Question for the atheist converts

[_antishock8]

That definitely wasn't a false analogy. I established the premise of their god's all-everythingness which would result in the willful death of billions of babies, fetuses, zygotes, embryos, eggs, etc*... I still don't see why a religionist would have an issue with a few million willful abortions when their god willfully kills billions upon billions of lives or lifeforms.

* I mean, do I really have to break it down for you how an All-Everything God is truly responsbile for everything that happens in its reality? Hell, an All Everything God is even responsible for the people who have abortions since they're just an extension of Itself.

Not really, and yes, you're smarter than that. The point is that by extension the same argument could be used to justify killing humans outside the womb. If you're willing to do one with that argument, logically it extends to the other. "God kills people with cancer; therefore, it's acceptable to shoot them with a gun."

Reverence for human life should extend past participation in organized religion. Even those who profess no faith in a supreme being and claim to be either atheist or agnostic can, and frequently do, still adhere to a moral code that reveres human life. The difficulty, as noted, comes from medical science determining exactly when that begins. You can't make the argument about, "Well, God does it" to justify one and not the other.

I understand what you're saying. However, I think most religionists use their faith as a basis to reject abortion. I think, if anything, that in of itself is faulty thinking because it requires others to accept a position based on their fantasy.

Segueing... I don't see anything wrong with abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, suicide, euthanasia, or war for that matter. All of it is useful within reasonable context. To make life out to be more than what it is, to deify it, so to speak, puts society at a disadvantage to deal with realities of life in a reasonable manner (completely unsubstantiated opinion). The sheer terror of death that humans experience seems to me to be tragic, in that we spend so much in time and resources to keep alive much that we really ought to just let pass. Death is natural and we should accommodate it like we accommodate the living. Frankly, I would rather have a way to pass peacefully, at my own choosing, than to enrich a hospital via my insurance and government subsidies just because they can find ways to keep me alive.

[_the road to hana]

That definitely wasn't a false analogy. I established the premise of their god's all-everythingness which would result in the willful death of billions of babies, fetuses, zygotes, embryos, eggs, etc*... I still don't see why a religionist would have an issue with a few million willful abortions when their god willfully kills billions upon billions of lives or lifeforms.

* I mean, do I really have to break it down for you how an All-Everything God is truly responsbile for everything that happens in its reality? Hell, an All Everything God is even responsible for the people who have abortions since they're just an extension of Itself.

Not really, and yes, you're smarter than that. The point is that by extension the same argument could be used to justify killing humans outside the womb. If you're willing to do one with that argument, logically it extends to the other. "God kills people with cancer; therefore, it's acceptable to shoot them with a gun."

Reverence for human life should extend past participation in organized religion. Even those who profess no faith in a supreme being and claim to be either atheist or agnostic can, and frequently do, still adhere to a moral code that reveres human life. The difficulty, as noted, comes from medical science determining exactly when that begins. You can't make the argument about, "Well, God does it" to justify one and not the other.

I understand what you're saying. However, I think most religionists use their faith as a basis to reject abortion. I think, if anything, that in of itself is faulty thinking because it requires others to accept a position based on their fantasy.

Segueing... I don't see anything wrong with abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, suicide, euthanasia, or war for that matter. All of it is useful within reasonable context. To make life out to be more than what it is, to deify it, so to speak, puts society at a disadvantage to deal with realities of life in a reasonable manner (completely unsubstantiated opinion). The sheer terror of death that humans experience seems to me to be tragic, in that we spend so much in time and resources to keep alive much that we really ought to just let pass. Death is natural and we should accommodate it like we accommodate the living. Frankly, I would rather have a way to pass peacefully, at my own choosing, than to enrich a hospital via my insurance and government subsidies just because they can find ways to keep me alive.

When choosing to end the lives of one's own children, however, a moral line needs to be drawn in the sand, whether people profess to be "religious" or not. If you couldn't end the life of your newborn child in a delivery room, but could a few months earlier in utero, you need to ask yourself why that is.

There might be people out there who choose to be "pro-life" solely for religious reasons, but I find that's like arguing that one should be good to one's fellow man solely for religious reasons. Obviously, those who profess no religion or belief in a supreme being can still be moral, good people, so it doesn't equate that one must be religious to argue in favor of life issues, whether it's the death penalty, war, euthanasia, abortion or social justice.

[_antishock8]

When choosing to end the lives of one's own children, however, a moral line needs to be drawn in the sand, whether people profess to be "religious" or not. If you couldn't end the life of your newborn child in a delivery room, but could a few months earlier in utero, you need to ask yourself why that is.

There might be people out there who choose to be "pro-life" solely for religious reasons, but I find that's like arguing that one should be good to one's fellow man solely for religious reasons. Obviously, those who profess no religion or belief in a supreme being can still be moral, good people, so it doesn't equate that one must be religious to argue in favor of life issues, whether it's the death penalty, war, euthanasia, abortion or social justice.

I think, for the most part, and without getting into a state-by-state breakdown, we're doing pretty well in determining what a "viable" fetus/baby is, and thus determining when it is acceptable to kill a fetus/baby and when it is not. Frankly, in my opinion, if we have to spend mass amounts of state $$$ to keep anything alive (within a medical context) that would otherwise die then it's not viable.

Reference your comment about a newborn versus an in utero baby the answer is pretty obvious. The baby has developed much further along than a zygote. It has a brain, a nervous system, and cute little fingers. We can't kill the cuteness. It's better to nip the baby in the bud in the first trimester. ;)

[_the road to hana]

When choosing to end the lives of one's own children, however, a moral line needs to be drawn in the sand, whether people profess to be "religious" or not. If you couldn't end the life of your newborn child in a delivery room, but could a few months earlier in utero, you need to ask yourself why that is.

There might be people out there who choose to be "pro-life" solely for religious reasons, but I find that's like arguing that one should be good to one's fellow man solely for religious reasons. Obviously, those who profess no religion or belief in a supreme being can still be moral, good people, so it doesn't equate that one must be religious to argue in favor of life issues, whether it's the death penalty, war, euthanasia, abortion or social justice.

I think, for the most part, and without getting into a state-by-state breakdown, we're doing pretty well in determining what a "viable" fetus/baby is, and thus determining when it is acceptable to kill a fetus/baby and when it is not. Frankly, in my opinion, if we have to spend mass amounts of state $$$ to keep anything alive (within a medical context) that would otherwise die then it's not viable.

Of course if you remove it from the womb prior to a time when it would be viable outside the womb, that's a whole different conversation than I was having, and a whole different point than I was making.

I'm talking about viability in the sense that there would be serious medical defects or complications, which is frequently why a spontaneous abortion takes place.

Reference your comment about a newborn versus an in utero baby the answer is pretty obvious. The baby has developed much further along than a zygote. It has a brain, a nervous system, and cute little fingers. We can't kill the cuteness. It's better to nip the baby in the bud in the first trimester. ;)

How, specifically, is that better? Because you feel less guilt for it? And what's the argument for "nipping it in the bud?" Population control? Family planning? Irresponsibility?

Most justifications for infanticide in our culture are primarily selfish. There are few exceptions.

[_the road to hana]

I'm not so sure about even that any more. See this article about a man who was pronounced brain dead, was about to be removed from life support, and yet lived to tell the tale.

My first suspicion would be doctor error. But aside from that, this is a different scenario altogether than detecting when brain waves BEGIN in fetal development.

Since you can't easily put electrodes on a fetus' head in utero, determining that would be problematic.

[_beastie]

Since you can't easily put electrodes on a fetus' head in utero, determining that would be problematic.

Have you read Carl Sagan's essay on this subject? I linked it earlier. No one is suggesting that electrodes be placed on individual fetus' heads to decide whether or not it's safe to abort that particular fetus. However, Sagan's essay certainly makes it sound like enough research has already been done on this subject to know when most fetuses do develop this particular signature brain wave. Factoring in a safety cushion for precocious development or misdating, and a "safe" cut off is a bit past mid-way.

Personally, I don't have any concerns about the morality of abortion during the first trimester, although I wouldn't advocate it as a form of birth control because it's risky and expensive. But I do think that as the pregnancy advances that it is reasonable for more control to be exercised. And that is, in fact, what Roe provides, which is why I support it.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html ... 13_ZS.html

[Guest]

Frankly, I usually view the "abortion is murder" statement as meaningless rhetoric. 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. In other words, the only people I think sincerely believe abortion is murder are those people who are bombing abortion clinics. The rest mouth it as a useful bit of rhetoric, but they don't really believe it. Or if they do, they are amoral cowards for not doing something about it. I mean, really. 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. The lame picketing and the silly pictures and the shouting means nothing, if you really believe it's murder.

beastie, I understand the point you're making here, but I doubt you're really advocating terrorism. Should people who are opposed to capital punishment bomb the prison? Kill the warden? Should people who are opposed to the violence of war kill those perpetuating it?

Our society can be awkward and clumsy at times, but the legislative process exists for a reason. In situations like this where bioethics are involved, we rely on advances in medical research to inform those who are writing and enforcing the laws. I've been told that there was a time even in the Roman Catholic Church when (early) abortion was considered permissible and not a sin, because people knew less then about when a life actually became a life (there was at one time a belief that the male child quickened at forty days and the female at eighty). After more was learned about fetal development, that subsequently changed. Sometimes legislation doesn't keep up with medical advances, and sometimes it doesn't even anticipate them (hopefully we'll be on top of human cloning legislation before we're faced with an ethical nightmare).

If you're suggesting that the only people serious about opposing something they consider wrong are those who use violence to make their point, I would disagree with it. I sincerely doubt you are advocating violence as a solution to these debates.

[_the road to hana]

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.

I would agree with you here, beastie. It's inconsistent for those who are opposed to abortion as infanticide to consider it acceptable in situations such as rape or incest. This is a difficulty some have with the official LDS position.

Having said that, there really need to be laws enacted state by state that provide for financial responsibility of the child brought to full term in cases such as rape or incest, as well as supported adoption where appropriate.

I know in one midwestern state several years ago legislation was enacted that made the parents of any minor male who impregnated a minor female financially responsible for the child that resulted of the pregnancy (equally responsible with the parents of the minor female, rather than placing the burden entirely on the girl's family as has generally been the case in the past).

[_beastie]

If you're suggesting that the only people serious about opposing something they consider wrong are those who use violence to make their point, I would disagree with it. I sincerely doubt you are advocating violence as a solution to these debates.

No. I am suggesting that even those people most adamantly opposed to abortion recognize, on some level, that it is different than "murder". I agree that people who are "serious about opposing something they consider wrong" can legitimately do so through political and nonviolent social means. But my point is not that anti-abortionists are not "serious about opposing something they consider wrong." Of course they are. My point is that even they, by their actions or lack thereof, most likely do not really believe it is the exact same thing as MURDER.

But personally, if I truly, truly believed abortion is just plain murder, no different than killing any other person, and believed that clinics were nothing more than the modern equivalent of gas chambers, I would support acts of violence to disable the facilities. We're not just talking about a political disagreement, if it's murder. We're talking holocaust. Would the Germans have been justified in engaging in acts of violence to disable the gas chambers?

If there were a "clinic" down the street from you that rounded up five year olds and killed them on a routine basis, and for some reason society allowed that to occur, what would YOU justify as action to stop the murders?

Again, very few people actually take it to this extreme, and, to me, that means that most people recognize that there is a distinction between abortion and murder, even if they remain adamantly opposed to it.

Look at those abortion stats, look at how many religious women, coming from sects that adamantly oppose abortion and teach it's murder - still end up getting abortions. Do you really think they believe they're committing an act of flat out murder when they do so????? Yes, I think they believe they're committing a grave sin - but murder? Like I said, I am being generous by assuming that the "murder" comparison is usually rhetoric. This is not to say the same people are not adamantly opposed to abortion. They are. But do they really, really think it's murder? I doubt it.

[Guest]

If you're suggesting that the only people serious about opposing something they consider wrong are those who use violence to make their point, I would disagree with it. I sincerely doubt you are advocating violence as a solution to these debates.

No. I am suggesting that even those people most adamantly opposed to abortion recognize, on some level, that it is different than "murder". I agree that people who are "serious about opposing something they consider wrong" can legitimately do so through political and nonviolent social means. But my point is not that anti-abortionists are not "serious about opposing something they consider wrong." Of course they are. My point is that even they, by their actions or lack thereof, most likely do not really believe it is the exact same thing as MURDER.

But personally, if I truly, truly believed abortion is just plain murder, no different than killing any other person, and believed that clinics were nothing more than the modern equivalent of gas chambers, I would support acts of violence to disable the facilities. We're not just talking about a political disagreement, if it's murder. We're talking holocaust. Would the Germans have been justified in engaging in acts of violence to disable the gas chambers?

If there were a "clinic" down the street from you that rounded up five year olds and killed them on a routine basis, and for some reason society allowed that to occur, what would YOU justify as action to stop the murders?

Criminalization of the activity and arrest and punishment of the perpetrators comes to mind. That infanticide, even in utero, doesn't enrage and concern society as a whole I think reflects primarily on lack of education on the seriousness of the act. I don't think parents should be killing their children under any circumstances, whether they live in a tent or a womb.

Again, very few people actually take it to this extreme, and, to me, that means that most people recognize that there is a distinction between abortion and murder, even if they remain adamantly opposed to it.

Look at those abortion stats, look at how many religious women, coming from sects that adamantly oppose abortion and teach it's murder - still end up getting abortions. Do you really think they believe they're committing an act of flat out murder when they do so????? Yes, I think they believe they're committing a grave sin - but murder? Like I said, I am being generous by assuming that the "murder" comparison is usually rhetoric. This is not to say the same people are not adamantly opposed to abortion. They are. But do they really, really think it's murder? I doubt it.

I think if they were told they'd have to wait until the child was born full term, and then kill it in the delivery room, they wouldn't do it.

My own view is that frequently at least some, if not most, culpability falls on the parents of an unmarried woman who procures an abortion, the parents of the unborn chld's father, or the father of the unborn child himself. Either someone is trying to avoid scandal, or complication, or responsibility, or a woman fears reprisals by her parents. I know personally of situations where devoutly religious families who would be opposed to abortion otherwise have paid to procure one for a daughter or son's girlfriend in order to avoid scandal; yes, that seems to me to be stark hypocrisy.