Recently, while browsing through the groups, I came across a Pro-life group. It has only one member-it's founder, and that got me to thinking...Are there any pro-life atheists out there? And being that most, if not all arguments I've heard against abortions are usually religious in nature, what would be the atheists argument(s) against abortion?


Personally, I am pro-choice. I fully support every womans right to choose.

Views: 1148

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Speaking of those conservatives... whered they go? present a good argument and they run scared? If I am wrong on an issue I will keep arguing until I am driven into the ground and then admit that I'm wrong or that there was a misconception about my argument. It is only fair to the stronger opinion to get some closure.

Good arguments are presented and they all tuck their tail and run. Rather cowardly... I mean, I am one to talk since you could say I'm hiding behind the arguments of other more experienced liberals, but Ralph beat me rather soundly in another argument elsewhere if I remember right.

This seems to be a trend with a recognizable portion of conservatives. They don't really want to challenge the opposite opinion or put their dignity on the line. They just want to impose their own opinion and if they can't they don't let others' supported opinions influence them too much... If they cared more about other people's opinions they would be liberal...
I think that's about right, Johnny. Though I make a distinction between actual conservatism, which has some history of intellectual heft, and the Republican Party brand of faux-conservatism which is really radical theo-pluto-autocracy with a strong dose of NIMBYism masquerading as libertarianism. This new so-called conservatism is a logical house of cards. The only way to perpetuate it is to go find new converts among the grumpy ignorant, rather than to overcome reasoned opposition. The old conservatism wasn't especially appealing to me, but at least it made more sense and wasn't as dangerous.
I'm actually Liberal on most things but I've found both sides can easily be dogmatic on with their own pet beliefs; & BTW atheists as a whole are no different.

& anyway few people like going to a forum dominated by the other side, group thinking cheer squads is often the order of the day, apart from the fact many wouldn't know a good argument if it came up an bit them on the ass.

BTW I'm no philosophy expert, but I'll tell you what if you ever read Peter Singer's work you will find sentience by itself doesn't give a right to life no matter what Ralph says. He's a good candidate for an article I've recently read Unskilled and Unaware of It ;)
No one said he was a god, but his work is relevant to the overall debate and it was raised. & the only thing I was guilty of was raising his infanticide views without clarifying that this related to severely disabled babies. But given his reliance on fulfilment of preferences to prohibit the killing of healthy babies, but on the face of it parents who also want their healthy but unwanted babies killed, are also getting their preferences fulfilled.

After all he agrees belonging to the same species isn’t relevant, nor gives any weight to viability. Off the top of my head I don’t remember if he personally thinks passing unwanted babies on is a justification, but as they aren’t persons, we cannot be speciest and sentience doesn’t grant a right to life by itself, this sort of reasoning would mean we would have to pass on kittens etc as well.
WRONG! He does not recognize a newborn as equivalent to a person because it does not have higher cognitive awareness to be considered fully as a person, but he does recognize that the infant is able to sense pleasure and pain, and therefore has its own interests, so someone else does not have the right to just kill it, even the mother, without just cause:

I think not, I repeat sentience doesn't grant a right to life IN ITSELF -which is what he and I are saying. Whether there are other humans wanting it is irrelevant. My point stands.

A simple rebuttal is that there are plenty of people that will take unwanted kittens but that in no way entail WE MUST make someone pass on a kitten.

One could imagine if there were not enough couples to take unwanted babies he would say the state should. But given there are millions of animals of higher cogntive ability but not enough animals lovers to take them I don't see him saying the state should step in to take them.



"Species membership alone isn't morally significant," in that just belonging isn't relevant which is what I said.

"Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time." But not an infant which is what I've been saying. Or to put it another relevant way they don't have a sophiticated desire to live in the future.

Though I think he is been a bit sloppy he says

"If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human."

It is unclear in the above what is meant human being in the overall quote. In the lit it can mean both Homo Sapiens (HS) or human person. I use HS. I think he is mixing terms here using both human person & HS.

But if he is saying a human being as a potential person is given preference that flies in the face of his Potentiality Fallacy so that doesn't make sense.

Nice try but no prize & thanks for the quote your posts back what I have to say
Cheers
:)

PS he still wont have a bar of viability, tranferring caregivers deals with post partum's only.
BTW when reasoning you are supposed to understand the underlying principles and not superficially look at just the context at hand.

I can think up a thought experiment where both a mother and baby's lives are threatened and there is only one drug or organ to spare. Now either could live while the other dies, but also there is a none zero chance both will live. I would argue both have a right to life and right to the cure, so personally unless the mother decides to lay down her life for the child, as a doctor I would let fate decide.

Are you saying that morally we are automatically required to prefer the mother to the baby?

What about where the mother through abuse or carelessness caused the above situation? Wouldn't she then be the offending party and the innocent party take precidance over her?

I certainly think in an analogous situation where a assassin poisoned both himself and me and where there is only one antidote, as the innocent party I have the moral right to the antidote.

You don’t have to be a philosopher to think that is true.
These sorts of issues cannot be divorced from context, regardless of the search for universal moral rules and ethical principles. Maybe if you had some skin in the game, deciding whether a pregnant woman or fetus has a greater right to life, would be a simpler, more logical process, for example:

Is it really that hard for you to understand that in an either/or situation, the mother should live? ......


No one said they should be but you should at least understand the underlying moral justifications and apply them consistently which you lot don't.

As soon as fetuses are recognized as persons, there will be all sorts of women who will be charged with crimes if their babies are deformed or have health problems, and it won't be just those that can be proven to be crack-addicted.

As for the crack-addicted mother, put her drug rehab. Her life is still worth more than the fetus she produced.


I know its difficult for you but I'll go over it again.

I was talking about a baby and have been pointing out Ad nauseam that a baby isn't a person, no ethical philosophers is will see any point til waiting to a non moral entity becomes a moral entity to start applying moral consequences as there is no moral reason for a party to keep it alive in the first to then be punished.

You just don't get it.

You use personhood to claim moral significance for things that aren't persons then use another rule to stop them from being killed that equally applies to animals with exactly the same or higher cognitive abilities that you allow to be killed!!!

Most moral philosophers know this and try to bandaid or patchup the philosophy.

But the discourse by the majority of lay people is on a totally ignorant level that fails to even understand let alone apply their reasoning consistently. & BTW that goes for many Pro-Lifers as well.
I also disagree strongly with much of what Catholics have to say so what?

All you have to offer Ralph are ad hom's
Apart from maybe the very last sentence of Ralph's comment, there are no ad hominem attacks. Calling you a good Catholic may or may not be considered an ad hominem attack, depending on what you think of good Catholics, but it's a reasonable conclusion, given your statement that you'd let fate decide; your position is indistinguishable from the Pope's.

It seems to me an unassailable argument that it's the woman's body, health, and future, so it's her call. The fetus simply isn't human until somewhere around the third trimester; the woman stands to lose actuality, whereas the fetus only stands to lose potentiality. But all that completely aside, it's still the woman's call, because even if the fetus is considered to be completely human, its interests are in no way superior to the woman's, and since it can't make a decision, the woman has to, as the only other party with skin in the game.
Actually I'm quite different from the Pope on many things from homosexuality to contraception to making exceptions for rape. So at the very least it is a straw man.

Oh and without doubt the foetus is human the debate is whether it is a human person. Not even Singer or Boonin would debate that.
It's not a straw man. I didn't say you agreed with the Pope on everything. I specifically said your position on this issue (let fate decide) is indistinguishable from the Pope's (let God decide). I think that's indisputable.

The fetus is human tissue, obviously, but so was Terry Schaivo. A fetus without a developed brain is just as much not human as an adult in a persistent vegetative state. The only difference is that the fetus has more potential to become fully human. That potential cannot outweigh the actuality of its mother's humanity.
lol the republicans will be back. I'm sure the occasional republican being an idiot is why this lasted so long

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service