My opinions and morality: Atheists welcome

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Mosier]
I have an issue with this one. There’s nothing special about being pushed through a vagina that suddenly triggers awareness and experience. These things develop gradually, just like every other part of us. A baby isn’t a stupid lump of flesh one day, and a learning growing human the next.
[/quote]

There’s also nothing magical about turning 18, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference between a child and an adult. Focusing on this particular line is a specious representation of the debate. For one thing, full term abortions almost never happen, for another thing it obtusely narrows the issue to an obvious and valueless observation that any legal line has to be arbitrary, just like the legal line between childhood and adulthood has to be arbitary. The point you’re making, while technically true, is still rhetorically akin to saying that four year olds should be allowed to drink because there is no significant difference between being 5 minutes short of 21 and being 21. There has to be a line somwhere.

Yet legally we have no choice but to draw that line.

I disagree. People get away with bad shit all the time and good people go unrewarded.

I don’t use this argument against religious people but it constantly gets hurled at atheists by theists. An amazing number of people appear to be incredulous that a person can feel things like moral obligation, compassion and guilt without believing in God. I have to admit, it always makes me wonder about the people that say that.

42

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Yet legally we have no choice but to draw that line.
[/quote]

We draw a legal line, but we don’t “have to” draw a legal line. We have chosen to draw a legal line that isn’t actually necessary. We can just as easily NOT draw a legal line, and declare that embryos are human beings at the moment of sperm/egg contact.

I didn’t say that good is rewarded, and doing wrong is punished. I said that there was an OFFER of reward, and a threat of punishment. As a society, we have decided what is good, and what’s wrong, and we try to reward goodness and punish badness. We’re not as perfect about actually enforcing it as a hypothetical god would be on judgement day, but nonetheless everyone, including atheists, is subject to the threat of punishment and the offer of reward.

I don’t dispute this point, but only offer the opinion of Lobohan as a counter example proving that this way of thinking isn’t limited to the religious. He stated earlier that religious people do good only because they want the carrot god offers, and they try not to do wrong only because they’re afraid of god’s punishment. It’s not “constantly” hurled in one direction. My response that you quoted was directed at an individual person, and I think that response was pretty appropriate.

43

[QUOTE=Mosier]
We draw a legal line, but we don’t “have to” draw a legal line. We have chosen to draw a legal line that isn’t actually necessary. We can just as easily NOT draw a legal line, and declare that embryos are human beings at the moment of sperm/egg contact.
[/QUOTE]

That’s still drawing a line.

44

[QUOTE=Mosier]
We draw a legal line, but we don’t “have to” draw a legal line. We have chosen to draw a legal line that isn’t actually necessary. We can just as easily NOT draw a legal line, and declare that embryos are human beings at the moment of sperm/egg contact.
[/quote]
That’s an arbitrary line; the cells are just as alive and as human before as after conception. And it’s one that contradicts the legal definition in other situations of what is a person deserving of legal protection of his/her life and rights. If a few cells are a “human beings” and deserve rights, then is it murder to take the organs of the brain dead ? Is it murder whn I scratch myself and kill some cells ? Should it be illegal to remove and thus kill an inflamed appendix without trying and convicting it first for attempted murder ? Or is it enough for the cops to put it under arrest before the surgeons start cutting ?

45

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
That’s an arbitrary line; the cells are just as alive and as human before as after conception. And it’s one that contradicts the legal definition in other situations of what is a person deserving of legal protection of his/her life and rights. If a few cells are a “human beings” and deserve rights, then is it murder to take the organs of the brain dead ? Is it murder whn I scratch myself and kill some cells ? Should it be illegal to remove and thus kill an inflamed appendix without trying and convicting it first for attempted murder ? Or is it enough for the cops to put it under arrest before the surgeons start cutting ?
[/Quote]

Give me a break. What are human beings except a collection of a bunch of cells? That’s all anyone is. The number of cells involved makes no difference, otherwise fat people would have greater protection under the law than skinny ones.

46

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
That’s still drawing a line.
[/QUOTE]

Granted. The point still stands that wherever the line is drawn is arbitrary, and it can just as easily be drawn somewhere else. There’s no particular place that it “must” be.

47

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Granted. The point still stands that wherever the line is drawn is arbitrary, and it can just as easily be drawn somewhere else. There’s no particular place that it “must” be.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, but not all arbitrary decisions are equally sensible.

48

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Give me a break. What are human beings except a collection of a bunch of cells?
[/QUOTE]
Intelligent creatures. Which a fertilized egg isn’t. And “give me a break” isn’t an answer; it’s an attempt to evade the fact that defining a fertilized egg as a human requires a truly foolish definition of human. And it requires that we ignore the definitions we use everywhere else.

[QUOTE=Mosier]
The point still stands that wherever the line is drawn is arbitrary, and it can just as easily be drawn somewhere else.
[/QUOTE]
No; some places are far more foolish, destructive or outright malignant than others. And defining a fertilized egg as human is all three. It’s stupid, it inflicts great harm and it’s an example of sheer malignance aimed towards women.

49

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The procedure you’re referring to, intact dilation and extraction (so-called “partial-birth” abortions) is rarely performed in the third trimester. I know there is a great great deal of ignorance about this, but the procedure is almost always performed in the 2nd trimester, not the third.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you could do some more education - the propaganda about the issue implies that the reason for partially delivering the fetus, is that once it’s delivered completely out of the birth canal, killing it would be murder, but if they don’t take it all the way out, the doctor can hack it to death without penalty. Is that accurate?

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Give me a break. What are human beings except a collection of a bunch of cells? That’s all anyone is. The number of cells involved makes no difference, otherwise fat people would have greater protection under the law than skinny ones.
[/QUOTE]

Not a bunch of cells, but a sentient bunch of cells. It’s the sentience that matters, not the number of cells. A fetus with no central nervous system just doesn’t count as human IMHO. The same with Terry Schiavo - she had a primitive brain, but no sentience. Allowing her body to die was the only humane thing to do.

50

[QUOTE=CurtC]
Perhaps you could do some more education - the propaganda about the issue implies that the reason for partially delivering the fetus, is that once it’s delivered completely out of the birth canal, killing it would be murder, but if they don’t take it all the way out, the doctor can hack it to death without penalty. Is that accurate?
[/QUOTE]

No. IDX is usually performed before viability so the fetus would not be able to live outside the womb anyway. The procedure involves dilating the cervix, pulling the fetus partially out of the uterus feet first, then collapsing the skull of the fetus inside the uterus in order to make it easier to finish pulling everything out in one piece. It is the safest method of removing a 2nd term fetus when the size of the skull becomes an issue. Alternative procedures include chopping up the fetus inside the uterus, then scraping it out with multiple passes through the cervix (with increased risk to the patient) or a caesarian, which is not only more dangerous for the woman but actually does involve pulling an intact, living fetus completely out of the womb and letting it die on its own.

The irony of the stupid federal ban on this procedure is that it doesn’t prevent anyone from performing an abortion, it just prohibits the safest method for doing it. The law does nothing to protect the fetus, but only increases medical risks to the women.

51

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The law does nothing to protect the fetus, but only increases medical risks to the women.
[/QUOTE]

So I guess the right wingers got their wish.

52

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Granted. The point still stands that wherever the line is drawn is arbitrary, and it can just as easily be drawn somewhere else. There’s no particular place that it “must” be.
[/QUOTE]

If you take that tack, everything’s arbitrary. That doesn’t get you a functioning society. You need to define your premises (in this case, a definition of personhood) to get anything done. It helps if that definition of personhood is at least nominally consistent and comprehensive. Usually, this involves issues of sentience etc. Not potential, but actual.

53

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

[QUOTE=land185]
As long as they sacrifice members of their own religion, no.

[/QUOTE]
What if those members are children?
[/QUOTE]

What if they’re not, would that make it OK? :dubious:

54

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No. IDX is usually performed before viability so the fetus would not be able to live outside the womb anyway. The procedure involves dilating the cervix, pulling the fetus partially out of the uterus feet first, then collapsing the skull of the fetus inside the uterus in order to make it easier to finish pulling everything out in one piece. It is the safest method of removing a 2nd term fetus when the size of the skull becomes an issue. Alternative procedures include chopping up the fetus inside the uterus, then scraping it out with multiple passes through the cervix (with increased risk to the patient) or a caesarian, which is not only more dangerous for the woman but actually does involve pulling an intact, living fetus completely out of the womb and letting it die on its own.

The irony of the stupid federal ban on this procedure is that it doesn’t prevent anyone from performing an abortion, it just prohibits the safest method for doing it. The law does nothing to protect the fetus, but only increases medical risks to the women.
[/QUOTE]

I’d be interested in reading more on this. Any recommendations, links?

55

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Granted. The point still stands that wherever the line is drawn is arbitrary, and it can just as easily be drawn somewhere else. There’s no particular place that it “must” be.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t say the line is arbitrary. There are serious questions involved concerning women’s rights as well as the question of the life and potential life of the fetus. As a society we are morally compelled IMO to examine the issue. The question is whether we consider it on a factual rational basis with consideration and compassion to all the decision affects or whether we have some religion cloaked emotional reaction based on our own personal preference and often ill informed opinions.

56

[QUOTE=IWasNeverHere]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
He does. The great majority of believers hate atheists.

I am a believer, infact I am a youth pastor. I understand where this comment comes form, I think, and it hurts me to see and hear it said so often. I think, often times when someone who is a christian tries to share their faith with a non believer that it often results in a debate/argument. Sometimes, it is the christians fault because we can be too harsh in the way we whitness to people. Othertimes it is the non believers fault because they dont want to hear what they precieve to be a bunch of “crap”. Because both people feel pationalty about their beliefs, feelings hang in the ballance when these arguments get started and often result in someone being hurt. At my church, we love everyone, we may not agree with your life style but non the less we love everyone . We believe that if you truly submit to the Lord that He will transform you into the likeness of Christ more and more every day. I dont think it is that Believers hate athiests I think it is that we often times done know how to relate to them and talk to them. It is not aginst the flesh that we ballte, it is aginst the prince of the power of the air. Its saten not people.
[/QUOTE]

If a Christian or a member of any religion tries to share their faith by testifying to others when they have not been specifically invited to do so I’d say it was their fault. There are times when a Christian believes that sharing their faith is the right thing to do and times when it may be beneficial to someone still, if you have not been invited to share your beliefs you’d better be prepared for whatever response you get. If someone wants to share their beliefs with me they’d better be prepared to give me equal time and listen to mine. If it’s a one way street then don’t even start.
and oh, saying “we love everyone” is easy. Striving to do it may be noble, but very hard. Being polite and avoiding conflict , being slow to anger are all nice, but it’s not the same as love.

57

Somewhat related, I wanted to link to this about a study done that reveals abortions have declined the most in countries where they are legal and safe.

I thought this was pretty dam interesting. I suppose you can still strive to make it illegal and say you’re doing it on principle and moral grounds but hopefully a few on the RR will see that all that energy channeled into banning abortion probably won’t actually prevent many. If you honestly want prevent abortions then channel your energy into education and alternatives while allowing others the freedom of choice.

58

[QUOTE=land185]

Abortion is immoral. If I kill a pregnant woman who wants a baby, I’ll be charged with double murder. If she doesn’t want the baby, she can terminate the pregnancy. Why? A life in potentia is life nonetheless. If a human doesn’t kill the fetus, odds are that it will be born live. Now, what are the ethical implications of destroying the building blocks of a sentient being that have already begun to form the organism?
[/QUOTE]

Here is a quite sincere hypothethical question for you Land. I am NOT being argumentative or sarcastic. I have always wanted to ask this question to a person with your opinion.

Please do not answer that it is purely hypothetical. With what is happening in the realm of DNA and pre-birth medicine, it is not impossible as a future scenario.

Let’s assume you are a female (or maybe you actually are). You have a husband and three healthy kids. But your family has very modest means. You are pregnant with your fourth. You shrug and say there is always room for one more.

But one week into your pregnancy, tests show that the zygote (a collection of rapidly-reproducing cells in the first two weeks or so) may have some DNA damage.

Your doctor wants to take out the zygote and see if the damaged DNA can’t be repaired with microsurgery. It will then be reinserted ito you to turn into a healthy child.

But once the doctors have examind the zygote, they have bad news. The DNA damage is far more extensive than anyone imagined. Even with their best efforts, this zygote will result in an individual with no awareness, complete paralysis, and such serious medical problems and organ malfunctions that he will die after a few years without even knowing he exists or you exist.

The medical costs for your family will be astronomical if you try to keep him.

But right now, “him” is a collection of cells under a microscope that does not in any way resemble a human being.

The doctors will respect your wishes. Do you allow them to reinsert the zygote so it can continue to develop, or do you tell he doctors they can keep the cells and you will not “RESUME” your pregnancy?

What decision wold you make and why?