ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[GiantHouseKey]

Some days/periods I like my life better than others. Would I trade my current/future life for non-existence? I can't honestly answer that. Looking ahead to growing old, loved ones dying, potential sickness/tragedies, eventual death - I can't say at this point.

That's fair enough. I can't argue with your beliefs.

I can understand why you would think this way but to me, I think (as brutal as it might sound) that I would rather grow old, watch loved ones die, become sick, be run over, fall off a skyscraper, be paralysed and eventually die than simply just die tomorrow.

GhK,

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's fair enough. I can't argue with your beliefs.

I can understand why you would think this way but to me, I think (as brutal as it might sound) that I would rather grow old, watch loved ones die, become sick, be run over, fall off a skyscraper, be paralysed and eventually die than simply just die tomorrow.

GhK,

I wouldn't rather just die tomorrow either - I thought the question was about having never consciously existed in the first place?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I thought the question was about having never consciously existed in the first place?

I would rather have all those terrible things happen to me that i've just said than have never existed in the first place too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah but the way I see it is that you would never have existed AT ALL. Obviously, no sex = no child.

Just as obviously, IMO, no development into a child = no child. Whether "you" existed when you were a fetus is quite a large metaphysical question.

Actually, I think it'd be kinda like the Ship of Theseus problem, except the ship starts out as a rowboat and is made larger as time goes on. Is the rowboat of the past the same ship as the mighty vessel of today? I lean towards saying it's not.

If the child is aborted as a foetus it has still been created, and in my opinion it counts as a person.

The key words being "in your opinion". Something has been created; is it a child right away?

Obviously it should not be treated the same as a fully grown person but a fully grown person has the ability to defend itself, and a foetus does not.

Neither does an unfertilized egg. What is it about implantation of a sperm cell that confers "personhood"?

I guess you don't fully understand my position. I do not think that abortion should be made illegal.

Sorry. I made an assumption about where you were going; I guess I was wrong.

 

[Nessa]

I have no memories of the world before my birth and will have no memories of my life after my death. From that perspective, when I die isn't relevant.

But I am alive, happy, and enjoy my life. So I'm in no rush to die, you know. But outside of any children I may have, my life will still be non-existent after my death.

 

[Magic Man]

Yep. I understand why this question is relevent but I think that's a different debate. In short, I would never eat human meat.

Yes, well, the point was that you apparently find it acceptable to kill some forms of life for no other reason than for your own luxury (since meat isn't essential in a human diet). The question of whether or not you'd eat human meat is irrelevant.

So that's 2 people that have disregarded my question.

That's because it doesn't make sense.

You seem quick to state how you think abortion is ok and yet you seem to mind when we think hypothetically that you could have been aborted. Is it not possible to consider something without the possibility of it not being an actual fact?

Huh? I know the point of your question was to say "See, when it's you, you feel differently", but that's not the case. First, it's an unanswerable question because I didn't have mental faculties soon after conception. Second, as Willamena said, it's really just an appeal to emotion. I could say the same to you about theft. If it was you who had stolen something major, wouldn't you want others to give you another chance rather than just throwing you in prison? The fact that you sympathize so much with yourself doesn't help you see the problem more clearly, and, in fact, it hinders it.

 

[Magic Man]

But you are here to answer the question. I understand what you're saying but would you really be happy to have never lived?

The thing is I haven't experienced the alternative. I don't know what it's like to not have existed at all, so I can't say for sure.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

The key words being "in your opinion"

I thought we were exchanging our different opinions? Why even say that when you know the only thing we are both doing is debating our opinions? What else could I give? This isn't a case of fact or scientific logic. This is a debate based purely on what we believe. There is no evidence for my argument, it's just based on what I think.

Something has been created; is it a child right away?

Well I say yes. Guess it doesn't look much like a child but in my opinion (Yes, those key words) I still consider the unborn child to be just as much of a person as you or me.

Regardless of whether I think the child is considered to be a child at zygote stage is not really my arguement, rather that a child should be allowed to grow and develope into a living animal. Even if the child is only a potential life, I think that potential should be allowed to develope into the real living child or whatever you want to call it.

Yes, well, the point was that you apparently find it acceptable to kill some forms of life for no other reason than for your own luxury (since meat isn't essential in a human diet). The question of whether or not you'd eat human meat is irrelevant.

Of course. Ok well I think it's alright for me (or other people) to kill for my (or their) food. I don't think it's alright to kill anything for any other reason. Especially not another human. I think there is a difference between farming and abortion. I understand what you're saying but I agree with meat and I don't agree with abortion. Is that really so difficult? Do I have to oppose death in every way in order to hold this belief?

Actually, I think it'd be kinda like the Ship of Theseus problem, except the ship starts out as a rowboat and is made larger as time goes on. Is the rowboat of the past the same ship as the mighty vessel of today? I lean towards saying it's not.

Ah, one of my favourite paradoxes. Ok I tend to agree with you on this level. The zygote is obviously not the same as the 83 year old version of the same entity, but would you agree that it is the same person? I was a whole lot different 2 years ago before I discovered my religion but is my mind now and my mind then the same mind. Could it be argued otherwise just because it has changed?

I could say the same to you about theft. If it was you who had stolen something major, wouldn't you want others to give you another chance rather than just throwing you in prison? The fact that you sympathize so much with yourself doesn't help you see the problem more clearly, and, in fact, it hinders it.

Probably not, actually. If it is very clear that the law says 'Do not steal' then if I know I am stealing, I get caught, I would willingly accept the punishment. I hate people with such blatent disregard for other people that they would commit crimes against others. So in fact, as much as you'd like to say I don't think this way, really, if I stole anything that somebody else owned from them (Which I wouldn't, not in the situation you're talking about, anyway) then I would probably rather somebody threw me in prison (Although unless I stole classified documents or robbed a bank is very unlikely).

GhK.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I say yes. Guess it doesn't look much like a child but in my opinion (Yes, those key words) I still consider the unborn child to be just as much of a person as you or me.

Okay... why?

The religious folks usually base their claim that life begins at conception on the "that's when it gets a soul" argument, but I assume that here in an atheist same faith debate, that's not the rationale that you're using, right?

Regardless of whether I think the child is considered to be a child at zygote stage is not really my arguement, rather that a child should be allowed to grow and develope into a living animal. Even if the child is only a potential life, I think that potential should be allowed to develope into the real living child or whatever you want to call it.

Okay, but again... why? What is it about a zygote that creates a moral imperative to treat it this way?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Okay... why?

The religious folks usually base their claim that life begins at conception on the "that's when it gets a soul" argument, but I assume that here in an atheist same faith debate, that's not the rationale that you're using, right?

Right! I don't believe in souls in the way that theists do.
In fact, I dont get why theist think this. If I was a christian, for instance, I think abortion is fine. After all, the child isnt going to hell so it's fine! At least then it doesnt have the chance of becoming evil and going to hell.

Simply, I believe that life is the best thing we ever get to do as human beings. I dont agree with denying a child the right to live. If that child is a zygote, even if you don't consider that child to count as a living organism yet (Which I do, but again that's not a biological fact necessarily), you still can't disagree that abortion is denying the child the opportunity to live.

On a personal level, another of my core beliefs is that we should honor our basic instinct: The survival of the human animal. To that end I just think that abortion is not living up to our carnal expectation to recreate. I understand that there is a population problem but I just see it as simply as if you don't want a child don't have so much damn sex.

Okay, but again... why? What is it about a zygote that creates a moral imperative to treat it this way?

I don't think that a zygote should be treated the same way as a fully grown human. I just think that it's basic rights should be the same: Right to life. I can see why people don't consider a zygote to be anything more than a cell containing some new DNA (Because I thought that at one point not so long ago) but the fact that it will develope to become a living, breathing human is what makes it special, in my opinion.

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, but to me, you're saying that abortions should be considered ok because they are a part of learning about life and making our own mistakes.

Even this intepretation does not lead to the reply you made, which must have invovled several unspoken leaps in reasoning.

Regarding the mistakes we see them make, I did say we should allow them, I didn't say that makes them "ok". The latter is a subjective assessment.

People have abortions because THEY decide pregnancy was a mistake. Otherwise they wouldn't have abortions. People don't have abortions so they can learn lessons in life, they have abortions because they don't want to be pregnant. That's the definition of a mistake, and if it wasn't a mistake you wouldn't want an abortion in the first place. Sorry if my opinion here is a little unclear, i'm known for waffling.

I have no disagreement with anything written here.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Even this intepretation does not lead to the reply you made, which must have invovled several unspoken leaps in reasoning.

Regarding the mistakes we see them make, I did say we should allow them, I didn't say that makes them "ok". The latter is a subjective assessment.

Yeah I would agree with that. Basically my view is they should be allowed but I don't agree with them. Whether they should be allowed isnt really the issue though, as my view is only what I think and what I think cannot translate to what the government/society should think. I would personally hate to live in a society where everybody thought the same way I did.

It's strange how we're still arguing this really...

GhK.

 

[leahrachelle]

Actually, it's a marvelous idea that needn't infringe on liberty whatsoever. Oh well...

I think your views are a bit contradicting..

 

[leahrachelle]

To be fair to leahrachelle, the two acts are different in terms of public sentiment. If your mission is to prevent as many abortions as possible but don't think you'd have the political clout or support to make abortions in the case of rape illegal, then pragmatically, you go for what you can get.

It's not like there's a huge public outcry demanding that rape victims be able to execute their attackers.

Right. You settle for what you can get, even if it is little

 

[leahrachelle]

IMO you're STILL putting a limitation as to what she can and can't do with her own body. Your assumption is that because she had unprotected sex...she has made her "CHOICE" and as such has no further rights to do what she pleases with her body when it is discovered she is pregnant.

There seems to be some inclination from you, albeit vague, that in the case of rape she has the right to an abortion. I gather, from a few responses, you're in agreement with abortion in the case of the mother's health/life. What about incest?

And if the ones above are ok with you then what's the problem with any other personal reason for her wanting an abortion?

Please for the last time.. I have said this maybe 10 times in this entire thread. I am not for abortion in any case, for any reason, period.

 

[leahrachelle]

That's true. No one would deny that. When dealing with a situation like this, though, one has to take the bad with the good. I don't think overall it's a good idea to ban abortions, even if sometimes, like in your example, the mother is in the wrong.

I think in the MAJORITY of cases the mother is in the wrong.
With the chance of getting pregnant when you use both a condom and birth control AND you pull out, the number of women getting pregnant should be insanely less. They arn't doing everything they can to protect themselves and that's just that..

 

[leahrachelle]

I was reminded of this debate the other day while reading an article in Rolling Stone magazine. It was an article from many months ago about a kid here in the U.S. who took an AK47 into a department store and killed 8 people before killing himself. The article told the story of his life. It included parents who had him in the hope that another kid would solve their marital problems (but obviously only made things worse, and then proceeded to fight verbally and physically from the time he was an infant. They finally divorced, and the kid, Robert Hawkins, lived with his dad before being bounced around from foster homes to group homes to mental institutions. I won't go into any more detail, although you can look it up. The point is that sometimes being born is worse than not.

They intentionally had him, though. It wasn't an accident

 

[leahrachelle]

I think I can safely say that it is pretty easy not to have unprotected sex. I guess you know how intercourse works, as you are clearly an intelligent person, and to this end I guess you would most likely agree that it is very simple not to do it. Can you please explain as I am obviously not getting this.

Willpower. Everyone has enough mental control to resist any sexual desire - if the want to. They don't want to, though, obviously..

 

[leahrachelle]

I was thinking about this earlier btw:
I don't know if there are currently some ways to do this - probably not yet, but I'm sure they are testing it..
Anywaysss, what happens when we create some kind of enviorment where an egg can grow on its own, without a mother.
Does this change what a human is..? Because it is in fact a seperate being in this case.

 

[leahrachelle]

When the baby could live on its own.

You can't technically tell when that is though