Question for Atheists: Abortion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dblagent007
_Emeritus
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _dblagent007 »

Analytics wrote:No, you completely missed the point! We should celebrate the fact that somebody who didn't have the means to support a baby had one anyway. Three cheers for people exercising their reproductive rights!


Ah, yes. We should have killed him earlier. Doing it now is just so messy and barbaric. Nevermind that his life may get better, or that his parents' may have had the means to take care of him back when they had him.
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _Analytics »

dblagent007 wrote:When I was at BYU, all students had to have medical insurance and for married students it had to cover having a child. I haven't heard about students being referred to Medicaid.

I am aware that some students outside of BYU have turned to Medicaid to pay for the cost of having children. If that was truly the student's last resort, then I am not going to fault them for it (regardless of whether they are Mormon or not). If they're parents live in a $2M house and they did that then, yes, I would be a little upset.

My point is that if you think people who can't afford kids have a right to have them, then who picks up the bill? When young, uninsured Mormons have kids--as their church encourages them to do (i.e. it teaches to get married young and not delay having kids for financial reasons)--who picks up the bill? If people should first turn to the church on this, does the church pay? Why not?

http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2399
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _antishock8 »

dblagent007 wrote:Ah, yes. We should have killed him earlier. Doing it now is just so messy and barbaric. Nevermind that his life may get better, or that his parents' may have had the means to take care of him back when they had him.


Image

The child was a female. It's unlikely she made it to the feeding center. It was about 2 kilometers away. She was attempting to walk there by herself. She collapsed from weakness.

So. That being said. Was this child better off having been born in hellacious circumstances, starved to death, and probably predated upon by a vulture until she died an excruciating death, or would it have been more humane to have sterilized the woman/man or perform an abortion so this child didn't have to live a miserable existence?

What makes it ok for you is the myth you allow yourself to believe. But if there's no existence beyond this one, then it's incredibly cruel to allow something to exist and experience pain and desperation until it's killed by another animal. However, if we as a people developed humane ways to usher people out of this life in a comfortable manner, how much better would it have been to euthanize the child instead of letting it be eaten by an animal? Ah. I see. You don't like taking the element of "chance" out of the equation. How very Christian of you.

I'm sure we won't be able to agree, however looking at this picture, and viewing it through your eyes makes me wonder how you can worship an entity that is supremely cruel and arbitrary to have even set something like this up in the first place.

*waiting on Mormon platitudes in 3, 2, 1...*
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_dblagent007
_Emeritus
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _dblagent007 »

Analytics wrote:
dblagent007 wrote:When I was at BYU, all students had to have medical insurance and for married students it had to cover having a child. I haven't heard about students being referred to Medicaid.

I am aware that some students outside of BYU have turned to Medicaid to pay for the cost of having children. If that was truly the student's last resort, then I am not going to fault them for it (regardless of whether they are Mormon or not). If they're parents live in a $2M house and they did that then, yes, I would be a little upset.

My point is that if you think people who can't afford kids have a right to have them, then who picks up the bill? When young, uninsured Mormons have kids--as their church encourages them to do (i.e. it teaches to get married young and not delay having kids for financial reasons)--who picks up the bill? If people should first turn to the church on this, does the church pay? Why not?

http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2399


My answer is that if the choice comes down to kill the child or have someone else help foot the bill (even the government, if necessary), then I would absolutely choose to have someone else help foot the bill. However, I think many more people could and should take responsibility for themselves first (and many do). Also, whatever help is available shouldn't skew things to the point that it is actively encouraging people to have lots and lots of children (like the welfare programs in place in the 80s).

By the way, if choosing to have a child isn't a right, what is your alternative to letting the couple decide? A government agency? What would be the penalty if someone got pregnant but wasn't financially able to keep the baby?
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

antishock8 wrote:[...]

What makes it ok for you is the myth you allow yourself to believe. But if there's no existence beyond this one, then it's incredibly cruel to allow something to exist and experience pain and desperation until it's killed by another animal.

[...]*waiting on Mormon platitudes in 3, 2, 1...*

<--- Musing (rather clumsily) on the converse.


If there’s no existence beyond this one, then wouldn’t it also be cruel to extinguish something’s only chance of existing within this crazy quantum crap-shoot we were lucky enough to be dealt into? Essentially, is facilitating non-existence less (or more) cruel than allowing existence (however un-pleasurable said existence may be)?
Last edited by Reflexzero on Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _Analytics »

dblagent007 wrote:By the way, if choosing to have a child isn't a right, what is your alternative to letting the couple decide? A government agency? What would be the penalty if someone got pregnant but wasn't financially able to keep the baby?

Quite strange how you've gone full circle and now accuse the pro-choice side of being anti-choice.

Just because you would force a woman to have an unwanted baby when she'd choose an abortion doesn't mean that I would force a woman to have an abortion when she'd choose to have a child she can't provide for.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _antishock8 »

Doctor Steuss wrote:<--- Musing (rather clumsily) on the converse.


If there’s no existence beyond this one, then wouldn’t it also be cruel to extinguish something’s only chance of existing within this crazy quantum crap-shoot we were lucky enough to be dealt into? Essentially, is facilitating non-existence less cruel than allowing existence (however un-pleasurable said existence may be)?


I've had a few discussions with fellow reprobates over this issue. I think the key to thinking like you do is assigning a value of meaning to existence. I think most people think existence is a wonderful gift, and ought to be cherished. I personally don't think existence has any intrinsic value or worth beyond what it is, which is existing. The tragedy that a person who loves life and lives every day with a can-do postive mental attitude, but is snuffed out by some random act at an early age while some dour hateful person who barely clings to living as an instinct rather than a desire is a good example of the arbitrary nature of the universe (and for some, God).

This is where my nihilism kicks in, and I don't expect others to join me in my worldview (but I'll still argue with someone for the sake of arguing). I think the only value we as human beings truly value is pleasure. We seek it. We want it. We crave it. Why? Because existing sucks ass. It's hard. There's a host of ills that humans endure during a lifetime that, if we don't balance it out with the pursuit of pleasure, would make existence hell on earth. If someone's life can't produce pleasure, a respite from the unrelenting predatory nature of life, then I think it's the humane thing to do to help them leave this existence in a respectful manner. A chronically ill man, a terminal woman, a starving child that no one will ever care for... Etc... Deserve the respect to either kill themselves or be killed in a humane manner, rather than leaving the death to the ravages of parasitic organisms, starvation, other animals, cancerous cells, etc...

So, it is just as immoral to me to sustain suffering because there's some myth that says an invisible deity won't let you in his gated community if you kill yourself or practice euthanasia or abort a crack baby or sterilize an irresponsible human. Funny how we understand the need to do that with pets; can't have our animals running around damned and fighting and getting diseased and reproducing, but hell yes we ought to let ourselves do it because WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! We're such assholes to think that we aren't subject to the same results every other living organism experiences if populations aren't managed. A collapse is inevitable...
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_dblagent007
_Emeritus
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _dblagent007 »

Analytics wrote:
dblagent007 wrote:By the way, if choosing to have a child isn't a right, what is your alternative to letting the couple decide? A government agency? What would be the penalty if someone got pregnant but wasn't financially able to keep the baby?

Quite strange how you've gone full circle and now accuse the pro-choice side of being anti-choice.

Just because you would force a woman to have an unwanted baby when she'd choose an abortion doesn't mean that I would force a woman to have an abortion when she'd choose to have a child she can't provide for.


You plainly implied in your previous post that a couple that could not afford a baby should not have a right to have the baby. Now you deny it. Thanks for the clarification.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _Some Schmo »

antishock8 wrote: So, it is just as immoral to me to sustain suffering because there's some myth that says an invisible deity won't let you in his gated community if you kill yourself or practice euthanasia or abort a crack baby or sterilize an irresponsible human. Funny how we understand the need to do that with pets; can't have our animals running around f*****g and fighting and getting diseased and reproducing, but hell yes we ought to let ourselves do it because WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! We're such assholes to think that we aren't subject to the same results every other living organism experiences if populations aren't managed. A collapse is inevitable...

I commend you on this most excellent post. Couldn't have said it better myself.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_TAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Question for Atheists: Abortion

Post by _TAK »

Doctor Steuss wrote:
antishock8 wrote:[...]

What makes it ok for you is the myth you allow yourself to believe. But if there's no existence beyond this one, then it's incredibly cruel to allow something to exist and experience pain and desperation until it's killed by another animal.

[...]*waiting on Mormon platitudes in 3, 2, 1...*

<--- Musing (rather clumsily) on the converse.


If there’s no existence beyond this one, then wouldn’t it also be cruel to extinguish something’s only chance of existing within this crazy quantum crap-shoot we were lucky enough to be dealt into? Essentially, is facilitating non-existence less (or more) cruel than allowing existence (however un-pleasurable said existence may be)?


Not to step into Shock’s conversation – but might you wonder that if in some areas of the world if there were fewer people competing for resources the rest might have a better life or at least a chance at a better life?
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________
Post Reply