[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Pro-life atheists oppose abortion in the belief, that from embryo on, a new individual human being is developing.
Atheists represent less than 1% of the United States (2001 ARIS report). How many of those do you think are against aborting in the first trimester? I bet you that I could fit them all in my courtyard.[/quote]
I don’t believe in god and I think abortion is murder.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t believe in god and I think abortion is murder.[/quote]
Wait, there are 2 of us conservative atheists here? Whodathunkit?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
If you believe human life begins at conception, fine.
I don´t.
And, even if I did, I think especially the US has enough people behind bars to realize that state sanctioned violence is not the end all and be all of societies problems.
If you want to argue for abortions, at least make sure your argument makes sense.
Life begins at conception, consult any biology textbook and it will say the same, this is NOT debatable, and intelligent pro-choicers (oxymoron?) recognize this. I would hate to form an argument for you, but you may choose to argue that these “humans” are not “human beings”. Not very logical, but that is the stance most pro-choicers take. You could also argue that the fetus has no right to the mother’s body, but arguing that life begins at any point other than conception is just moronic.
Biologically you may define a fertilized egg as life if you wish, but that does not change that a fetus is not a person by any legal definition.
A nasciturus has certain potential rights that die with him if he is not born.
Brain dead people are also alive technically.
All of this shows that a biological definition is not necessarily the yard stick for the legal definition, nor should it be.
It really doesn’t matter what the law says. Between a fertilized egg and a full grown human there is no natural break between the fertilization and the full grown human. All the properties that make up a full grown human are already present in the embryo and vice versa.
Nothing is added or subtracted genetically through out the life of a person, only the volume of cells that make up the crude matter of a person. The only time the properties of a full human are not present in the egg is prior to conception.
Is there anytime during pregnancy that you would feel that you would actually be killing somebody versus just a fetus. Keep in mind that children have been born and lived as early as 4 months and more commonly 6 months into pregnancies. I am not talking the law but what you feel.
Secondly, depending on where you draw the line, what about the fetuses that are just slightly before the threshold that you would define. If they were say, two days younger than your define line?
[/quote]
The fact that human life is a continuum rather than a set of stages like in in the life of a caterpillar/butterfly has never prevented us from treating different ages different legally.
Nobody is born with the right to drink, vote and drive.
The second argument is true for every legal line you draw in the sand. You can build in a safety margin but ultimately the only equality the law can provide is that a rule applies for everyone the same way.
I feel that the late abortions you have in the US and the UK are practically murder. To deliver a child in a way that kills it after you had the chance to prevent a conception, the morning after pill and an early stage abortion is highly questionable.
My feelings might change if the child is handicapped in a way that is only diagnosable in the late stages of pregnancies.
[quote]tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
Because a society where people nonchalantly kill each other is no working society at all, see Africa.
Unfortunately for embryos we need not fear retribution or them trying to kill us.
Are you really saying it is ok because an embryo cannot retaliate?
If they were persons in any way, shape or form, which they aren`t.
And self defense has something to do with it because embryos can endanger their mothers lifes.
These occurrences are relatively rare and obviously in these cases the mother also has a right to life, so this has a completely different set of circumstances and can be another topic altogether.
You still have not answered my question.[/quote]
What I am saying is that the “moral universe within us” are biological, psychological adaptions that enable us to live in groups and make us a highly social animal.
You can try to codify that instincts or work it into a seemingly logical system of moral rules, however that does not change that the underlying instincts are nothing but a bunch of vague emotions and rules of thump in order to make it possible for us to live in small groups in the African savanna 200000 years ago.
So yes, the fact hat embryos cannot retaliate plays a role, they never had a chance to shape our instincts.
[quote]tedro wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That’s not an argument. Is there at any point between 0 and 9 months that you would consider a fetus a person? Is it ok to kill a person for any reason. Whose going to take care of all the kids is irrelevant. Lets define what they are, then we’ll worry about what to do with them.
Nobody has even attempted to form a logical argument for choice yet in this thread. At least I hope they have not attempted, because the arguments that have been presented are generally pathetic.[/quote]
You would only accept an argument that works within your own frame.
Since it is exactly because we do not share that frame, that we do not think your way, you will never get one.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I always thought it was fucked up that the father has no final say or authority in the abortion process and that its totally up to the mother to decide, I guess its because it would mean the end of mankind if the male got to choose. [/quote]
It’s ultimately the woman’s body, and I don’t think a guy should be able to force her to carry a baby to term. But I DO think the law should require her to notify any father or suspected father. I would want to know if it was my baby. There could be an exception for a woman who proves to the court that her life would be in danger if she disclosed. I think this is the state of the law for minors. They have to get approval or at least notify parents before they can get an abortion. But this is waived if they demonstrate that their life or health and safety would be in danger from abusive parents if they told.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dk44 wrote:
I always thought it was fucked up that the father has no final say or authority in the abortion process and that its totally up to the mother to decide, I guess its because it would mean the end of mankind if the male got to choose.
It’s ultimately the woman’s body, and I don’t think a guy should be able to force her to carry a baby to term. But I DO think the law should require her to notify any father or suspected father. I would want to know if it was my baby. There could be an exception for a woman who proves to the court that her life would be in danger if she disclosed. I think this is the state of the law for minors. They have to get approval or at least notify parents before they can get an abortion. But this is waived if they demonstrate that their life or health and safety would be in danger from abusive parents if they told.[/quote]
I think the woman gives up her right to it being “her body” with respect to procreation when she willingly allows the man to enter her. Had she done that and kept her knees together, there would be no further argument.
You can’t legally adopt a child without knowledge an consent of both the biological parents. I don’t think you should be able to kill one without the same consideration.
Here is a logical argument Tedro. Before a certain point, a fetus is not a person. They do not feel pain. They do not feel anything. Their brain and sensory perception are undeveloped and nonexistent. Science has shown this. I don’t know at what point this is. Abortion at this stage, though, only PREVENTS the final creation of life. It doesn’t END life. Some might say the prevention of life is bad enough. But then they have to ask themselves whether they are against all contraception. Or simply abstaining from sex in general. That also pevents life. I do not support late term abortions for this same reason, even if they are a result of a rape. The obligation should be on the mother to get tested early and abort a child of incest or rape before it develops and its brain has formed.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dk44 wrote:
I always thought it was fucked up that the father has no final say or authority in the abortion process and that its totally up to the mother to decide, I guess its because it would mean the end of mankind if the male got to choose.
It’s ultimately the woman’s body, and I don’t think a guy should be able to force her to carry a baby to term. But I DO think the law should require her to notify any father or suspected father. I would want to know if it was my baby. There could be an exception for a woman who proves to the court that her life would be in danger if she disclosed. I think this is the state of the law for minors. They have to get approval or at least notify parents before they can get an abortion. But this is waived if they demonstrate that their life or health and safety would be in danger from abusive parents if they told.
I think the woman gives up her right to it being “her body” with respect to procreation when she willingly allows the man to enter her. Had she done that and kept her knees together, there would be no further argument.
You can’t legally adopt a child without knowledge an consent of both the biological parents. I don’t think you should be able to kill one without the same consideration. [/quote]
Well, that is fair enough. However, accidents DO happen even though they are very rare with proper protection. Still, condoms can break. Even the pill is not fullproof. Both parents may have made a choice not to have a baby. But if something goes ary it’s ultimately the woman that has to carry it for 9 months and experience the intensely physical and emotional strain that consists of. At the same time, I agree with you on some level. I find it really hard to stomach the thought that someone could just destroy a child of mine and I have no determinative say in it AT ALL. But I also have a real problem with a court ordering a woman to have a baby. So, I really don’t know.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Here is a logical argument Tedro. Before a certain point, a fetus is not a person. They do not feel pain. They do not feel anything. Their brain and sensory perception are undeveloped and nonexistent. Science has shown this. I don’t know at what point this is. Abortion at this stage, though, only PREVENTS the final creation of life. It doesn’t END life. Some might say the prevention of life is bad enough. But then they have to ask themselves whether they are against all contraception. Or simply abstaining from sex in general. That also pevents life. I do not support late term abortions for this same reason, even if they are a result of a rape. The obligation should be on the mother to get tested early and abort a child of incest or rape before it develops and its brain has formed.[/quote]
A babies heart beats at 3 weeks after conception, brain waves are present at 6 weeks and all bodily systems are in place at just 8 weeks. It can take a month (or more) to even realize one is pregnant, and most abortions take place at 2-3 months. So by your logic, you could support a morning after pill, hormonal contraceptives, and intra-uterine devices, and that is all. If you want to support abortion before three months you are going to have to come up with a better argument than that.
Also, some of you really need to stop confusing terms. As I have said multiple times now, life begins at conception and there is no debate about this. If you want to try and claim that a fetus is not a person, fine, but a fetus is very much alive. So, abortion clearly ends life.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Well, that is fair enough. However, accidents DO happen even though they are very rare with proper protection. Still, condoms can break. Even the pill is not fullproof. Both parents may have made a choice not to have a baby. But if something goes ary it’s ultimately the woman that has to carry it for 9 months and experience the intensely physical and emotional strain that consists of. At the same time, I agree with you on some level. I find it really hard to stomach the thought that someone could just destroy a child of mine and I have no determinative say in it AT ALL. But I also have a real problem with a court ordering a woman to have a baby. So, I really don’t know.
[/quote]
Yes, accidents do happen, and by acknowledging this fact you have acknowledged that there is a risk of pregnancy even when birth control is used. By having sex you are accepting these risks and therefore must be ready to accept the consequences.
[quote]orion wrote:
tedro wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That’s not an argument. Is there at any point between 0 and 9 months that you would consider a fetus a person? Is it ok to kill a person for any reason. Whose going to take care of all the kids is irrelevant. Lets define what they are, then we’ll worry about what to do with them.
Nobody has even attempted to form a logical argument for choice yet in this thread. At least I hope they have not attempted, because the arguments that have been presented are generally pathetic.
You would only accept an argument that works within your own frame.
Since it is exactly because we do not share that frame, that we do not think your way, you will never get one.
[/quote]
No, I will only accept an argument that answers the question. Is it a human life or not? This is not a hard question, it’s either yes or no. There is no kinda, sorta, blah blah blah. It is either a human life or it isn’t. To answer the question with shit like “who will take care of the babies” or “do you want a bunch of kids born into misery?” is simply an avoidance technique. A way to dodge the truth. If you (or anybody else) cannot answer the question directly, then you very well know the damn truth and to fucking stubborn to admit it, period.
[quote]orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
If you believe human life begins at conception, fine.
I don´t.
And, even if I did, I think especially the US has enough people behind bars to realize that state sanctioned violence is not the end all and be all of societies problems.
If you want to argue for abortions, at least make sure your argument makes sense.
Life begins at conception, consult any biology textbook and it will say the same, this is NOT debatable, and intelligent pro-choicers (oxymoron?) recognize this. I would hate to form an argument for you, but you may choose to argue that these “humans” are not “human beings”. Not very logical, but that is the stance most pro-choicers take. You could also argue that the fetus has no right to the mother’s body, but arguing that life begins at any point other than conception is just moronic.
Biologically you may define a fertilized egg as life if you wish, but that does not change that a fetus is not a person by any legal definition.
A nasciturus has certain potential rights that die with him if he is not born.
Brain dead people are also alive technically.
All of this shows that a biological definition is not necessarily the yard stick for the legal definition, nor should it be.
It really doesn’t matter what the law says. Between a fertilized egg and a full grown human there is no natural break between the fertilization and the full grown human. All the properties that make up a full grown human are already present in the embryo and vice versa.
Nothing is added or subtracted genetically through out the life of a person, only the volume of cells that make up the crude matter of a person. The only time the properties of a full human are not present in the egg is prior to conception.
Is there anytime during pregnancy that you would feel that you would actually be killing somebody versus just a fetus. Keep in mind that children have been born and lived as early as 4 months and more commonly 6 months into pregnancies. I am not talking the law but what you feel.
Secondly, depending on where you draw the line, what about the fetuses that are just slightly before the threshold that you would define. If they were say, two days younger than your define line?
The fact that human life is a continuum rather than a set of stages like in in the life of a caterpillar/butterfly has never prevented us from treating different ages different legally.
Nobody is born with the right to drink, vote and drive.
The second argument is true for every legal line you draw in the sand. You can build in a safety margin but ultimately the only equality the law can provide is that a rule applies for everyone the same way.
I feel that the late abortions you have in the US and the UK are practically murder. To deliver a child in a way that kills it after you had the chance to prevent a conception, the morning after pill and an early stage abortion is highly questionable.
My feelings might change if the child is handicapped in a way that is only diagnosable in the late stages of pregnancies.
[/quote]
Huh? I am just talking about the right to live. This is not a legal privilege.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Here is a logical argument Tedro. Before a certain point, a fetus is not a person. They do not feel pain. They do not feel anything. Their brain and sensory perception are undeveloped and nonexistent. Science has shown this. I don’t know at what point this is. Abortion at this stage, though, only PREVENTS the final creation of life. It doesn’t END life. Some might say the prevention of life is bad enough. But then they have to ask themselves whether they are against all contraception. Or simply abstaining from sex in general. That also pevents life. I do not support late term abortions for this same reason, even if they are a result of a rape. The obligation should be on the mother to get tested early and abort a child of incest or rape before it develops and its brain has formed.[/quote]
Where does a human life begin? When they feel pain? That still happens pretty early in a pregnancy. Hell they have an abortion video of the baby writhing in pain as it is being cut up and sucked out. Pretty horrific stuff.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Here is a logical argument Tedro. Before a certain point, a fetus is not a person. They do not feel pain. They do not feel anything. Their brain and sensory perception are undeveloped and nonexistent. Science has shown this. I don’t know at what point this is. Abortion at this stage, though, only PREVENTS the final creation of life. It doesn’t END life. Some might say the prevention of life is bad enough. But then they have to ask themselves whether they are against all contraception. Or simply abstaining from sex in general. That also pevents life. I do not support late term abortions for this same reason, even if they are a result of a rape. The obligation should be on the mother to get tested early and abort a child of incest or rape before it develops and its brain has formed.
Where does a human life begin? When they feel pain? That still happens pretty early in a pregnancy. Hell they have an abortion video of the baby writhing in pain as it is being cut up and sucked out. Pretty horrific stuff.[/quote]
He will find out very quickly that by claiming life begins with such arbitrary events that his argument is going to run into some serious flaws.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
tedro wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That’s not an argument. Is there at any point between 0 and 9 months that you would consider a fetus a person? Is it ok to kill a person for any reason. Whose going to take care of all the kids is irrelevant. Lets define what they are, then we’ll worry about what to do with them.
Nobody has even attempted to form a logical argument for choice yet in this thread. At least I hope they have not attempted, because the arguments that have been presented are generally pathetic.
You would only accept an argument that works within your own frame.
Since it is exactly because we do not share that frame, that we do not think your way, you will never get one.
No, I will only accept an argument that answers the question. Is it a human life or not? This is not a hard question, it’s either yes or no. There is no kinda, sorta, blah blah blah. It is either a human life or it isn’t. To answer the question with shit like “who will take care of the babies” or “do you want a bunch of kids born into misery?” is simply an avoidance technique. A way to dodge the truth. If you (or anybody else) cannot answer the question directly, then you very well know the damn truth and to fucking stubborn to admit it, period.[/quote]
There is no answer. There’s no set definition. Is it when a baby is born/comes out of the womb? When it passes a certain stage of development? When sensory organs and brain reaches a point that it can feel? These are all unsettled issues. Very tied up in moral and legal judgments. The argument will go on forever. But you are wrong to say that this is the sole issue. Whether a woman should be able to take a life inside her even if you accept that it has become a human being at this point is also a big dispute. And it will continue to be. Legally, human life does not begin until the baby has left the womb completely. I’m not sure I agree with this, but I believe that is how it is defined. So, if a man punches a woman late in pregnancy and she loses the baby, it is considered illegal abortion and not homicide.
[quote]tedro wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Here is a logical argument Tedro. Before a certain point, a fetus is not a person. They do not feel pain. They do not feel anything. Their brain and sensory perception are undeveloped and nonexistent. Science has shown this. I don’t know at what point this is. Abortion at this stage, though, only PREVENTS the final creation of life. It doesn’t END life. Some might say the prevention of life is bad enough. But then they have to ask themselves whether they are against all contraception. Or simply abstaining from sex in general. That also pevents life. I do not support late term abortions for this same reason, even if they are a result of a rape. The obligation should be on the mother to get tested early and abort a child of incest or rape before it develops and its brain has formed.
A babies heart beats at 3 weeks after conception, brain waves are present at 6 weeks and all bodily systems are in place at just 8 weeks. It can take a month (or more) to even realize one is pregnant, and most abortions take place at 2-3 months. So by your logic, you could support a morning after pill, hormonal contraceptives, and intra-uterine devices, and that is all. If you want to support abortion before three months you are going to have to come up with a better argument than that.
Also, some of you really need to stop confusing terms. As I have said multiple times now, life begins at conception and there is no debate about this. If you want to try and claim that a fetus is not a person, fine, but a fetus is very much alive. So, abortion clearly ends life.[/quote]
I happen not to agree with abortion. I think in a perfect world everyone should reap the consequences of their actions. But this isn’t a perfect world. And I think it is very legitimate to think about what the baby’s life will be like if it is carried to term by some of these people. Victims of abuse, drug addicts, etc… What if the baby is severely developmentally challenged? A categorical ban on abortion just doesn’t make sense to me. I recognize that many argue for something less than this and something more than what we have now-like exceptions for congential deformities or for victims of rape or incest.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
tedro wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That’s not an argument. Is there at any point between 0 and 9 months that you would consider a fetus a person? Is it ok to kill a person for any reason. Whose going to take care of all the kids is irrelevant. Lets define what they are, then we’ll worry about what to do with them.
Nobody has even attempted to form a logical argument for choice yet in this thread. At least I hope they have not attempted, because the arguments that have been presented are generally pathetic.
You would only accept an argument that works within your own frame.
Since it is exactly because we do not share that frame, that we do not think your way, you will never get one.
No, I will only accept an argument that answers the question. Is it a human life or not? This is not a hard question, it’s either yes or no. There is no kinda, sorta, blah blah blah. It is either a human life or it isn’t. To answer the question with shit like “who will take care of the babies” or “do you want a bunch of kids born into misery?” is simply an avoidance technique. A way to dodge the truth. If you (or anybody else) cannot answer the question directly, then you very well know the damn truth and to fucking stubborn to admit it, period.[/quote]
Biologically it at least has the potential to become human life.
I do not really care if you call a fertilized egg human life or not because
a) your definitions are up to you and
b) there is nothing that necessarily follows from it.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
If you believe human life begins at conception, fine.
I don´t.
And, even if I did, I think especially the US has enough people behind bars to realize that state sanctioned violence is not the end all and be all of societies problems.
If you want to argue for abortions, at least make sure your argument makes sense.
Life begins at conception, consult any biology textbook and it will say the same, this is NOT debatable, and intelligent pro-choicers (oxymoron?) recognize this. I would hate to form an argument for you, but you may choose to argue that these “humans” are not “human beings”. Not very logical, but that is the stance most pro-choicers take. You could also argue that the fetus has no right to the mother’s body, but arguing that life begins at any point other than conception is just moronic.
Biologically you may define a fertilized egg as life if you wish, but that does not change that a fetus is not a person by any legal definition.
A nasciturus has certain potential rights that die with him if he is not born.
Brain dead people are also alive technically.
All of this shows that a biological definition is not necessarily the yard stick for the legal definition, nor should it be.
It really doesn’t matter what the law says. Between a fertilized egg and a full grown human there is no natural break between the fertilization and the full grown human. All the properties that make up a full grown human are already present in the embryo and vice versa.
Nothing is added or subtracted genetically through out the life of a person, only the volume of cells that make up the crude matter of a person. The only time the properties of a full human are not present in the egg is prior to conception.
Is there anytime during pregnancy that you would feel that you would actually be killing somebody versus just a fetus. Keep in mind that children have been born and lived as early as 4 months and more commonly 6 months into pregnancies. I am not talking the law but what you feel.
Secondly, depending on where you draw the line, what about the fetuses that are just slightly before the threshold that you would define. If they were say, two days younger than your define line?
The fact that human life is a continuum rather than a set of stages like in in the life of a caterpillar/butterfly has never prevented us from treating different ages different legally.
Nobody is born with the right to drink, vote and drive.
The second argument is true for every legal line you draw in the sand. You can build in a safety margin but ultimately the only equality the law can provide is that a rule applies for everyone the same way.
I feel that the late abortions you have in the US and the UK are practically murder. To deliver a child in a way that kills it after you had the chance to prevent a conception, the morning after pill and an early stage abortion is highly questionable.
My feelings might change if the child is handicapped in a way that is only diagnosable in the late stages of pregnancies.
Huh? I am just talking about the right to live. This is not a legal privilege.
[/quote]
No, but what is an entity that is naturally endowed with such a right is by necessity a legal definition.
The classical definition of a person is “a human being regarded as an individual.”[1] In modern usage, the term “person” is subject to dispute and re-interpretation based on alternate definitions. This is especially so for uses that are not necessarily synonymous with the classical definition of human or human being.
For example, in many jurisdictions a corporation may be treated as a “person” under the law. In the fields of philosophy, theology, and bioethics, the definition of ‘person’ may exclude human beings who are incapable of certain kinds of thought (such as embryos, fetuses with incomplete brain development, or adult humans lacking higher brain functions).[2][3]
These alternative definitions of what constitutes a “person” include a wide and varying range of alternative defining characteristics, some of which have evolved historically, and continue to shift with time and social context. Some other characteristics used to define a ‘person’ include personal identity,[4] self-awareness, individuality, and a sense of self that persists through time. Other views centre around the degree to which properties such as agency (both human agency and moral agency) and rights are recognized and acknowledged in society or enforcable by law. The recognition of status as a person is known as personhood.
The inquiry into what it means to be a ‘person’ is the subject of considerable analysis and debate within diverse fields such as religion, medicine, ethics, economic and political theory, human rights, and animal rights.
S
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I happen not to agree with abortion. I think in a perfect world everyone should reap the consequences of their actions. But this isn’t a perfect world. And I think it is very legitimate to think about what the baby’s life will be like if it is carried to term by some of these people. Victims of abuse, drug addicts, etc… What if the baby is severely developmentally challenged? A categorical ban on abortion just doesn’t make sense to me. I recognize that many argue for something less than this and something more than what we have now-like exceptions for congential deformities or for victims of rape or incest.[/quote]
First, it is not you decision to make as to whether or not a life is worth living. This being the case, don’t you agree you should ere on the side of life?
Second, why would you be for abortion when your problem is clearly with other criminals. Instead of legal abortions, maybe we should aim to get to the root of these other problems.