Notice that if you ask "When does life begin?" you get a definition, not a fact. What does this mean for the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, one side defining life to begin at birth, the other at conception? Doesn't it mean that it's a problem without a solution?

Views: 2749

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I should have phrased it, "at what point should we consider the little bugger to have..."

What a ridiculous law.  Combined with the fact that abortion is recognized as a right, anyone who kills a fetus can be prosecuted for murder... unless it's done with the permission of the mother?  There is a glaring inconsistency here, and that of course is probably why they passed the law in the first place; to create the inconsistency and hopefully at some point in the future resolve it the way they wanted it resolved.

Once again, I point out that it's a matter of definition, not fact. By that I mean that while facts may determine how the law is applied, first comes a definition. And those who succeed in making their definition (opinion) law typically know full well what the result will be. So, if you want the state to be able to butt into a woman's medical decisions, all you have to do is define the unborn child as, if not a citizen, as at least a person subject to the protections of the state. But whether a fetus is a person is, as I'm always pointing out, not a factual matter but a one based on which definition one wishes to promote. Both sides of the debate want you to think they have the facts on their side, but actually the same facts could result in diametrically opposite conclusions depending upon the definitions embedded in the law.

***Moderator's Note***

Personal attacks are not acceptable, as established in the Think Atheists Guidelines.

Threads like this often get heated.  You may feel that someone is a troll/ idiot/ asshole (etc.), and you are entitled to your opinion (and you may even be right); however, we ask that you find a civil way to express your frustration or disdain.  Failing that, keep it to yourself: attack the argument and not the person making it.

I reiterate:
Personal attacks are not acceptable, as established in the Think Atheists Guidelines.

We reserve the right to remove personal insults from the forums at our discretion.  If you feel you have been attacked wrongfully and the moderators have not caught it, please contact one of the moderators found here and we will evaluate the case.  

Thank you for reading and please enjoy the remainder of your flight.

I think this has a two-part answer.

One, the legal view (my reply above) and the other is "The Trolley Dilemma"
When is it right to take a life?
But first you have to make up your mind when it is a life.

"The bodily rights argument"
... that the woman's right to abortion does not include the right to directly insist upon the death of the child, should the fetus happen to be viable, that is, capable of surviving outside the womb.

My personal view.
The fetus becomes a human/person when it's capable to survive "on it's own".

But the final word goes to the only gender that has a womb.

My personal view.
The fetus becomes a human/person when it's capable to survive "on it's own".

That's not a fact. It's the definition you like. You see, this is all about competing definitions, not about facts, except that once you determine which definition you choose, you can go fact shopping.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the factual definition of pain and suffering?

Yes, that's the definition in terms of its colloquial use, but how exactly do you measure or quantify sensation, suffering, and distress? 

Also, is all pain bad?...Rihanna sure doesn't seem to think so.

I think we need a proof that pain and suffering are bad. I was taught that they build character. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. What does kill you makes something else stronger. It's Nature's Plan.

There are many definitions of life. It can be argued that galaxies are alive; they spin around, interact with their surroundings, and split off to form new galaxies. For the same reason, it can be argued that the weather is alive. The question is which forms of life *should* not be killed. On that note, we all agree that ants (and other pests) are alive, yet we happily kill them.

So what makes some life worthwhile, and other life expendable? 

I say it's not a fundamental distinction but an arbitrary definition: we avoid killing humans in respect for an unspoken ethical code allowing humans to live in non-anarchy.

Personally I think that a mother's decision to abort her own fetus does not disrupt the non-anarchy. Evolution will keep the practice in check.

But then, can we allow a mother to kill her own infant? I say no, because it is significantly more difficult to discern which child belongs to which mother after birthgiving. Among other reasons, of course.

I suppose the reason that I feel so strongly about being pro-choice is because I do not consider myself a moral person. I consider myself an ethical person. I think morality is based in supernatural principles, in many cases, so I do not apply the label to myself. In my worldview,since I consider nothing to be "taboo" or whatever, people are welcome to do whatever they wish to do, as long as their actions do not affect the people around them. You want to sleep with people of your gender? Knock yourself out. You want to do drugs in the privacy of your home and not endanger other people? Have at it. You want to kill yourself? Don't make a mess. You want to have an abortion? That's your business. A woman wants to do the work of a man for the pay of a man? By all means, if she can handle it. She should get no special consideration, however.

By saying that you are pro-life, you are saying that you wish to take away a womans right to decide if she wants to have a child or not. And the argument can be made "If she doesn't want the baby, she should have it and put it up for adoption." But once again, we go back to the stretch marks, lifelong effects, health risks, etc. If a woman was taking birth control, had sex, and got pregnant, she should not be FORCED to carry this unwanted child, at her own risk. The end. Why do people wish to force their view on others? Why do you want to take away a womans right in the first place? What bloody affect does it have on you if some woman you have never met terminates her pregnancy? One of the reasons that many of us go beyond atheists to being anti-theists is because of religious people trying to force their values on us. They try to force their christian values through congress and make them the law of the land. That's bullshit. And I am very glad that only one or two people on this site have tried to take an anti-choice stance on this matter.

Sorry that was long. Just wanted to get that out of my system.

^LIKE :)

Double-like.  Love the distinction you made about ethics vs morals.  I feel like morals are these absolute judgements of actions with no context.  Maybe it's my professional experience, but I find ethical frameworks to be much more context and outcome-focused.


Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 0 Comments

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service