Atheist Abortion Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter HistoryTeacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HistoryTeacher

Guest
What do I say to an Atheist who says that life doesn’t begin until brain development/cognition in the 5th month and has plenty of documentation about fetal brain development and beginnings of ability to learn in the 3rd trimester. He draws a line somewhere around the 5th month and says before it is ok because science proves that it’s just a “shell”
 
mention that as an athiest he belives this is the only life one has, and so who are you/they/her to take away that one chance from anyone.

Ha snothing to do with brains, i just have thought that and it seemed applicable.
 
40.png
HistoryTeacher:
What do I say to an Atheist who says that life doesn’t begin until brain development/cognition in the 5th month and has plenty of documentation about fetal brain development and beginnings of ability to learn in the 3rd trimester. He draws a line somewhere around the 5th month and says before it is ok because science proves that it’s just a “shell”
Click to expand...
The scientific community is not in agreement about this issue. I have an argument against abortion that takes the issue of “choice” into consideration.

Here it is:

Many in our current culture argue that abortion is a moral choice, whether by those in support of abortion, who claim it is immoral to take choice away from the women, or those against abortion who claim it is immoral to kill an innocent person.

What is not dealt with enough (in my opinion) is knowledge. I believe we, on the prolife side, tend to argue in away that speaks past those we are trying to convince.

What I purpose is using the argument of choice against those who are pro-choice. How do we do this? Here is my method.

What is needed to make an adequate moral choice?

a. The ability to make the choice, i.e., it cannot be forced.

b. Having the adequate knowledge necessary to insure the choice being made is not immoral, i.e., knowing the status of the unborn.

c. The more sever the choice, the greater the need for knowledge.

d. If all three criteria are met, we can be certain an immoral decision has not been made.

Examples of why knowledge is needed to make an adequate choice. (Taken from peterkreeft.com)

Either the unborn are persons, or not; and either we know what it is, or not.
  1. that it is not a person and we know that,
  2. that it is a person and we know that,
  3. that it is a person but we do not know that, and
  4. that it is not a person and we do not know that.
What is abortion is each of the cases?

In case (1) abortion is perfectly permissible. We know it is not a person, therefore it is not immoral to abort it.

In case (2) abortion is murder. For killing an innocent person knowing it is an innocent person is murder.

In case (3) abortion is manslaughter, for it is killing an innocent person not knowing and intending the full, deliberate extent of murder.

In case (4) abortion is criminal negligence, for even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, the result is criminal negligence.

In all cases, expect when it is known with certainty that the unborn is not a person, abortion is an immoral choice.

Why?

The knowledge needed to make the choice a moral choice is non-existent. Remember, we not only need the ability to choose, but the knowledge necessary to make an adequate moral choice.

Our current situation:

Of the four cases just stated our current situation falls under either case three or four, and in both cases abortion is an immoral choice.

How?

Let’s use an example form the real world. Say you and a friend go hunting in the woods and you both split up. After an hour or so you spot a sudden movement in a bush. It could be a dear or it could be your friend. What do you do? If you shoot the bush and it is your friend you have just committed manslaughter. If it is not your friend and but dear, you still have committed an immoral choice because it could have been your friend. Your choice was not moral, just lucky!

Conclusion, abortion is only a moral choice if and only if we know that the unborn is not a person and it is not.

By fucusing on choice and what makes a choice moral we can show that the current pro-choice argument is not “pro” choice at all, but an immoral counterfeit.

Peace
 
I’d say, “friend, you and I then agree that late term abortions are in fact killing a human being. Will you now join me in supporting a ban on late term abortions?”

Incrementalism is how liberals gained so much ground. Thirty years ago if they told us what it would be like today we would never believe we’d have let them get by with all that. Let’s use incrementalism back at them; that way we can let enemy forces help up at least establish citizenship sometime before spontaneous vaginal birth or whatever it is now.

Alan
 
40.png
HistoryTeacher:
What do I say to an Atheist who says that life doesn’t begin until brain development/cognition in the 5th month and has plenty of documentation about fetal brain development and beginnings of ability to learn in the 3rd trimester. He draws a line somewhere around the 5th month and says before it is ok because science proves that it’s just a “shell”
Click to expand...
Life begins at conception. This isn’t a religious opinion. It is a scientific fact. An embryo at every stage of development is alive. If it isn’t alive, it isn’t developing. Therefore, the idea that an embryo isn’t live in month four but becomes alive in month five is patently absurd. It contradicts reason and the science of embryology.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Ask him this - if a person were in a coma, but the doctors knew the coma would last only five months, would it be OK to pull the plug?
 
Nice one Alan. Although I don’t think you could get the unborn citizenship unless there was a constituitional admendment. (Or I guess you could have the court say so pulling it out of no where like this court likes to do.) Well I guess on the other hand, it took awhile before this country allowed us the think American Indians could be persons before the court. Isn’t kind of odd how often, those without a voice are not given rights and are used however we please.

It would be good to bring them on board as much as one can though. Sometimes its good to focus on what you have in common than the differeances.
 
Vist www.omsoul.com for some of their info on fetal development and abortion.

Also, the book Pro-Life Answer to Pro-Choice Questions by Randy Alcorn is a very good book,
 
Therefore the mentally retarded should be fine to kill? I’d work on those lines, as well as coma stuff.
 
40.png
alyssa:
Therefore the mentally retarded should be fine to kill? I’d work on those lines, as well as coma stuff.
Click to expand...
Alyssa:

As the truth about Abortion becomes more obvious, the Arguments used to support Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion sound more relativistic (you’re a human being if I say you are, and NOT if I say you aren’t). The Supreme Court even used one of those in the latest ruling in support of Roe.

If you can find it, read The release of the destruction of the Life devoid of value Almost all of the “new” arguments you’ll run into are recycled ones from that 1919 book which caused Dr. Mengele to work for the Nazis instead of Dr. Schweitzer.

I warn you that the book is as persuasive as anything put out by Planned Parenthood, and at least twice as sickening once you realize what it justified. It’s also out of print, so you’ll have to do some real searching.

But, It’s very rare that I’ll hear a PRO-ABORT use an argument that wasn’t somewhere in that book.

Blessed are they who act to stop the slaughter of the Innocent, Michael
 
40.png
mlchance:
Life begins at conception. This isn’t a religious opinion. It is a scientific fact. An embryo at every stage of development is alive. If it isn’t alive, it isn’t developing. Therefore, the idea that an embryo isn’t live in month four but becomes alive in month five is patently absurd. It contradicts reason and the science of embryology.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Agreed!! A shell…that just happens to grow and develop with all the “chemicals” that define us humans in place from conception? The only thing it can’t do is live outside the womb and survive on its own, but neither can my 9 month old son, should we as a society be allowed to extermine him? It’s absurd!!
 
As an atheist myself, I give you my opinion because I am sympathetic towards your intentions. Life does begin at conception. (Although some will say that the sperm and eggs are “alive” in some sense too.) And therefore, everything else being equal, abortion is taking the life of a human being. Similar to a nation-state at war, we cannot deny that war takes lives of innocent (but also non-innocent) people. Therefore, the state has to provide an extremely legitimate reason for bringing its citizens into war. Likewise, any attempt to justify an abortion must undergo this same sort of extreme caution and scrutiny.

In third world countries, there are simply not enough resources and food to support their growing masses. Thus, abortion can be justified along those grounds. However, America is different. We really have no excuse for having abortions on population grounds. We simply have too much sex (unprotected sex I would add.) I don’t think atheists in general want more abortions. In fact, I think we seek to solve the underlying problems. (For example, it’s been shown that the state of the economy has a direct affect on how many abortions occur. I.e. there have been more abortions under W. Bush than under Clinton partly due to economic times.) Most atheists, however, do think that the pregnant mother should have priority over the unborn child if her life is danger.

The fact that an unborn human being’s brain is not as complex as yours or mine should scarcely matter. Would this atheist support the euthanasia of the mentally retarded? Development of “moral reasoning” is sometimes another excuse, but then you could say that criminals obviously have not developed morally, and thus, for the sake of consistency shouldn’t all criminals be executed regardless of the degree of crime?

I would just suggest exploring those avenues.
 
40.png
atheos_sum:
Likewise, any attempt to justify an abortion must undergo this same sort of extreme caution and scrutiny.
Click to expand...
All such justifications fail because it is never permissible to intentionally target an innocent for destruction.
40.png
atheos_sum:
In third world countries, there are simply not enough resources and food to support their growing masses. Thus, abortion can be justified along those grounds.

No, it can’t, because it is never permissible to intentionally target an innocent for destruction. Also, the reason itself is nonsense. There isn’t a single place in the world where the causes of widespread hunger and poverty aren’t the result of politics rather than population size.
40.png
atheos_sum:
(For example, it’s been shown that the state of the economy has a direct affect on how many abortions occur. I.e. there have been more abortions under W. Bush than under Clinton partly due to economic times.)

That study has been substantially refuted. Abortion rates continue to decline under President Bush.
40.png
atheos_sum:
Most atheists, however, do think that the pregnant mother should have priority over the unborn child if her life is danger.

Such instances are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
All such justifications fail because it is never permissible to intentionally target an innocent for destruction.

Then for the sake of consistency you must feel the same about war’s intentional destruction of innocents as well.
40.png
mlchance:
No, it can’t, because it is never permissible to intentionally target an innocent for destruction. Also, the reason itself is nonsense. There isn’t a single place in the world where the causes of widespread hunger and poverty aren’t the result of politics rather than population size.

to a large degree i think you are correct, and so does Amartya Sen. i would also argue it’s a double-edged blade, that is, population size also gives rise to political problems.

But what sort of politics causes widespread hunger? certainly you’re not saying that democracies never have instances of widespread hunger?

Nigeria is one example of a democracy, albeit a relatively new one, whose constitution was styled after ours. They simply don’t have enough food to sustain their population size. Any human beings brought into Nigeria have such a small chance of survival, and a painful survival at that. the growing masses only create more sustainability problems for the present & future, in which case, abortion can and should be rationalized for the human beings immediately being conceived. Sometimes it’s difficult to remain stodgy and non-consequential.

I don’t think the real problem is whether abortion is justified in Nigeria, insofar as we are not Nigeria, but whether it can or cannot be justified in our own country, well-to-do as we are.
40.png
mlchance:
That study has been substantially refuted. Abortion rates continue to decline under President Bush.

Ok then, i would like to see a link.

remember that population is steadily growing in our country, and that if the same exact number of abortions took place (in nominal terms) under Bush as they did under Clinton, it would actually mean that more abortions occurred under Clinton. So they would have to increase by some sort of “real rate” in order to count as a real increase. This clarification actually benefits your argument.
40.png
mlchance:
Such instances are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent.

Does this mean that you have conceded that it is justified for the very few this happens to?

My point was just to list some instances as to when i think an abortion ought to be permissible, which is very rare. my treatment of this application has been mainly on Millian grounds.
 
So in the case of Nigeria is abortion justified, but will randomly shooting every lets say tenth person also be justified if it meet the political projections of the amount of resources available to the public?
 
40.png
Jennifer123:
The only thing it can’t do is live outside the womb and survive on its own, but neither can my 9 month old son, should we as a society be allowed to extermine him? It’s absurd!!
Click to expand...
In a prophetic novel, American writer Philip K Dick posited a society in which children could be aborted up to the age of 7. Abortion trucks with ice cream music would cruise the neighbourhoods to make their services quick and convenient for parents who decide their post-partum children are non-viable. :eek:
 
40.png
HistoryTeacher:
What do I say to an Atheist who says that life doesn’t begin until brain development/cognition in the 5th month and has plenty of documentation about fetal brain development and beginnings of ability to learn in the 3rd trimester. He draws a line somewhere around the 5th month and says before it is ok because science proves that it’s just a “shell”
Click to expand...
Well, if you can’t convince him, maybe another athiest can. Introduce him to this web-site—

godlessprolifers.org/
 
Ani Ibi:
In a prophetic novel, American writer Philip K Dick posited a society in which children could be aborted up to the age of 7. Abortion trucks with ice cream music would cruise the neighbourhoods to make their services quick and convenient for parents who decide their post-partum children are non-viable. :eek:
Click to expand...
Gruesome, truly. Stuff of science fiction until you learn that a head of ethics at Princeton actively advocates the destruction of children up to one year old if the parents so wish due to “compromised” life situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top