I am antiabortion because I am an atheist

[curiosityandthecat]

False. I have been laughing while reading your arguments.

So much for honest intellectualism.

[youtube:3ipvackz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8[/youtube:3ipvackz]

[Whitney]

Whitney,
 May I point out that cyberateos has a history of being a troll?
 A search of cyberateos yeilded two results: cyberateos.org that appears to be on the up and up.
 Cyberateos.com directed me to another atheist forum where he initiated a topic titled, you guessed it,
 I am antiabortion because I am an atheist. The sumary lists him as one of the worst trolls
 they have ever had. Just wondering if you knew. I don't think this guy is ever going to stop.

ya, I know.  I already had this discussion with him on another forum.  For some reason I felt compelled to post again.  I'm about to give him another warning for not being civil.

[cyberateos]

rose:

How like religion to condemn the doctors and the girl's mother (but NOT the stepfather) for having the fetuses aborted because a) the pregnancy was not her choice or fault and 2) she could die if the fetuses were allowed to grow.

Would you REALLY condemn the doctors, the girl's mother and the girl for this abortion?

In the first time, it is not honest to use hard, very exceptional cases to make a general rule.

But despite it, the twins were 15 week old. Here, some questions arise:

Why not await one month and intend a Cesarean section?

Why not kill only a fetus and let the other live?

The stepfather abused of his penis; why to induce the girl to abuse of her womb?

At least, she should be permited to decide.

[cyberateos]

SSY:

A fetus is part of the mother, it is a ball of cells inside her,

No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person.

By telling her when she can and cannot have abortions, you are telling her what she can and cannot do with her body, and her body alone. This is the difference.
Once seperated, they are two seperate people, when together, there is only one person.

No. By telling the fetal person that his/her body should be ripped, you are telling him/her what he/she should do with his/her body. Once being 18 year old, that minor could decide an assisted suicide. :crazy:

This thread reminds me of something Will said a while ago, anti abortion supporters don't really care about babies, they just want to punish promiscuity.

Really, pro lifers often only want to punish sex and to be empowered, but I am an atheist and my point of view is different.

The massive misogynist bent of this thread pays testamanet to that.

Misoginy is a word often use to hide misandry and fetusphobia.

For the record, I think deterrence does work, and the high prison population is not a refutation, becuase we dont know how many of those people outside of prison would have committed crimes were it not for the law.

Of course. Let`s establish an "intrauterine birth" certificate and DNA tests mandatory, and potential murderers will not kill anymore.

[curiosityandthecat]

No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person.

Anybody have any doubts anymore that this is a troll?  

[SSY]

I actually feel like my points were deliberatley misinterpretted, how strange.

[rlrose328]

No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person.

Anybody have any doubts anymore that this is a troll?  

Unfortunately, I don't think so.  A deranged lunatic, maybe... but I don't think this is a troll.  Either way, especially after that last answer, I'm ignoring them and getting on with my life.

[karadan]

No. On the countrary: the carrier mother is a part of the fetal person. She is a vital organ of that fetal person.

Anybody have any doubts anymore that this is a troll?  

I go away for a weekend and come back to...this...

I say, poke the troll with a stick. See what it does.

[cyberateos]

If all you are so much anger, why do you continue debating with me?

Remember:

IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, INTRAUTERINE CHILDREN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT

[curiosityandthecat]

Folks, I'd like to present you with a prime example of what "civilized society" calls an opinion.

IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, INTRAUTERINE CHILDREN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT

This ends your public service announcement.

[Whitney]

Well, if anyone want to discuss this in a more calm tone (not sure if we have any other anti-abortion atheists here), cyperateos has taken a non-elective leave of absence for the next 7 days.

[Nulono]

I'm available, but the first time I'm called a misogynist or abortion is compared to killing gametes or other cells, I'm out.

[Miss Anthrope]

Wow, this train really went off its tracks pretty wildly, huh?

Oh well, might as well put my two-cents in. I'm against all acts of cruelty, and I think life-for-the-sake-of-life is meaningless. I'm fairly certain that fetuses don't "suffer", so I don't see anything actually cruel about abortion. In fact, as a misanthrope, I think humanity is Sisyphean and pointless, though I don't mean that in a bitter way. But really, life is painful in general and then we die, so it could be argued that abortion is an act of mercy. And it's not like anyone asks us before we're born if we want to exist, so why should we distinguish between forcing a human to live or forcing a pre-natal human to die, in a way it's just splitting hairs and the stigma surrounding the latter only exists because we instinctually revile "death" and hold life up on a pedestal. OK, I'm kind of rambling, I guess what I'm saying is that it's too complex for me to say that I'm for or against abortion or find it right or wrong. Of course, abortion is not something I'll ever have to decide on, so it's moot to me, it's up to humanity to decide what it wants to do, and I can only really judge a person's personal beleifs and actions based on whether or not they conflict. Congnitive disonance often surrounds these types of issues, for example: Let's say I'm driving a car with some passengers, one of whom is pregnant. She is pro-choice. I'm driving a bit wrecklessly, and the woman, who ordinarily doesn't care if I drive a bit haphazardly and fast, scolds me for not considering the life of her unborn baby, i.e. she is ascribing human life to the child while it is prenatal. That woman would be a hypocrite, since her beliefs imply that by being pro-choice she condones murder.

I have to agree with some of what cybertheos says about the conflict between saying that one is not "for" abortion, but is pro-choice; it does imply a moral conflict. I guess that kind of points to a good way to explain my position: If society in general decides that abortion (not counting situations in which the mother's life is in danger and the baby will die anyway) is OK to choose but still projects an immoral stigma upon it, then society is condoning murder, in which case I would be against the ethics of society. However, personally and from a rational standpoint, I am for abortion as it A)keeps the population down and B)is possibly an act of mercy since it prevents a human from (most likely inevitable) suffering and actually having to consciously deal with death.

[newblueradio]

I am not in favor of abortion at all, but I will not protest it nor will I vote to ban it. It's not my place to say what a woman can and can't do with her body. In a perfect world, the father would be involved in the process and women would carry babies to term and give them to other families to raise if they don't want them.  Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  It's messy and sometimes people have to do desperate acts to survive.

I apologize, I tend to try and stay quietly lurking most of the time, but I felt compelled to respond to something I read here.

I'm curious why people on this forum talk about the body rights of women.  When a woman gets pregnant, can she not realize that the decision of her body is no longer just about her wants/desires?  Who speaks for the unborn child?  Why are they allowed to decide the fate of an entire life?  We've propped up our government to intervene all the time to prevent abuse to children already born, why do we not extend this to the unborn, who don't even have the ability to speak for themselves?

I just find it to be contradictory.  One thread speaks about the mother of a dying child going on the lam because her religious beliefs compel her to prevent the child from having chemotherapy.  In this thread, the majority of people talk about the rights of the child being protected by the state and how this woman is a vicious murderer.  Yet at least the 13-year-old does have a voice, and is not physically incapable of defending himself.  Unborn children are indefensible in every way imaginable, yet no one is wanting the government to speak up on their behalf.

I really just don't get it.

[curiosityandthecat]

Agency. Agency. Agency. Agency. Agency.