Abortion of a fully-fledged human life

[Mr Skeptic]

No, but I have wondered how many I've helped by causing them to question their beliefs.

 

More likely you just cause them to think, "Now there is someone seriously in need of Christ," or "My, atheists are so intolerant," or "Hey, quit making us more tolerant atheists look bad". I think you were the one who gave me the last straw to accept evolution, but that was a link that specifically answered my question and went spectacularly against any sort of intelligent design -- about retroviruses in our DNA. Not the bashing part.

[DrDNA]

Wow, your willful ignorance is staggering.

I always try to grab on to something in cases such as this.

 

 

That is the WORST analogy I've ever heard for this. You really have no idea about this topic, do you?

Yes.

 

Here's a better analogy: I'm walking to school fully clothed, when a stray wire from a nearby chainlink fence catches my pants and they tear off. Should I be arrested for indecent exposure, even though I took every precaution (wearing pants), or is it my fault for daring to go out in public.

Certainly not.

And if you think that is a better analogy, well that's your opinion and I respect it, but you are wrong.

 

 

 

It is well established from impartial statistical research that many women do NOT know all the options available, either due to never being told or due to willful and active misinformation by certain groups.

Why don't you spend your time, money and effort EDUCATING them.

 

 

 

I'll be blunt: were you a virgin until marriage? Keeping in one's pants requires *two* people.

 

I'd rather not say (blushing)

 

 

You cannot possibly be this stupid.

 

 

 

Find me this mythical surplus of adopters. Go on, find them.

 

You're made the stupid mistake of conflating the lag time in processing adoption with a scarcity. The screening process is long and arduous, but there are WAY more kids in foster care than there are adoptive parents.

Excuse me, but I said NEWBORN.

The line is there.

It's not my fault if you can't see it.

Maybe you could look harder.

 

 

Show me one place in this thread where I've bashed religion.

The religion bashing part was aimed primarily at Mr iNow.

But if it makes you feel better, it seems that you are almost as adept at calling pro-lifers stupid as he is at calling religious people stupid.

 

 

Show me a point in this thread where I do anything *other* than call you on your poor logic, biased reasoning, and worthless analogies.

 

You're a nice person.

 

 

 

Oh noes, we can't *offend* people by insisting their ideas hold up to logical scrutiny!

I suggest you might consider taking a Bioethics and/or a Philosophy class.

I honestly don't have time to teach you.

 

It's obvious yours don't, so why don't you go cry into your pillow about how much of a big meanie I am and let the grown-ups talk.

Even nicer than I ever imagined.

Edited March 12, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

Well, that was everything I've come to expect from you.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think DrDNA's biggest point is that not actually having sex is a very important part of prevention, whereas Mokele merely sees birth control as the prevention. Hence the disagreement on analogies.

 

Would both sides agree that this is true, or have I misread?

[DrDNA]

I think DrDNA's biggest point is that not actually having sex is a very important part of prevention, whereas Mokele merely sees birth control as the prevention. Hence the disagreement on analogies.

 

Would both sides agree that this is true, or have I misread?

 

Thanks for trying to mediate Cap.

 

No.

I am 100% completely in favor of birth control.

I want to make that abundantly clear.

 

I believe that this all began when I made an alternate analogy to the thread creator's analogy (which was about Kings and Princes and Spaniards...):

Let's say that the King knowingly and willingly was a participant in a voluntary activity.

And the King's voluntary activity was well known and accepted for hundreds of thousands of years to, with a high probability, result in the creation of a Prince.

The King knew before he participated in the activity that the resultant Prince would with 100% certainty have a condition that would require the Prince to tap into his (the King's) kidneys for about 9 months or so.

 

So the King was a participant in that voluntary activity

An activity which he knew had a very good chance of creating a Prince.

The king knew with certainty that the resulting Prince would not have functioning kidney's for nine months or so; thereby requiring the use of his own kidneys to keep this Prince alive.

 

Would the King be obligated to do this or let his son die?

 

Of course a natural response is going to be along the lines of what if [less than 1% of the time] 'the act was not voluntary'...

But this is purely focused on 100%, completely voluntary.

 

From that purely hypothetical situation, I think it kinda went down hill from there..........

 

Oh, and I am against calling pro-lifers and religious people stupid.

I'd be against it even if I wasn't pro-life and religious.

That excludes me. You all can call me anything you want.

Edited March 12, 2009 by DrDNA

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I didn't state that you weren't in favor of birth control -- merely that you thought not having sex to be an important part of birth control.

 

Does that cover your position better?

[DrDNA]

It does not completely cover my position, but that is correct.

 

...along the lines of: a war is prevented if disputing parties do not engage in battle.

[iNow]

Here's a thought...

 

 

With our present (and ominously approaching) population problems, abortion should be actively encouraged. Hell, that's one fewer mouth to feed, one less carbon footprint, one less waster of water, and one less miserable human born to parents who cannot properly care for it or find it a loving home.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, now that we see why there are differences in the analogies, I think we can have an actual discussion.

 

Would we care to move on and start discussing the actual topic again?

[Daecon]

Sorry, what's this thread actually about?

 

If the "foetus" was a fully-grown person, would it be right to "abort" that fully-grown person?

 

Is the "foetus" made of straw?

[DrDNA]

Good idea Cap.

 

So the question is, is it morally acceptable to force a random bystander to keep another human being alive at his own expense for nine months?

 

No.

[Kyrisch]

No.

 

And that covers the idea of allowed abortion in cases of rape. Are you against that?

[DrDNA]

I refuse to base my opinion on abortion on less than 1% of the cases.

 

Why does it always center around this?

[Kyrisch]

Because, contrary to what people would like, morality is not absolute. You can't have a blanket opinion that works in all cases, it's not practical. In addition, while the number of cases are few, they still exist, and you still are obligated to make a decision about whether or not you think it is acceptable.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think my morality is absolute. Circumstances mean that sometimes I have to choose the lesser of two evils.

 

While I don't like abortion, I think the alternative can be worse. Forcing parents to raise an unwanted child is not good, and it also increases the crime rate and in general is bad to more people than just the parents. If someone is so concerned about the life of an unborn child (or ball of cells), then they shouldn't wish them a life as an unwanted child. Maybe they could offer to adopt the child once its born.

 

Oddly enough, many of the people opposed to abortion are also opposed to preventing the need for abortion by teaching the proper use of, and ensuring that contraceptives are easily available.

[DrDNA]

Oddly enough, many of the people opposed to abortion are also opposed to preventing the need for abortion by teaching the proper use of, and ensuring that contraceptives are easily available.

 

Yes. That is quite unfortunate. And I wish that it were not so.

 

I believe that, in part, it may be a consequence of selective interpretation of the Old Testament:

 

In Genesis 38:8-10, Onan is ordered to sleep with his brother's widow. He "pulled out" to not get her pregnant and was slain as a result.

 

Deuteronomy 23:1. It says "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord."

 

While other Old Testament decrees and statements are ignored.

 

And, later, Christian church leaders:

 

Clement of Alexandria (AD195) said: "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted".

 

Pope Pius XI:

"..........any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. "

 

And then Monty Python said:

 

There are Jews in the world.

There are Buddhists.

There are Hindus and Mormons, and then

There are those that follow Mohammed, but

I've never been one of them.

 

I'm a Roman Catholic,

And have been since before I was born,

And the one thing they say about Catholics is:

They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

 

You don't have to be a six-footer.

You don't have to have a great brain.

You don't have to have any clothes on. You're

A Catholic the moment Dad came,

 

Because

Every sperm is sacred.

Every sperm is great.

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate.

 

Let the heathen spill theirs

On the dusty ground.

God shall make them pay for

Each sperm that can't be found.

 

Every sperm is wanted.

Every sperm is good.

Every sperm is needed

In your neighbourhood.

 

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,

Spill theirs just anywhere,

But God loves those who treat their

Semen with more care.

 

Every sperm is sacred.

Every sperm is great.

 

If a sperm is wasted,...

 

...God get quite irate.

 

Every sperm is sacred.

Every sperm is good.

Every sperm is needed...

...In your neighbourhood!

 

Every sperm is useful.

Every sperm is fine.

 

God needs everybody's.

 

Mine!

And mine!

And mine!

 

Let the Pagan spill theirs

O'er mountain, hill, and plain.

God shall strike them down for

Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

 

Every sperm is sacred.

Every sperm is good.

Every sperm is needed

In your neighbourhood.

 

Every sperm is sacred.

Every sperm is great.

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite iraaaaaate!

[foodchain]

Beyond that let us think that global corporations are ripping off everyone at behest of nations like us while killing more then nazi germany and burying the planet in pollution, but don't worry there will be some missionary there to give them a bible or what not. Also, let us think of all the poor even in our own country which are dying and what not because they choose to live like that.

 

 

 

I guess I would respect the issue more if it was not simply the product of someone carrying out what a book tells them.

Edited March 13, 2009 by foodchain
Fast post spell check

[DrDNA]

Beyond that let us think that global corporations are ripping off everyone at behest of nations like us while killing more then nazi germany and burying the planet in pollution, but don't worry there will be some missionary there to give them a bible or what not. Also, let us think of all the poor even in our own country which are dying and what not because they choose to live like that.

 

Exactly what does that have to do with abortion?

 

 

I guess I would respect the issue more if it was not simply the product of someone carrying out what a book tells them.

 

You mean like these people?:

 

Democrats for Life of America, Inc.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=49

 

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League

A nontheistic and nonreligious opposition to the life-denying horror of abortion

 

"... because life is all there is and all that matters, and

abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being."

 

.....for AAPL membership; one must:

1) be an avowed atheist, agnostic, or other nontheist

2) oppose abortion and desire its abolition (with or without exceptions)

3) support nonviolence as the sole legitimate means of achieving the goals of the pro-life movement

 

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

 

 

Atheists Against Abortion

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=28580&start=0&sid=4b2f5452fcae1a4a5a2f9a03528f048c

 

Libertarians for Life

http://www.l4l.org/

 

There are more but you get the picture.

 

Does that change your amount of respect any?

[foodchain]

If an athiest jumped off a bridge I would not follow, but thanks for the attribution error. What it has to do with the thread is rather simple, people take up a cause supposedly for life, but in reality its for an agenda pertaining to some myth really.

 

Thanks though, and I am not a democrat, but thanks for that also.

[DrDNA]

I guess I would respect the issue more if it was not simply the product of someone carrying out what a book tells them.

 

Since you stated that you would respect the issue [of someone taking an anti-antiabortion/pro-lofe stance] more if their actions were not simply the product of someone carrying out what a book tells them.

 

Since anti-abortion/pro-life atheists and agnostics are definitely NOT just carrying out what The Book tells them.

 

And, since Anti-abortion/pro-life atheists and agnostics do exist, and by definition are not carrying out what The Book tells them.

 

The logical conclusion is that, by your own admission, you must respect the anti-abortion/pro-life stance more.

 

So, do you?

[iNow]

DrDNA - There are, of course, always outliers, but would you agree that the overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates tend most often to be religiously motivated? Or, do you reject that premise and argue instead that religion plays no role in this issue? Please clarify your stance.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think everyone is a wee bit uncomfortable with abortion, and increasingly so the more developed it is (and that includes the people who think that a zygote has a spirit and is fully human).

[DrDNA]

DrDNA - There are, of course, always outliers, but would you agree that the overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates tend most often to be religiously motivated? Or, do you reject that premise and argue instead that religion plays no role in this issue? Please clarify your stance.

 

Of course it 'can' play a role.

But I also think that pro-life stands on it's own merit without the need to involve religion.

 

I think everyone is a wee bit uncomfortable with abortion, and increasingly so the more developed it is (and that includes the people who think that a zygote has a spirit and is fully human).

 

Not everybody....hence late term and partial birth abortions.

And if the abortion doctors/planned parenthood are so uncomfortable with it, then why do they do it/condone it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Not everybody....hence late term and partial birth abortions.

 

Yes, those are done but people get more upset about those than they do about, say, first term abortions.

 

And if the abortion doctors/planned parenthood are so uncomfortable with it, then why do they do it/condone it.

 

Lesser of two evils. No one particularly likes forcing a woman to remain pregnant for 9 months and then have to raise a child she doesn't want. And the child will be worse off for it compared to other children. So people who don't think that a ball of cells is particularly human or capable of suffering or whatever, think it preferable to terminate said ball of cells before it does become a child capable of suffering and in a situation likely to induce suffering, especially since that will also relieve the mother of suffering through pregnancy and childbirth, and the parents from raising it, and the planet from another human to support. Just because they do something, doesn't mean that they like it.

[Daecon]

How many people have abortions just for fun?