Abortion: Even the non-religious should be against it

[anEvilAtheist]

Lets see your hourly wage x number of hours of work per year times the average age of a person that fits your profile… Is it really that simple…because that is how I would value you, IF we do not agree that human life has some intrinsic value for being seperated from dogs…

I honestly don’t care how much or how little you would value me. Nor do I care whether the universe itself values me (I don’t even know what that would mean or why I would want that). What I care about is that my friends and family value me very much, just as I value them. Life is precious, and I want to enjoy my short time on this earth in the company of those I love, exploring the wonders of our world and doing what I can to make it just a little bit better. I don’t care what value you place on my life any more than you would care what value I place on the Catholic Church.

And I don’t think value is restricted to humans. Dogs are incredibly intelligent, have an enormous capacity to love, can desire things, and can feel pain. I value them very highly and would want to protect them from harm. Of course humans have far greater capacities than dogs, but this doesn’t mean that dogs themselves are worthless.

I do…see above answer…

I read the whole thread and I didn’t see any good reasons. I assume you are referring this comment: “The zygote itself has the most important property of a human being and that is her unique DNA (and by that I mean her DNA does not match the DNA of either parent), identifying her as a unique human being and directing her development for the rest of her life.” I fail to see how either of those is morally significant in any way. The members of a species of plants have DNA identifying them as unique members of that species which direct development for the rest of their lives, yet we don’t attach moral significant to plants. The only difference appears to be that we have human DNA. But sperm cells contain human DNA, yet we don’t attach moral value to them.

All answered above… How much are you worth…??

I looked and am pretty sure they are not answered above (if I missed the answer please quote it). Before I can answer your question, I need to know to whom. If you mean the universe, then I don’t see the universe as some kind of anthropomorphic entity that would place a certain value on me. If you mean to those who know me, then I would say quite a bit. Of course if someone has evil desires and wants to increase suffering, he may value the pleasure of killing me more highly then he values my life. But that’s true regardless of whether the Christian God exists.

Unealistic example…lets use this example… a pregnant women and you in a burning building… I know who I would rescue…

Neither situation would be likely to happen in real life, but both are possible. I am sincerely interested in knowing who you would save. If you are to be morally consistent, it seems like you would have to choose to save the zygotes.

Your opinion… I think God would provide us a solution either her or somewhere else, maybe one of the kids that we did not abort would be the scientist?

The question posed here is whether the non-religious should be against abortion. If God exists, then he certainly could have set it up so those who get aborted are somehow unique (and I actually think it would contradict his omnibenevolence if they were not different since otherwise he must either deny them entry into heaven or let them in which raises the question of why God makes us suffer in this world if earthly suffering is not necessary in order to fully appreciate the next. Of course, then you’re accepting that all those who are aborted get aborted because that is what is best for them, but then abortion no longer seems so gravely immoral). If God does not exist, then there’s no reason to expect that those that are are aborted would be somehow different than those that are not. So this argument does hold for non-believers, to whom this thread is directed.

Just as wrong as you are too assume that all people that have sex out of wed-lock have made a rational decision.

I never made that assumption. Lots have people have sex for very bad reasons. But I think that having sex out of wedlock can be a perfectly moral and rational decision for some people to make.

Kinda like a teenager that says Peer pressure is not a factor in their life. Then again maybe you are an Evil Atheist that not only doe not believe in God but is actually Evil and you chose would believe that it is ok to impregnant women and then kill the children. I do not know you, but the ethics and morals that you seem to agree with would allow for this? Maybe I misunderstand you?

No, I think it is gravely immoral to kill children. But I do not think it is immoral to kill zygotes that possess none of the attributes that make human life valuable. The desire to kill human children however is a very bad desire because such a desire makes the world a far worse place.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What if someone has enormous self-control but reasons that there is nothing wrong with have 20 children out of wedlock with different women?

I don’t think there’s something inherently wrong with that, but I think in the real world, such an action would generally cause a great deal of suffering. He is unlikely to be able to support all of them or take an active role in their lives.

Sex is not immoral if in the state of marriage. Often children of wealthy people do not understand the value of their inheritance until it is spent. Some don’t know the value of a family until they have destroyed it.

A family is very valuable and I strongly oppose someone cheating on their spouse. But again, this thread is intended as a secular argument against abortion, so you would need to appeal to non-religious arguments to make the case that sex outside of marriage is immoral.

Good for you. You have been given, and still possess, something of value that you may not yet appreciate, but if you keep it for your spouse you will understand just how much of a precious gift you have given, not only to them, but also for yourself. Then agian you can throw it away… Your call…

What is virginity? Is it something you can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell? Are there even any good arguments that it exists as anything other than an arbitrarily defined label applied to people who have not yet done a certain activity? I’m sorry, I simply do not believe that there is some magical or supernatural property that those who have not yet had sex possess which then disappears when they do, leaving them less valuable.

Well what is jumping on the moon like? Did it change you when you felt weightlessness for the first time? Well you comments are from that perspective. You do not yet know just how valuable your virginity is, and it IS, you can ONLY give it to one person. And you WILL be changed by that event, just how depends on the person you give it to…If the act is out of love you will grow in love, if it is out of something else then you will reap what you sow… This is NOT rocket science, but it is life. You will NEVER forget that moment, why not continue to treasure it for someone you intend on keeping for life?

I’m pretty sure that people who experienced weightlessness thought they were still the same people they were before. Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to who has had sex did not see it as something that changed them in any way (unless they had certain religious beliefs that said it did). Without any reason to think that virginity is something that exists in a meaningful way or has value, I see no reason that it should be saved. Someone could certainly argue that going to an amusement park is a life changing experience and you should save it to do with your wife, but without any reason to think this is true, this seems like a silly reason not to go to an amusement park. I am not saying that people should have sex with everyone, just that I see no reason that sex outside of marriage is necessarily wrong, or that virginity should be preserved for its own sake.

 

[Darkbloom]

In order to determine whether abortion is wrong, we first need to consider what makes human life valuable.

I find it terribly problematic that this question would be posed in the first place. By what standards are we to judge the value of human life? And even if we could decide on what standards to use, do we then have license to terminate a life we deem not to be valuable because it would be a burden to someone?

At base, any decision of what minimum threshold a life has to obtain to be valuable is arbitrary. To give one person the power to terminate the life of another because of something arbitrary is manifestly immoral.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist;6584173:

In order to determine whether abortion is wrong, we first need to consider what makes human life valuable.

I find it terribly problematic that this question would be posed in the first place. By what standards are we to judge the value of human life? And even if we could decide on what standards to use, do we then have license to terminate a life we deem not to be valuable because it would be a burden to someone?

At base, any decision of what minimum threshold a life has to obtain to be valuable is arbitrary. To give one person the power to terminate the life of another because of something arbitrary is manifestly immoral.

I listed some of the things that make human life valuable in an earlier post. I think all humans that can think, desire, and feel pain definitely have moral worth. It’s not a matter of being a burden; it’s a matter of reaching a stage of development at which the human has morally significant properties. A single cell human does not have any of the properties that make it our lives valuable and I see no reason to think we should value it more than an adult chimpanzee whose brain is similar to that of a toddler.

And yes, it can be hard to know where to draw the line, as it is for many moral questions. The Catholic Church teaches that “the virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess” (CCC 2290). Drinking half a beer in a night would clearly not be using alcohol to excess, but drinking 30 beers in a night clearly would be. Is there some clear point at which it goes from being perfectly fine to immoral? Is there some point at which ingesting even a single additional molecule of alcohol causes it to become immoral? Or is drinking a certain amount just a little bit wrong, while drinking a lot more is very wrong? But does this ambiguity mean that anyone who even takes a sip of alcohol is doing something very immoral?

 

[Puddin317]

I think all the pro-abortion folks out there should sit down and speak with a post-abortive woman, like myself, before they voice their opinions and “facts” about abortion. A priest once told me that because of the abortion I had I could be one of the most eloquent defenders of the unborn and holding a sign at a protest that reads “I regret my abortion” would turn more hearts and minds. Sadly, I’m not strong enough (yet) to do just that. I’m 23 years post-abortion and the wound is as deep and as raw as it was that day.

For all of you waging the war on the front lines at clinics, etc. Do not be afriad to approach the women entering the clinic. I was 17 at the time, being told by mother before she dropped me of that this was my only choice, so with my cash in my pocket I walked into the clinic a mother and walked out, still a mother, but with no baby. I wonder what I would have done if one of the protesters would have said a word to me. I could avert my eyes from their signs of protest, I could block out the sounds of those praying, but if someone would have said, “may I speak with you?” Perhaps I would have seen in their eyes another option for myself

 

[Lypher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
In order to determine whether abortion is wrong, we first need to consider what makes human life valuable. …

.

Lets see your hourly wage x number of hours of work per year times the average age of a person that fits your profile… Is it really that simple…because that is how I would value you, IF we do not agree that human life has some intrinsic value for being separated from dogs… .

I honestly don’t care how much or how little you would value me. Nor do I care whether the universe itself values me (I don’t even know what that would mean or why I would want that). What I care about is that my friends and family value me very much, just as I value them. Life is precious, and I want to enjoy my short time on this earth in the company of those I love, exploring the wonders of our world and doing what I can to make it just a little bit better. I don’t care what value you place on my life any more than you would care what value I place on the Catholic Church.

And I don’t think value is restricted to humans. Dogs are incredibly intelligent, have an enormous capacity to love, can desire things, and can feel pain. I value them very highly and would want to protect them from harm. Of course humans have far greater capacities than dogs, but this doesn’t mean that dogs themselves are worthless…

To me value in a world without some sense of beyond is based on the present. So value in such an ugly world is based on what other people perceive not you. If that were not the case then every child’s picture would be priceless not mater whom you asked. In our world which seems to follow this model value of life is therefore dependent on the circle which is viewing. Most, but not all parents would say such artwork is priceless, some would not care and actually throw the drawing away when the happy child presented it to a parent. The act would teach that child ethics and value of its time/effort.
A very popular politician or actor can create artwork or write a book and it may be very valuable. I believe this is valuable because that circle has determined that it holds some significance. Why? What makes it any more valuable then some other piece of work? Perhaps it is because the work is associated with the person? What about value after the person died? Could it be that it is based on what the person stood for?
I wonder if the image of the person, values, ethics, morals, character is what makes it of value? For lack of a better word I will use the term for this value, the image of the soul. Is that soul image what we look at? When I look at George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Adolph Hitler do I associate this with the soul image? Do you? My first post pointed to a soul. I do not believe that a dog has one. That is obviously a religious perspective, but you would agree since you must believe that humans are just a bag of flesh with no soul, and a dog could be no better.

 

[Lypher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
I see no good secular reasons to think that the mere possession of a particular type of DNA gives something enormous moral value.

.

I do…see above answer…

I read the whole thread and I didn’t see any good reasons. I assume you are referring this comment: “The zygote itself has the most important property of a human being and that is her unique DNA (and by that I mean her DNA does not match the DNA of either parent), identifying her as a unique human being and directing her development for the rest of her life.” I fail to see how either of those is morally significant in any way. The members of a species of plants have DNA identifying them as unique members of that species which direct development for the rest of their lives, yet we don’t attach moral significant to plants. The only difference appears to be that we have human DNA. But sperm cells contain human DNA, yet we don’t attach moral value to them.

I attach the moral value to a soul. Sperm do not have one, or eggs, but a zygote does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
I don’t believe a supernatural granting of moral value happens at conception and don’t see why we should see a single human cell with 46 chromosomes that could eventually become an adult human as far more valuable than two human cells with 23 chromosomes that could eventually become an adult human…

.

All answered above… How much are you worth…?? .

I looked and am pretty sure they are not answered above (if I missed the answer please quote it). Before I can answer your question, I need to know to whom. If you mean the universe, then I don’t see the universe as some kind of anthropomorphic entity that would place a certain value on me. If you mean to those who know me, then I would say quite a bit. Of course if someone has evil desires and wants to increase suffering, he may value the pleasure of killing me more highly then he values my life. But that’s true regardless of whether the Christian God exists.

Yes it was answered if you look at (…because that is how I would value you, IF we do not agree that human life has some intrinsic value for being separated from dogs)…. It points you to the fact that we must assume a very ugly position if we or I don’t hold humans to have some intrinsic value that animal do not possess. I believe that man does have something that animals do not have and it is present from conception. A soul….

 

[Lypher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
If the value of human life is found in a God-given soul which has inherent moral value, then it’s easy to see why abortion would be problematic (though not necessarily always wrong, as I think Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument does a good job of demonstrating). If however, value comes from our ability to think, reason, love, experience pain and joy, and interact with the world in a way that brings happiness to ourselves and those around us, then a human zygote does not yet have nearly as much value as you or me. If there was a fire in a building and I only had time to save either a child or a test tube with two zygotes in it, I would not hesitate to save the child…

.

Unealistic example…lets use this example… a pregnant women and you in a burning building… I know who I would rescue…

Neither situation would be likely to happen in real life, but both are possible. I am sincerely interested in knowing who you would save. If you are to be morally consistent, it seems like you would have to choose to save the zygotes.

The choice is how many souls would I save. If I had to choose between saving your life and a bank of frozen human embryos I would have a dilemma, but I would make a choice and I would be held accountable to God for that choice. What would that choice be? I honestly don’t know, but it is similar when you ask a soldier would you be a hero? You just don’t know until you are put in that position. The above being said it is a moral issue and you might ask why? Everyone must make a hard choice. Those embryos hold some value different then chicken eggs. Why what makes them different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
I’m sure that there have been many geniuses who were never born because their parents got an abortion. I’m sure that there have been many serial murderers who were never born because their parents got an abortion. I’m sure there were even more potential geniuses and murderers who were never born because their parents had sex a minute too early or a minute too late, or decided not to have more children. I don’t think we have a moral obligation to create as many humans as physically possible, and I actually think such an attitude would have very negative consequences…

.

Your opinion… I think God would provide us a solution either her or somewhere else, maybe one of the kids that we did not abort would be the scientist? .

The question posed here is whether the non-religious should be against abortion. If God exists, then he certainly could have set it up so those who get aborted are somehow unique (and I actually think it would contradict his omnibenevolence if they were not different since otherwise he must either deny them entry into heaven or let them in which raises the question of why God makes us suffer in this world if earthly suffering is not necessary in order to fully appreciate the next. Of course, then you’re accepting that all those who are aborted get aborted because that is what is best for them, but then abortion no longer seems so gravely immoral). If God does not exist, then there’s no reason to expect that those that are are aborted would be somehow different than those that are not. So this argument does hold for non-believers, to whom this thread is directed.

You are assuming that everything is predestined by God which I do not believe. God may know what the outcome is going to be, but I believe that he allows us free will. Which is why we are accountable for our choices.

 

[MerryCatholic]

Abortion, to me, is one of the most disgusting, evil things that is done in this world. I will never, ever, ever be “alright” with abortion in the sense that I won’t actively oppose it. There will be people that say, “Oh, don’t you push your religion on me!”

As if there weren’t secular reasons for opposing abortion.

In 1998, I had a little baby brother who was born a few months premature (my mother is very, very against abortion, she hates abortion.) and, although he passed away during a surgery sadly about 3 weeks after he was born (The doctors did all they could, it was an unavoidable accident. I hold nothing against the doctors, they were heartbroken), he taught me so much. I was only about 7 years old, and yet I felt like I gained much maturity from my little brother.

Once I learned what abortion truly was, I thought back to my little brother and how, while it wouldn’t seem like a little baby could change so much, he gave so much to the world. I remember reading about how the doctors who had tried their best went on to find new ways to help premature babies, and I can’t help but feel like my little brother had something to do with that. I thought to how my family was taught so much by him, how he taught the world more than I will ever know.

He taught me the value of life, no matter how long or how short it lasts.

So, I immediately came to the opinion that abortion was a profound evil, a most horrible crime that has costed society so many lives that we will never know the magnitude of the great things these lives that were cut down could have done. People say, “Oh, well, a lot of them might have been born into poverty, and would have fallen into crime.”

I spit upon such an argument. People seem to forget the great difference one person can make. We might have lost someone that would have become a leader in their community, who might have helped fight crime and bring people out of poverty. A lot of people’s ancestors lived in poverty. Maybe they should have just had abortions right?

Of course not! They realized that while they may be poor, they can try to help their kids learn skills they can’t, and thus that way, their children can have a chance at a better life! That’s what our ancestors did! They worked and toiled, they had kids and were loving to them.

Even more despicable is the argument that “A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body!”

Her body? HER BODY?! She is not affecting her body, she is affecting a completely separate human being! The fetus is not “her body” but it’s its own body. Where did this most blind argument come from? Who was so illogical to come up with this premise?

If a fetus is a part of the mother’s body, then why isn’t a newborn? Why isn’t a child?

And don’t say, “Well, the newborn isn’t dependent upon the mother.” You deserve a light slap for that falsehood. Of course newborns are dependent upon their mothers! Of course children are dependent upon their mothers! I have yet to hear of a newborn, that, upon birth, said to his/her mom, “Thanks, Mom, well, I’m off to explore the world, good luck to you!” But does that mean that a newborn or a child is a part of the mother’s body? Of course not.

The location of the person relative to the mother does not matter: The fetus is no less an individual than a child is. The fetus is a whole different person from the mother. That’s why the argument “It’s a women’s right to do what she wants with her body,” is so full of it. Logic disagrees completely, not because a woman doesn’t have a right to do what she wants with her body, but because abortion kills a completely unique individual. It does not kill the mother (Usually. I’m sure there have been abortions that have killed the mother, which shows even more why it’s a horrible practice)

I seriously wonder when the concept that a fetus and the mother are the same person was thought up. Were the people who came up with that on something?

People say, “Oh, but what about overpopulation?!”

Okay, what about overpopulation? Is abortion the only answer to that? Is birth control the only answer to that?

What ever happened to, you know, not having sex? You know, keeping your pants zipped up, protecting your virginity, practicing abstinence?

y.

Let me tell you my story. its short. i sinned and had a child out of wedlock as a teenager. that being said, i kept my child. when i was 6 months pregnant, a woman said to me (she knew our family) “how ironic! why don’t you have an abortion!” and i said to her, no! iam keeping my baby! well she had nothing to say to that! and 27 years later if you were to ask my daughter who is happy, healthy, and a wonderful woman as well if she wanted to be aborted what do you think her answer would be? NO. abortion is evil. the children inside the mother’s womb cannot speak for themselves. so we can do it for them. and i did it for my daughter. i was raised Catholic, but at that point in my life, i was a non practicing Catholic, but i still knew abortion was evil. thus i refused to have the abortion. guess what? that lady is a devout Catholic now. isn’t that interesting?

 

[Lypher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
You are wrong to assume that people who have sex outside of marriage do so because they cannot control their urges. .

.

Just as wrong as you are too assume that all people that have sex out of wed-lock have made a rational decision. Kinda like a teenager that says Peer pressure is not a factor in their life. Then again maybe you are an Evil Atheist that not only doe not believe in God but is actually Evil and you chose would believe that it is ok to impregnate women and then kill the children. I do not know you, but the ethics and morals that you seem to agree with would allow for this? Maybe I misunderstand you? .

I never made that assumption. Lots have people have sex for very bad reasons. But I think that having sex out of wedlock can be a perfectly moral and rational decision for some people to make.

No, I think it is gravely immoral to kill children. But I do not think it is immoral to kill zygotes that possess none of the attributes that make human life valuable. The desire to kill human children however is a very bad desire because such a desire makes the world a far worse place.
Your post above (You are wrong to assume that people who have sex outside of marriage do so because they cannot control their urges. .) Logically points to the assertion that people that do have sex outside of marriage can control their urges otherwise why did you make this claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
What if someone has enormous self-control but reasons that there is nothing wrong about having sex? .

.

What if someone has enormous self-control but reasons that there is nothing wrong with have 20 children out of wedlock with different women? .

I don’t think there’s something inherently wrong with that, but I think in the real world, such an action would generally cause a great deal of suffering. He is unlikely to be able to support all of them or take an active role in their lives. .

I guess you value his pursuit of pleasure more important then the children’s needs, which is why you see no wrong? So Bill Gates, since he has so much money, should be able to Have as many women and children as he wants. You see no intrinsically wrong behavior? Do you thing that those children would learn this behavior and repeat it even though they may not have his resources?

 

[Lypher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
I don’t think sex is immoral and don’t see virginity as some kind of valuable state that should be protected…

.

Sex is not immoral if in the state of marriage. Often children of wealthy people do not understand the value of their inheritance until it is spent. Some don’t know the value of a family until they have destroyed it. .

A family is very valuable and I strongly oppose someone cheating on their spouse. But again, this thread is intended as a secular argument against abortion, so you would need to appeal to non-religious arguments to make the case that sex outside of marriage is immoral. .

You might be correct that I would need to make that argument if I was on Atheist Answers, but I am on Catholic Answers and therefore I can argue from a religious perspective. But again if I chose to argue I would again head down the value of a life tunnel. A human either is or is not more valuable then a dog. If I agree with you suppositions then I would save my dog before I saved you from a fire because my dog would be far more valuable to me with your comments about not caring what anybody outside of your own circle cares about you. In your system of values my dog would be in my circle of “friends” because he likes me and gives me pleasure, but you would be outside of it.
I disagree with your world view, I would save you and not my own dog. Why I don’t know you, but I value your Soul, not your flesh. I value your life not your death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
I happen to be a virgin, but if I choose to have sex with someone I care about, that will not make me any more or less valuable.

.

Good for you. You have been given, and still possess, something of value that you may not yet appreciate, but if you keep it for your spouse you will understand just how much of a precious gift you have given, not only to them, but also for yourself. Then agian you can throw it away… Your call… .

What is virginity? Is it something you can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell? Are there even any good arguments that it exists as anything other than an arbitrarily defined label applied to people who have not yet done a certain activity? I’m sorry, I simply do not believe that there is some magical or supernatural property that those who have not yet had sex possess which then disappears when they do, leaving them less valuable.

What is honesty? Integrity? Would your worldview of a friend change after they lie, and steal from you? If so why? If not you are a far better person then I. Virginity is both physical and mental. I personally do not give two hoots about the hymen. It is the spiritual bonding and giving aspect of the sexual act that can be done only one time that I personally ascribe with priceless value.

 

[Lypher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anEvilAtheist
I would not be losing anything of value and would be the same person after as I was before with all the same virtues and flaws.**

.

Lypher:
Well what is jumping on the moon like? Did it change you when you felt weightlessness for the first time? Well you comments are from that perspective. You do not yet know just how valuable your virginity is, and it IS, you can ONLY give it to one person. And you WILL be changed by that event, just how depends on the person you give it to…If the act is out of love you will grow in love, if it is out of something else then you will reap what you sow… This is NOT rocket science, but it is life. You will NEVER forget that moment, why not continue to treasure it for someone you intend on keeping for life? .

I’m pretty sure that people who experienced weightlessness thought they were still the same people they were before. Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to who has had sex did not see it as something that changed them in any way (unless they had certain religious beliefs that said it did). Without any reason to think that virginity is something that exists in a meaningful way or has value, I see no reason that it should be saved. Someone could certainly argue that going to an amusement park is a life changing experience and you should save it to do with your wife, but without any reason to think this is true, this seems like a silly reason not to go to an amusement park. I am not saying that people should have sex with everyone, just that I see no reason that sex outside of marriage is necessarily wrong, or that virginity should be preserved for its own sake.

Well I would say that your view could be used to argue for Heroin use, at least once. Why you will not get addicted for just one use, it would be extremely pleasurable. I do not believe that most people would agree with this logic, although in these modern times many would live for the moment. As I age I have found this to be the case. One thing I know for sure is that once you lose your virginity you cannot get it back. The interesting thing is that young people will not listen to you about your experience, unless it conforms to their desires. You have access to many people that are happily married. Why not ask them what they would do if they could have had a do over. Then look at all the broken marriages and unions and find out what the values were in those relationships and see if you find a common thread. This is a big decision far bigger then buying a car, or house and in my humble opinion you should look into it a little more before you just throw it away. I will say most of humanity places a monetary value on everything. Many non religious people will tell you that those things of value the markets will define. With that NON religious perspective is virginity valuable… And it is in fact extremely valuable. Men all over the world will pay a LOT of money for it. The question you should ask is WHY?

 

[st_lucy]

I find it terribly problematic that this question would be posed in the first place. By what standards are we to judge the value of human life? And even if we could decide on what standards to use, do we then have license to terminate a life we deem not to be valuable because it would be a burden to someone?

At base, any decision of what minimum threshold a life has to obtain to be valuable is arbitrary. To give one person the power to terminate the life of another because of something arbitrary is manifestly immoral.

I too find this statement very unnerving. Who decides a life is not valuable? The government? The Doctors? Greedy children?

At how do we define valuable life? Is it those who make money? Those who have lots of friends? Those who are able to move around freely - ie without assistance, wheelchair, etc.

Is value determined by age. Children from birth to about the age of 14 cannot contribute to the work force. Adults from about 70 to death also cannot contribute much to the work force. Or how about mental ability?

There are just way too many factors that make one stop and think that this is just a ridiculous statement.

I just finished reading Neal Shusterman’s book Unwind. Which gives an eerie look at when we decide how and when to deal with those are considered un valuable.

Being pro-life is not just about religion it is about being a compassionate human being. We cannot exterminate our fellow humans because we see them as being invaluable to the rest of us. Because when we do that there is just not an end to where we can stop. It is rather simple when we look at in this light.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I think all the pro-abortion folks out there should sit down and speak with a post-abortive woman, like myself, before they voice their opinions and “facts” about abortion. A priest once told me that because of the abortion I had I could be one of the most eloquent defenders of the unborn and holding a sign at a protest that reads “I regret my abortion” would turn more hearts and minds. Sadly, I’m not strong enough (yet) to do just that. I’m 23 years post-abortion and the wound is as deep and as raw as it was that day.

I am actually going to be talking to Angie Jackson tomorrow, the woman who live tweeted her abortion. Let me know if there are any questions you think I should ask her.

I really am sorry for the pain you feel. I’m not advocating that everyone get abortions and I think people should consider the potential emotional impact before getting the procedure. I see how for someone who believes that having an abortion is like killing a child, an abortion could cause emotional wounds that would take a long time to heal.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

To me value in a world without some sense of beyond is based on the present. So value in such an ugly world is based on what other people perceive not you. If that were not the case then every child’s picture would be priceless not mater whom you asked. In our world which seems to follow this model value of life is therefore dependent on the circle which is viewing. Most, but not all parents would say such artwork is priceless, some would not care and actually throw the drawing away when the happy child presented it to a parent. The act would teach that child ethics and value of its time/effort.
A very popular politician or actor can create artwork or write a book and it may be very valuable. I believe this is valuable because that circle has determined that it holds some significance. Why? What makes it any more valuable then some other piece of work? Perhaps it is because the work is associated with the person? What about value after the person died? Could it be that it is based on what the person stood for?

The work may still be prized and appreciated by future generations. But if there are no longer any humans, and all you have is a universe with a book, I don’t think it makes any sense to say the book has value. Now if there was a universe with just a single human, we as human observers would probably value that universe more highly than an empty one, as would that human. Of course living in such a universe would be far inferior to living in ours, as it is our interactions with other people that make life so precious.

I wonder if the image of the person, values, ethics, morals, character is what makes it of value? For lack of a better word I will use the term for this value, the image of the soul. Is that soul image what we look at? When I look at George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Adolph Hitler do I associate this with the soul image? Do you? My first post pointed to a soul. I do not believe that a dog has one. That is obviously a religious perspective, but you would agree since you must believe that humans are just a bag of flesh with no soul, and a dog could be no better.

I do not think that humans have a supernatural component to their existence. Implicit in the last sentence is the assumption that the only thing that could potentially have any value is something supernatural. I see absolutely no reason to think this assumption is true.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I attach the moral value to a soul. Sperm do not have one, or eggs, but a zygote does.

And I disagree. But in order to make an argument that the non-religious should be against abortion, it’s a little silly to appeal to the notion of a God-given soul.

Yes it was answered if you look at (…because that is how I would value you, IF we do not agree that human life has some intrinsic value for being separated from dogs)…. It points you to the fact that we must assume a very ugly position if we or I don’t hold humans to have some intrinsic value that animal do not possess. I believe that man does have something that animals do not have and it is present from conception. A soul….

But you haven’t actually given any argument that we must assume such a position. You’ve just said that you wouldn’t value things without God, but that no more proves that they would be valueless than an atheist thinking the Catholic Church is valueless makes it so. But even if you’re right, this is simply an argument from consequences (a logical fallacy). You are saying, I would much rather the world be a certain way, therefore it must be that way. I’m sorry, but the world is under no obligation to conform to your desires. Someone may see their life as valueless unless they get some job they really want, or this girl they desire agrees to date them, but that doesn’t mean that those things must actually happen.

So I still see no good secular reasons to think that the mere possession of a particular type of DNA gives something enormous moral value. If you can think of any reasons why this is wrong, let me know.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The choice is how many souls would I save. If I had to choose between saving your life and a bank of frozen human embryos I would have a dilemma, but I would make a choice and I would be held accountable to God for that choice. What would that choice be? I honestly don’t know, but it is similar when you ask a soldier would you be a hero? You just don’t know until you are put in that position. The above being said it is a moral issue and you might ask why? Everyone must make a hard choice. Those embryos hold some value different then chicken eggs. Why what makes them different?

Fair enough, I understand why that would be a hard decision for you to have to make. Would you be a hero and save as much life as possible, or would you succumb to the child’s screams and save her instead? While I think most people would find it morally reprehensible to let the girl burn, I think your position entails that you should save the zygotes (even if you did not have the courage to do so).

And no, I do not think that a single human cell has much moral value.

You are assuming that everything is predestined by God which I do not believe. God may know what the outcome is going to be, but I believe that he allows us free will. Which is why we are accountable for our choices.

I am not. I know that Catholics reject double predestination, but they are required to accept single predestination. I am only assuming single predestination.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Let me tell you my story. its short. i sinned and had a child out of wedlock as a teenager. that being said, i kept my child. when i was 6 months pregnant, a woman said to me (she knew our family) “how ironic! why don’t you have an abortion!” and i said to her, no! iam keeping my baby! well she had nothing to say to that! and 27 years later if you were to ask my daughter who is happy, healthy, and a wonderful woman as well if she wanted to be aborted what do you think her answer would be? NO. abortion is evil. the children inside the mother’s womb cannot speak for themselves. so we can do it for them. and i did it for my daughter. i was raised Catholic, but at that point in my life, i was a non practicing Catholic, but i still knew abortion was evil. thus i refused to have the abortion. guess what? that lady is a devout Catholic now. isn’t that interesting?

That’s great. Congratulations on raising a wonderful daughter. You made a brave choice and I’m glad it worked out so well.

Unless someone is depressed, of course they’re going to appreciate that they had the opportunity to be born. Out of the almost infinitely many people that could have been born, they were incredibly lucky. But a parent taking an action that causes one specific person not to be born isn’t necessarily evil. If parents decide to wait another month before conceiving their next child, a potential child is lost, never to grace the earth with his presence. If parents decide to wait even one minute longer before having sex, a different sperm cell may win out, and the child that would have been born will never have the opportunity to live. But such actions are not evil.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Your post above (You are wrong to assume that people who have sex outside of marriage do so because they cannot control their urges. .) Logically points to the assertion that people that do have sex outside of marriage can control their urges otherwise why did you make this claim?

I was responding to this quote:

What ever happened to, you know, not having sex? You know, keeping your pants zipped up, protecting your virginity, practicing abstinence?

What’s that? People have sexual urges? They don’t want to bother fighting them? Oh, how unfortunate, I guess their right to sexual pleasure is more important than a human being’s right to life. I feel so bad for those people.

The fact that people are that weak, are that pathetic, that they can’t even show some self-control and remain unlatched from another person’s crotch, is simply just sad. It’s called growing up, being mature, having some responsibility. You know, putting others ahead of yourself?

Why is it a good thing for people to be completely controlled by their urges and impulses? Isn’t it bad to just do whatever you feel like you wanna do? Isn’t that really having less freedom than being in control of your urges and impulses? People act like self-control is some sort of limitation, when really, it is an indication that one has great willpower and is able to act based on reason.

I was not arguing that there has never existed a single human being who has succumbed to his sexual urges even though there were good rational reasons not to. My point was that the author was assuming that we should fight our sexual urges in order to protect our virginity. Many people have good rational reasons for wanting to engage in sex outside of marriage, and for them it is not a matter of lacking self-control.

I guess you value his pursuit of pleasure more important then the children’s needs, which is why you see no wrong? So Bill Gates, since he has so much money, should be able to Have as many women and children as he wants. You see no intrinsically wrong behavior? Do you thing that those children would learn this behavior and repeat it even though they may not have his resources?

You are setting up a straw man. I argued that the children’s needs are very important: “such an action would generally cause a great deal of suffering. He is unlikely to be able to support all of them or take an active role in their lives.”

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You might be correct that I would need to make that argument if I was on Atheist Answers, but I am on Catholic Answers and therefore I can argue from a religious perspective.

You certainly can, but if you need to use religious arguments then you are conceding the very thing that is being debated: whether even the non-religious should be against abortion.

But again if I chose to argue I would again head down the value of a life tunnel. A human either is or is not more valuable then a dog. If I agree with you suppositions then I would save my dog before I saved you from a fire because my dog would be far more valuable to me with your comments about not caring what anybody outside of your own circle cares about you. In your system of values my dog would be in my circle of “friends” because he likes me and gives me pleasure, but you would be outside of it.
I disagree with your world view, I would save you and not my own dog. Why I don’t know you, but I value your Soul, not your flesh. I value your life not your death.

I have addressed this in previous comments, so I’ll wait to see how you respond to those.
Lypher;6585770:

What is honesty? Integrity? Would your worldview of a friend change after they lie, and steal from you? If so why? If not you are a far better person then I. Virginity is both physical and mental. I personally do not give two hoots about the hymen. It is the spiritual bonding and giving aspect of the sexual act that can be done only one time that I personally ascribe with priceless value.

Yes, if someone caused real harm to me, my view of them would change. I disagree with you that I would be a better person if it didn’t. I do not bare grudges, but it would be idiotic if I was just as likely to lend money to someone after he lied and stole from me as I was before. Why should I care about stealing? Because it does real harm! Having sex does not if it is done safely and responsibly.