News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

Any Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

LARA

QuoteWhitney wrote: 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).

Good point.  For example, as much as the abortions required by one child policy in China turn my stomach, the economic benefits to the country of the population control policy have become apparent in greater modernization, better health for women with smaller families, more work and education opportunities.  It is getting the country's population problem under control.  But it's a nasty reality that there are some murky ethics and human rights problems with the policies. We aren't in that situation in the U.S. currently, so it's easy to sit on a moral high ground when viewing another countries practices...but I still wonder if they could do it without requiring abortions.

So, I'm curious, what if we lived in a world that had just suffered a human population collapse from a devastating virus?  Would abortion be viewed differently then?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
                                                                                                                    -Winston Smith, protagonist of 1984 by George Orwell

Wilson

Quote from: "Tank"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 I were a female I'd certainly want the right to an abortion and ideally I'd have enough sense to realize it early enough to have it in the first six months of gestation.  If I was dumb enough or so afraid that I put it off until the eighth month of pregnancy I might well still want to have an abortion, but we don't always get what we want.  Society and government set the rules.

Believe me, I've favored abortion rights for longer than some of you have been alive.  What I'm arguing for is an understanding that at some point it all gets damn complicated from a moral standpoint and from an empathy standpoint.  I think an argument could be made under the right to choose that up to five years of age a mother should be allowed to choose to kill her child because the child isn't fully developed and is still almost entirely dependent on her.

Asmodean

Quote from: "LARA"So, I'm curious, what if we lived in a world that had just suffered a human population collapse from a devastating virus?  Would abortion be viewed differently then?
By some, almost certainly yes. Others, however, are not all that hellbent on saving the human race. I, for instance, would probably not change my stance by much.
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.

a-train

There are just too many do-gooders for any good to get done.  Government should be completely uninvolved in abortion, in "protecting" children, etc.

-a-train

Wilson

Quote from: "a-train"There are just too many do-gooders for any good to get done.  Government should be completely uninvolved in abortion, in "protecting" children, etc.

-a-train

You mean that there should be no laws against child abuse?

a-train

No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train
I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train
It sounds like you might include pedophilia, rape, incest... here too...?

a-train

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train
I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.
First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "a-train"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train
I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.
First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train
I think I agree with you here, although I would need to seem some more data.

a-train

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"
Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train
It sounds like you might include pedophilia, rape, incest... here too...?
Physical violence (sexual or otherwise), should be a crime regardless of the identities and relations of the perpetrators and victims.

Asmodean

As long as they don't become beggars on the streets. They are a sore on the face of my harmony and therefor deserve to be forcebly removed with a HUGE lawn mower.  :rant:
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.

Wilson

Quote from: "a-train"First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

Don't mean to be offensive, but I think you've gone off the tracks.  You sound like an anarchist, a zealot, a true believer not so different from fundamentalist religious nuts, except for the dogma.  Most of us don't have a lot of respect for politicians and government, but government, imperfect as it is, is a civilizing force, without which we would indeed have more freedoms, including the freedom to murder, steal, rape, and abuse children.  A life without govenment would not be pleasant.

If I've misrepresented your philosophy, please correct me, and I apologize.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: "Wilson"Don't mean to be offensive, but I think you've gone off the tracks.  You sound like an anarchist, a zealot, a true believer not so different from fundamentalist religious nuts, except for the dogma.  Most of us don't have a lot of respect for politicians and government, but government, imperfect as it is, is a civilizing force, without which we would indeed have more freedoms, including the freedom to murder, steal, rape, and abuse children.  A life without govenment would not be pleasant.

If I've misrepresented your philosophy, please correct me, and I apologize.
I felt/feel the same in reading this and the prior posts.  I refrained from saying so assuming it was just me as a Christian and would be seen as some kind of legalism freak.  I too, hope it is a knee-jerk reaction and I am wrong.

It seems, though, that a-train means to say that less law translates to less crime.  That society would heal itself, removing civil restrictions.  Is this correct, a-train?  To some lesser degree I can agree, but you seem to be broad-stroking the whole en-cha-lada.

hismikeness

Quote from: "Wilson"I think an argument could be made under the right to choose that up to five years of age a mother should be allowed to choose to kill her child because the child isn't fully developed and is still almost entirely dependent on her.

I've been barking up this tree for years. I feel that up to 30th trimester abortions should be legal, because there are some d-bag kids out there.

Obviously, this is in jest...

I believe in pro-choice up to the point of labor.
No churches have free wifi because they don't want to compete with an invisible force that works.

When the alien invasion does indeed happen, if everyone would just go out into the streets & inexpertly play the flute, they'll just go. -@UncleDynamite