Hello there, I'm an atheist

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:20 am

Homer wrote:Apos,

You wrote:
You have now twice avoided my direct responses to you.
Seems to me we are both missing some things in the blizzard of responses. I am most interested in your responses regarding how atheists establish any system of morality at all. You apparently overlooked this question I posted to you:
When you speak of the mother's "bodily integrity" it sounds as though you believe the mother should have the right to kill the baby right up to the moment of birth. But wouldn't "their right to bodily integrity" be no different than their right to their "time"? After all our time is limited and a baby certainly requires a lot of it. So under your system please explain why the mother shouldn't be allowed to kill the baby the day after birth. Or a week later, when she realizes how much of her time the baby takes? Or whenever. Certainly a baby has no more value to society when it is a week old than it did a week before birth.
Go back to page 4. I answered you, then you came back calling pregnancy "small potatoes compared to some things men historically went though" Which is a total nonsequiter.

The short version of my response is that if the baby is viable, I believe it should be induced or delivered through a csection and then placed for adoption. If it is not viable it is dependent on the mother's continued allowance of the use of her body. Since we don't demand people make their bodies available to others at any other time to save a life I don't see how we can demand a woman remain pregnant if she does not wish to.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:23 am

@diz,

I no longer believe you are participating in good faith, and I'll be ignoring you. To go on a metaphysical lecture about the word, "matters" and then respond with dictionary quotes when I tease you about it, while completely ignoring the actual discussion is beyond the pale. I'm very disappointed in you.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by steve7150 » Sat Oct 17, 2015 9:47 am

Since we don't demand people make their bodies available to others at any other time to save a life I don't see how we can demand a woman remain pregnant if she does not wish to.










We are not demanding anything but we have a different authority we each look to. Yours is reason and logic which says that your body belongs to you therefore you decide what you want and you are justified in doing it. Christians use reason and logic too but the ultimate authority is Jesus who said the greatest love is laying down your life for your friend and an unborn baby certainly would rise to the level of friend.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by Homer » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:44 am

Apos,

You wrote:
The short version of my response is that if the baby is viable, I believe it should be induced or delivered through a csection and then placed for adoption.


You "believe", but that's just your opinion. I ask why? Why shouldn't the mother be allowed to kill the baby the next day after birth if she can have the baby's life taken the day or week before?
Since we don't demand people make their bodies available to others at any other time to save a life


You ignore the long history of forced military service.

dizerner

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by dizerner » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:35 pm

ApostateltsopA wrote:@diz,

I no longer believe you are participating in good faith, and I'll be ignoring you. To go on a metaphysical lecture about the word, "matters" and then respond with dictionary quotes when I tease you about it, while completely ignoring the actual discussion is beyond the pale. I'm very disappointed in you.
So instead of admitting you were wrong you claim you were "teasing" me. And "teasing" is somehow good faith argumentation, but calling you on word definitions isn't.Too good. Image

dizerner

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by dizerner » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:42 pm

You "believe", but that's just your opinion. I ask why? Why shouldn't the mother be allowed to kill the baby the next day after birth if she can have the baby's life taken the day or week before?
This is the argument that convinced me. I think they've rationalized some arguments just because the practice is less seen and not visible. If it were based on logic alone, there is no reason not to exterminate born babies as well.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by TheEditor » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:41 am

The "viability" and "use of body" arguments have never really interested nor impressed me. Anyone with children knows they aren't truly "viable" until about age 4. Maybe one could take an exceptionally bright child and find them nuking a box of mac and cheese at age 3. But they'd still need the box. If you leave an infant on the floor, it will soon be dead.

We use our "bodies" all of the time for various reasons. These terms are just ways of dodging the real issue--responsibility. Men need to own up to spreading their seed. A woman needs to own up to being pregnant. The cases of rape and incest are a distraction because anyone that reads the numbers knows the vast majority of abortions are had by married women. If we were of an avian variety, what of the abortion debate then? I am old enough to remember the "unviable tissue mass" arguments that swayed public opinion. Notice how that hasn't been used for decades now?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:38 pm

Homer wrote:Apos,

You wrote:
The short version of my response is that if the baby is viable, I believe it should be induced or delivered through a csection and then placed for adoption.


You "believe", but that's just your opinion. I ask why? Why shouldn't the mother be allowed to kill the baby the next day after birth if she can have the baby's life taken the day or week before?
Since we don't demand people make their bodies available to others at any other time to save a life


You ignore the long history of forced military service.
You don't seem to be understanding what I am writing. First of the long history of forced military service has nothing at all to do with abortion. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. Why do you feel it is relavant?

Second, a day or a week before term an unborn child would be viable. So you are misrepresenting what I wrote. Why do you feel the need to do so?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by Homer » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:02 pm

Apos,

Well I do not understand your position. My apology if I have misrepresented you. Are you saying you think it immoral to abort a viable baby?

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:34 pm

Homer,

With the understanding that we are using the same meaning of viable. Yes I think it is immoral. If the baby is ectopic, for instance, or has a serious birth defect then I would not call it viable. The decision of viability is one I would trust the mother to make with input from experts. My understanding is that the vast majority of abortions happen early when viability is not in question and that the few late term abortions generally result from late diagnosis of serious problems.

So to be clear I feel it is always the mother's decision to keep or remove the pregnancy but if a child can survive without being dependant on another person's body they should be cared for and placed for adoption.

I do not feel the biological mother should be on the hook financially for that care or have maternal rights to a child so surendered.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”