Any Good Atheistic Pro-Life Arguments?

[Mark Felt]

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

So you can't make a distinction?

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?

Considering that prior to combination there was 0% chance for pregnancy, yes, I feel that I'm on safe ground saying that there wasn't a potential person at that time.

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

So define it.

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.

The brain finishes development in the early twenties and that is the point that you should be considered an adult at == There is no bright line distinction.

Am I extrapolating correctly?

 

[Pardalis]

Nah. If being the end of a long, complicated, unlikely causal chain makes you morally important then everything in the universe is important including rocks.

If there's a reason human beings are morally special it's because of what's going on between our ears, because nothing else about us makes us any different to or better than a cow.

But couldn't it be argued that by denying this life the opportunity to live out that incredible chance of existing, it's an affront to life itself, regardless of cows and rocks?

 

[martu]

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.

Personhood and yes I think abortion should be legal right until 10 seconds before birth.

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?

In black and white world maybe but I prefer the reality based community. Here we are happy to judge rights while taking into account the particular circumstances of the question. I am happy to say I have the right to vote but my 3 year old daughter doesn’t for example.

Yes I think we should legalise prostitution quite why you’re bringing that up I don’t know.

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.

You mentioned humans, not me. But maybe I was hasty, withdrawn.

 

[Mark Felt]

Personhood and yes I think abortion should be legal right until 10 seconds before birth.

So you don't believe that if the kid is viable that the state should be able to force a cesearean over abortion?

In black and white world maybe but I prefer the reality based community. Here we are happy to judge rights while taking into account the particular circumstances of the question. I am happy to say I have the right to vote but my 3 year old daughter doesn’t for example.

Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't your three year old be able to vote?

Yes I think we should legalise prostitution quite why you’re bringing that up I don’t know.

I'm applying your reasoning to other situations to see if it's faulty, prostitution is one where this applies.

You mentioned humans, not me. But maybe I was hasty, withdrawn.

Substitute person for human, it's used fairly interchangeably within the thread.

 

[martu]

So you don't believe that if the kid is viable that the state should be able to force a cesearean over abortion?

Only if we can show the mother is not of sound mind. Very grey area I agree. I would hope that most mothers who would insist on an abortion when the baby was viable could be convinced to have a caesarean instead.

Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't your three year old be able to vote?

She isn’t developed enough or educated enough to understand what voting is.

I'm applying your reasoning to other situations to see if it's faulty, prostitution is one where this applies.

I think prostitution should be legalised, it’s none of my business what another person does with their body.

Substitute person for human, it's used fairly interchangeably within the thread.

OK. Until the child is surviving without the aid of the mother it’s none of my business. When the child us surviving without the mother’s aid it becomes an individual person with rights.

 

[Moochie]

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.

I don't understand how you figure that a "craptastic life" is "better than none at all." How do you make such a comparison?


M.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

"We are going to die, so therefore we are the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born."

I really don't know what to make of this statement. On its face it looks pretty loopy. Is there some specific context that the statement fits into? And are they Dawkins's words?


M.

 

[truethat]

I don't understand how you figure that a "craptastic life" is "better than none at all." How do you make such a comparison?


M.

Well mostly because a lot of the arguments people use for murdering babies is that they are going to grow up in poverty, have drug addicted parents, be abused, etc etc etc.

And since I and many people I know who suffered in our upbringing then left home and developed beautiful amazing lives, it strikes me that people have different standards of what is worth living for.

For example in my opinion a child born into starvation in Africa would be better off not being born at all. I feel that its too much of a burden on the child and is cruel.

But its not my choice to make that decision. I grant that the mothers might say its their choice because they know what they are bringing the child into however you never really know.

Look at Zaharah Jolie Pitt or David Richie you would never in a million years expect that they'd be adopted. You just don't know. The way the world unfolds is up in the air. You can pretty much think that a child will starve and die but many remarkable people in the world struggled through adversary.

So even a mercy killing could wind up not being the right thing to do. Like the ending of the film version of the Mist by Stephen King.

To me if you are that terrified of bringing a child into the world in which you live then don't have sex.

Also I do believe that its a killing of a human being. I know that murder is a different legal connotation. So its not murder but killing a person. Sometimes its justified but most times its not.

 

[Pardalis]

I really don't know what to make of this statement. On its face it looks pretty loopy. Is there some specific context that the statement fits into? And are they Dawkins's words?


M.

Yes, they are Dawkins', taken from Unweaving the Rainbow.

 

[Mark Felt]

Only if we can show the mother is not of sound mind. Very grey area I agree. I would hope that most mothers who would insist on an abortion when the baby was viable could be convinced to have a caesarean instead.

Okies.

She isn’t developed enough or educated enough to understand what voting is.

Do you support suffrage for the retarded?

I think prostitution should be legalised, it’s none of my business what another person does with their body.

Okay.

OK. Until the child is surviving without the aid of the mother it’s none of my business. When the child us surviving without the mother’s aid it becomes an individual person with rights.

Okay.

I don't understand how you figure that a "craptastic life" is "better than none at all." How do you make such a comparison?

Do you disagree? Would you prefer to never have been born, or to have lived a life in, say, some rule10hole in Africa? Keep in mind that said life is the only one you'll ever get.

I really don't know what to make of this statement. On its face it looks pretty loopy. Is there some specific context that the statement fits into? And are they Dawkins's words?

I recall something like this from The Selfish Gene, but I wouldn't trust my memory on that if I wasn't me. ETA: HA! I knew I was wrong!

 

[martu]

To me if you are that terrified of bringing a child into the world in which you live then don't have sex.

Do you know how important sex is to social animals like primates? Obviously not.

We can fix unwanted pregnancies thanks to science, we don’t have to go without one of our most important and enjoyable social actions.

 

[Moochie]

Well mostly because a lot of the arguments people use for murdering babies is that they are going to grow up in poverty, have drug addicted parents, be abused, etc etc etc.

And since I and many people I know who suffered in our upbringing then left home and developed beautiful amazing lives, it strikes me that people have different standards of what is worth living for.

For example in my opinion a child born into starvation in Africa would be better off not being born at all. I feel that its too much of a burden on the child and is cruel.

But its not my choice to make that decision. I grant that the mothers might say its their choice because they know what they are bringing the child into however you never really know.

Look at Zaharah Jolie Pitt or David Richie you would never in a million years expect that they'd be adopted. You just don't know. The way the world unfolds is up in the air. You can pretty much think that a child will starve and die but many remarkable people in the world struggled through adversary.

So even a mercy killing could wind up not being the right thing to do. Like the ending of the film version of the Mist by Stephen King.

To me if you are that terrified of bringing a child into the world in which you live then don't have sex.

Also I do believe that its a killing of a human being. I know that murder is a different legal connotation. So its not murder but killing a person. Sometimes its justified but most times its not.

All this aside, I just wondered how you arrived at "a craptastic life" is "better than none at all." I mean, how would you know?


M.

 

[Moochie]

Yes, they are Dawkins', taken from Unweaving the Rainbow.

Thanks. Guess I'll have to read the book to understand the statement. It just seems an odd statement for anyone, let alone Dawkins, to make.


M.

 

[martu]

Do you support suffrage for the retarded?

No.

 

[truethat]

All this aside, I just wondered how you arrived at "a craptastic life" is "better than none at all." I mean, how would you know?


M.

If you are going to make an argument that argues for the sake of wit, then you ought to have some wit to go along with it? Don't you think.

How do I know? Because the vast majority of people alive fight for life. If being killed was better I'd think people would be going for that right?

Even those who suffer, struggle to live. Starving Africans have not requested a gun and a bunch of bullets and gone around mercy killing their friends before turning the gun on themselves.

Jonestown anyone?

Are you not living in the world the rest of us exist in?

 

[truethat]

Do you know how important sex is to social animals like primates? Obviously not.

We can fix unwanted pregnancies thanks to science, we don’t have to go without one of our most important and enjoyable social actions.

Then you have a different moral and ethical standard. Good for you. Its a common standard.

 

[Mark Felt]

Do you know how important sex is to social animals like primates? Obviously not.

We can fix unwanted pregnancies thanks to science, we don’t have to go without one of our most important and enjoyable social actions.

Thanks to advances in science we have the ability to masturbate, engage in oral and anal sex, and enjoy the use of various sex toys. We don't need to engage in intercourse, we want to engage in intercourse. I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[martu]

Then you have a different moral and ethical standard. Good for you. Its a common standard.

Equality for women is not common enough and people like you aren’t helping.

 

[Moochie]

If you are going to make an argument that argues for the sake of wit, then you ought to have some wit to go along with it? Don't you think.

Pardon?

How do I know? Because the vast majority of people alive fight for life. If being killed was better I'd think people would be going for that right?

Perhaps. But you stated that a "craptastic life" was "better than none at all." I was asking you to explain how you would know this. The above helps a little -- you made that statement from the perspective of someone already alive and capable of making such a distinction, right?

Even those who suffer, struggle to live. Starving Africans have not requested a gun and a bunch of bullets and gone around mercy killing their friends before turning the gun on themselves.

I wouldn't know.

Jonestown anyone?

Pardon?

Are you not living in the world the rest of us exist in?

I sometimes have my doubts.


M.

 

[martu]

Thanks to advances in science we have the ability to masturbate, engage in oral and anal sex, and enjoy the use of various sex toys. We don't need to engage in intercourse, we want to engage in intercourse. I don't see how this is relevant.

I think people have been masturbating and so on for longer than science has been around but I take your point. And it is a good one, perhaps we could do everything but intercourse and have the same social benefits.

I still think we don’t have to go without, science can fix it.

I’d like to make it clear however one does not have to have intercourse to get pregnant, those sex games could result in a pregnancy though you’d have to be damned unfortunate.