processes of life would allow for any medical treatment. What I am trying to say is that there is no logic or sense to your arguments unless you introduce some other spiritual dimension to them.

No, it wouldn't. My argument isn't an argument of no medical interference ever to recover from harm and to prevent harm. It's an argument against interference which would kill the implanted embryo, robbing it of it's ability to follow its natural processes and develop into a human infant when it's perfectly healthy.

I asked you before but I don't think you responded. What is the scientific justification for you being allowed to continued to live? What is the scientific justification for allowing a new born to continue to live?

I think you'll find the answer is philosophical not spiritual.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. My argument isn't an argument of no medical interference ever to recover from harm and to prevent harm. It's an argument against interference which would kill the implanted embryo, robbing it of it's ability to follow its natural processes and develop into a human infant when it's perfectly healthy.

You are now being inconsistent.

You have a woman who is pregnant. Her newly implanted embryo has a 50% chance of being born, according to you. She has a 75% chance of severe medical issues if her pregnancy continues, according to her doctors.

Yet, based on an argument of no medical interference ever to recover from harm and to prevent harm, you would stop that woman having an abortion.

I have said all along that your position lacks logical coherence (and any philosophical position without logical coherence is practically worthless) and you have provided another clear example of it.

Hitman3000

Pete29 wrote:

I don't cling to Catholic teaching. I have no problem with contraception or the morning after pill. I don't renounce the idea God - I don't even know what most people mean when they use the word since there's no clear definition of what God is or isn't. I'm an agnostic Athiest, I lack a belief in a personal, mono-theistic supernatural being because of lack of justification for such a being existing. Could such a being exist? Maybe, but I can't make any claims of knowledge about it. You can easily believe or make claims for heaven or an afterlife without a conception of a God

I really think you should take up the kind offer to post on the atheist forum. Your unique outlook Agnostic Athiest I'm sure would generate some interesting and enlightening debate. Will you accept the offer that was made to you?

Pete29

Pete29 wrote: »

I would appreciate it if you could actually engage my arguments on the merits, instead of associating them with religion, so you can feel more comfortable dismissing them and not actually having to think about them.

I'm conservative, but I'm not religious, unless you define religious as having a set of beliefs and values derived from philosophical considerations of the world. If that's the case, then every atheist in this thread is religious.

Also, by that definition pro-choicers are members of the "women can do whatever they want with their bodies" religion.

I was actually pro-choice for a long time after I became an agnostic atheist, but I reconsidered the subject and changed my mind.

Even if my pro-choice views were deeply rooted from my up bringing, which they're not because I used to be pro-choice, it would be irrelevant. Attacking someone's background is just a personal attack and isn't a counter argument. It's an ad hominem attack.

I assume you're against assaulting people on the street for no reason? Catholics are also against this. Does this mean you're secretly a Catholic or harbor deeply rooted Catholic views from childhood?

sorry, but you are the one who sound like the nuns from school. I can't help that's what your arguement about sex sounds like to me.

I do not consent to getting pregnant everytime I have sex. I consent to sex, I do everything in my power to make sure that I don't become pregnant. I am not sure how you can decide that me using contraception to NOT get pregnant somehow equals me consenting to be pregnant.
It doesn't make sense. ( I linked a post earlier to where a man was convicted of rape, because he had sex with the woman without wearing a condom, when she consented to sex with a condom)

Also, while yes the embryo & feotus are human, you think they have a right to life from the moment of 'implantation' why did you choose this particular momonet? Is there any reason that this is when you consider life to start?

And, what exactly does 'life' mean to you?
To me, we are born, we live & then we die, thats it. nothing else. I don't believe we have 'souls' or anything like it. which is why I don't believe that a 6 week old embryo or a 12 week old feotus should ever have rights equalling that of the mother.

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

You are now being inconsistent.

You have a woman who is pregnant. Her newly implanted embryo has a 50% chance of being born, according to you. She has a 75% chance of severe medical issues if her pregnancy continues, according to her doctors.

According to me? When did I say that?

I'll say again like I said before, I think abortion is justified to protect the life of the mother and that threat doesn't have to be imminent. Twenty five legal abortions were carried out in 2016 to protect the mother's life.

Yet, based on an argument of no medical interference ever to recover from harm and to prevent harm, you would stop that woman having an abortion.

No, I wouldn't if her life was in danger and there was no alternative but abortion.

I have said all along that your position lacks logical coherence (and any philosophical position without logical coherence is practically worthless) and you have provided another clear example of it.

No, you're just not following it. You're philosophy of allowing women to kill their unborn, healthy, consensually conceived developing children is moral indifference at it's worst.

Hotblack Desiato

Sintend wrote: »

The current population of Ireland is 4.76 million. If you don't know this maybe you should look up the history of Ireland it must be difficult for an American to understand.

The current population of this state is 4.76 million but this state does not cover the whole island, the 19th century figures cover the whole island.

If you want to discuss a nationwide trauma we still haven't recovered from, and one which is very relevant to questions of "morality" and reproductive rights and health, how about the Catholic theocracy from independence until recent years?

Pete29

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I really think you should take up the kind offer to post on the atheist forum. Your unique outlook Agnostic Athiest I'm sure would generate some interesting and enlightening debate. Will you accept the offer that was made to you?

I never saw that invitation. Sure, that sounds good. I'll post there soon.

seamus

Pete29 wrote: »

This is another example of the moral relativism and confusion which pervades the pro-choice argument.

Sorry to bring it back to this post, but I saw this last night and I was very curious.

When other people here say that your language has a religious slant to it, this is a prime example.

What do you consider "moral relativism", and why do you consider it a bad thing?

The opposite is "moral absolutism". This holds that there is a single objective source of morality in the universe, from which all other moral judgements flow. Moral absolutism is an almost exclusively religious viewpoint, since a single objective source of morality can only be a god or similar analogue.

Atheism arguably requires moral relativism, otherwise from whence would objective morality arise?

So when you find it exasperating that you get accused of using religious language, you can see why people believe that.

Hitman3000

Pete29 wrote:

I never saw that invitation. Sure, that sounds good. I'll post there soon.

Robindch is the mod. Atheism and Agnosticism. They even have a thread on abortion. I would imagine giving you views you would probably be a better fit there. No religious accusations being levelled against.
I'm surprised you missed the invite Robindch was active with several posts here.

Hitman3000

Pete29 wrote:

I never saw that invitation. Sure, that sounds good. I'll post there soon.

Me again..soz. I can't post the link phone. However I got the post count for you #222 there's even a link in the comment takes you straight to the forum. Will have a look later to see do you find it interesting.

Pete29

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Robindch is the mod. Atheism and Agnosticism. They even have a thread on abortion. I would imagine giving you views you would probably be a better fit there. No religious accusations being levelled against.
I'm surprised you missed the invite Robindch was active with several posts here.

I think I missed it because I was off here for a day and the thread jumped from 6 or 7 pages to 16. I haven't read the posts in between.

Hitman3000

Pete29 wrote:

I think I missed it because I was off here for a day and the thread jumped from 6 or 7 pages to 16. I haven't read the posts in between.

Well don't forget #222. Have fun.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

According to me? When did I say that?

I'll say again like I said before, I think abortion is justified to protect the life of the mother and that threat doesn't have to be imminent. Twenty five legal abortions were carried out in 2016 to protect the mother's life.



No, I wouldn't if her life was in danger and there was no alternative but abortion.



No, you're just not following it. You're philosophy of allowing women to kill their unborn, healthy, consensually conceived developing children is moral indifference at it's worst.

But not the health of the mother.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

Sorry to bring it back to this post, but I saw this last night and I was very curious.

When other people here say that your language has a religious slant to it, this is a prime example.

What do you consider "moral relativism", and why do you consider it a bad thing?

The opposite is "moral absolutism". This holds that there is a single objective source of morality in the universe, from which all other moral judgements flow. Moral absolutism is an almost exclusively religious viewpoint, since a single objective source of morality can only be a god or similar analogue.

Atheism arguably requires moral relativism, otherwise from whence would objective morality arise?

So when you find it exasperating that you get accused of using religious language, you can see why people believe that.

I can understand an atheist being against abortion except in certain circumstances.

Where I don't get it is an atheist such as Pete who opposes abortion where the mother's health is at risk.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

Okay Pete, enlighten us: If you'd be the law maker, how would you handle crisis pregnancies of rape victims, domestic violence victims, women that are mentally unstable, women that don't have the means to support their children, women that would have serious health issues in pregnancy due to autoimmune diseases and the like? Genuinely interested how you would advise them once they're already pregnant and how you'd set up the laws around it.

I'm really interested to get an answer from the OP on my question, I'd like to understand this trail of thought.

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

I didn't say they had. A healthy pregnancy consentually concieved has no justification in being terminated. It's robbing a developing child of their right to life.

Hi there. I'm terribly sorry to keep pestering you, but for some reason you seem to keep not seeing the posts where I and others have asked you the question:

In what circumstances would you consider abortion to be justified?

Thank you.