/atheism/ - Atheism

>>10281

>complains about sjws

>uses the sjws favorite word "problematic"

They try to turn "I don't like it" into "it's a real problem" without explaining shit with this phrase.

>>10281

I'm actually against abortion tbh.

This is coming from and atheist.

Republicans are generally against it or contraception because how else would the Southern Republicans out breed the democrats? It doesn't matter to them that a little spent on government paid abortions prevents a host of large financial problems later, they need to preserve that uneducated and impoverished religuous base to run the factories and vote for Trump/Walker/Jeb Bush because Fox News, Christian Journal, and conservative talk radio said they're great men.

>>10289

Why? Is it because you believe a fetus is a human being?

>>10289

Is it because you believe a fetus is a real hero?

>>10281

I'm ok with abortion. It's not pretty but nessesary. Like fighting in wars, and just like wars unwanted prenancies probably will not stop happening.

>>10385

That baby looks fairly old so I would guess it has thoughts, fears and instincts.

I would say no, a baby who lives on earth and intakes everything such as sound and smell is a lot different then some goo that does not even have eyes to ears.

>>10385

Nope. Unless you're a theist.

http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm

>>12205

INAL, morally seems okay by me. I say we make the pro-life people pay for all the kids that wind up in state custody that would've been aborted because it'd hurt their feelings if not. Then they'll feel the pain and strain they place upon honest, hard-working taxpayers and understand that it's not something anybody likes to do but it's to prevent more pain later.

I agree. The way I see abortion is this:

At some point, a fetus goes from merely being a clump of cells to being a living thing. We have no idea when that happens, so it's best to err on the side of caution, and just assume it's alive from conception. Based on that assumption, abortion is clearly unethical since it's killing a living thing.

>>12434

>At some point, a fetus goes from merely being a clump of cells to being a living thing.

>, abortion is clearly unethical since it's killing a living thing.

Counterpoint: Mosquitos, cows, any plant life. All of which are living things. Would you say it's unethical to kill any of them.

Perhaps then what you would want to say is that it's a human thing however by what degree? It has human DNA? But that's essentially all it is: DNA. It does not have a mind of its own. It does not feel pain. It is far cry from an actual baby and for the longest time, it's far cry from resembling anything remotely human.

So thus why is it wrong? Simply because it ends a life. It causes no pain or suffering. It would be killing off cells which so far would seem to make it as immoral as having a period.

>>12434

>At some point, a fetus goes from merely being a clump of cells to being a living thing.

Yes, that's pretty much what the debate's about. Some people's milage will vary. When the heart starts beating. When it begins to look like a human.

>We have no idea when that happens,

We have the development process of a fetus pretty well mapped out. This is more a philosophical thing than grounded strictly in hard science.

>so it's best to err on the side of caution, and just assume it's alive from conception.

Why? Technically cells are alive from the start but that's what they are, clumps of cells, not necessarily a person who deserves the same concern as a baby which is what the debate is about.

>Based on that assumption, abortion is clearly unethical since it's killing a living thing.

By that standard it's immoral to kill mosquitos and cockroaches. Is there really this little nuance to your position that one couldn't even become a vegetarian if they actually followed it?

What is it about this clump of cells that you've now established should be assumed to be a living thing that is so special that it's deserving of this concern? Why is it unethical to kill it exactly? It causes no pain or suffering. It's not even aware of its surroundings. Far cry from killing a born baby.

>>12437

Okay, allow me to clarify. At some point, a fetus goes from merely being a clump of cells to being a person. So it's best to err on the side of caution and assume that it's a person from conception. Also, replace "living thing" in the last sentence of my original post with "person."

>We have the development process of a fetus pretty well mapped out. This is more a philosophical thing than grounded strictly in hard science.

Yes, we have a good understanding of the fetal development process, but we still have no idea when a fetus becomes a person. Because of that, it's best to err on the side of caution, and just assume that it's a person from conception.

>What is it about this clump of cells that you've now established should be assumed to be a living thing that is so special that it's deserving of this concern? Why is it unethical to kill it exactly? It causes no pain or suffering. It's not even aware of its surroundings. Far cry from killing a born baby.

Obviously early in the gestational period, it's not aware of its surroundings, but at some point fetuses do become aware of their surroundings and we have no idea when this happens. Unless, of course, you think that fetuses are unconscious, but then once they're delivered, they magically become aware of their surroundings. Also, some babies born with serious birth defects, such as anencephaly, are also unaware of their surroundings. Do you think it would be ethical to kill them?

Also, just because a fetus can't experience pain or suffering, that doesn't mean it's ethical to kill it. For example, there are painless euthanasia methods. But it would be unethical to euthanize a baby, even if it was completely painless. Likewise, if we assume fetuses are persons, it would be unethical to kill them.

>>12434

Counterpoint: Is your sperm a living thing?

>>12444

> but we still have no idea when a fetus becomes a person. Because of that, it's best to err on the side of caution, and just assume that it's a person from conception.

Except we also know it would be unethical to bring a baby into the world that cannot take care of it. I could easily argue that it would be better to have an abortion while it's still a clump of cells, philosophical discourse aside, than to purposely bring something every party can agree is a person into a life of suffering.

Plus the whole "We don't know therefor we should assume form the start" is an argument from ignorance. We don't know therefor we should assume it's always a person? Bullshit.

>Obviously early in the gestational period

Your post leaves every single second from conception to birth on the table. We know for a fact there's a period of time before the fetus' brain forms and any time before that it would be impossible for it to be conscious.

>Also, just because a fetus can't experience pain or suffering, that doesn't mean it's ethical to kill it.

I never said it was ethical to kill it, I said it wouldn't be unethical to do so.

>For example, there are painless euthanasia methods.

Except when it comes to euthanasia that's an example when it's on something everyone can agree is a person which is what this argument is about. On whether or when a fetus becomes a person and the ethical implications of aborting it. Suffice to say, that whole bit doesn't mean jack shit to this debate as it's totally unrelated.

> Likewise, if we assume fetuses are persons, it would be unethical to kill them

You are yet to provide any solid reasoning as to why we should assume fetuses are persons and thus have the same concern. So no, I won't assume that until you provide a valid reasoning that isn't arguing from ignorance.

>>12444

> but we still have no idea when a fetus becomes a person. Because of that, it's best to err on the side of caution, and just assume that it's a person from conception.

Except we also know it would be unethical to bring a baby into the world that cannot take care of it. I could easily argue that it would be better to have an abortion while it's still a clump of cells, philosophical discourse aside, than to purposely bring something every party can agree is a person into a life of suffering.

Plus the whole "We don't know therefor we should assume form the start" is an argument from ignorance. We don't know therefor we should assume it's always a person? Bullshit.

>Obviously early in the gestational period

Your post leaves every single second from conception to birth on the table. We know for a fact there's a period of time before the fetus' brain forms and any time before that it would be impossible for it to be conscious.

>Also, just because a fetus can't experience pain or suffering, that doesn't mean it's ethical to kill it.

I never said it was ethical to kill it, I said it wouldn't be unethical to do so.

>For example, there are painless euthanasia methods.

Except when it comes to euthanasia that's an example when it's on something everyone can agree is a person which is what this argument is about. On whether or when a fetus becomes a person and the ethical implications of aborting it. Suffice to say, that whole bit doesn't mean jack shit to this debate as it's totally unrelated.

> Likewise, if we assume fetuses are persons, it would be unethical to kill them

You are yet to provide any solid reasoning as to why we should assume fetuses are persons and thus have the same concern. So no, I won't assume that until you provide a valid reasoning that isn't arguing from ignorance.

>>12457

>Except when it comes to euthanasia that's an example when it's on something everyone can agree is a person which is what this argument is about. On whether or when a fetus becomes a person and the ethical implications of aborting it. Suffice to say, that whole bit doesn't mean jack shit to this debate as it's totally unrelated.

I would like to further elaborate on this as I don't think I presented it well: Everyone can agree that a born baby is a person. Not everyone can agree whether or not a fetus is a person or not or when it becomes one.

The debate is focused heavily on that question and whether or not it's ethical to kill it is dependent. If it is a person, it would be unethical, if not, it might not be unethical.

However, the whole situation is far cry from a baby which everyone agrees is a person and thus would be unethical to do so. Comparing aborting a fetus is a very different situation than euthanizing a baby as one scenario doesn't have the same kind of doubts as the other.

>>12457

>I never said it was ethical to kill it, I said it wouldn't be unethical to do so.

But I'm pretty sure being ethical and not being unethical are the same thing. If you disagree, name one thing which is neither ethical nor unethical.

>You are yet to provide any solid reasoning as to why we should assume fetuses are persons and thus have the same concern. So no, I won't assume that until you provide a valid reasoning that isn't arguing from ignorance.

You seem to be missing the point I was making. I know we don't know for sure when a fetus becomes a person. My point was that since we don't know, we should err on the side of caution and assume that it's a person from conception so that we don't run the risk of aborting babies. Another way of saying this is that the potential negative consequences of legalizing abortion are far worse than the potential negative consequences of prohibiting it. In a way, you're right. I haven't given you guys an argument for why fetuses are persons from conception. The only thing I have argued is that it's ethical to base our abortion laws on the assumption that they are, because of the fact that we don't know when they become persons.

Also, and this is a point I really want to emphasize, this is not an argument from ignorance because I'm not arguing that fetuses are persons from conception. All I'm saying is that it's morally expedient to base our abortion laws on that assumption.

>>12434

>At some point, a fetus goes from merely being a clump of cells to being a living thing

cells are living beings you fag.

is induced abortion killing a living being?

sure it is. But is it any worse than killing brainless bacteria with a penicillin shot when you are sick?