ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[Dirty Penguin]

Did I ever say that? No..
I said that's how I look at it

No problem with it being your opinion. But that is what I'm getting at. Your opinion is that she should have the right because she already made her choice and you believe it's the baby's right to be born.......

The thing is...it's the mother's right to not see her baby to term. So we must respect her decision. It's her body so she gets the ultimate say.

See, we get that what you're saying is your opinion but you have argued your position as though it should be taken as the correct position. None of your or our opinions really matter since the decision has absolutely nothing to do with us and from what I can tell it doesn't even effect us at all.

 

[Magic Man]

Some say that we are. Some say that we're not. I personally say no, but that's just how I look at it. That's perfectly fine if you see us as religious.

I didn't say that all atheists are religious. I am not, and many others are not. However, there are many others who are. For instance, many Buddhists are atheists.

Also, you still don't want to answer the question about your definition of "useful"? I'm really trying to understand how you can use "all life". That would exclude so many things, like computers, cars, phones, houses, walking sticks, etc. I would consider all of those things to be useful, but they don't fit the "all life" definition you said you use. Could you explain how that works, please?

 

[leahrachelle]

No problem with it being your opinion. But that is what I'm getting at. Your opinion is that she should have the right because she already made her choice and you believe it's the baby's right to be born.......

The thing is...it's the mother's right to not see her baby to term. So we must respect her decision. It's her body so she gets the ultimate say.

See, we get that what you're saying is your opinion but you have argued your position as though it should be taken as the correct position. None of your or our opinions really matter since the decision has absolutely nothing to do with us and from what I can tell it doesn't even effect us at all.

You arn't seeing what the whole 'us' is, though. Yes, there are other people affected in this. How about the approximately 3,200(?) lives that are taken away every single day. Just because you and your peers arn't affected doesn't mean no one is.

 

[leahrachelle]

I didn't say that all atheists are religious. I am not, and many others are not. However, there are many others who are. For instance, many Buddhists are atheists.

Also, you still don't want to answer the question about your definition of "useful"? I'm really trying to understand how you can use "all life". That would exclude so many things, like computers, cars, phones, houses, walking sticks, etc. I would consider all of those things to be useful, but they don't fit the "all life" definition you said you use. Could you explain how that works, please?

First of all, I did not say anything about whether non-life is useful or not so let's leave that out, for the moment at least.
All life is useful because all life has a purpose. It may not be a good purpose, in your opinion, but it still has a purpose - therefore it has a use.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You arn't seeing what the whole 'us' is, though. Yes, there are other people affected in this. How about the approximately 3,200(?) lives that are taken away every single day. Just because you and your peers arn't affected doesn't mean no one is.

But that's just it...You can't know what...(IF ANY) effect it has on the embryo/fetus. No one knows or will ever know. But it's not our place to tell the mother what she can and can not do with her body. And it's without a doubt that the embryo/fetus is part of her body.

As far as this 3200 you speak of you haven't nor will you be able to show what effects this has. It appears it's more emotional on your part than anything. Do you show this same feeling for the preservation of "life" when it comes to farm animals, deer, turkey, fish or is this only set aside for the select few (human babies) whom you've given a (higher) value?

Another interesting thing is the rate of abortions is actually lower than it was years ago. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates have played a part is this along with other individual personal decisions to either use protection or to abstain.

 

[Magic Man]

First of all, I did not say anything about whether non-life is useful or not so let's leave that out, for the moment at least.
All life is useful because all life has a purpose. It may not be a good purpose, in your opinion, but it still has a purpose - therefore it has a use.

I understand. I'm trying to get your definition of "useful". You offered the definition "all life", and I asked whether that was really the definition you use. I was unsure how you could use a definition like "all life" for the term "useful", since it would exclude so many things most people consider useful.

Using the term "purpose" is a little misleading, I think. To me that implies agency. As in, we're all created with a purpose in mind. It would be better just to say that every life has a use. However, by what you say here, everything is useful and nothing is useless, since everything has a use. A rock has a use, as does a broken computer and a pen without ink. Generally they're not all considered useful things, though.

 

[Kaylee Tam]

I believe in abortion, because let's face it, the human population has gotten bad enough already. I think fear of overcrowding is greater than fear of ending a life before it begins. I'm hypocritical, I guess, in a way.

 

[DarkVamp]

I'm against abortions, and I'm Pro-Choice. I don't believe that a "ban" should be legislated.

This ^

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I'm against abortions, and I'm Pro-Choice. I don't believe that a "ban" should be legislated.

It's strange how the two of us argued this issue over several pages only to come to the same belief.

GhK.

 

[leahrachelle]

But that's just it...You can't know what...(IF ANY) effect it has on the embryo/fetus. No one knows or will ever know. But it's not our place to tell the mother what she can and can not do with her body. And it's without a doubt that the embryo/fetus is part of her body.

It is no one's place to say whether someone should have their life or not.
Let me give you this example. If you are a conjoined twin, you are no doubt part of their body, right? So since your twin is part of your body, would it be okay to kill him/her because you have a right to do what you want to your own body? Obviously this is a weird case because you'd probably be killing yourself, depending on the type of conjoinment(?) but I'm sure doctors would have to seperate ya'll, or atleast try if the twin died.. But anyways, you get the point

As far as this 3200 you speak of you haven't nor will you be able to show what effects this has. It appears it's more emotional on your part than anything. Do you show this same feeling for the preservation of "life" when it comes to farm animals, deer, turkey, fish or is this only set aside for the select few (human babies) whom you've given a (higher) value?

Yes, I guess I do think humans have a higher value that other organisms. One reason would be because we have to eat other organisms to live.

Another interesting thing is the rate of abortions is actually lower than it was years ago. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates have played a part is this along with other individual personal decisions to either use protection or to abstain.

Of course this is a good thing, but 3200 lives per day is still absolutely unacceptable, especially when in 96% of those cases it is the mother's responsibility.. (the other 4% being cases of rape or when the mother could be injured/killed if she has the baby)

 

[leahrachelle]

I understand. I'm trying to get your definition of "useful". You offered the definition "all life", and I asked whether that was really the definition you use. I was unsure how you could use a definition like "all life" for the term "useful", since it would exclude so many things most people consider useful.

Using the term "purpose" is a little misleading, I think. To me that implies agency. As in, we're all created with a purpose in mind. It would be better just to say that every life has a use. However, by what you say here, everything is useful and nothing is useless, since everything has a use. A rock has a use, as does a broken computer and a pen without ink. Generally they're not all considered useful things, though.

I guess it would apply to non-life as well, in my opinion. Because I can't think of anything that doesn't have a use..

 

[leahrachelle]

I believe in abortion, because let's face it, the human population has gotten bad enough already. I think fear of overcrowding is greater than fear of ending a life before it begins. I'm hypocritical, I guess, in a way.

Oh, and killing a living being is better than simply preventing one?
Sorry, I wasn't aware that was the much easier option for what you arguing...

 

[McBell]

Of course this is a good thing, but 3200 lives per day is still absolutely unacceptable,

To you perhaps.
Please tell me you ain't gonna go the "all life is sacred" route...
What then would be an acceptable number be for you??

 

[McBell]

Please ignore my post.
I just realized this is in the atheist sanctuary.

 

[leahrachelle]

To you perhaps.
Please tell me you ain't gonna go the "all life is sacred" route...
What then would be an acceptable number be for you??

Zero is what is acceptable..
But yes, I am realistic..

 

[leahrachelle]

Oh woops, sorry.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is no one's place to say whether someone should have their life or not.
Let me give you this example. If you are a conjoined twin, you are no doubt part of their body, right? So since your twin is part of your body, would it be okay to kill him/her because you have a right to do what you want to your own body? Obviously this is a weird case because you'd probably be killing yourself, depending on the type of conjoinment(?) but I'm sure doctors would have to seperate ya'll, or atleast try if the twin died.. But anyways, you get the point

Yea, I don't get it. Conjoined twins may not be a good example here. You might be reaching just a little to far to try and prove a point. These particular twins share organs, in some cases, but the one thing that is fully developed and completely separate, normally, is the brain.

Yes, I guess I do think humans have a higher value that other organisms. One reason would be because we have to eat other organisms to live.

Then further study and education is needed on your part because we are not that much different than any other animal in the kingdom.

Of course this is a good thing, but 3200 lives per day is still absolutely unacceptable, especially when in 96% of those cases it is the mother's responsibility..

Once again we've established this as YOUR opinion of her responsibilities. I'm perfectly content that one of her responsibilities is to make whatever decisions for herself as she sees fit. No need for us to bud in....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Please ignore my post.
I just realized this is in the atheist sanctuary.

Hey, I value your opinion anyway.

 

[Willamena]

Zero is what is acceptable..
But yes, I am realistic..

If you'd allowed frubals, I'd give them for this post.

Distinction is important.

 

[McBell]

Hey, I value your opinion anyway.

If you allow one exception, do you not have to allow others?

See, I got it in the form of a question