News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Any Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

Started by LegendarySandwich, January 11, 2011, 02:49:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

a-train

Quote from: "Will"How much should infants cost? Will there be coupons?
Whatever price the market will support.  I think some parents would lower their ask for potential buyers who they believe will provide a better home for the child.  Some third party organization might certify households with high ratings, parents may limit sales to holders of those ratings, or sell to them at a discount.  Thus, there would be something similar to a coupon.

-a-train

a-train

Quote from: "TheJackel"EBAY BABIES! Bid NOW, or BUY IT NOW! Rating: 100% in the last 9 months!  


OR
[spoiler:1yzam26q]You can now get your ghetto babies on CRAIGSLIST[/color][/b]. :blink: [/i][/size][/spoiler:1yzam26q]
This may dramatically reduce the rate of abortion and child abuse.  Neglected and unwanted children could be sold into homes that actually want them.

-a-train

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Wilson"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

eta: And of course it's only my opinion.  I'm pretty sure that is what the OP requested.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Wilson"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

Me, I'm not too sure. I think it's a combination of things -- our biology, our ability for reasoned thought, our capacity for pain and suffering but also for joy and happiness, our emotions, our past memories and experiences, etc. Of course, one wouldn't have to have all of the things I outlined above for me to consider it human; just most.

Wilson

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Wilson"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

eta: And of course it's only my opinion.  I'm pretty sure that is what the OP requested.

You think as soon as a fetus has EEG brain activity it is capable of reasoned thought?  

By the way, I didn't say that the dividing line between activity and no activity was arbitrary, only that using that as a criterion for allowing abortion was arbitrary.  Or using it as a criterion to determine personhood vs non-personhood.  Reasoned thought is another possibility.  How do you define that?  Is a newborn baby capable of reasoned thought?

Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.  It's a gradual process.  Everybody has an opinion as to where that dividing line should be, but there's no logical point on which all people of good will can agree.  In China, where infanticide is common, it apparently is on the other side of birth.  I still say it's mostly a matter of how the concept of abortion at certain stages affects us emotionally - where empathy kicks in.  Think about a baby a week away from being born - would you be okay with aborting it?  Would you punish the mother for doing so?  Or the doctor?  There are no easy answers.

Will

Quote from: "Wilson"Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.
If I may interject, there is a logical biological reason rooted directly in the concept of a woman's right to choose which is a clear and distinct moment where a fetus becomes an infant and thus gains personhood: the biological disconnection from the mother. Between fertilization and the moment of birth, a zygote and then embryo and then fetus is entirely biologically dependent on the mother for nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. The child functions as a part of the woman's actual body. The second the baby is born and the cord broken, the biological status of the life-form changes fundamentally. I've always seen that as the significant distinction.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

Me, I'm not too sure. I think it's a combination of things -- our biology, our ability for reasoned thought, our capacity for pain and suffering but also for joy and happiness, our emotions, our past memories and experiences, etc. Of course, one wouldn't have to have all of the things I outlined above for me to consider it human; just most.

Well yeah, but our biology is inherent (either actually or potentially) in a fetus, as is our capacity for reasoned thought.  The other qualities you mention are a result of the thought that I mentioned as the sine qua non of humanity above, so far as I can tell.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Whitney

Quote from: "Will"
Quote from: "Wilson"Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.
If I may interject, there is a logical biological reason rooted directly in the concept of a woman's right to choose which is a clear and distinct moment where a fetus becomes an infant and thus gains personhood: the biological disconnection from the mother. Between fertilization and the moment of birth, a zygote and then embryo and then fetus is entirely biologically dependent on the mother for nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. The child functions as a part of the woman's actual body. The second the baby is born and the cord broken, the biological status of the life-form changes fundamentally. I've always seen that as the significant distinction.

Which is what I was trying to point out when I was defining person as a legal entity separate from that of the mother.

When discussing pro-choice vs anti-choice as it pertains to law all that maters is if a rational line can be drawn...and birth makes a lot of sense.

Brain function, how one feels about a fetus etc relate to the ethics of abortion...that shouldn't affect the law since abortion can't be argued to harm society (at least not while we live in an overpopulated world).

Thumpalumpacus

Being a small-government centrist, I don't see that it is any of the government's business to regulate abortion anyway.  There is no pressing societal need calling for such an intrusive violation of privacy, no matter one's feelings on abortion.

I've always found it odd that those most often on record as favoring anti-choice legislation are usually those who claim to espouse the Jeffersonian dictum that "that government is best which governs least."  I mean how much more intrusive can a government get than this -- except to perhaps force abortions?  

Because believe me, if the government can tell the woman she must bear the child, the government can also tell her she must abort it.  The two orders are identical, in the logical sense.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Cite134

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

Wilson

Quote from: "Will"
Quote from: "Wilson"Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.
If I may interject, there is a logical biological reason rooted directly in the concept of a woman's right to choose which is a clear and distinct moment where a fetus becomes an infant and thus gains personhood: the biological disconnection from the mother. Between fertilization and the moment of birth, a zygote and then embryo and then fetus is entirely biologically dependent on the mother for nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. The child functions as a part of the woman's actual body. The second the baby is born and the cord broken, the biological status of the life-form changes fundamentally. I've always seen that as the significant distinction.

So you are okay with third-trimester abortion - say, for example, a baby about a week away from being delivered naturally.  A baby or fetus that would survive if delivered at that time instead of aborted - that would cry spontaneously and move its arms and breathe normally.  You'd be okay with killing that little creature.

I guess you're tougher than I am.

Of course there are several clearcut dividing lines - the moment of birth, the first detectable brain activity, the time when the fetus can survive unaided outside the womb, the time when the fetus can survive with medical assistance outside the womb, and so on.  The cutting of the cord is the most clearcut of all.  But the brain of that baby a moment before birth and the moment after are essentially the same.  There are profound changes in the circulatory system that occur at birth.  But personhood is more brain-related than anything else, in my opinion.

Will

Quote from: "Wilson"So you are okay with third-trimester abortion - say, for example, a baby about a week away from being delivered naturally.
I'm not 'okay' with any abortion. I think they're truly horrible last resorts. I'm of the opinion that abortions should be incredibly rare. Here's the thing: I don't know why abortion a third-trimester fetus is somehow so much worse than a second-trimester fetus. They're both really sad situations. I don't know why you would put some arbitrary line between them. Wouldn't a first trimester abortion make you sad?

Me being made sad, though, doesn't change the law or the reality behind the law. Roe v. Wade exists as an affirmation of individual liberty, the liberty of a woman to choose whether or not to be pregnant; pregnant from very start to very finish. Reproduction is perhaps the most fundamental right of womanhood. Stripping away that right, even when done because abortions are incredibly tragic, is a violation none the less.
Quote from: "Wilson"A baby or fetus that would survive if delivered at that time instead of aborted - that would cry spontaneously and move its arms and breathe normally.  You'd be okay with killing that little creature.
I'd not  be okay with killing a child delivered and no longer connected with the mother. If, however, the fetus is still connected, the woman is still pregnant and the fetus is still a part of her body. It's that connection that makes all the difference.
Quote from: "Wilson"Of course there are several clearcut dividing lines - the moment of birth, the first detectable brain activity, the time when the fetus can survive unaided outside the womb, the time when the fetus can survive with medical assistance outside the womb, and so on.  The cutting of the cord is the most clearcut of all.  But the brain of that baby a moment before birth and the moment after are essentially the same.  There are profound changes in the circulatory system that occur at birth.  But personhood is more brain-related than anything else, in my opinion.
Why would personhood be brain related? Dolphins and apes are much, much more intelligent than infants. Should they be given constitutional rights? My beagle has a functional understanding of dozens of commands, which far outdoes infants. And what about people with mental deficiencies? Should they be denied their legal rights? No, I'm afraid I don't agree that intellect or brain activity should determine whether or not rights are bestowed by the state and society.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Wilson

Quote from: "Will"Why would personhood be brain related? Dolphins and apes are much, much more intelligent than infants. Should they be given constitutional rights? My beagle has a functional understanding of dozens of commands, which far outdoes infants. And what about people with mental deficiencies? Should they be denied their legal rights? No, I'm afraid I don't agree that intellect or brain activity should determine whether or not rights are bestowed by the state and society.

My point is that it's all arbitrary.  You'll never get general agreement, even among people who aren't bible-directed.  The law doesn't get its dividing line from logic, it just kind of seeks a level where women are given a certain degree of abortion choice and the public's outrage isn't excessive.  Who knows how those decisions are made?  Rights bestowed by the state and society are whatever the politicians and the courts decide they are.  Those rights aren't set by God, they are set by the government, largely according to public opinion.  Luckily, we live in a fairly enlightened age.

But I've also thought about the fact that many animals are smarter than babies.  I've often thought that I see more humanity in my dogs than in newborn babies (and more humanity in my dogs than in some adult humans, for that matter).  Until a fetus reaches a stage where it is just too close to a baby in appearance and size, I feel that it's no more wrong morally to abort a human fetus than to abort a dog or cat fetus of the same stage.  Cruelty to an animal says almost the same thing about the character of the perpetrator as cruelty to humans - children or otherwise.  

By the way, I don't believe that you would have the same emotions from watching a late term abortion as from watching an early abortion.  Maybe philosophically they're the same to you, but one would look like a minor surgical procedure and the other would look a little like an execution.

Tank

Quote from: "Wilson"
Quote from: "Will"Why would personhood be brain related? Dolphins and apes are much, much more intelligent than infants. Should they be given constitutional rights? My beagle has a functional understanding of dozens of commands, which far outdoes infants. And what about people with mental deficiencies? Should they be denied their legal rights? No, I'm afraid I don't agree that intellect or brain activity should determine whether or not rights are bestowed by the state and society.

My point is that it's all arbitrary.  You'll never get general agreement, even among people who aren't bible-directed.  The law doesn't get its dividing line from logic, it just kind of seeks a level where women are given a certain degree of abortion choice and the public's outrage isn't excessive.  Who knows how those decisions are made?  Rights bestowed by the state and society are whatever the politicians and the courts decide they are.  Those rights aren't set by God, they are set by the government, largely according to public opinion.  Luckily, we live in a fairly enlightened age.

But I've also thought about the fact that many animals are smarter than babies.  I've often thought that I see more humanity in my dogs than in newborn babies (and more humanity in my dogs than in some adult humans, for that matter).  Until a fetus reaches a stage where it is just too close to a baby in appearance and size, I feel that it's no more wrong morally to abort a human fetus than to abort a dog or cat fetus of the same stage.  Cruelty to an animal says almost the same thing about the character of the perpetrator as cruelty to humans - children or otherwise.  

By the way, I don't believe that you would have the same emotions from watching a late term abortion as from watching an early abortion.  Maybe philosophically they're the same to you, but one would look like a minor surgical procedure and the other would look a little like an execution.
All good points. Would you answer me a couple of hypothetical questions please to allow my to clarify my understanding of your position?

Assuming a healthy female and healthy prognosis for the foetus.
    1) If you were a female would
you want the right to have an abortion?
2) If you answered 'Yes' to 1 where, if at all, during the pregnancy would you accept it as reasonable that you would no longer have the right to an abortion?[/list]
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Asmodean

Quote from: "Wilson"So you are okay with third-trimester abortion - say, for example, a baby about a week away from being delivered naturally.
I, for one, certainly am.

QuoteA baby or fetus that would survive if delivered at that time instead of aborted - that would cry spontaneously and move its arms and breathe normally.  You'd be okay with killing that little creature.
I'm ok with killing whatever it is my boots are made of. I'm ok with killing chickens. I'm ok with killing a whole host of useful animals... So why would I be opposed to killing a third trimester human fetus which would likely contribute with little besides overpopulating the planet and stretching the already stretched resources one human further..?

QuoteI guess you're tougher than I am.
In my case, it's not toughness. Some of it is heartlessness, but even that is a minor factor. Fewer babies means the highways will move that much faster in a few years. (Also metaphorically)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.