Question for the atheist converts

[_GoodK]

There's hardly anything an atheist can do to make the world safer anymore is there?

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.

And this is a bad thing? Are you saying we need to over populate this planet even more?

silly...

[_the road to hana]

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.

I appreciate that we have a different point of view regarding this. You'll have to reach your own conclusion regarding when that "nonconscious, nonsentient, nonthinking, nonfeeling, cell or cluster of cells" ceases to be that, and becomes human life.

My use of the word "child" describes the relationship, not the age, just as "parent" describes the biological link.

[_antishock8]

I'm aware of no other use for the morning-after pill other than ending life, rather than preventing it.

How is preventing life any different than ending it... Morally speaking?

Let's see. Do you equate your daughter practicing abstinence in order to avoid an unplanned pregnancy with someone killing another person morally? Do you teach her that one is good, and the other is bad? Avoiding the pregnancy through appropriate, reasonable and mature choices is not the same thing as taking a life that already exists. To my mind, that's just responsible living.

How is preventing life any different than ending it... Morally speaking?

[_the road to hana]

I'm hoping beastie will indulge me for a second if I jump to answering this post, since it's shorter.

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,

Yes, but of course health of the mother is also a consideration in situations with repeated miscarriage, and they'd have to weigh that into the mix. That (health of the mother) has nothing to do with current discussion, however.

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 don't see those as equivalent.

I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I'm asking you to clarify what difference, if any, you see in these situations.

Between attempting to create life, unsuccessfully, and trying to destroy it? Or between trying to create life, unsuccessfully, and risking the current life of a small child? I see many differences. I see no intent to destroy or risk life in the former, and if you're going to the issue of recklessness, I don't think it applies unless the point of the impregnation is to terminate it, which I can't imagine is the case in couples attempting to conceive.

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.

No. I guess I would think that's clear from what I posted earlier in this thread, but apparently not.

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)?

I don't regard a single removable cell that doesn't reduce the viability of the fetus as the same thing as a fetus. I do consider a viable identical twin as a fetus. Again, I'd think that was clear from my earlier posts; if it wasn't, hopefully that has clarified.

[_the road to hana]

I'm aware of no other use for the morning-after pill other than ending life, rather than preventing it.

How is preventing life any different than ending it... Morally speaking?

Let's see. Do you equate your daughter practicing abstinence in order to avoid an unplanned pregnancy with someone killing another person morally? Do you teach her that one is good, and the other is bad? Avoiding the pregnancy through appropriate, reasonable and mature choices is not the same thing as taking a life that already exists. To my mind, that's just responsible living.

How is preventing life any different than ending it... Morally speaking?

Asked and answered above.

[_the road to hana]

beastie, I hope you won't mind if I skip down and answer some of your questions out of order.

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.

I'd like to go back to the point about drawing a line in the sand, which is all I have done, and which is all anyone needs to do for their own opinion on the topic. Since drawing a line during the nine-month gestation continues to be problematic, I push it back to conception. That is not to say that I consider a blastocyst a "full-blown human being," any more than I consider a fetus, an infant, a toddler, or even a pre-pubescent preteen a "full-blown human being." But since we are drawing lines, we have to be consistent once the line is drawn. Everyone can make their own judgment as to the best basis for drawing the line.

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.

I'm fairly certain I've consistently included viability as a criterion in this discussion.

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.

They might be slow working, but I believe they are morally justified.

In the meantime, the figurative “gas chambers” still function, and millions are killed.

Does that horrify you? I expect that's how many in this country view it.

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.

I'm using it as a technical/legal description.

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 see what you mean, but I don't agree with it. I believe you could be persuaded to change your mind on a topic with non-violent means. On the flipside, the pro-life effort in this country at least is frequently demonized because of its association with the religious community (frequently viewed from "the left" as "the right"). This can be unfortunate. If something is wrong, it ought to be wrong independent of the affiliations of the people for or against it. It goes to the heart of the original post on this thread, which really is that there is some expectation of religious=pro-life/anti-abortion, and atheist=pro-choice/anti-life, which should be a false dichotomy.

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?

Yes. I believe the intentional and willful killing of a child by its parents at any time post-conception is murder.

Do you really, really believe that aborting a blastocyst is the exact same act as killing your next door neighbor?

No. Nor do I believe a child being killed by their parents is the same thing as killing a stranger in self-defense, killing an enemy soldier in the battlefield, killing a tyrant dictator, unintentional reckless homicide by drinking and driving, or suicide. At no time in this thread have I tried to make all murder and manslaughter equivalent; in fact, I've done my best to say that individual situations vary greatly.

[_Moniker]

...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.

I thought you were making a correlation with atheists not being concerned for human life? That's why I made the above statement.

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."

Well, I don't agree with that sentiment. I just wish that those that speak out so forcefully against abortion would understand the life circumstances of many of the females that are actually getting them. The stats clearly show a positive correlation between poverty and abortion rates. After you get an abortion at Planned Parenthood they give you birth control before you walk out of that clinic. They schedule a follow up appointment with pap screen and will then prescribe a years worth of birth control pills... then they will want the woman to come back the next year for her next yearly checkup so that she can stay on birth control. That is WISE -- all abortion clinics (to my knowledge) want these women on birth control rather then seeing them back again for another pregnancy. These clinics understand who these women are. We all need to understand these women and help them with the ability to CHOOSE when they decide to become pregnant. They NEED birth control! I am pro-choice... and lean HEAVILY toward support of these clinics because they try very much to ensure that these women can have the medical attention they so desperately need so as to not ever again find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

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.

No, I wasn't referring to social programs. At ALL planned parenthoods they counsel the women (girls) and tell them their options. If they want to continue the pregnancy they refer them and help them with that. If they want to place the child up for adoption they help them with referrals there too. I'm sorry you're upset about your sister. I know I went with a girlfriend of mine in the very early 90's to get an abortion without parental consent. I'm sure to this day her parents don't know. I knew another teen that was FORCED by her parents to get an abortion. I saw that same girl (now a woman) cry years later at a baby shower for a friend. I think whether it be a child or a grown woman that the only one that should make this decision is her.

by the way, to answer the OP -- I didn't convert to anything. My thoughts haven't changed since I was a child. My mother used to tell me how lucky I was that I wasn't aborted -- gee, thanks, Ma! Yet, what that did for ME was give me empathy to my young mother who endured this pregnancy to give me life and the heartbreak she must have endured to place me for adoption. I recognized how complex and heart wrenching these decisions are for women and then and there knew that I could never make that decision for someone else.

[Guest]

Has your continued belief in a supreme being affected your position on abortion?

I'm not sure it's entirely separable, any more than anything else in my life or worldview can be separated from my own personal philosophy and perspective.

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'll comment on antishock's statements first. I'd agree with much in the last half of the statement, with the caveat that I do not believe we should be causing or accelerating natural death or engaging in inhumane treatment. The trick is being able to distinguish between medical situations that are eminently treatable (even with aggressive medicine) and those that are not.

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).

I'd resist the term "deification of life," and prefer the term "revere human life," as I think the latter is more appropriate and places it in proper perspective.

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.

On that particular situation, I'd disagree with you, in the sense that Ms. Schiavo, while she might have been disabled, was certainly alive, and what the spouse wanted permission to do was to accelerate her death, not allow her to die a natural death. Depriving her of food and water was to my mind inhumane, and she should have been allowed to be a ward of the state, if not her parents. It does appear to me that his motivations were at least in part financial, and I believe the state should have a vested interest in intervening when family members choose to end life for financial reasons.

I would see those situations, again, as being individual. With infants, fetuses, and the disabled, there's the issue of providing defense for the defenseless.

[_the road to hana]

. The stats clearly show a positive correlation between poverty and abortion rates.

That's a completely separate social issue that clearly needs to be addressed.

I think whether it be a child or a grown woman that the only one that should make this decision is her.

Should a minor child be able to make all other medical decisions on their own behalf?

[_Moniker]

. The stats clearly show a positive correlation between poverty and abortion rates.

That's a completely separate social issue that clearly needs to be addressed.

I agree, it needs to be addressed and I did so in this thread for a few reasons. Too often in these threads it comes down to the lives of the unborn and we completely neglect to discuss who is actually pregnant. There's ALWAYS talk about the women in vague terms (they should be more careful, they made a poor decision, etc...) and yet, people apparently don't like hearing the facts about who these women actually are.

I think whether it be a child or a grown woman that the only one that should make this decision is her.

Should a minor child be able to make all other medical decisions on their own behalf?

[/quote]

Should an adult force a child to keep an unwanted pregnancy or force a child to terminate the pregnancy? Let's stick to the topic of abortion. :)