Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Bringing an unwanted child to the world to be rejected, to suffer and maybe be mistreated is worse than aborting."
If the parents mistreat the child, reject it and make it suffer, surely you can see why that's a criminal offense. It'd be interesting to see how many parents ask for an abortion on the grounds that they plan to abuse the child in the future.
If instead you mean suffer in the world, so what? You don't know what the future brings, so until you do, that shouldn't be grounds for an abortion.
I mean that unwanted children have a higher probability to lead a hard life, so the would-be parents may very well prefer it not to be born that having it to be given away into an institution after nine months of unnecessary discomfort. They can choose to have another child later when they can take good care of it. That is grounds for an abortion.
Have you read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal? Do you think there is any overlap between that and what you are saying?
Chuckled a bit when I saw you mention: A Modest Proposal.
Some animal species do sometimes eat their young as a biological imperative. The long, slow, dangerous and very resource intensive human reproduction cycle precludes it.
For all we know that long, slow, dangerous and very resource intensive cycle just makes the taste better, like wine. I'm sure there's a market. Specially once we get the external uteruses you mentioned earlier.
Apparently Placentophagy has been quite common in many human societies. Do you think it is moral to murder and eat a newborn baby, that can experience emotional trauma and experience physical pain?
Not until it can be shown morality exists. I don't concern myself with subjective opinions.
Breezy "I don't concern myself with subjective opinions."
You're happy enough to offer them though, another example of your double standards.
As I have said, you can't expect anyone to take your loaded questions on morality seriously when you refuse to answer any questions yourself with anything like candour or any integrity.
Do you think it was objectively moral to torture a newborn baby to death over 7 days, as the bible says your deity did, because it was angered that the baby was conceived in an adulterous affair?
If you can't even be bothered to acknowledge this question, let alone answer it, why should anyone give a toss about your dishonest and hypocritical histrionics over an insentient clump of cells, incapable of experiencing physical and emotional pain?
Though one would have to wonder how anyone could consider a being that designed and created such a system as moral, let alone perfectly moral. I'd consider such a designer / creator to be a barbaric monster, luckily no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for such a being.
Cannot tell about the overlap because I have not read that piece. However, I know that we as humans clearly recognize that rights increase as people age and that, the younger the human, the more decision is given to its parents. We do and accept that as correct even when a 10 yo human can make decisions, just because we know these might not be the right ones. When you are not even yet a person, when you unable to make any decision yet (you are an embryo) all the decisions, even being allowed to be born, are your parents' .
Well I agree with the idea of incremental responsibilities on a child. But I think its a pretty big leap from parents making decisions on a child's diet, education, and upbringing. To making a decision if they want the child to live or die. Plenty of people here are adamantly against parents deciding not to vaccinate their kids.
Abortion does not involve a child.
"Plenty of people here are adamantly against parents deciding not to vaccinate their kids."
Indeed, that's because that does involve a fully formed sentient human being capable of experiencing physical and emotional trauma, and of course it irresponsibly risks the lives of other children. Do you think we will stop noticing that you keep mis-identifying a foetus or blastocyst as a child, or that you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental differences between them?
An embryo is not a child so it does not have any rights. All decision concerning it belongs to the parents, most of all, the mother.
You'd be shocked then I take it to learn there are direct correlations between rates of abuse and things like poverty? Ideally of course proper sex education, decent medical care including family planning and free contraception to free women from heir reproductive cycles would be my choice. Sadly religions have other ideas here as well.
"If instead you mean suffer in the world, so what? You don't know what the future brings, so until you do, that shouldn't be grounds for an abortion."
Do you really think that what the poorest societies on earth need are more children? Do you really think this won't involve unnecessary suffering? Do you really think that is comparable to the termination of an insentient balstocyst that won't experience the termination in any meaningful way?
What in your opinion would be grounds for an abortion?
from an intellectual and scientific view point I would have to ask, what would be considered as life on another planet?
the answer tends to be that a single cell organism would be what would considered as life and I have to accept that.
however, as a female I find it saddening that certain men feel it appropriate to tell a women what they should do,
without considering what they should do themselves.
it would be nice to see a male version of the pill put into production so that both parties can be covered,
and should a male neglect his part in protection, then legislation should be in place so that he is punished accordingly.
I happily know most men are good and make good parents, but there quite a lot who fail at this or are just happy to 'do the deed'
without any responsibility. if men do not take any responsibility for their actions, then it is hypocritical to hold women to a higher expectation.
I think both are good points. If a single cell organism from another planet is found, and somebody comes and destroys it the moment its brought to earth, people would be up in arms. Something I've been trying to argue in these conversation, is that we shouldn't unduly attach value to quantity. Value is also concerned with quality. An alien life form is valuable because of what it is and represents. Likewise a child developing in the womb is valuable for what it is, not how much of it there is.
I do think a pregnancy and raising a child requires both parents, and I think any decision that is made likewise should involve both parents.
Perhaps from a human perspective life or that of an alien entity is valuable, but in reality we/it means nothing.
Consider the vastness of the cosmos, we are significant by virtue of the value we place among ourselves.
Yet as a species we are so primitive it is hard for one to argue that we are that valuable.
That said the entire debate is too difficult to simply be decided like somewhere such as this forum,
and many things may need to be taken into account.
For example, surely if the embryo potentially threatens a mothers life or she is forced/raped or by way of incest made to have a baby, she should have some right to deny this, not only or physiological and neurological grounds but also basic human decency.
Or if she was stuck with an illness such as cancer or ectopic pregnancy and required treatment meaning a termination then that must also be considered.
Then you get to, where is the line drawn?
And this cannot be something decided by just men, governments or religious insitutions.
It may have been lost in the conversations, but I do argue that they are separate issues. If an embryo is a uniquely developing human being. Then it is so by definition, and circumstances do not change that.
If there are issues in the pregnancy, or there was a rape, or any other terrible event, then great, let the woman decide on the abortion. But you don't get to change the definition, just because you want to do something you wouldn't otherwise do. I don't understand why those two things get muddled together. Why do people bring a woman's choice as an objection to an embryo being a human life?
If you (not you specifically) think a woman has the prerogative to abort a pregnancy at any time and for any reason, then let it be so independent of what the embryo is. Stick to those conviction irrespective to an abortion being the killing of a child. I think it shows weakness in the position, when people lean on language like "parasite" and "chicken egg" to justify the abortion.
it is a awkward subject as it appears to be regarding potential life, to which many could say that anytime a male masterbates he is infact committing mass genocide, again where do we draw the lines?
also there is the issue of how do we know if the potential life will even make it to birth? stillborn for one example. how could anyone truly know and at what point could these issues be detected? at a minimal number of weeks it could be technical brain dead.
ive never considered a baby as one of those terms, personally I find to call a baby a parasite to be disgusting and never would say that. from what I have seen, this is the language of a select few ignorant people who most likely have never had a child.
I think the point of what women are essentially saying is that a) birth control should be free(this empowers a women, any country in which women have control of the reproductive cycle and are not at the whim of a mans lust, tend to be the more advanced civilisation), b) this is not a question for the involvement of religious institutions, they are so backwards that they shouldn't have a say (eg the roman catholic church stating condoms are wrong, despite the aids/hiv epidemic).c)a womens opinion matters.
I don't think there's anything wrong with contraceptives. When you say where do we draw the line, keep in mind I think the line is already drawn for us at conception. At that moment the DNA from both parents combine and produce new unique human identity. At that moment the cell is a uniquely identifiable person at the level of genetics. It literally has a name tag. Which is the same name tag we use to convict people of crimes when all we have is their DNA evidence. Or when we want to do a paternity test, etc. That's not something that can be said of sperm and masturbation. I do consider it to be half of the recipe, and not on the same footing.
As far as birth control being free, I don't know too much about the subject. I know most universities offer free condoms. I'm not sure why they couldn't offer other things as well.
you cannot have one without the other, so by that token it is potential life though.
I would also add that it does happen in nature too, with the likes of ovicide and yet, this is fine and apart from nature.
especially from a geneology in primates is this prominent via primate infanticide, where the young are killed or mothers carrying are.
and it is found within filial infanticide, I guess again the issue is we as humans view ourselves high above other species despite our limitations.
yes, I agree. protection should be for both parties, a pill for both would be best in my opinion.
the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortions would drop dramatically if this was an option and I don't see how it couldn't be possible.
Well I think you can have one without the other. I agree sperm has potential, but that potential takes substance when its genetic material enters the ovum and a child is conceived. For lack of a better comparison, one could say Hydrogen and Oxygen have the potential to become water. But that potential is transformed into substances when they bond in right arrangement. My argument is that a molecule of water, a cup of water, a puddle of water, and an ocean of water, are all water nonetheless.
A human zygote, a human embryo, a human fetus, a human child, and an adult human, all refer to the same human identity. All that changes is the number of cells and cell types.
your almost there, without either hydrogen or oxygen, life would not exist.
without sperm, no evolution, no humans (thank you men for your part haha!!)
"A human zygote, a human embryo, a human fetus, a human child, and an adult human, all refer to the same human identity."
No they don't.
All that changes is the number of cells and cell types.
No it isn't. (sentience, the ability to form memories, the ability to experience physical pain, the ability to experience emotional trauma etc etc. STOP LYING Wheezy.
"At that moment the cell is a uniquely identifiable person at the level of genetics."
Hells bells man, don't ever get your haircut, or trim your finger nails, it'd be a bloodbath man.
I agree, and I am glad to hear you feel the choice should be up to the parents. In the case of a tie, (one yes one no,) the mothers vote is the tie breaker as it is her body that is the host. No male should ever be able to demand an abortion or demand the mother to keep the baby if the woman feels the opposite way. Men get to shoulder the responsibility that there is always a chance with intercourse, protected or not, the mother may get pregnant. And get to agree to the risk, (obviously they can take steps to minimize that risk on their part.)
I addressed the human life thing in my other post in this thread.
They get muddled because: the "what is a human life?" question directly answers the: "is it murder?" question about abortion.
Straw man cliche, no one is saying that just because a developing blastocyst is insentient, and incapable of experiencing either physical or emotional pain that THIS IS A REASON TO abort a pregnancy. Again you're being dishonest, as these are facts about the development of a foetus that help determine whether a termination is moral or not, not a reason in themselves to abort a pregancy. If a foetus was sentient and suffered physical and emotional pain in the way a child can then of course it would affect our decision, but you donlt seem to care about suffering, or facts come to that?
Breezy "If instead you mean suffer in the world, so what?"
Well there you go, suffering is something that my morality must necessarily take into account, and could never be indifferent to.
"I do think a pregnancy and raising a child requires both parents,"
You're simply wrong.
it is the far better option but not essential
Given the incidence of less than wholesome behaviors present in our species, it is not always a far better option.
Pages