Question for the atheist converts

[_Tarski]

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

But you are unwilling to make the distinction- it's all murder right?
Or do you realize the difference between a regular 3rd week abortion and a partial birth abortion in moral terms?

By the way, the grip is a reflex--machine-like. You couldn't have picked a less impressive example. It's not even an example of awareness in a newborn which does indeed have awareness but evident in other ways.


You know, let me just say that since I think we have to err on the side of caution and we must give tradition and instinct its due, we can never allow killing of a newborn. Such is repugnant and has no supporters that I know of.

Nevertheless, I think that just from a purely rational standpoint, it seems that full humanness, consciousness etc. is "downloaded", as it were, from the social environment probably commencing with the moment the child interacts with the mother. At that point the child begins to develop personhood quickly in steps. Personhood without a social environment as catalyst seems impossible to me. Full personhood may even need language ability.

Again, I am not promoting the social idea that infants be treated as less than human. Our own humanness gladly forces us to see infants as fully human. This is obviously a good thing since it puts a safety margin around the whole issue. But I think it is silly to push that safety margin all the way back to the 3-week fetus or even to the newly fertilized ovum.

[_asbestosman]

Nevertheless, I think that just from a purely rational standpoint, it seems that full humanness, consciousness etc. is "downloaded", as it were, from the social environment probably commencing with the moment the child interacts with the mother. At that point the child begins to develop personhood quickly in steps. Personhood without a social environment as catalyst seems impossible to me. Full personhood may even need language ability.

Just out of curiosity, if computers can learn language (perhaps from interacting with humans) and pass the Turing test at the level of, say, a 2-year old human would you then grant them personhood?

[_Blixa]

... but until then, you're going to have to suffer through my (channeling Coggins here) vacuous posts. ;)

Oh dear, its not that bad!

[_John Larsen]

So dartagnan,

An 18 year old woman goes to a doctor who performs an abortion. In your perfect world, what would you have society do to this young woman and the doctor?

[Tator]

I'm going to make one comment while waiting for you to answer John Larsen's question, regarding the moral responsibility of those who really believe abortion is murder, just the same as murdering any other human being:

Obviously we cannot take action to prevent all murders everywhere, particularly half-way across the globe. But when mass murders are taking place right in your city, right in your town, right in your neighborhood, over and over and over and over.... then you DO have some sort of moral responsibility to act, especially when you have LOTS of other people who agree with you. For example, would an individual have been morally justified in killing Hitler? Besides, killing people isn't even necessary. How about just bombing the facilities, so that facility is disabled? People who engage in these sorts of actions can time it so the bombing takes place when the facility is empty.

And anytime the individual who claims abortion is murder, period, full stop, and yet says it should be allowed in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother has automatically revealed they don't really view abortion as the same as murder. Why would murdering a person be allowed in certain cases when great harm has been done to another human being? I get raped so I can kill someone, and you say that is ok???

I'm being generous by assuming that people who do this - insist abortion is murder but don't take aggressive action to stop it or say it's ok in rape and incest or to save the life of the mother - are engaging in polemic rhetoric and don't really believe it's the exact same thing as murder. Otherwise I'd have to assume something even less flattering.


(ps, regarding dart's bigotry against atheists - I suggest taking his inflammatory statements about atheists and substitute the word "negroes" for "atheists" to get a clear picture)

[_antishock8]

"God" is the ulitmate abortionist. I'm not sure why religionists find the whole thing objectionable. That god of yours loves to abort the babies, fetuses, and zygotes like no one's business. Who cares if we abort an additional few million? That god of yours is aborting billions... Quite literally. He's the baby-killer extraordinaire.

I don't think God doing the deed makes it any easier to accept for those who belive. The only help I know of in the case of natural termination to pregnacy is not realizing you're pregnant in the first place.

That's just my point, Mr. Man.

God is a babykiller. He aborts BILLIONS every year. Yet... No anger toward him. Only anger toward the women who abort a few million a year.

BILLIONS versus a few million.

I think the religionist's anger is clearly misplaced.

[_Sam Harris]

I once made a statement like that, when I was young and stupid. I made a woman sitting nearby cry. Her face haunts me 30 years later. It is one of the things I cannot forgive myself for. I didn't know s***. Oh, me with my religiously inspired and superstitious imagination that took into account the imaginary but not the life circumstances of a real living person.

So you went from young and stupid to old and sympathetic to murder? Which is worse? This woman will suffer for the rest of her life, not because of God or whatever, but because she knows what she did was murder. Leave it up to the atheists to assure her that since God doesn't exist, we're all just a bunch of random atoms swimming in the passion of space and time.

You cannot justify killing a baby like that. Telling me a sob story about how a female murderer was torn over her decision to murder her child, is not a great defense for murder. I remember about ten years ago, a woman who drove her three kids into a lake, gave a similar sob account about how it tore her apart. The reason abortion is so easy to do is because women are uneducated. They are not told how exactly their child lives, how it will be killed, etc. None of hat matters. What matters is that she doesn't become a single parent before she finishes college.

This is common sense for those who have any sense of morality. It has nothing to do with "superstitious imagination," and if you think it does, then the only thing that changed is your age. Murder is murder when it is the unjustified killing of innocent life. Until you justify it, I can't see it any other way.

Dart, if these aborted fetuses are human and have souls, where do those souls go when they leave this earth? Do you think God might give them a "second chance" so to speak, or are they simply stuck in heaven? Would be being stuck in heaven be that bad?

I once told my mom I wished she had chosen another option than to keep me, since she couldn't love me. One of those other options was abortion. I would have much rathered (at that time) been killed in my first trimester than endure the type of life I have.

I believe that if there is a spirit in these fetuses from conception, they go back to the source of All That Is. I don't have a problem with that. I also think reincarnation is a possibility. If these beings are meant to live, they will.

Life would be very different for my family had I not been born. I like my life now, but I know my mom would be a different, perhaps kinder and happier person. My dad might have shown some responsibility instead of running away from his problems perpetually. My older brother might have had a stable, two-parent household, or the two irresponsible ones might just have split and mom gone back to school to do better with her life. I do know that had mom chosen differently, things might have been better for other people involved. An unwanted child changes everything.

[_Tarski]

Nevertheless, I think that just from a purely rational standpoint, it seems that full humanness, consciousness etc. is "downloaded", as it were, from the social environment probably commencing with the moment the child interacts with the mother. At that point the child begins to develop personhood quickly in steps. Personhood without a social environment as catalyst seems impossible to me. Full personhood may even need language ability.

Just out of curiosity, if computers can learn language (perhaps from interacting with humans) and pass the Turing test at the level of, say, a 2-year old human would you then grant them personhood?

I would grant them something like personhood. I would not destroy it for instance and would value it.

I have good reason to think that bodily interaction with the world might be important. Hubert Dreyfus argues that a being can never have what he calls "Dasein" without having (or once having) a body.

So lets say that this computer had a body and behaved like a 2-year old and could pass a modified super-turning test. It could demonstrate understanding of the world such as recognizing a chair even if it is partial covered by a coat, talk about feelings and spontaneously play in creative ways etc.

Then I would grant it tentative personhood.

By the way, I think it would be a big social fight. I expect religious people to not grant such a being personhood no matter how it behaved (since it can't have a soul).

[_the road to hana]

"God" is the ulitmate abortionist. I'm not sure why religionists find the whole thing objectionable. That god of yours loves to abort the babies, fetuses, and zygotes like no one's business. Who cares if we abort an additional few million? That god of yours is aborting billions... Quite literally. He's the baby-killer extraordinaire.

I don't think God doing the deed makes it any easier to accept for those who belive. The only help I know of in the case of natural termination to pregnacy is not realizing you're pregnant in the first place.

That's just my point, Mr. Man.

God is a babykiller. He aborts BILLIONS every year. Yet... No anger toward him. Only anger toward the women who abort a few million a year.

BILLIONS versus a few million.

I think the religionist's anger is clearly misplaced.

Even for those who don't believe in God, that seems to be a false analogy. Someone could argue that "God" takes the lives of several million people a year through illness, accident or death, so therefore, why is it a problem to kill someone?

It just doesn't translate. Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) generally occur because of a problem medically that might be unknown to the mother and/or her doctors. Elective abortions are elective and can, and often do, include fetuses that would be otherwise viable.

Advances in medical science in the past two centuries, and particularly in recent decades, have moved the discussion from bioethecists and religionists viewing a fetus from one way to another, and with each advance in the medical world regarding fetal medicine, it becomes increasingly complicated to argue the ethics of terminating life in utero.

However, it should be said that most people who claim to be pro-choice aren't really pro-abortion, although they might be painted that way. Faced with the choice themselves, few of them would make it. And if they were given the legal option of terminating the life of their child after birth, the discussion would be deemed horrific and ridiculous. Just not everyone at this point sees pre-term life through the same lens.

Making the "God" comparison in regarding to life being terminated just doesn't work. A society needs to decide whether or not it is acceptable to take other human life; where it draws the line regarding "life" or "human" is where the debate engages, and changes over time based on medical knowledge.

[_antishock8]

"God" is the ulitmate abortionist. I'm not sure why religionists find the whole thing objectionable. That god of yours loves to abort the babies, fetuses, and zygotes like no one's business. Who cares if we abort an additional few million? That god of yours is aborting billions... Quite literally. He's the baby-killer extraordinaire.

I don't think God doing the deed makes it any easier to accept for those who belive. The only help I know of in the case of natural termination to pregnacy is not realizing you're pregnant in the first place.

That's just my point, Mr. Man.

God is a babykiller. He aborts BILLIONS every year. Yet... No anger toward him. Only anger toward the women who abort a few million a year.

BILLIONS versus a few million.

I think the religionist's anger is clearly misplaced.

Even for those who don't believe in God, that seems to be a false analogy. Someone could argue that "God" takes the lives of several million people a year through illness, accident or death, so therefore, why is it a problem to kill someone?

It just doesn't translate. Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) generally occur because of a problem medically that might be unknown to the mother and/or her doctors. Elective abortions are elective and can, and often do, include fetuses that would be otherwise viable.

Advances in medical science in the past two centuries, and particularly in recent decades, have moved the discussion from bioethecists and religionists viewing a fetus from one way to another, and with each advance in the medical world regarding fetal medicine, it becomes increasingly complicated to argue the ethics of terminating life in utero.

However, it should be said that most people who claim to be pro-choice aren't really pro-abortion, although they might be painted that way. Faced with the choice themselves, few of them would make it. And if they were given the legal option of terminating the life of their child after birth, the discussion would be deemed horrific and ridiculous. Just not everyone at this point sees pre-term life through the same lens.

Making the "God" comparison in regarding to life being terminated just doesn't work. A society needs to decide whether or not it is acceptable to take other human life; where it draws the line regarding "life" or "human" is where the debate engages, and changes over time based on medical knowledge.

If their god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omni-present... Then it is definitely the cause of all life and death in this Universe. "It's God's will" takes on a whole new value when viewed through this kind of lens. It creates everything and it destroys everything. It's Alpha and Omega. It is inherently responsible for everything that happens. Everything.

So. That being said, their god creates and then destroys babies, fetuses, zygotes, eggs through menstration, and a host of variations that I'm not listing. Their god, within the aforementioned context, is far more guilty of destroying "innocents" than any society has ever been.

The point I'm trying to make is the irony of a believer being upset with a few million abortions when their supposed god murders far more lives than anyone is willing to admit. If we're talking about sensient beings making a choice to terminate a life at any point, then the believer has to accept that their sensient god lusts for death on a scale that boggles the mind; they're using their sense of morality, derived from their notion of a deity to judge abortionists, but they themselves worship a god that kills.