Any Good Atheistic Pro-Life Arguments?

[This is The End]

Ah, Mark6 just edged me out, with pith.

 

[Mark Felt]

The difference is memories, experiences, software. I do not believe in immortal soul, but I think that a brain with no patterns in it is just inert meat -- hardware. The person is software.

And a fetus doesn't have memories, experiences, software? These all just happen during birth?

Viability outside of the womb being the normal response. (Though I would wonder how large the gap is between viability in a current hospital setting and viability in a historic natural setting. Not to mention whether or not people are around to help, with no help it wouldn't really matter if it was a hospital or a cave...)

I'm not personally trying to move these (somewhat shaky) goalposts that are set from a viability standpoint, yet since some people seem to find the need for them to be moved back to conception, I pose the following.

I doubt the "software program" than the human brain "runs" to make us "human" (I'd rather not turn this into a memory/processing topic) is very developed at all until several months after the 3rd term/birth.

So, you're okay with killing the baby after birth but before this several months have passed?

 

[Smackety]

Most people have their first memory somewhere around age 5.

 

[Mark Felt]

Most people have their first memory somewhere around age 5.

Most people learn to speak some time before that.

 

[Delvo]

(why did my post go red and underlined?)

It probably had something to do with what a thoroughly insane and dishonest pile of mindless bigotry it was.

 

[Magtor]

I am pro choice - as in pro abortions.

I am pro choice - as in using your free speech to traumatize those who have abortions.


But what if we rephrase the thread starter's question to not only include potential-yet-to-be-born-humans, but humans in general, what "atheist" pro-life argument can one use then?

Where is the principal difference - according to an atheist?

 

[ponderingturtle]

And a fetus doesn't have memories, experiences, software? These all just happen during birth?

Generaly much much later. Remember how underdeveloped humans are at birth.

 

[ponderingturtle]

PT -- Any time you have the chance for live sperm to end up inside a fertile woman -- be it by fingertip, tongue, mechanical toy, or what-have-you--conception can occur. It's rare, certainly, but it can happen.

I wonder who got knocked up by a blow job... Well maybe if there are three or more people...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Most people learn to speak some time before that.

So?

You seem to be argueing that as there is a continoum of gaining capacity that there is no distinction. This same approach leaves you to understand that as one day will never really make a difference in if someone can consent to sex, you can not set an age of consent. Because there is always people a little younger who it makes no sense to exclude.

This is why most people are confortable with the bright line measure of viability in stead of some measure of cognitive ability.

 

[Mark Felt]

Generaly much much later. Remember how underdeveloped humans are at birth.

This, of course, explains why babies are able to kick in the womb, since there's no software present.

 

[Cactus Wren]

I disagree. Often it is the best possible choice which is why it should be available. I am pro-abortion because I believe people should have options even if I would never choose the option for myself.

That's called "pro-choice". I speak here as one who debated this topic on talk.abortion for years.

What does the prefix "pro-" mean? What do you mean when you say you're "pro-X"? Usually you mean that you think "X" is a good thing, good in and of itself, and that there should be more of it.

I don't know a single person who feels that way about abortion. Speaking only for myself, I'd love to see a world where contraception had become so easy to use, so failure-proof, so free of unwanted side effects, that no woman got pregnant who wasn't eager looking forward to giving birth, who wasn't physically, emotionally, and financially prepared to have and rear a child. I'd love to see a world where there was no abortion because there was no need for it.

But a lot of anti-abortion people do put forward the "pro-abortion" phrase, and I genuinely believe they're doing it to try and imply that pro-choicers want there to be more abortions. I've seen them go through all manner of verbal contortions just to try and get the terms "pro" and "abortion" together: I've been called a "PAR", short for "Pro-Abortion Rights"; I've been called "pro-abortion-choice", implying that I'm opposed to any other choice. (I've seen a document instructing anti-abortion activists on how to phrase their arguments. One section directed them never to use the phrase "pro-choice", and if they did have to use it, always to add the phrase "to kill".)

With respect, Sir (or woman who hasn't been there), bearing a child for 40 weeks and then giving birth to it is not just "emotional suffering". It's a life-changing physiological event. Put simply, it is in very slow motion having a chemically active bowling ball put into your abdomen.

Here is another graphic description of a part of what's involved in carrying a pregnancy to term. As a childfree person, I could have lived forever without learning exactly what a "cystocele" was.

"Safe, legal and rare" is the common phrase.

Or are they trying to remove the legal part?

I suspect that some would like to revise it to read "safe, legal, and as inconvenient and unpleasant as possible."

I find the male aspect of the whole abortion issue perhaps the most interesting and difficult, partly because I am a male, I guess...

It seems to me that a lot of people have contradictory opinions on this, and a male's obligations. Most pro-choice people argue that the male's opinion is irrelevant - it's the woman's body and her choice, and to a degree I agree with that position. However you seldom see them campaigning for a male's right to refuse child support payments for a child they never wanted. The argument then is "If you're going to have sex you have to accept the consequences".

That, to me, smacks of hypocrisy. It seems illogical that the woman is not required to "accept the consequences", but that if the woman chooses to, the man must accept them.

This is particularly of issue because more often than not it's the female that's in control of birth control. And yes, I've know of numerous cases of girls who intentionally interfered with their birth control without their partner's knowledge so they could get pregnant.

It's a sticky situation, because I can't see a solution either way. On the one hand, I'm pro choice, and that respects the woman's right to make the decision herself. Yet on the other hand there's a good argument that an absent parent should still provide something towards the child that they helped create.

Perhaps this could be a pro-life argument then? The law has set a precedent that a male does not have a choice in the matter. Therefore a female should not either, otherwise the law discriminates on grounds of gender.

What discrimination? When his body is involved, it's his choice. When hers is involve, it's hers. When a child comes into existence, at birth, both are responsible for that child.

And if the responsibility for a child automatically defaults to the woman, then so do the rights. You can't claim "Men as a group have equal rights to custody of children they father" and in the next breath claim "Men as a group have the right to disclaim all financial responsibility for children they father", or even "children they father out of wedlock".

(And I've got to tell you, if I thought I might be at risk for creating a pregnancy every time I had an orgasm, I'd be damned careful where and in whose company I had one.)

Most people have their first memory somewhere around age 5.

Oh? Cite for "most", please? Mine is from the summer I turned two.

I wonder who got knocked up by a blow job... Well maybe if there are three or more people...

On t.a I dealt with someone who argued that as long as the law required men to be financially responsible for children they father, he couldn't even masturbate in safety, since some woman might break into his home and steal his used tissue solely for the purpose of getting pregnant so she could demand his money. (My response was, "Have you any idea how paranoid you sound?")

 

[Mark Felt]

So?

Context.

You seem to be argueing that as there is a continoum of gaining capacity that there is no distinction.

Yes, I am arguing that there is no principle distinction that you can point to that says "This is what seperates me from an embryo", rather than just a series of gradual changes, each of which being without any individual importance.

This same approach leaves you to understand that as one day will never really make a difference in if someone can consent to sex, you can not set an age of consent. Because there is always people a little younger who it makes no sense to exclude.

Really? Because as far as I can reason the age of consent should be roughly equivilant to the average age when it's found that the brain has finished developing, but it's not.

Does anyone think tat AoC laws matter one whit to horny teenagers(I know they didn't to me.)? Have you even heard a sniff of a rumour of someone saying that they'd really like to have sex, but, dang, they're not legal yet? Why is this relevant?

This is why most people are confortable with the bright line measure of viability in stead of some measure of cognitive ability.

It's not a bright line. Some apparently viable babies aren't, some that aren't are, but this is beside the point. I am not arguing for outlawing the practice, because, among other things, I know how to pick my battles. I am pointing out apparent inconsistancies in reasoning.

 

[gumboot]

Abortions should be compulsory and retroactive.

 

[Piggy]

Not even your own?

Not even my own.

Sometimes least of all my own.

 

[Mark Felt]

What discrimination? When his body is involved, it's his choice. When hers is involve, it's hers. When a child comes into existence, at birth, both are responsible for that child.

The discrimination lies in the fact that while a women can get out of being responsible for a child through abortion, no such legal measure exists for the (potential) father. Do you disagree with this?

And if the responsibility for a child automatically defaults to the woman, then so do the rights. You can't claim "Men as a group have equal rights to custody of children they father" and in the next breath claim "Men as a group have the right to disclaim all financial responsibility for children they father", or even "children they father out of wedlock".

Sure I can. Said rights exist in a kind of quantam state until one is chosen, and then the rest disappear.

(And I've got to tell you, if I thought I might be at risk for creating a pregnancy every time I had an orgasm, I'd be damned careful where and in whose company I had one.)

On t.a I dealt with someone who argued that as long as the law required men to be financially responsible for children they father, he couldn't even masturbate in safety, since some woman might break into his home and steal his used tissue solely for the purpose of getting pregnant so she could demand his money. (My response was, "Have you any idea how paranoid you sound?")

I know, he should be throwing the tissue in the toilet and destroying the possibility.

You deny that it's a possibility, I take it?

 

[gumboot]

I've been witness to some seriously [rule10] up efforts by females to deceive their partners and essentially "steal" their sperm. I wouldn't put anything past em...

 

[Cactus Wren]

The discrimination lies in the fact that while a women can get out of being responsible for a child through abortion, no such legal measure exists for the (potential) father. Do you disagree with this?

As I said, when his body is involved, he can make the choice. When her body is involved, she can.

Sure I can. Said rights exist in a kind of quantam state until one is chosen, and then the rest disappear.

So choose. Do men have the right to avoid responsibility, or do they have the right to the children they father?

I know, he should be throwing the tissue in the toilet and destroying the possibility.

You deny that it's a possibility, I take it?

I deny that it's anything but preposterous paranoid fantasy. Sure, a woman could break in and steal his sperm. And the government could be tracking everywhere I go by photographing my license place from space.

 

[gumboot]

So choose. Do men have the right to avoid responsibility, or do they have the right to the children they father?

Both. These rights are not mutually exclusive.

An author of a book has the right to be identified as the author of the work, but simultaneously the right not to be identified as the author of the work. Which of these rights they actually exercise is up to them.

 

[Mark Felt]

As I said, when his body is involved, he can make the choice. When her body is involved, she can.

No-one's talking about forcing the mother to make a choice a certain way, they're talking about allowing the father to make a choice rather than have the terms of the whatever dictated to him by the mother.

So choose. Do men have the right to avoid responsibility, or do they have the right to the children they father?

Both. Didn't you read my post?

I deny that it's anything but preposterous paranoid fantasy. Sure, a woman could break in and steal his sperm. And the government could be tracking everywhere I go by photographing my license place from space.

So, because you think that it's a paranoid fantasy, you don't think that there should some way to fight it, legally? I personally think that it's a paranoid fantasy to assume that the police will come barging into my house, put CP on my computer and send me to jail, but does this mean that there should be no legal way for me to fight it, if it occurs?

 

[Mark6]

And a fetus doesn't have memories, experiences, software? These all just happen during birth?

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.