Question for the atheist converts

[_Moniker]

1. Think about all the ways life and pregnancy could be more complicated and even dangerous than you might imagine as a man. For example, my wife didn't know he had broken the condom util a couple weeks later. Plus he was a psycho that warned that he would use the child to stay in her life. He revealed himself as a nut case all at once. He was a seducer, trickster and deceiver. He called her to harrass her even after she married me.

Gotta say it! I'm glad she has you, Tarski. She's no more a murderer than you are an undergrad. :)

[_asbestosman]

Dart - do you support abortion in the cases of rape and incest?

I know your question was adressed to Dart, but I don't see why, legally or morally, rape should suddenly mean it's okay for a woman to have an abortion wheras lascivious, uprotected sex means she shouldn't be allowed to abort. If the debate is about human life then why would the mother's choices surrounding the pregnancy be an issue? I've never quite heard a good answer to that although some LDS have tried to tell me why. It seems to be that any justification for abortion with rape can also be used to justify it in other circumstances.

The life or health of the mother, on the other hand, does seem to be a different criteria because we are discussing a definite human life vs a (possible / probable / almost fully) human life. But even that is tricky to me as all pregnancies inherently carry some risk to the health and life of the mother. Some are just more risky than others.

[_Moniker]

Abortions are more often sought from those with lower economic status -- don't want poor women getting abortions then help them with birth control.

It really bothers me that the poor are disproportionally affected. While I'm certainly in favor of birth control and sex-education, I'm still uneasy with something basic that disproportionally effects the disadvantaged whether it's health care, births, or education. That just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it's just my religious voice--I'm trying to be honest--but something inside me feels like we're genociding the poor's offspring if they're the ones most effected by this. Yes, I'd rather pay higher taxes and have the state pay for the children of the poor than to have a society where poor women feel more pressure to have abortions than other women.

My solution is as such: The state pays for birth control for women in a certain income bracket. If the conservative right wants to scoff at that, so be it. They could always start shuffling their OWN congregations to doctors to get the prescriptions and pay for them out of tithing if they want to put their money where their mouth is.

[Analytics]

I don't think it is any wonder why there is a correlation with te surge in atheism in areas of the world that tend to be stagnating or even declining in population.

Correlation is not causation. Birth rates are also correlated with education. If atheism is likewise correlated to education, then perhaps that's the connection. I wouldn't think it'd be that simple though. It is my understanding that some religions actually tend to have well-educated adherants.

It seems the only thing keeping central Europe stagnate instead of declining in numbers, is the flood of Muslim immigrants from the Middle-East.

Perhaps, but then again, it could also be immigrants from India and Africa too. And by the way, the USA has the same problem--we would be declining in our population if it weren't for immigrants despite the fact that we are quite religious. At least that's what I remember reading. I'll have to look up references if you really want.

Makes me wonder if we would even be here if humans 15,000 years ago were atheists.

I wonder if other animals are theists. I'm guessing that for most of them, the question of God doesn't even come up.

[_Moniker]

Dart - do you support abortion in the cases of rape and incest?

I know your question was adressed to Dart, but I don't see why, legally or morally, rape should suddenly mean it's okay for a woman to have an abortion wheras lascivious, uprotected sex means she shouldn't be allowed to abort. If the debate is about human life then why would the mother's choices surrounding the pregnancy be an issue? I've never quite heard a good answer to that although some LDS have tried to tell me why. It seems to be that any justification for abortion with rape can also be used to justify it in other circumstances.

The life or health of the mother, on the other hand, does seem to be a different criteria because we are discussing a definite human life vs a (possible / probable / almost fully) human life. But even that is tricky to me as all pregnancies inherently carry some risk to the health and life of the mother. Some are just more risky than others.

You know, I've never understood the distinction either. If a life is a life no matter what gestational age what does it matter what occurred to the woman? Some think it's okay for a woman raped/date raped, yet, not for a 17 year old that got knocked up 'cause she was having unprotected sex? I have empathy for BOTH of these situations. ALL of them! If a woman goes in to get an abortion then she's in a bad spot. My empathy doesn't merely begin when others are put in spots not of their own choosing, and my empathy doesn't end when people make poor decisions. If a woman is pregnant she's ILL, she has a potential life changing even occurring IN HER -- this is traumatic for many women. We pretend all pregnancies are happy, happy, joy, joys and this just isn't the case. We don't want these women to walk into those clinics then we need to ensure they don't get pregnant.

[_beastie]

I know your question was adressed to Dart, but I don't see why, legally or morally, rape should suddenly mean it's okay for a woman to have an abortion wheras lascivious, uprotected sex means she shouldn't be allowed to abort. If the debate is about human life then why would the mother's choices surrounding the pregnancy be an issue? I've never quite heard a good answer to that although some LDS have tried to tell me why. It seems to be that any justification for abortion with rape can also be used to justify it in other circumstances.

The life or health of the mother, on the other hand, does seem to be a different criteria because we are discussing a definite human life vs a (possible / probable / almost fully) human life. But even that is tricky to me as all pregnancies inherently carry some risk to the health and life of the mother. Some are just more risky than others.

I agree with you. This is why I asked the question in the first place. Often people who claim that they think abortion is murder will still support abortion for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. This is not logical, if they truly believe abortion is murder. Would you support murdering an innocent person just because someone else got raped or was the victim of incest? And would you sacrifice the life of one human being to save the life of another human being?

The fact that most anti-abortionists allow these exceptions is one more bit of evidence that they don't really think abortion is the same as murder. I have no doubt that they view abortion as a heinous sin, but clearly they're making some differentiation between abortion and murder.

[_Scottie]

Anybody else bridle at the term "atheist convert"? Yeah I know that in the most literalist of dictionary definitions a "convert" is one who has converted "especially from one religion or belief to another," still it carries such religious connotations as to make me look twice.

(maybe I've just been reading too many papers where students pick words seemingly at random from dictionaries and thesauri without any sense of nuance, context or usage.)

Well, I couldn't think of a better way to say "Those of you who were once Mormon, but aren't anymore, but didn't go to another religion".

Someday I will have 1/100th of your eloquence, but until then, you're going to have to suffer through my (channeling Coggins here) vacuous posts. ;)

[_dartagnan]

I knew I should have waited before posting tonight... I knew I'd get sucked in..

And 2-3 weeks does not a person make. Dart can not say it is. He has no basis. I do, I have studied it. His partial birth abortions aren't even in the ball park.

Sigh... Tarski I never said that, please try to pay attention. I presented a photo that Shades deleted because he said it was "non-functional(?)". Well, it shows up here on my PC so I can only assume it is an issue with his computer. So I'll post the link this time:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Partia ... ortion.jpg

Please notice what it says. It says "third trimester partial birth abortion."

Now you're saying I consider it a full blown human being after a few weeks? When in the hell did I say that?? The photo deals with abortion during the last trimester! The first trimester is week 0-14.

I don't know that a line can be drawn between genetic soup and human being, but then I don't need to because I am not endorsing abortion. I think the line is too precious to be fiddling with, and we should stay away from it as much as possible when dancing on the line of murder. You on the other hand, seem to think you have an adequate background in "neuroscience" to determine when a fetus is really a human! What the hell kind of arrogant statement is that? I doubt true neurologists would dare make such a bold claim. Having said this, here is something I found on the web, talking about the fetus after eight weeks:

"Fetus will curve its fingers around an object placed in the palm of its hand - This is amazing to see! At only nine weeks, if you happen to have an ultrasound, you may observe your infant fascinated by everything he or she can lay their fingers on (mainly other fingers, toes, ears and nose!)" http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/feta ... pment1.php

Gee, sounds like awareness to me, or at least the genesis of awareness. Observation seems to be an important aspect of the scientific method, so how much more aware is the fetus at 10 weeks? 20 weeks? 40 weeks? What observations tell us the fetus isn't conscious? Is that something you guys take on faith, or is it just something that makes abortionists sleep better a night?

...it is the women that fill their pews that are predominantly getting these abortions

Most criminals are theists too. "Religious" is a relative term. Not sure what this has to do the matter of abortion = murder. Doesn't matter who is doing it.

So, perhaps instead of overturning laws they should look each Sunday about them

Come on, haven't you been listening to the prevailing wisdom on this forum? Religion is good for nothing. In fact, it is "dangerous."

I usually view the "abortion is murder" statement as meaningless rhetoric.

Well, since you're up for psychobabalysis, maybe that's because you prefer to live in your shell where you convince yourself that the bad stuff doesn't exist unless you can see it firsthand. Anyone who defends abortion as it is allowed legally today, is rationalizing through every mental hoop they can. They haven't a moral leg to stand on when the subject is murder.

You give me rape and incest, and I tell you the person is responsible and aware of the situation before ovulation even gets started. What reason is there to wait until the second or third trimester? IF they gave teh sliughtest damn about the idea of killing, the majority of abortions would be taken care of during the first week. But that isn't the case. Not because the majority of abortionists are victims of trauma or rape, but because they are irresponsible, lazy and conditioned to rationalize away the magnitude tragedy with the same tripe that is presented on this forum.

If these people really, really believed that children are being murdered daily, then they are grossly negligent in not taking any extreme action necessary to stop the murders.

This is another derailment, and it presumes that those who view it as murder aren't trying to do something about it.

In other words, the only people I think sincerely believe abortion is murder are those people who are bombing abortion clinics.

Don't be JAK, beastie. Not you. Please. You sit there and tell me I don't genuinely believe what I say (unless I go kill doctors!), yet in the same breath you accuse me of bigotry simply because I am consistent in what I consider murder? What's wrong with this picture?

Or if they do, they are amoral cowards for not doing something about it. I mean, really.[/quote[]
Maybe this is just another rationalization you use to sooth your own conscience for accepting abortion. Just more confirmation bias at work. What else are you going to invent from thin air to ease your own conscience that you're not really in the wrong for supporting murder?

If you believe abortion clinics are the equivalent of gas-chambers, the sites of daily mass murder, then you'd do anything possible to try and shut them down.

You're talking about abortion clinic bombers... Only an idiot would insist those who protest murder should demonstrate their protest by murdering!

The lame picketing and the silly pictures and the shouting means nothing, if you really believe it's murder.

I see. So by your logic, since you have not planned to assassinate the Chinese government officials, you do not consider it murder when Tibetians are slaughtered on a daily basis? Is it murder? Do you really believe it is murder beastie or is it just rhetoric?
What a crazy thing you just said.

Dart, your bigotry against atheists has already been demonstrated on the last few threads that addressed the topic. Go answer them there. I won't derail this thread with it anymore.

It seems you feel like you got me by the short hairs on some other thread. Enjoy the moment while you can. I haven't looked at them in a couple of days, but I promise, your silly comments will be dealt with, as usual. I've had my limit of your bigotry accusations.

Often people who claim that they think abortion is murder will still support abortion for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. This is not logical, if they truly believe abortion is murder.

What do you mean it isn't "logical"? What someone believes about a crime and how they would respond to it are two different things. Am I not truly against alcoholism, because I'm not setting fire to every liquor store in sight?

Who are you to tell people they must react a certain way in order to truly maintain belief opposite your own?

Someone who is ironically trying to bigot-bait!

Dart, I spent most of my early twenties being fairly active with women's social concerns.

Moniker I am talking about in the clinic. Girls can walk in and out and get an abortion the same day with no parental notice. That's messed up. You seem to be referring to social programs that are available to struggling teens. These are not required by law, though I would agree they are a good idea. In any event, many people have changed their minds about abortion upon entering a parade of protesters picketing outside the clinics.

[_asbestosman]

You give me rape and incest, and I tell you the person is responsible and aware of the situation before ovulation even gets started. What reason is there to wait until the second or third trimester? IF they gave the sliughtest damn about the idea of killing, the majority of abortions would be taken care of during the first week. But that isn't the case. Not because the majority of abortionists are victims of trauma or rape, but because they are irresponsible, lazy and conditioned to rationalize away the magnitude tragedy with the same tripe that is presented on this forum.

What Tarski has been trying to tell you is that some women assume that condoms are sufficient when in fact a nutcase poked holes in them and will use the fetus as leverage to manipulate her for the next 18 years.

What you seem to be saying is that such is not the majority of abortion cases. I'll grant that you're probably right. However, that would seem irrleavent to the question about whether abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, then you shouldn't be able to abort in rape / manipulative condom sabotage cases any more than you'd be permitted to kill the baby who results from such once he or she is born.

[_Scottie]

I don't know that a line can be drawn between genetic soup and human being, but then I don't need to because I am not endorsing abortion.

But wait...didn't you say you DID endorse abortion for cases of incest, rape or the mothers life being in danger?