Poll

Which of the following applies to you?

I am an atheist/agnostic and am pro-choice.
21 (80.8%)
I am an atheist/agnostic and am opposed to abortion.
1 (3.8%)
I am an atheist/agnostic and am opposed to abortion during and after the second trimester.
3 (11.5%)
I am an atheist/agnostic and am opposed to abortion during and after the third trimester.
1 (3.8%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Voting closed: May 30, 2012, 06:49:32 PM

Author Topic: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion  (Read 6770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #145 on: March 13, 2012, 12:43:02 PM »
That question is irrelevant, not because we're alive, but because most abortions occur before there's a nervous system. I'm pretty sure the ones after that are simply unavoidable. Lose the fetus or lose it and the mother.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #146 on: March 13, 2012, 12:45:48 PM »
That question is irrelevant, not because we're alive, but because most abortions occur before there's a nervous system. I'm pretty sure the ones after that are simply unavoidable. Lose the fetus or lose it and the mother.

Seems to me that the question is relevant at least to our discussion in this thread, since the subject of allowing unrestricted abortions up until the time of birth has been brought up here.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #147 on: March 13, 2012, 12:49:08 PM »
Seems to me that the question is relevant at least to our discussion in this thread, since the subject of allowing unrestricted abortions up until the time of birth has been brought up here.

Allowing something and agreeing with it are two very different things. I don't think anyone who would allow abortions up until the time of birth is actually comfortable with the idea.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #148 on: March 13, 2012, 12:54:28 PM »
Allowing something and agreeing with it are two very different things. I don't think anyone who would allow abortions up until the time of birth is actually comfortable with the idea.

Agreed. But the fact that some are proposing that the restrictions should actually be removed makes it relevant to the discussion. It may not be the only question that should be considered, but whether or not we agree with it is a relevant question, because we are the ones who vote the people in office who, in turn, pass or reject the legislation.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #149 on: March 13, 2012, 12:56:28 PM »
Agreed. But the fact that some are proposing that the restrictions should actually be removed makes it relevant to the discussion. It may not be the only question that should be considered, but whether or not we agree with it is a relevant question, because we are the ones who vote the people in office who, in turn, pass or reject the legislation.

Your question is only relevant to the morality of performing an action; not whether others should be allowed to perform it. In short, your question is moot.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #150 on: March 13, 2012, 01:00:23 PM »
Agreed. But the fact that some are proposing that the restrictions should actually be removed makes it relevant to the discussion. It may not be the only question that should be considered, but whether or not we agree with it is a relevant question, because we are the ones who vote the people in office who, in turn, pass or reject the legislation.

Your question is only relevant to the morality of performing an action; not whether others should be allowed to perform it. In short, your question is moot.

A "woman's right to choose" is also a question of morality - whether or not oppression of women is wrong. Does that make that question moot?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 01:04:07 PM by GodlessHeathen »
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #151 on: March 13, 2012, 01:05:11 PM »
A "woman's right to choose" is also a question of morality - whether or not oppression of women is wrong. Does that make the entire abortion question moot?

You are correct, but my point still remains (sort of). Your question only refers to the individual opinions of whether abortion is right or wrong. That is superseded by the part I put in bold, and thus is a moot point.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #152 on: March 13, 2012, 01:32:07 PM »
A "woman's right to choose" is also a question of morality - whether or not oppression of women is wrong. Does that make the entire abortion question moot?

You are correct, but my point still remains (sort of). Your question only refers to the individual opinions of whether abortion is right or wrong. That is superseded by the part I put in bold, and thus is a moot point.

Arguments from morality are used all the time in passing legislation, and, to an extent, cannot be avoided if we're going to have a coherent society. That whether or not oppression of women is wrong supersedes the question of whether or not abortion is wrong is still an individual opinion, even if the majority of individuals do agree with it (as do I, within certain limitations, which some have (falsely) regarded as a desire on my part to see women oppressed).
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #153 on: March 13, 2012, 01:59:06 PM »
Arguments from morality are used all the time in passing legislation, and, to an extent, cannot be avoided if we're going to have a coherent society. That whether or not oppression of women is wrong supersedes the question of whether or not abortion is wrong is still an individual opinion, even if the majority of individuals do agree with it
<snip>

I've been thinking of a counter to this for a while. You are correct, but you're forgetting (or perhaps ignoring) that majority rules (more or less) in democracies. As such, I stand by my point that your point is moot.

(as do I, within certain limitations, which some have (falsely) regarded as a desire on my part to see women oppressed).

Just out of curiosity - are the "some" part of this website? If so, who are they?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #154 on: March 13, 2012, 02:56:34 PM »
Arguments from morality are used all the time in passing legislation, and, to an extent, cannot be avoided if we're going to have a coherent society. That whether or not oppression of women is wrong supersedes the question of whether or not abortion is wrong is still an individual opinion, even if the majority of individuals do agree with it
<snip>

I've been thinking of a counter to this for a while. You are correct, but you're forgetting (or perhaps ignoring) that majority rules (more or less) in democracies. As such, I stand by my point that your point is moot.

I actually intended the concept of majority rules to be implied by my statement, "even if the majority of individuals do agree with it." Majority rules constitutes lots of individual opinions combined. I agree that, in a democracy, the will of the majority is what should be passed as law. In that sense, I also agree that abortion should be legal in America as it stands.

The point I was trying to make was much narrower in scope: that moral opinions are relevant in deciding what laws get passed and/or overturned and hence to this discussion.

(as do I, within certain limitations, which some have (falsely) regarded as a desire on my part to see women oppressed).

Just out of curiosity - are the "some" part of this website? If so, who are they?

Well, calling specific people out is really not my style, but you'll see if you look back earlier in this thread.

EDIT@ "One" would have perhaps been a better choice of word than "some."
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 02:58:06 PM by GodlessHeathen »
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12573
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #155 on: March 13, 2012, 03:11:58 PM »
In more tongue in cheek terms, it could be summed up in the statement "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born" (Ronald Reagan, cited in www.notable-quotes.com/r/reagan_ronald.html).

It is an emotional plea.  Follow that logic to it's absurd conclusion:

"I've noticed that everybody that is for contraception has already been born"

The "Do I wanna be..." question has the built in assuption of existing.  If "I" do not yet exist, "I" cannot want something nor objection to something.  I could not have wanted anything in 1812.  "Do I wanna be aborted" makes no sense because I already exist.  It projects my self onto something that is not really a person.  Like when people say how their cat loves them.  No.  It doesn't.  The stuff that existed - and eventually became me - when "I" could have been aborted did not constitute me.  It had no desires or preferences.  It did not have thoughts.  It was not a person.  Yet.


It is not a sin to quote Reagan.  Just unwise.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #156 on: March 13, 2012, 03:20:31 PM »
It projects my self onto something that is not really a person.
But the issue of who/what is or is not "really a person" is part of what is in question here, is it not?

It is not a sin to quote Reagan.  Just unwise.
Ahhhh, well that's a relief that it's not a sin. Don't want to add more coals to the fire that will one day roast and torture me forever and ever!  ;)
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #157 on: March 13, 2012, 03:25:21 PM »
GH, my first thought on reading your post from the last page is that your question is as reasonable as asking "would I want not to have been conceived?"

Of course, the immediate emotional knee-jerk answer is "no, I'm glad I was conceived".  Using your reasoning, we can conclude from this that refraining from conception is morally wrong.

This is your position - if you genuinely hold to the standard you outlined.  How many children have you conceived?  How many did you fail to conceive?  Get busy.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #158 on: March 13, 2012, 03:31:24 PM »
GH, my first thought on reading your post from the last page is that your question is as reasonable as asking "would I want not to have been conceived?"

Of course, the immediate emotional knee-jerk answer is "no, I'm glad I was conceived".  Using your reasoning, we can conclude from this that refraining from conception is morally wrong.

This is your position - if you genuinely hold to the standard you outlined.  How many children have you conceived?  How many did you fail to conceive?  Get busy.

The answer is, I would not mind having not been conceived, because I would not exist and hence would have no way of knowing I had never been conceived (indeed would not "know" anything at all).

Why does the question necessarily have to go down the slippery slope to contraception? A non-sentient, non-human sperm or egg cell cannot answer the question of "Would I want to not be conceived?" My whole point is would a sentient, human being want to be aborted? Not a sperm, not an egg cell, not an embryo.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6873
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #159 on: March 13, 2012, 04:01:07 PM »
I want abortion to be available to any woman who wants one. Because the alternatives are worse.

That does not mean that I am "for abortion" any more than I am "for root canals" or "for leg amputations" or "for open heart surgery". All of those things are unpleasant, painful and cause all sorts of other problems. But not having them available is much worse.

I like my life a lot. But I was unwanted. So were my siblings. My mother's life would have been much better if she had not had any children. Having four children with a crazy violent alcoholic twice her age (and twice her size) tied her to him for life from the age of 18 on. She should have been a scientist or musician dedicated to her career, maybe married, maybe with a series of boyfriends. But she never wanted children, and never should have had them.

She was a miserable, bitter, angry woman who took out her hatred of her husband on her kids. If I could go back in time and make abortion safe, legal and easily available to her when she was 19, maybe it wouldn't have made any difference. She might have ended up angry and miserable anyway. But she never even had the kind of choices available to me, and if I have my way, to my daughter.

Oh, BTW, millions of miscarriages happen every day all over the world; most of them are probably wanted pregnancies. Many miscarriages are due to poverty, malnutrition, exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace, lack of prenatal care, and other easily preventable causes. Poor women and their kids also have higher risks of being hurt or dying from preventable causes.

Imagine if half of the rhetoric, money, time and energy expended on anti-abortion and anti-contraception efforts[1] was spent on helping women have and care for the babies they do want? Que milagro!
 1. trying to make women have children they don't want
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #160 on: March 13, 2012, 04:42:50 PM »
The answer is, I would not mind having not been conceived, because I would not exist and hence would have no way of knowing I had never been conceived (indeed would not "know" anything at all).

This is disingenuous, GH.  If you truly believed this, then you would apply it to abortion as well - another case of not knowing you had never been born.  Yet, you don't, as you've already explained.  So the contradiction?

Why does the question necessarily have to go down the slippery slope to contraception?

It's not a slippery slope, and I at no point mentioned contraception.  The reasoning you gave, if valid, applies equally to anything at all that results in you not being born - including your parents not having sex at all, or not having met each other.  Either:

1. Your reasoning is valid, and should be applied to anything at all that prevents a human from being born, not just to cases of abortion.
2. Your reasoning is invalid, and shouldn't be applied in the first place.
3. There is some difference between abortion and other prevention-of-birth scenarios (such as your parents not having met each other) that is relevant to your reasoning.

I can't see how #3 applies, and you already objected to #1...

A non-sentient, non-human sperm or egg cell cannot answer the question of "Would I want to not be conceived?" My whole point is would a sentient, human being want to be aborted? Not a sperm, not an egg cell, not an embryo.

The question makes little sense.  Sentient human beings are not in a position of ever being aborted in the first place.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #161 on: March 13, 2012, 04:48:38 PM »
The answer is, I would not mind having not been conceived, because I would not exist and hence would have no way of knowing I had never been conceived (indeed would not "know" anything at all).

This is disingenuous, GH.  If you truly believed this, then you would apply it to abortion as well - another case of not knowing you had never been born.  Yet, you don't, as you've already explained.  So the contradiction?

Why does the question necessarily have to go down the slippery slope to contraception?

It's not a slippery slope, and I at no point mentioned contraception.  The reasoning you gave, if valid, applies equally to anything at all that results in you not being born - including your parents not having sex at all, or not having met each other.  Either:

1. Your reasoning is valid, and should be applied to anything at all that prevents a human from being born, not just to cases of abortion.
2. Your reasoning is invalid, and shouldn't be applied in the first place.
3. There is some difference between abortion and other prevention-of-birth scenarios (such as your parents not having met each other) that is relevant to your reasoning.

I can't see how #3 applies, and you already objected to #1...

A non-sentient, non-human sperm or egg cell cannot answer the question of "Would I want to not be conceived?" My whole point is would a sentient, human being want to be aborted? Not a sperm, not an egg cell, not an embryo.

The question makes little sense.  Sentient human beings are not in a position of ever being aborted in the first place.

Azdgari, every argument you have posted has been based on the assumption that at no point is the unborn fetus a person. I would strongly contend against that assertion as would others who have posted to this thread. If at any point the unborn fetus becomes a person (sentient human being), your argument completely falls apart and becomes a slippery slope.

EDIT@ Note: I am not disputing society's right to "decide" when to allow abortions and when to not allow abortions. The legislation was passed, therefore it should be allowed. But that does not mean that everyone who disagrees should just sit down and be quiet about it or should simply accept the protests of people wanting to lift the restrictions we already have in place.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 04:52:16 PM by GodlessHeathen »
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #162 on: March 13, 2012, 06:58:13 PM »
Azdgari, every argument you have posted has been based on the assumption that at no point is the unborn fetus a person. I would strongly contend against that assertion as would others who have posted to this thread. If at any point the unborn fetus becomes a person (sentient human being), your argument completely falls apart and becomes a slippery slope.

If we are going to attempt to harm and oppress women by deciding, without cause, to label fetuses as "persons", then your argument is not needed in the first place:  Abortion becomes murder.  I must quesiton your motives for doing so, though.

EDIT@ Note: I am not disputing society's right to "decide" when to allow abortions and when to not allow abortions. The legislation was passed, therefore it should be allowed. But that does not mean that everyone who disagrees should just sit down and be quiet about it or should simply accept the protests of people wanting to lift the restrictions we already have in place.

Of course.  The culture war must be fought, and those boozy sluts need to be punished.  Or do you have another motive for deliberately extending personhood to beings that don't actually have the qualites we look for in people, in such a way that it oppresses women?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #163 on: March 13, 2012, 08:40:30 PM »
If we are going to attempt to harm and oppress women by deciding, without cause, to label fetuses as "persons", then your argument is not needed in the first place:  Abortion becomes murder.  I must quesiton your motives for doing so, though.

A fully developed system of neural pathways, responsiveness to external stimuli, external human features, ability to laugh and cry. How much more "cause" do you want? Do you want one to poke its head out, light a cigar, and say, "here's lookin' at you, kid"?

Of course.  The culture war must be fought, and those boozy sluts need to be punished.  Or do you have another motive for deliberately extending personhood to beings that don't actually have the qualites we look for in people, in such a way that it oppresses women?

Exactly what qualities do you look for in people? Does a baby who has been born meet those qualities? If not, then at what level of maturity/age does it become murder to terminate a baby after birth? It would be a shame to force women to suffer the oppression of raising an unwanted baby or of going through the inconvenience of putting it up for adoption when a doctor could just terminate it.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 08:57:50 PM by GodlessHeathen »
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #164 on: March 13, 2012, 08:50:39 PM »
It's a scale.  Birth is a clean bench-mark; no others exist.  Birth marks the point at which an infant is, in principle, capable of forming social connections of its own - however rudimentary.  Before that point, its social connections are necessarily done through the mother; it is not a person in its own right.

Now, about your motives.  Why do you choose to assign personhood in such a destructive manner?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #165 on: March 13, 2012, 09:07:06 PM »
It's a scale.  Birth is a clean bench-mark; no others exist.  Birth marks the point at which an infant is, in principle, capable of forming social connections of its own - however rudimentary.  Before that point, its social connections are necessarily done through the mother; it is not a person in its own right.

Now, about your motives.  Why do you choose to assign personhood in such a destructive manner?

Because I feel that, once the fetus reaches a stage where it might be considered physically and psychologically human, it should be given the benefit of a doubt and treated as human. As should a baby that has been born, which we really don't know whether it is more self-aware than, say, a baby chimpanzee.

Destructive by allowing women the right to terminate before and up to 24 weeks??? You really think that is not time enough to make a decision??? Ok, so you made the argument (or someone did) for the case where someone was kept unconscious for up to 9 months and then forced to have the baby. Seriously?? Just how often do you think that happens??

What are your motives for being so cynical and callous toward a rather unpleasant issue?
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #166 on: March 13, 2012, 09:30:33 PM »
Kept unconscious for up to 9 months and then forced to have the baby. Seriously?? Just how often do you think that happens??

'I was wondering what the mouse-trap was for,' said Alice. 'It isn't very likely there would be any mice on the horse's back.'

'Not very likely, perhaps,' said the Knight; 'but, if they do come, I don't choose to have them running all about.'

http://sabian.org/looking_glass8.php
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #167 on: March 13, 2012, 09:32:27 PM »
Because I feel that, once the fetus reaches a stage where it might be considered physically and psychologically human, it should be given the benefit of a doubt and treated as human.

Doubt of what?  Whether they meet the definition of personhood that you are deliberately using in order to encompass fetuses?  There's no need for doubt there:  A fetus will meet whatever definition you design to include them.  Plastic definitions are like that.

As should a baby that has been born, which we really don't know whether it is more self-aware than, say, a baby chimpanzee.

What does self-awareness have to do with personhood?  By that standard, we cease to be persons while unconscious.  A nonsensical consequence of your standard of "personhood":  It would make it moral (or at least, not a moral offense against a person) to do anything at all to someone who has been rendered unconscious.  One would be able, for example, to morally have sex with a woman who has been anaesthetized and who did not give permission for it while awake, since she is not self-aware at that time and thus is not a person.

That is not how the concept of personhood is actually employed, a fact for which I am grateful.  Personhood has much more to do, in-practice, with one's social connections, both personal and legal.  A human being who has no such connections nor the capacity to form them is not a person in any meaningful sense.

Destructive by allowing women the right to terminate before and up to 24 weeks???

By making womens' bodies the property of the state in a manner in which mens' bodies are not the property of the state.  By making her reproductive choices a matter of law, rather than of personal choice.  By making her less of a person in the eyes of the law.  Then again, that's generally the point, at least for the religious nutbars...

You really think that is not time enough to make a decision???

Generally it is enough time.  That's part of why such a large proportion of abortions happen early on.  Other times, for a variety of reasons, it's not.  Which is why some abortions still happen late.  Seriously, this is really simple stuff, GH.

Ok, so you made the argument (or someone did) for the case where someone was kept unconscious for up to 9 months and then forced to have the baby. Seriously?? Just how often do you think that happens??

Didn't see it.  Must have been a hypothetical to make a point...which you've missed.  Missed deliberately?  We'll see.

What are your motives for being so cynical and callous toward a rather unpleasant issue?

Cynical?  Because anti-abortion activists tend, in my experience, not to have preservation of the unborn as a primary motive.  It's a means to an end, that end being the oppression of women.  This is why one so often finds in such people a combination of the following opinions:
1. Anti-abortion.
2. Anti-contraception.
3. Anti-sex-education.
4. Pro-males as head of household/society.

There are other supporting opinions that are also usually associated, but they're less important than those 4.

Callous?  To whom...you?  This charge makes no sense to me.  I care about the attempted extension of the historical oppression of women, as you've advocated through your position.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #168 on: March 13, 2012, 09:42:38 PM »
Cynical?  Because anti-abortion activists tend, in my experience, not to have preservation of the unborn as a primary motive.  It's a means to an end, that end being the oppression of women.  This is why one so often finds in such people a combination of the following opinions:
1. Anti-abortion.
2. Anti-contraception.
3. Anti-sex-education.
4. Pro-males as head of household/society.

There are other supporting opinions that are also usually associated, but they're less important than those 4.

Callous?  To whom...you?  This charge makes no sense to me.  I care about the attempted extension of the historical oppression of women, as you've advocated through your position.

If I had the willful oppression of women in mind, then I would advocate banning abortion entirely, with no time window at all, placing no restrictions on it at all to protect the mother, whether her life be in danger or whether the pregnancy was forced on her through rape or incest.

I don't hold the opinions of the religious nutjobs you described. I am pro-choice in most instances and definitely support the use and distribution of contraception, sex education, and stand firmly against the ridiculous "cherish and obey" philosophy that has held a stranglehold on families for so many millennia.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 09:44:13 PM by GodlessHeathen »
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #169 on: March 13, 2012, 09:49:37 PM »
If I had the willful oppression of women in mind, then I would advocate banning abortion entirely, with no time window at all, placing no restrictions on it at all to protect the mother, whether her life be in danger or whether the pregnancy was forced on her through rape or incest.

No you wouldn't - not to this audience.  The position you describe would gain no traction.  The position you've actually espoused, however, might.  Baby steps.  Toe in the door.  Smart politics.  Set a precedent.  It's a lot easier to walk up to the top step of a flight of stairs than to jump to it.

I don't hold the opinions of the religious nutjobs you described. I am pro-choice in most instances and definitely support the use and distribution of contraception, sex education, and stand firmly against the ridiculous "cherish and obey" philosophy that has held a stranglehold on families for so many millennia.

So you say.  And yet, you're trying to move us in that direction.  Why?

EDIT:  Also, you didn't respond to the rest of my post, which was much more pertinent to your actual points than was the part that you did respond to.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 09:51:55 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #170 on: March 14, 2012, 01:10:07 AM »
EDIT:  Also, you didn't respond to the rest of my post, which was much more pertinent to your actual points than was the part that you did respond to.

Because I see no point in continuing to go around in circles. You arrive at your opinion from an entirely different perspective than how I arrive at mine. We have different starting points; hence no matter how much we argue our views, we will never see eye to eye.

<waits for forthcoming personal attack on my character>  &)
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #171 on: March 14, 2012, 01:28:05 AM »
I accept your concession.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #172 on: March 14, 2012, 03:53:57 AM »
There is no middle. You're either a believer or you're not. That's all there is to it. You can't not believe and also not not believe. It's illogical. EDIT: Furthermore, it's impossible.

I disagree with this. It is very possible to believe something that your rational mind knows is impossible.

For example when you scratch off a lottery ticket, you are always a little surprised that you didn't win. Part of you was convinced you would hit the jackpot while simultaneusly you knew you wouldn't.

And to give two personal examples. Ghosts scare the shit out of me. I can't watch ghost movies, I am afraid of the dark, I often have nightmares about ghosts. Yet simultaneously I don't believe in ghosts. I know they do not exist.

And the other example. I fly a lot, and I always touch the doorframe of the airplane as I board, for good luck. In a recent effort to rid myself of all superstition and magical thinking, I'm forcing myself to quit doing that. I know it makes no difference whatsoever, but it still scares the hell out of me to walk past that doorframe without touching it.

I think it is entirely possible to simultaneously believe, and not believe, in God. The important thing is to follow your rational mind and not give in to those primitive emotional beliefs.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Atheists and Agnostics - Pro-choice / Opposed to Abortion
« Reply #173 on: March 14, 2012, 04:03:16 AM »
Believing something you know is impossible is still believing.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.