Question for the atheist converts

[_the road to hana]

Do you live in the US? An 18 year old is not a minor in the US. I’m going to assume that since an 18 year old is not a legal minor in the US, your answer would be that the woman would be charged with a criminal offense, as well as the father of the child.

Sorry, beastie, I misspoke. In any instance where a woman had not reached the age of majority, I would also have the parents of both her and the father of the child share responsibility. Clearly for an over-18-year-old woman in some states in this country that is not currently the case. In the state where I grew up, however, and in a few other states, an 18-year-old would still be considered a minor.

So what sentence would you recommend, in your ideal world?

In my hypothetical ideal world, there would probably be a consistent age nationwide for establishing parental shared responsibility in these instances which might exist apart from state-declared ages of majority.

Your answer regarding the physician seems problematic in terms of your stance that abortion, at any stage, is murder (infanticide). If a physician were killing two year olds would you recommend that he/she lose their license and be punished with fines??

Yes, in addition to serving appropriate prison time for the offense.

If abortion really is murder, why, in your ideal world, are you actually treating it very differently than murder?

I'm not.

I do think, as I imagine you do, that every instance is individual. A woman who drowns her children who is found to be mentally ill might not be held to the same standards of personal culpability by a society that a non-mentally ill mother might, for example. Even in our society, there are several court-defined categories of murder, as well as manslaughter.

Transitioning into a society that allows abortion only in medically necessary circumstances and criminalizes it otherwise is problematic in a society that has previously condoned and tolerated, if not encouraged, it. My concern in many instances of abortion is the state of mind of the woman, minor or not, procuring the abortion, as the trauma of the event emotionally and the potential residual effect cannot be minimized. I'm not completely convinced that traditional imprisonment is appropriate when society bears at least part of the responsibility.

[_beastie]

I'm not.

I do think, as I imagine you do, that every instance is individual. A woman who drowns her children who is found to be mentally ill might not be held to the same standards of personal culpability by a society that a non-mentally ill mother might, for example. Even in our society, there are several court-defined categories of murder, as well as manslaughter.

Transitioning into a society that allows abortion only in medically necessary circumstances and criminalizes it otherwise is problematic in a society that has previously condoned and tolerated, if not encouraged, it. My concern in many instances of abortion is the state of mind of the woman, minor or not, procuring the abortion, as the trauma of the event emotionally and the potential residual effect cannot be minimized. I'm not completely convinced that traditional imprisonment is appropriate when society bears at least part of the responsibility.

First, the question was phrased in "your ideal world". Forget about the fact that society bears part of the responsibility for abortion. In your ideal world, where abortion was always rightly viewed as murder, what would the appropriate sentences be? (speaking generally, understanding individual cases may vary)

[_the road to hana]

You said:

The reason this is all so difficult is that no one can agree exactly when human life begins, and in the absence of being able to definitively determine that, it seems to me that it is reasonable, appropriate and exercising good caution to place it all the way back at the time of conception, since scientifically it is proven that human life begins on its accelerated growth process at that moment.

Are contraceptives that simply prevent implantation, versus preventing conception, a form of murder?

Current U.S. law decrees that pregnancy begins at the moment of implantation, rather than at the moment of fertilization. In the eyes of that law, a pregnancy does not yet exist. Do some theologians have a difficulty with abortifacients? Apparently. I believe I responded to a question regarding the morning after pill above.

Why discount the sperm and ovum themselves?

Because independent of each other they do not constitute creation of human life.

It seems to me that this would be the level where it all actually begins, naturally speaking (of course with scientific advances it could begin with other cells). Since no one knows when the “soul” enters the body, perhaps the souls are already in the sperm, as people did once believe. It certainly is not more ridiculous, or scientifically unlikely than to suppose that the “soul” enters a blastocyst.

Those are theological considerations independent of my own line of thinking. I'd personally consider it unlikely that sperms have soul. :)

Is it morally wrong for a man to masturbate for this reason?

Not to my mind.

Is he guilty of murder?

Not to my mind. I think you're referring to the Old Testament reference to "Onanism," and if I'm not mistaken, that referred to someone who was intentionally preventing continuation of his own genetic line in the process, not simply a single instance of sperm lost through masturbation.

And as others have pointed out, why is preventing a life different than stopping the growth of that life?

I addressed that with antishock above. Would you tell a child that sexual abstinence and murder were equivalent?

Are people who engage in birth control engaging in a form of murder?

That would depend on the form of contraception, in my mind, but in general, if it were pre-conception, no.

You had earlier given the impression that your thoughts in this matter were the result of scientific study alone, but since you have begun to refer to the soul entering the body, I’d like some expansion on this. What is your religious viewpoint? Are you a believer, and have your religious beliefs influenced your position on abortion?

My position has been reached and formed entirely independent of organized religion. I'm aware of various points of view on the subject from both medical/scientific and theological communities.

I wouldn't say it's accurate to characterize my thoughts as being the result of "scientific study alone." It would be more accurate that, as with most people, they're the result of personal experience and introspection, as well as internal deliberation and formulation.

Next, do you believe we should allow abortion to save the life of the mother?

Yes, and it should be safe, legal and performed, obviously, in a medical setting. I believe every attempt should be made to save the life of the unborn child if possible, and where that doesn't exist, and the death of the child seems inevitable, abortion would be appropriate and medically necessary.

And, finally, I’m going to ask a question about something I referred to earlier: if a “clinic” in your neighborhood was, with parental permission, gathering up five year olds and killing them, and for some reason society said this was legal, what action would you consider morally justifiable to stop it?

Are you talking about parents marching their own 5-year-old children into a clinic to have them killed voluntarily and intentionally?

Attempts to change legislation and the minds of society influencing the legislation. Protest. Education. Civil disobedience where appropriate. Rescue and rehabilitation of the children.

It's a real sticky wicket. There have been civilizations in history that have engaged in such atrocities, human sacrifice, infanticide. Herod's famous killing of the children ("the Holy Innocents") is a biblical example.

To what extent should "rescue" be attempted by violent means? That's an excellent question. When Nazis were reported to be rounding up individuals, including Jews, in extermination camps during World War II and putting them to death, was physical aggression against that justified? When other atrocities are reported in the global community, to what extent is physical aggresion to stop or prevent it justified?

As a global community, and a more centralized one as a nation and as states, we try as a society to elevate ourselves in opposition to the commission of atrocities at home and abroad. Of course not everyone agrees on what constitutes atrocity, and that is part of the national/global dialogue.

[_the road to hana]

First, the question was phrased in "your ideal world". Forget about the fact that society bears part of the responsibility for abortion. In your ideal world, where abortion was always rightly viewed as murder, what would the appropriate sentences be? (speaking generally, understanding individual cases may vary)

In my ideal world, abortion would not exist, except in cases of medical necessity. If you're moving a hypothetical 18-year-old female into that world attempting to procure an abortion in a hypothetical setting where non-medically necessary abortions exist and a hypothetical doctor would perform it, you've already made it outside that hypothetical "ideal world," so it's a different discussion altogether.

[_the road to hana]

what would the appropriate sentences be? (speaking generally, understanding individual cases may vary)

I would have them be the same as sentences imposed extra utero for manslaughter or murder of an infant and uphold fetal murder laws in instances of (non-medically necessary) procured abortion.

[_beastie]

Thanks for your patience, hana. Before responding to any more details, I'd like clarification on this response:

My position has been reached and formed entirely independent of organized religion. I'm aware of various points of view on the subject from both medical/scientific and theological communities.

I wouldn't say it's accurate to characterize my thoughts as being the result of "scientific study alone." It would be more accurate that, as with most people, they're the result of personal experience and introspection, as well as internal deliberation and formulation.

I'm not asking if your position has been reached independent of "organized religion". I'd like to know your religious viewpoint, and whether or not that has affected your position.

I'm not asking this to bash you for being a believer, if indeed you are, and have allowed that to affect your position. I'm asking this to more fully understand your position. While it is not unheard of, it is unusual for someone to form the opinion that this



should be regarded as a human being, with the rights to legal protection that entails, without being influenced by religious beliefs. I just want to know if you're one of those unusual ones, because I think it will help me understand your position.

[_the road to hana]

Thanks for your patience, hana. Before responding to any more details, I'd like clarification on this response:

My position has been reached and formed entirely independent of organized religion. I'm aware of various points of view on the subject from both medical/scientific and theological communities.

I wouldn't say it's accurate to characterize my thoughts as being the result of "scientific study alone." It would be more accurate that, as with most people, they're the result of personal experience and introspection, as well as internal deliberation and formulation.

I'm not asking if your position has been reached independent of "organized religion". I'd like to know your religious viewpoint, and whether or not that has affected your position.

I went from being Mormon to being agnostic, although never entirely discarded belief in a supreme being as a concept or a reality.

I'm not asking this to bash you for being a believer, if indeed you are, and have allowed that to affect your position. I'm asking this to more fully understand your position. While it is not unheard of, it is unusual for someone to form the opinion that this



should be regarded as a human being, with the rights to legal protection that entails, without being influenced by religious beliefs. I just want to know if you're one of those unusual ones, because I think it will help me understand your position.

I think it can more accurately be compared to a person (religious or non-religious) becoming a vegetarian, or giving up hunting; it's an evolutionary process. A person doesn't necessarily have to be religious to believe that animal life is to be valued, and an otherwise previously carnivorous human adult can go through a process of deciding not to eat animal flesh any more.

For me, it was more like that, and to the extent that you could say that religious views informed my own, I'd say I was much more permissive regarding abortion when I was LDS (because of the vagueness of the stance) than I became after I left.

Lest I give a false impression, I tend to be very compassionate regarding women who've had abortions, and don't mean to minimize the impact that has on their lives, any more than a spontaneous miscarriage would be a loss grieved and a trauma experienced. I don't intend to demonize anyone on this board, or their loved ones, who've procured abortion after their own considered judgment.

Your question of drawing a line in the sand regarding beginning of life is a considerably debated one. I've made it time of conception for my own purposes because that's a clear timeline; others would place it elsewhere. Obviously, legislators and theologians have to make their own judgments, of which I am not a part.

Anticipating your next question, I am not actively a part of any organized pro-life effort. I do not protest at abortion clinics. I do not attend rallies. I am not actively engaged in attempting to change legislation in any organized effort. My efforts at explaining my own position, whether or not it influences others, is limited to situations like this.

[_Tarski]

How about the day after pill? Infanticide?

If it's intentional killing of a child by his or her own parent(s), yes.

It cannot be the intentional killing of a child since it is NOT a child. It is a noncnscious, nonsentient, nonthinking, nonfeeling, cell or cluster of cells--a molecular machine.

[_beastie]

I went from being Mormon to being agnostic, although never entirely discarded belief in a supreme being as a concept or a reality.

Again, thanks for your patience as I probe your thoughts. You must realize that you are somewhat unusual in this regard. I knew an atheist from my old atheist board that was also adamantly opposed to abortion at any stage, but she didn’t post enough for me to fully understand her position.

So today, you still are agnostic? Has your continued belief in a supreme being affected your position on abortion?

I think it can more accurately be compared to a person (religious or non-religious) becoming a vegetarian, or giving up hunting; it's an evolutionary process. A person doesn't necessarily have to be religious to believe that animal life is to be valued, and an otherwise previously carnivorous human adult can go through a process of deciding not to eat animal flesh any more.

I definitely agree one does not have to believe in god to believe that animal life is to be valued.

But I want to return, for a moment, to antishock’s earlier comments, which I think have value in this discussion:

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.

I do see some of this “deification” of life, in and of itself, in the US culture (I think it is less prevalent in some other cultures). One good example of this phenomenon was the Terri Schiavo episode. The vast majority of people insisting on keeping her body “alive” were very religious people. Yet their resistance to just letting her go, when it was obvious “she” was long gone anyway, was remarkable, and odd, for people who apparently believe she would go to heaven, anyway.

Nature is quite dispassionate when it comes to death, and often strikes us cruel. One study puts the number of naturally miscarried fertilized eggs at 40-65%.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bD5GOY ... pg=PA9&dq=
what+percent+of+fertilized+eggs+miscarry&source=web&ots=JOkeCHZV7U&sig
=9CLRUWROTR9WIkeUAF3cdnycLhQ&hl=en

I do not believe this means we should view life casually – in fact, as an atheist, I believe this life is all we have, so we should value it even more. But I do think that we have lost some sense of moderation in regards to valuing life and interpreting that to mean “preserve life at all costs”.

So when people insist that a blastocyst should be regarded as a full-blown human being, and is entitled to legal protection like that human being, my honest reaction is that you’ve lost some perspective and moderation on the issue.

Lest I give a false impression, I tend to be very compassionate regarding women who've had abortions, and don't mean to minimize the impact that has on their lives, any more than a spontaneous miscarriage would be a loss grieved and a trauma experienced. I don't intend to demonize anyone on this board, or their loved ones, who've procured abortion after their own considered judgment.

I do think you have approached the topic with caution and a realization of the complexity of the issue, and that’s why we’ve been able to talk about such a sensitive subject. Thank you for that. You, for example, never referred to women who have abortions as irresponsible and lazy.

Your question of drawing a line in the sand regarding beginning of life is a considerably debated one. I've made it time of conception for my own purposes because that's a clear timeline; others would place it elsewhere. Obviously, legislators and theologians have to make their own judgments, of which I am not a part.

I think the one thing almost all of us would likely agree upon here is that there SHOULD be some “line in the sand”. There is a world of difference between aborting a blastocyst and a seven, eight, or nine month term fetus. I fully support Roe, which specifically states that the state DOES have a vested interest in regulating abortions beyond the first trimester.

So to choose the time of conception simply because that’s a clear timeline seems almost arbitrary. Are you really comfortable calling it “murder” or “infanticide” with a line in the sand chosen because it’s a clear timeline? I most definitely do not understand how a blastocyst could reasonably be considered a full-blown human being entitled to legal protections.

Earlier you explained that you do not give sperm and ova the same rights because:

Because independent of each other they do not constitute creation of human life.

But the blastocyst (and even the later fetus to a certain point) cannot constitute creation of human life, either, independent of the woman’s body. This is why, to me, viability is a reasonable “line in the sand” as well, although as medical advances continue we may have to analyze the cost, in terms of human suffering and handicapping conditions, that may entail.

Anticipating your next question, I am not actively a part of any organized pro-life effort. I do not protest at abortion clinics. I do not attend rallies. I am not actively engaged in attempting to change legislation in any organized effort. My efforts at explaining my own position, whether or not it influences others, is limited to situations like this.

As you already know, I also do not understand this, either. You, by your own evaluation, are living in the midst of a society of mass murderers. I’m not being colorful by saying the holocaust pales in comparison. Earlier, I asked you:

And, finally, I’m going to ask a question about something I referred to earlier: if a “clinic” in your neighborhood was, with parental permission, gathering up five year olds and killing them, and for some reason society said this was legal, what action would you consider morally justifiable to stop it?

And you replied:

Are you talking about parents marching their own 5-year-old children into a clinic to have them killed voluntarily and intentionally?

Attempts to change legislation and the minds of society influencing the legislation. Protest. Education. Civil disobedience where appropriate. Rescue and rehabilitation of the children.

It's a real sticky wicket. There have been civilizations in history that have engaged in such atrocities, human sacrifice, infanticide. Herod's famous killing of the children ("the Holy Innocents") is a biblical example.

To what extent should "rescue" be attempted by violent means? That's an excellent question. When Nazis were reported to be rounding up individuals, including Jews, in extermination camps during World War II and putting them to death, was physical aggression against that justified? When other atrocities are reported in the global community, to what extent is physical aggresion to stop or prevent it justified?

As a global community, and a more centralized one as a nation and as states, we try as a society to elevate ourselves in opposition to the commission of atrocities at home and abroad. Of course not everyone agrees on what constitutes atrocity, and that is part of the national/global dialogue.

You never really told me what actions YOU believe would be morally justified. Changing legislation, protest, education, civil disobedience, rescue… all of these are very slow working. In the meantime, the figurative “gas chambers” still function, and millions are killed.

This is what I just do not understand, and why I think that often the use of words like “murder” or “infanticide” are polemic tools or rhetoric. I’m not saying that those, like you, who use these terms are knowingly using them as such. I’m saying that I think people use them to demonstrate the strength of their feelings against abortion. But when those same people are content to allow a “holocaust” to continue without taking very aggressive, and even, at times, violent means to stop the mass murders…I have a hard time taking it seriously. Do you see what I mean?

I do not doubt that anti-abortionists feel very strongly that abortion is very, very wrong. My question is: do you really, really, believe that it is murder? Do you really, really believe that aborting a blastocyst is the exact same act as killing your next door neighbor?

[_asbestosman]

Again, those goes to intent. The process of natural (non-medically manipulated) conception and attempts at the same does frequently involve unsuccessful pregnancies, and clearly, it is not the intent of the parents to lose these pregnancies. Those with compromised fertility will frequently avail themselves, if they can afford it, of medical advances in the field in order to increase their chances of pregnancy and successful childbirth. These are not always successful. Those means that involve as a byproduct the death of a child are most unfortunate and hopefully at some point in the not-too-distant medical future they can be completely avoided. I could not myself be involved in selective reduction of fetuses or creation of extra embryos extra utero with the knowledge that some would ultimately be destroyed or used for some purpose other than the natural development of a human being.

I'm not quite sure I understand your position. Is it fine for couples to engage in natural conception knowing that they have a high chance of miscarriage, or is it negligence just as it would be negligent to leave small objects lying on your floor that children are likely to choke on? I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I'm asking you to clarify what difference, if any, you see in these situations. Similarly, what difference do you see between couples with a high risk of miscarriage and couples who avail themselves of IVF where no individual fertilized ovum is created with the intent for anything other than to give it life (despite the high chances that it will not be given such a chance)?

I am also curious as to whether you consider a teratoma or a fetus in fetu to be human. Furthermore, do you consider the individual cells of a blastocyst to be human, or can some be removed for the purposes of genetic testing (since it only destroys one cell instead of the whole clump)? If that's permissible, then where do you draw the line so that one cannot simply decide to kill one of developing fetus which has an identical twin (something that makes me cringe)?