/atheism/ - Atheism

Why do all Christians not support abortion anyway when its in the bibie?

A husband can get an abortion if the baby isn’t his. Kill your wife’s little embryo.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5%3A11-31

Abortion can be used as punishment.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+9%3A14-16&version=NIV

And God kills a child to punish the father.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+12%3A14-18&version=KJV

And also kills kids to punish the sins of their ancestors.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31

I also value the life of an educated doctor over the unknown possibilities of an unborn fetus. For someone to have an abortion they are more likely to have a problem raising the child, or the child is more genetically flawed than a doctor anyway. And yet only the anti-abortionists are murdering doctors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Don't be a spook

If you're looking to get an abortion, it's going to be for a reason that would inevitably negatively affect the kid. Your economic situation might suck, you might not be prepared to take care of a kid, or you just don't want one and never will. None the less, anyone growing up in such a life isn't going to live a good life.

Meanwhile, being able to decide when you're ready to have a kid and not be subjected to it based on any variable other than your own choice is both ethical and economical.

>>13923

I'm not a christian, I don't give a fuck about their bible.

>>13924

This doesn't make abortion more or less wrong though.

>>13927

Ok.

>>13928

By the same logic, wouldn't be ethical to kill unwanted newborn babies?

>>13931

You made the point yourself. If child is unwanted then it's not good for the child and the parents. Abortion seems to be the lesser evil. Killing it before it is conscious is imho the right way.

>>13919

Because there's thousands of niglets and white trash born that otherwise would've been aborted but we can't because muh feels.

If you'd let go of your bleeding heart, you'd realize that in the end, you have to put up with unpleasantries to maintain a world of pleasantries. It's ironic that many people on the political right use this lefty ideology based on feelings rather than logic. Of course, not surprising. In the real world, to maintain peace and happiness, sometimes you have to be unpeaceful and unhappy to fight for those qualities.

Abortian is anti white

>>13955

why kill it before it's conscious and not according to some other criteria?

>>13919

>why are you guys pro-abortion

Keep in mind that atheists don't need to align in anything other than their lack of belief in deities.

I'm not pro-abortion, in the same way I'm not pro-killing bugs and microscopic deseases. I'm pro-abortion in the same way my endorsement of killing goes inversely proportional to the personhood and cognitive capacities of the living being being killed.

I'm against religion superstition arguing that killing a blob of cells with homo sapiens DNA must be punished because their dogma tells there's a magic soul given by god to every proto-human (and none else) at the moment of conception.

Religion crooks morality. The so-called "pro-life" retards dare call us death-cultists when all we are saying is that the life of a proto-human isn't obviously as valuable as the life of a fully developed human. They will go as far as letting both mother and fetus die rather than inducing abortion during a high-risk pregnancy. Absolutely outrageous! Damn religioustards only care about their mental disease spreading amok from baby factories to vulnerable children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKifAdn8HCQ

>>13963

look, we all were raised in religious cultures and bad philosophies. Many of us, even atheists and skeptics would like to see a bold line drawn between human and non-human. However, everything in our science tells us that we are not as special as we thought, and that the changes leading to humans both evolutionarily and embryonically are rather a gradual, continuous development.

I think the best way to asses the morality of induced abortion at any stage of pregnancy is to compare the victim's mental capacities to those of fully developed animals at the tips of the evolutionary tree and ask ourselves how comfortable we are killing animals of similar capacities, including feeling pain, consciousness, expression, etc.

Would you kill a bacteria? a starfish? a fish? a reptile? a rat? a monkey? There's simply no point after which killing becomes acceptable or unacceptable. Moral commands are not to be found in reality but in our minds.

>>13964

A newborn baby is less inteligent than many other animals, yet I think we both agree that a newborn baby is much more valuable than a pig or any other animal. That's why I think a fetus should have rights, because he is a member of our species, it is one of us.

I agree that abortion should be allowed in high-risk pregnancies and in cases of rape.

>>13965

So why conciousness in specific? Motor function ability or skill acquisition would produce similar results.

>>13966

Your argument is based on emotions not on facts. They don't have a working brain and they can't feel pain. At some point it's just a bunch of indistinguishable cells. You give the the human pass because they look a bit human. Abortion was illegal for a long time and it was bad for the parents. A lot of pointless forced marriages because they made one mistake. Illegal and often amateurishly made abortions often killed the mother and the baby. Or doctors could get in trouble for doing it.

You chose real suffering of real people over the non-suffering of a fetus.

Abortion is a pretty complicated topic, but the Christian idea of once the sperm hits the egg its equivalent to murdering a fully grown human is stupid and actually quite a recent development. To be fair their are radical feminist who would have it legal to abort a baby a week before its due but two opposing stupid ideas doesn't mean there isn't a good answer somewhere to be found. Like most secular minded people I think the moral choice is what promotes the well being of sentient beings. "Killing" off a fetus before it can even feel much is more moral than keeping alive only likely to live in poverty. It obviously gets more complicated than that but thats the thought process behind why most secular people are pro abortion.

>>13978

>To be fair their are radical feminist who would have it legal to abort a baby a week before its due

I think that's a valid position. If some country (maybe there is?) had a law like this then I wouldn't think less of them.

We have 7 billion people and why should we put another one in an orphanage or force the parents to raise it.

>>13974

>At some point it's just a bunch of indistinguishable cells

At what point exactly? Because it's hard for me to believe that there is some arbitrary line where a "bunch of cells" turn into a human being with full rights…

>>14058

I go beyond making a pre-natal distinction. I would rather have the legal option to kill a child within a few weeks of their birth too, by moving the a threshold where they are given legal rights (and an appropriate name) until after birth. Sometimes a child doesn't get enough oxygen when its born, etc, and the complications only become aparent after delivery. There is no need to for more Hotwheels.

>>14060

Agreed. Hotwheels himself did an AMA and mentioned that he believes in eugenics as some people like him he thinks don't need to exist. Maybe he's an atheist in disguise because I don't think many christians believe in that.

I'm a utilitarian. If someone's bleeding heart in the end drags humanity down by having a bunch of retards, mentally and physically unfit people in this world, we all suffer financially and emotionally. In the end, the world will be worse off because we thought we were doing the right thing. As the christards would say, "tough love", "road to hell, good intentions…", but of course they only believe that when it suits their agenda.

Sometimes peace is unpeaceful and freedom isn't free.

I jest. That's just an argument I like to use when I want to test people's views. In truth, I think having tolerance for people means a lot. The challenges in life are what make life. Learning to deal with challenging people and situations is what, to me, life is about and learning to deal with good enough. Life would be awful if we were all fascists who only tolerated perfection. In the end, as with all hyper-fascist societies, we'd turn on each other and society would crumble. Ultra-right societies never work, the same with ultra-left (tolerant). There's a balance in there somewhere and I'm kind of mixed on abortion.

Don't get one.

Follows from my being anti-procreation in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7a04MAX2Cg

>>13966

>I think we both agree that a newborn baby is much more valuable than a pig or any other animal.

I don't agree at all. It's quite obvious to me that developed animals from many other species are more valuable than a newborn homo sapiens. Say pigs: I have no doubt that they can be more intelligent than a newborn and even might perform productive roles in our society. Also they can survive independently of us, we can use them as food and they aren't responsible for serious overpopulation problems as is the case with homo sapiens.

>because he is a member of our species, it is one of us.

Discriminating solely based on DNA similarities is fallacious and bigoted. We have names for this kind of arguments: racism and, in your case, speciesism.

As they grow up, what makes humans more important and valuable to me than members of the other known species on Earth is only tangentially related to genetics and phylogeny/taxonomy. If I were talking to a sentient computer or an alien with no genetic connections to life on Earth I couldn't care less. In fact, I've seen Christian bishops and preachers say that they'd be willing to go full second Spanish conquest to spread their bullshit to alien civilizations… the point being that membership to a species doesn't help you define what a right-deserving person is.

>I agree that abortion should be allowed in high-risk pregnancies

Yeah, high-risk pregnancies are a special hard case for anti-abortion people because it shows the real consequences of subscribing to such a backwards position; but I think the whole anti-abortion position is void of valid arguments across the board even if there aren't highly dramatic consequences. I argue that any form of restriction over induced human abortion is inconsistent with our behaviour towards other living beings, and is thus immoral. I argue that it's superstition, religion and conservatism the only driving force behind forbidding abortion; because everything we know about biology and medicine points to the opposite direction.

>in cases of rape.

I'm not particularly moved by rape to be honest. Assuming abortion already is illegal for the general case, a pregnant rape victim with no noticeable risk could still give birth and give the newborn to adoption, and the cost of the whole thing could be either absorbed by the State or even better, deferred to the convicted rapist(s) when he/they are caught. It would still be hard for women to have to be forced to complete the pregnancy for sex they didn't consent to, no doubt, and it would have lasting consequences to their bodies and lives. However, I have seen arguments along the lines of the moral damage caused by the unbearable carriage of the rapist's son; and I think those are childish bullshit. If the fetus were intrinsically valuable it would be morally bankrupt to blame it for what its father had done.

>>14301

"Backwards position" is a well poisoning term which refers to:

A: a position I don't like

B: an old position (its the current year, after all)

C: a position I really don't like

D: anti-progress™ wrongthink