Any Good Atheistic Pro-Life Arguments?

[ponderingturtle]

That's exactly my argument. If you don't believe in afterlife or spirit then this is all there is, a craptastic life is better than none at all.

That's how I see it. A person has a shot and no one has the right to take it away from them.

I consider abortion murder. Plain and simple.

So is contraception manslaughter?

Why does a potential person only come into existance at conception? The sperm and egg already exist, so they are potential people just like after fertailization.

And this would also mean that any form of contraception that does not prevent fertailization would also be murder.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'll start by saying I'd prefer it if we, as human beings, did our best to not kill as many people as possible, though I'd never suggest it'd be alright to kidnap people or take their property for destroying a fetus.

That said, I do find it funny how debates and discussions about abortion never get to the root of the problem. Why are people taking large risks with their bodies by having sex with other people unprotected to the point that they're getting pregnant when they're not prepared for it?

Is that the root of the problem though? What about contraception failures?

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm going to take a different position from the standard choices: abortions should be mandatory for anyone under the age of 18. If you aren't considered old enough to vote, you aren't old enough to have a baby. Mandatory universal birth control below the age of 18 works for my purposes as well. No religious exceptions either; your imaginary friend has no legal standing in a rational world.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm going to take a different position from the standard choices: abortions should be mandatory for anyone under the age of 18. If you aren't considered old enough to vote, you aren't old enough to have a baby. Mandatory universal birth control below the age of 18 works for my purposes as well. No religious exceptions either; your imaginary friend has no legal standing in a rational world.

Leading to even more concealed teen pregnancies who have no antenatal care and maybe no medical attendance at the birth, more abandoned babies....

 

[JoeEllison]

Leading to even more concealed teen pregnancies who have no antenatal care and maybe no medical attendance at the birth, more abandoned babies....

Nah, we'll have universal healthcare in my hypothetical world, and chicks will get check-ups often enough to be unable to avoid pregnancy tests.

And, it will only be necessary for a year at most. After that, all the chicks will be on birth control as soon as they start menstruating.

 

[Mark Felt]

There is no sentience present, and certainly no sapience.

A decapitated ant will kick, it does not say any useful about how aware the ant is.

That wasn't the argument. The argument was that there is no software present in the brain of the baby(which is ridiculous considering there's brain activity from, if memory serves, roughly the sixth week in onward).

Of course they do. A fetus begins exhibiting such things in sixth of seventh month of gestation. But yes, I would say a 5-month fetus has no software yet.

There's the capacity for emotion quite some time before that according to wiki. Also the above answer.

I consider your opinion ignorant of biology and immoral.

A clump of cells does not have rights because, well, it's a miniscule clump of cells, and if you consider abortion to be murder then you are denying women the right to do what they will with their bodies.

At what point, exactly, and with what change, exactly, does a clump of cells that you are uncomfortable calling human become a clump of cells that you feel comfortable calling human, considering that you, yourself, are a clump of cells?

I deny women the right to murder me, and will oppose any such attempt with utterly lethal force, is that immoral? I'm denying them the right to do what they want with their body, after all.

So is contraception manslaughter?

Not unless you're also positing masturbation being murder, any woman who doesn't have pop out a kid every nine months from when she begins menstruation being a murderer and so on and so forth.

Why does a potential person only come into existance at conception? The sperm and egg already exist, so they are potential people just like after fertailization.

And this would also mean that any form of contraception that does not prevent fertailization would also be murder.

The sperm and the egg may already exist, but they are not joined; the person isn't set[the DNA has not been finalised]; there are infinity billion other sperm that any one sperm has to beat to the egg. There is no person, yet. There's not even a potential person, yet. Hence, there is no potential for manslaughter.

 

[Mark Felt]

And, it will only be necessary for a year at most. After that, all the chicks will be on birth control as soon as they start menstruating.

Hey, nothing could go wrong with messing around with the hormones of women in puberty, right? Right?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The problem is that once there is a child there is a third person who has rights that is forced to abide by an agreement that they where not a party to.

As far as I'm concerned there's no person there until viability at the very earliest.

If a woman wants to go ahead with a pregnancy without a partner to help support the child that's her decision, and one I wouldn't take away from her even if I could, but it's a decision she takes responsibility for.

In a world where carrying a pregnancy to term is optional, I don't see any reason why it should be mandatory for either partner to take responsibility for it pre-viability if they don't want to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As far as I'm concerned there's no person there until viability at the very earliest.

So you only become a person at 18 then is the other option.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That wasn't the argument. The argument was that there is no software present in the brain of the baby(which is ridiculous considering there's brain activity from, if memory serves, roughly the sixth week in onward).

Yes and it was a poor analogy that you are running with. Horray for you.

The position that there is a certain ammount of metal function that someone needs to have to be considered a person.

I deny women the right to murder me, and will oppose any such attempt with utterly lethal force, is that immoral? I'm denying them the right to do what they want with their body, after all.

I deny women the right to refuse me access to their blood if I need it as well.

Not unless you're also positing masturbation being murder, any woman who doesn't have pop out a kid every nine months from when she begins menstruation being a murderer and so on and so forth.

Why are those such remarkable positions if you are giving to small individual cells.

Why shouldn't those potential people get thier rights? You are arguing about the rights of potential people why do you stop there?

The sperm and the egg may already exist, but they are not joined; the person isn't set[the DNA has not been finalised]; there are infinity billion other sperm that any one sperm has to beat to the egg. There is no person, yet. There's not even a potential person, yet. Hence, there is no potential for manslaughter.

So many forms of birth control then are murder.

Why are you not accepting of that?

Why are you so focused on fertialization then?

 

[JoeEllison]

Hey, nothing could go wrong with messing around with the hormones of women in puberty, right? Right?

Offhand, I'd say that hundreds of millions of women have been on birth control... the risks are known, as are the rewards. Are you one of those anti-vaccine woos?

 

[martu]

At what point, exactly, and with what change, exactly, does a clump of cells that you are uncomfortable calling human become a clump of cells that you feel comfortable calling human, considering that you, yourself, are a clump of cells?

I think the clump of cells is human, I never said it wasn’t.

I deny women the right to murder me, and will oppose any such attempt with utterly lethal force, is that immoral? I'm denying them the right to do what they want with their body, after all.

It’s not equivalent as you’re not a parasite to the woman like an unborn child is.

I think the strawman discussion is elsewhere.

 

[Mark Felt]

Offhand, I'd say that hundreds of millions of women have been on birth control... the risks are known, as are the rewards. Are you one of those anti-vaccine woos?

Yes, hundreds of millions of women have been on birth control.

How many of those women were thirteen?

 

[Mark Felt]

I think the clump of cells is human, I never said it wasn’t.

What distinction is that you make, then? What's the dividing line between you and a fetus? Don't say that it's that you're not acting as a parasite unless you're also willing to say that abortion should be legal up until ten seconds before the birth.

It’s not equivalent as you’re not a parasite to the woman like an unborn child is.

But I AM denying women the right to do what they want with their bodies, am I not? That was your argument for why arguing against abortion is immoral. Should we legalise prostitution universally? To do otherwise is to tell women what to do with their bodies, right?

I think the strawman discussion is elsewhere.

I wasn't strawmaning, I was extrapolating from the argument you gave me. If I'd misrepresented your position, then yes, I'd have strawmaned.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What distinction is that you make, then? What's the dividing line between you and a fetus?

Again we are at the point that this is a logical falacy. Just because there is no clear break point does not mean that such a distinction can not be made.

You are failing to grasp that.

You talked about makeing sure someone had an adult brain to consent to sex. Well how do you measure that and even if you could is there really such a change in 24 hours that it is reasonable for it to be legal today but not yesterday.

 

[Mark Felt]

Yes and it was a poor analogy that you are running with. Horray for you.

The position that there is a certain ammount of metal function that someone needs to have to be considered a person.

How much, exactly, and why does brain activity not count towards this? If it doesn't, what does?

I deny women the right to refuse me access to their blood if I need it as well.

But you're denying them the right to do what they want with their bodies. Isn't that what makes any anti-abortion stance immoral(I paraphrase Mark6)?

Why are those such remarkable positions if you are giving to small individual cells.

Why shouldn't those potential people get thier rights? You are arguing about the rights of potential people why do you stop there?

There's not even a potential person before fertilisation.

So many forms of birth control then are murder.

Why are you not accepting of that?

Why are you so focused on fertialization then?

Because there can't be murder before there is a person, or even a potential person, and there is no potential person before fertilisation.

 

[Mark Felt]

Again we are at the point that this is a logical falacy. Just because there is no clear break point does not mean that such a distinction can not be made.

You are failing to grasp that.

So why don't you, I don't know, make the distinction?

You talked about makeing sure someone had an adult brain to consent to sex. Well how do you measure that and even if you could is there really such a change in 24 hours that it is reasonable for it to be legal today but not yesterday.

How would you measure that? I don't know, I'm not a neuroscientist. I do, however, know that the human brain finishes development into adulthood in the early twenties; I don't know how this was arrived at but I do know that if I really wanted to I could, in principle, do the research and follow the experiments and the etc, but I don't need to. It's enough to have the fact in context.

I've already said that it would be an average. It obviously wouldn't be perfect, but it's the best you can get without saying that you need to have your brain tested before you're allowed to have sex. It would be a law, and you need to have one law for all.

Why are you extrapolating what should be from what is?

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, hundreds of millions of women have been on birth control.

How many of those women were thirteen?

Enough that they give them out pretty much automatically?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How much, exactly, and why does brain activity not count towards this? If it doesn't, what does?



But you're denying them the right to do what they want with their bodies. Isn't that what makes any anti-abortion stance immoral(I paraphrase Mark6)?

Got it, don't try satire....

There's not even a potential person before fertilisation.

How can you say that? You have a vial with sperm and a vial with eggs, but you mix the two vials the the new vial has all kinds of rights?

Because there can't be murder before there is a person, or even a potential person, and there is no potential person before fertilisation.

Sure there can. It all depends on how you define porential person.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How would you measure that? I don't know, I'm not a neuroscientist. I do, however, know that the human brain finishes development into adulthood in the early twenties; I don't know how this was arrived at but I do know that if I really wanted to I could, in principle, do the research and follow the experiments and the etc, but I don't need to. It's enough to have the fact in context.

It is exactly the same logical falacy that people use to say that 10 year olds should be legaly able to consent to sex.

There is never a bright line distinction, and like you are doing here it can be claimed that the lack of any clear point when someone should be legaly able to consent to sex means that anyone should be able to consent to sex.