Question for Atheists: Abortion

[Guest]

Ah, the self-exalting joy of a utilitarian morality. This really is one of the most disgusting comments I've read here on MDB. Message: life can be justifiably discarded if his or her continued existence threatens to impinge upon my own personal happiness and well-being.

How on earth did we get to this point?

If you have (more?) children in future, I (truly) hope to God none of them strike you as inconveniently "retarded." Moreover, if at all within the realm of the possible, I'd adopt "it"--my personal "pursuit of happiness and well-being" be damned. Which, outside the appropriate target, it will be.

1) Death is reality. Abortions are natural. Mutations are inevitable. It's all cruel if you want to think about it in that way. Frankly, if you believe in a god that created all of this, then your anger is misplaced, brother. If you choose to be angry about it.

2) Have you adopted? Most of the moral types I know don't adopt. The bottom line if you truly believed what you're saying, along with the rest of your ilk, you all would be adopting the discarded and unwanted among us. However, in typical fasion, you're all full of crap and would rather someone else deal with the problem that you yourself are unwilling to resolve in any meaningful manner. So you pooh pooh those who don't want the retarded baby to inconvenience society, but far be it that you yourself is adopting someone else's retarded baby that they wouldn't or couldn't care for... You're moral enough to tell other people what to do, but you don't actually do anything yourself besides yammer on about "morality".

3) I'm a nihilist, and I think we ought to do things that are in our self-interest and orient our lives toward happiness. We're all selfish to whatever degree, I just don't pretend that I'm not. This is why people are irritated with ideologues because they harp on others how they ought to be, but tend to fail miserably. From top ranking Mormons having affairs or damned other men to run of the mill Mormons imbezzling business partners or being dishonest in a myriad of ways it's a safe bet that religious types don't have things figured out, and tend to circumvent their own notion of how things ought to be quite a bit. Your worldview isn't as neatly defind as you would like us to think. It's really about a futile attempt to control nature, and ultimately death.

[Guest]

How does your view prohibit infanticide for "normal" babies? It's not like any babies really understand much of anything other than they want food and and security. You can bet that DS kids want those things too.

How does your view apply to the elderly when they get alzheimer's or dementia?

My view doesn't prohibit infanticide, murder, abortion, euthanasia, or any combination of manners that man can kill life. While Christian moralists will scream bloody murder (heh) at the thought of abortion or infanticide or euthanasia, they'll have no problem killing a million Arabs "for the greater good" or shooting the face off a coyote or gutting a deer. If we're talking about "moral relativism" then we're all guilty.

We're all dead. We had a death sentence levied on us the day mom and dad got busy. The real questions are:

1) Why are men so terrified of their own mortality?

2) Why aren't we teaching society to embrace death as natural, inevitable, and a good thing? Men fear something that is as natural as the sun shining, or the earth spinning. It is what it is, but we're terrified of it. Out of that terror springs a confused and bumbling social ethic that makes no sense.

3) Why aren't we researching and incorporating practices into our society that eases people out of this life with kindness, compassion, and efficiency? How much more cruel is it to force someone with chronic pain to endure a daily Hell rather than send him off with love and acceptance on an opiate?

4) Why do people who purport to love the babies so much have no problem killing criminals, and foreigners in war? Why do people who supposedly are peaceful don't think twice about the 40 million babies that have been killed for convenience here in America alone? What's at the core of their confusion? On both sides?

------------

The bottom line is most people who attempt to answer these questions are, in fact, so indoctrinated with their cultic point of view that it's going to be hard for them to look at life and death in an objective manner. There is a reason, after all, why there exists such an array of state laws that control this aspect of living and dying.

[_John Larsen]

I think that abortion is, for the most part, abhorrent. However, I believe all the vast majority of abortions are very complicated, morally speaking, and have many factors involved. As such, I believe there are individual cases where abortion is warranted.

I do not believe abortion is one of those things were you can make a blanket moral statement that covers all situations. It is much like killing human beings. Hardly anyone believes this is wrong in all cases.

The question at hand is whether or not abortion should be criminal. I think the obvious answer is no. You can have whatever personal beliefs you want on that question.

[_dartagnan]

Well, I guess I have my proof the next time beastie and others attack me for suggesting atheists generally have no respect for human life.

How can anyone possibly deny this after reading this short thread?

This thread turned into something I never imagined. Something repugnant. I was hoping the atheists here would agree that the author in the article was a moron. But then Schmo compares the fetus to weeds, insects, boogers. Gramps says they can be less valuable than some dogs and that there is nothing sacred about human life. Collegeterrace says a contribution to society should make the difference between killing a baby or allowing it to live. Antishock admittedly has no problems with infanticide.

An old human has time invested with society, a fetus does not.

The old human may have money being spent on their care which supports the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry. The fetus has no IRAs, 401Ks, stocks, mutual funds, or savings of any kind.

I guess you never weed your garden? You never use pesticides?

I hope you're saving your boogers. They contain a living part of you.

I could see a situation where a dog would have more claim to life than some human life

I see nothing "sacred" in any western religious sense, in human life.
My view doesn't prohibit infanticide

And you wonder why so many people are scared to death of the idea of an atheistic society taking over politics? Of course we've seen where this has taken us before. Our fears of atheists taking control are far more justified than your alleged fears of religious leaders. And of course, we have history on our side.

[_Analytics]

90% of women who are told that they are carrying a fetus with Down syndrome chose to abort the pregnancy. We need to change the laws in order to protect these children. We need a constitutional amendment that recognizes the fact that full personhood, with all of the constitutionally recognized rights, is attained upon conception. Rather than state-issued birth certificates, the state should require conception certificates so society can officially recognize its newest citizens upon attainment of that citizenship. The police should do a full investigation for every dead person, including fetuses and embryos, and death certificates should be issued in all cases. If they determine that the behavior of the mother contributed to a miscarriage, the mother should be prosecuted for negligent homicide. If they determine it was an abortion, of course the mother should be prosecuted for first-degree murder.

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America (CWA) says, "Special needs children can bring out the best in people. They draw out compassion, patience, a joy for the simple things in life in people around them," says Wright. "In some ways, we need special needs people more than they need us."

Understanding this, most of the world’s problems are a result of people not finding the best within themselves. This is caused by a lack of special needs children. In order to improve the morality of the human race, we need to find a way to use technology to maximize the percentage of children who are born with special needs. We need them more than they need us.

http://www.cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp ... oryid=life

[_antishock8]

I definitely don't make apologies for my view on life and death. I think we could find myriad examples of moral relativism embedded within religious communities.

The idea that Christians won't allow suicide without making the act itself a crime, or assisting with the act out of compassion or personal choice is an idicator that their mindset isn't as compassionate as they would have you believe. This impulse, in my opinion, stems from a deep-seated fear of death that, instead of confronting and accepting, they put off through mysticism. The terror and subsequent suffering their religion inculcates in people is inexcusable... Again... in my opinion.

Christians will kill all sorts of people who they deem as having forfeited their right to life through their choices. Theocratic governments are killing political opponents just as secular governments have in the past. The difference, of course, is secular governments don't kill in the name of "atheism". They kill as a means of political expediency. Theocratic governments have killed, justifying their acts in the name of relgion in addition to political expediency. I suspect Dart and maybe a few others will trot out the old dogs of Stalinism and the Pol Pot regime in order to push their agenda, but I'm not interested in deconstructing Stalin's own religious upbringing and the ineffectiveness it had on his political life. Nor am I interested in deconstructing Hitler, Muhammed, Hindi extremism, Greek expansionism, Roman conquest, Incan ruthlessness, Egyptian slaughters, etc.. Because they all had their justification and roots in god-worship.

And if we're actually talking about the "sanctity of life", then why aren't Christians or others emulating the Jainists? They're probably the most respectful of life, as much as anyone can be in a universe dominated by death and destruction that cares not about babies, retarded people, flowers, puppies, architecture, art, or anything... Period. Why the outrage directed toward someone who sees and accepts the universe for what it is? After all, it is their god, according to their mythology, that set reality in this manner. Next time a see a lion cub torn apart by jackals I'll be sure to remember how the Christian god honors life. Nature IS red in tooth and blood, and it's their god that made it that way.

And we're the ones with a problem. Lol...

[_dblagent007]

The attitudes expressed here are the natural product of atheism. With atheism there is nothing, nothing matters, nothing means anything, nothing is right or wrong, etc. The only real deterrent to any activity is the possibility of punishment in the here and now (e.g., your wife may find out you are having an affair and get angry).

The lack of meaning to anything necessarily means that it is of no consequence to kill babies (born alive even). We are all nothing so it doesn't matter. This type of thinking borders on psychotic serial killer type stuff, but it appears to be quite mainstream. Disgusting.

[_dartagnan]

Christians won't allow suicide without making the act itself a crime

It is a crime, and has nothing to do with Christians. Thank God atheists aren't running the show. They would be killing babies just as stomping on roaches, pulling up weeds, trimming the hedges, picking out boogers, without a second thought. Stunning admissions here from the morally bankrupt atheists.

assisting with the act out of compassion or personal choice is an idicator that their mindset isn't as compassionate as they would have you believe.

Oh don't pretend for a second that the atheist is interested in compassion. Not after this sick thread evolved into what it is. If you support killing someone on life support then be consistent and give the same reasons we've already heard here. The person is of no use to society so he/she should be killed. That is reason enough. Dispense with it. It may be human, but that doesn't make it special.

This impulse, in my opinion, stems from a deep-seated fear of death that, instead of confronting and accepting, they put off through mysticism. The terror and subsequent suffering their religion inculcates in people is inexcusable... Again... in my opinion.

horse crap. In the religious sense, there is nothing to fear from death because it is just the beginning of another spiritual adventure. In your sense, death is the end of existence. So who has more to fear from death?

Christians will kill all sorts of people who they deem as having forfeited their right to life through their choices.

Yes, you mean choices like becoming a murderer? Yes, I suppose you're right they support capital punishment, but it isn't necessarily accurate to say Christians are doing the killing. But comparing this to the atheistic take, which is willing to forfeit the right to live based on non-choices (a fetus doesn't choose decapitation by scissors), and based on whether society feels it can serve a purpose, I think the Christians can take the moral high ground.

Theocratic governments are killing political opponents just as secular governments have in the past.

There are no theocratic governments killing opponents because of religion, and after this thread, atheists here can no longer pretend to be afraid of religious leaders who might kill. In your view, humans aren't special anyway.

The difference, of course, is secular governments don't kill in the name of "atheism". They kill as a means of political expediency.

We've refuted this horse crap too many times before. Atheism played a strong role in Stalin's purge of religion.

Theocratic governments have killed, justifying their acts in the name of relgion in addition to political expediency.

What theocratic governments???? You're living in fantasy land. Put down that idiot Dawkins, and read real history and understand the signifcance of percentages. Virtually all leaders have been religious, and relatively few of them have been murderers. By contrast, atheistic dictators seem to lean towards genocide, and this is easily explainable since atheists have no special regard for human life.

I suspect Dart and maybe a few others will trot out the old dogs of Stalinism and the Pol Pot regime in order to push their agenda

The fact is, and I have noted this several times in the past without anyone being able to refute, as a percentage, atheistic dictators have been more inclined to genocide than religious leaders. This is a historic fact. You don't find many atheist rulers, but where you do, you usually find death and destruction and no regard for human life. This is precisely the same ingredients we're witnessing in this forum when you guiys make these sick arguments: Does the life form serve a purpose to society? Does it make any money? Is it more useful than a dog?

Thank God none of you are leaders of a country.

Infanticide? No problem! Even though religious people rendered that practice immoral more than 2000 years ago, you're willing to bring it back to full practice! Yea, you have the moral high ground right?

And we're the ones with a problem. Lol...

Yes, the whole lot of you are sick. This is where your mechanistic/materialistic belief system and blind devotion and misunderstanding of evolution has taken you? It has effectively purged compassion from your soul, which is a quality that sets humaamns apart from most other life forms.

You are the ones condoning murder. Hell, one of you threatened to kill ME earlier this year (Mercury). In order to show religion condoning murder, you have to exagerrate and look elsewhere. In order for me to show atheists who condone murder, I need to look no further than here. You openly support it if you think it will make your lives easier.

Religious nuts never condone the murder of atheists, in spite of our differences. But today atheists have designed this rationale for killing, that could very easily be used to justifying the slaughter of religious people, the same logic as Stalin used.

I will get back to this after the election is over.

[_Analytics]

Just out of curiosity Kevin, do you recognize the logical difference between the following two propositions:

A: It is moral to choose to do action XYZ.

B: It is immoral not to do action XYZ.

For example, I think drinking coffee is a morally acceptable choice; if you want to drink coffee, doing so is fine. Does it logically follow that I think abstaining from coffee is morally wrong?

The reason why I ask is because Nicholas Provenzo said that aborting a fetus with down syndrome is a morally acceptable choice. He didn’t say it was morally wrong to keep a child with down syndrome as Rusty Weiss and you claim. I’m just wondering why you and Rusty misrepresented his position. Was it an accident based upon poor thinking, or was it purposefully dishonest?

[_dblagent007]

He didn’t say it was morally wrong to keep a child with down syndrome as Rusty Weiss and you claim. I’m just wondering why you and Rusty misrepresented his position. Was it an accident based upon poor thinking, or was it purposefully dishonest?

Provenzo argued that not killing a baby with a disability was akin to retard worship. He also argued that society bears the burden of raising the child, which is undesirable. It sure sounds like he is saying that it is wrong to let a disabled baby live.