Abortion!

[Tortoise]

It seems to come down to how religious a person is. Because personally as an atheist, I don't believe in a soul or spirit, and I believe if you take a 2 month old fertilized embryo/fetus/whatever it is at that stage, and remove it from the mother and put it on the table, then it's going to "die" or stop being alive, or stop growing, or whatever you want to call what it's doing. But it's not an independent living creature.

Neither is a newborn baby, a 6-month-old baby, or a 3-year-old kid. They all require constant care and intervention in order to prevent their death. The fetus that's set on the table just happens to die a lot faster than the others.

People don't really become "independent living creatures" until they've learned to supply their own shelter and food.

[Mountaineer]

It seems to come down to how religious a person is. Because personally as an atheist, I don't believe in a soul or spirit, and I believe if you take a 2 month old fertilized embryo/fetus/whatever it is at that stage, and remove it from the mother and put it on the table, then it's going to "die" or stop being alive, or stop growing, or whatever you want to call what it's doing. But it's not an independent living creature.

Neither is a newborn baby, a 6-month-old baby, or a 3-year-old kid. They all require constant care and intervention in order to prevent their death. The fetus that's set on the table just happens to die a lot faster than the others.

People don't really become "independent living creatures" until they've learned to supply their own shelter and food.

Fair point. Perhaps, we could agree that the unborn fetus is dependant on a specific person? Such that if you remove the fetus, it can't continue. But if you take a 3 month old baby, you can hand it to another person to take care of. Whereas the unborn fetus is locked in to being a dependent of the specific mother for that 9 month period?

I'm not sure if that changes anything in the discussion, but I do like finding points of common agreement with which to work from.

Me too. When do you think life begins? I think at conception. It seems to me all other answers are arbitrary and subjective. Thoughts?

[Mountaineer]

When do you think life begins? I think at conception. It seems to me all other answers are arbitrary and subjective. Thoughts?

It's a tough one. I used to think it didn't begin at conception, because of the technical definition of a living thing being something that can take care of itself and reproduce, but as Tortoise pointed out, that's also not true of infants, toddlers, and most children.

So in recent years, I've decided to adjust my argument to be:

"It doesn't matter if life begins at conception, abortion laws put the life of the unborn fetus ahead of the life of the mother"

And I dislike providing an unborn fetus superior rights to life simply by virtue of existing in time and space. If I come home from work and a homeless person I don't know is sleeping on my couch, does my right to exclude them from my apartment not become superior to the right of the homeless person to take a nap?

I do understand we're discussing "murder" of unborn fetus as compared to ejecting someone from my living room. What if I am living in rural Alaska in the winter and ejecting the homeless person would result in his death? Am I required to allow this person to stay with me until spring comes?

There's ethics and there's laws. Ethically, I may decide to allow this homeless squatter to remain in my home rather than die of hypothermia outside. But legally, I don't want the government telling me this third party's right to live is superior to my rights. What if I left my front door unlocked, would that justify him squatting? Perhaps I left before winter started, left the front door unlocked, and he's been squatting there for weeks, and now I arrive and tell him to leave, but he cannot safely due so due to snowstorms and lack of appropriate clothing. Is it my fault for leaving my front door unlocked for weeks? What if I didn't leave it unlocked for weeks, just a few hours? What if I did have it locked but he broke in?

You can probably see I'm analogizing this scenario to sex with no condom, to sex with a condom, to rape.

To me, I prefer if the woman has superior rights to those of an unborn fetus, and regardless of what rationale, if she doesn't want it inside her, her rights are superior. And as a pragmatist, I believe society as a whole is better off when women who don't want babies are allowed to get rid of them.

I think there's ethics and laws, and maybe ethically abortion is wrong, personally I don't care to spend much effort worrying about ethics here since I won't be the one making the decision. But I do care about laws, and I dislike the government making a law against abortion.

I too care about laws. I also think man’s law is very frequently abandoned due to original sin (yes, I know not all agree about that as a fundamental truth). Thus, I doubt that any abortion laws will stop the killing, any more than a law against premarital sex would prevent that happening. I do believe that babies, however conceived, deserve an opportunity for life. Behavior has consequences; if a man and a woman decide to have sex, they should also be willing to accept the consequences - without forfeiting the life of the one they produced in their quest for pleasure.

[Tortoise]

Fair point. Perhaps, we could agree that the unborn fetus is dependant on a specific person? Such that if you remove the fetus, it can't continue. But if you take a 3 month old baby, you can hand it to another person to take care of. Whereas the unborn fetus is locked in to being a dependent of the specific mother for that 9 month period?

I'm not sure if that changes anything in the discussion, but I do like finding points of common agreement with which to work from.

Yes, I'd say a fetus is dependent exclusively on the mother until it becomes viable to live outside of the womb at around 24-28 weeks.

I agree with Mountaineer's point that your analogy of the homeless person showing up in your apartment isn't the best one since a pregnancy due to consensual sex is your choice, the fetus is a natural consequence of your choice, and the fetus did not have a choice. A homeless person showing up in your apartment makes a choice as to whether he will break the law by entering your home or not.

For what it's worth, I have mixed feelings about abortion. I think it's morally wrong in most cases (notable exceptions being rape or a fetus with a major genetic abnormality), but I also concede that bringing a child into a likely world of misery due to neglect or abuse by parents who aren't willing or able to care for it doesn't seem very moral either.

[Mountaineer]

Since Tortoise and perhaps Mountaineer believe that consensual sex abortion is wrong but maybe some allowance for rape...

How do we design a law that ensures women don't lie and say they were raped in order to qualify for an abortion? And design it in such a way that doesn't have false negatives where women who were genuinely raped are unable to prove it and qualify for the exemption?

I’m not sure about the rape exclusion. The baby is still a human being deserving of life regardless of how conceived.

[Mark Leavy]

5) Generally feel that there are valid circumstantial reasons for many forms of homicide. Abortion is just one of the many forms.

I object to anyone that pretends that abortion is not a form of homicide. It is. Just deal with it like an adult. Society accepts homicide all of the time. It is never an easy decision. But, sometimes it is the best of many bad options.

[Mountaineer]

Since Tortoise and perhaps Mountaineer believe that consensual sex abortion is wrong but maybe some allowance for rape...

How do we design a law that ensures women don't lie and say they were raped in order to qualify for an abortion? And design it in such a way that doesn't have false negatives where women who were genuinely raped are unable to prove it and qualify for the exemption?

I’m not sure about the rape exclusion. The baby is still a human being deserving of life regardless of how conceived.

Okay, so then perhaps there's 4 categories of mindsets possible:

1) No Abortion ever okay under any reason. Even if product of rape. Even if the woman is likely to die from pregnancy complications. Life is life, murder is murder.

2) Abortion okay under extremely narrow circumstances like rape or for well being of the mother's physical health given some high percentage chance of negative health reprecussions to mother.

3) Abortion is okay for any reason as long as it's within a certain frame like before the third trimester.

4) Abortion-palooza. Have at it, vale tudo, anything goes. Get nine abortions on your punch card and the 10th is free.

I know it's tough to lump people down into camps, but it seems like those 4 camps cover all of the possibiltiies? If not, maybe there's a 5th or 6th, and then once identified, we can go from there.

I'm really curious to see what correlative ideologies go along with people from each of these camps. I have a strong suspicion that people in Camp Murder (group 1) are all going to be extremely religious. I suspect few to no atheists are in this camp. But maybe I'm wrong and am looking forward to seeing how this shakes up.

Perhaps rather than extremely religious for Cat 1, I would say believers in the historical objective fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. I don’t think any other religion worships a person who did that, but I could be mistaken as I am not an expert in the 4k plus religions.

[Libertarian666]

Since Tortoise and perhaps Mountaineer believe that consensual sex abortion is wrong but maybe some allowance for rape...

How do we design a law that ensures women don't lie and say they were raped in order to qualify for an abortion? And design it in such a way that doesn't have false negatives where women who were genuinely raped are unable to prove it and qualify for the exemption?

I’m not sure about the rape exclusion. The baby is still a human being deserving of life regardless of how conceived.

Okay, so then perhaps there's 4 categories of mindsets possible:

1) No Abortion ever okay under any reason. Even if product of rape. Even if the woman is likely to die from pregnancy complications. Life is life, murder is murder.

2) Abortion okay under extremely narrow circumstances like rape or for well being of the mother's physical health given some high percentage chance of negative health reprecussions to mother.

3) Abortion is okay for any reason as long as it's within a certain frame like before the third trimester.

4) Abortion-palooza. Have at it, vale tudo, anything goes. Get nine abortions on your punch card and the 10th is free.

I know it's tough to lump people down into camps, but it seems like those 4 camps cover all of the possibiltiies? If not, maybe there's a 5th or 6th, and then once identified, we can go from there.

I'm really curious to see what correlative ideologies go along with people from each of these camps. I have a strong suspicion that people in Camp Murder (group 1) are all going to be extremely religious. I suspect few to no atheists are in this camp. But maybe I'm wrong and am looking forward to seeing how this shakes up.

Perhaps rather than extremely religious for Cat 1, I would say believers in the historical objective fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. I don’t think any other religion worships a person who did that, but I could be mistaken as I am not an expert in the 4k plus religions.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but I'm not aware of any historical objective confirmation of the existence of such a person in history.
My understanding is that all of the supposed confirmations are from interested observers, not objective observers.

Here's an analysis that I haven't verified myself but is very detailed: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... sus-exist/

[yankees60]

Since Tortoise and perhaps Mountaineer believe that consensual sex abortion is wrong but maybe some allowance for rape...

How do we design a law that ensures women don't lie and say they were raped in order to qualify for an abortion? And design it in such a way that doesn't have false negatives where women who were genuinely raped are unable to prove it and qualify for the exemption?

I’m not sure about the rape exclusion. The baby is still a human being deserving of life regardless of how conceived.

Okay, so then perhaps there's 4 categories of mindsets possible:

1) No Abortion ever okay under any reason. Even if product of rape. Even if the woman is likely to die from pregnancy complications. Life is life, murder is murder.

2) Abortion okay under extremely narrow circumstances like rape or for well being of the mother's physical health given some high percentage chance of negative health reprecussions to mother.

3) Abortion is okay for any reason as long as it's within a certain frame like before the third trimester.

4) Abortion-palooza. Have at it, vale tudo, anything goes. Get nine abortions on your punch card and the 10th is free.

I know it's tough to lump people down into camps, but it seems like those 4 camps cover all of the possibiltiies? If not, maybe there's a 5th or 6th, and then once identified, we can go from there.

I'm really curious to see what correlative ideologies go along with people from each of these camps. I have a strong suspicion that people in Camp Murder (group 1) are all going to be extremely religious. I suspect few to no atheists are in this camp. But maybe I'm wrong and am looking forward to seeing how this shakes up.

Perhaps rather than extremely religious for Cat 1, I would say believers in the historical objective fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. I don’t think any other religion worships a person who did that, but I could be mistaken as I am not an expert in the 4k plus religions.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but I'm not aware of any historical objective confirmation of the existence of such a person in history.
My understanding is that all of the supposed confirmations are from interested observers, not objective observers.

Do you believe these is any historical objection confirmation of the existence of Socrates?

"Socrates was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, and as being the first moral philosopher of the Western ethical tradition of thought. An enigmatic figure, he authored no texts, and is known chiefly through the accounts of classical writers composing after his lifetime, particularly his students Plato and Xenophon."

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

Since Tortoise and perhaps Mountaineer believe that consensual sex abortion is wrong but maybe some allowance for rape...

How do we design a law that ensures women don't lie and say they were raped in order to qualify for an abortion? And design it in such a way that doesn't have false negatives where women who were genuinely raped are unable to prove it and qualify for the exemption?

I’m not sure about the rape exclusion. The baby is still a human being deserving of life regardless of how conceived.

Okay, so then perhaps there's 4 categories of mindsets possible:

1) No Abortion ever okay under any reason. Even if product of rape. Even if the woman is likely to die from pregnancy complications. Life is life, murder is murder.

2) Abortion okay under extremely narrow circumstances like rape or for well being of the mother's physical health given some high percentage chance of negative health reprecussions to mother.

3) Abortion is okay for any reason as long as it's within a certain frame like before the third trimester.

4) Abortion-palooza. Have at it, vale tudo, anything goes. Get nine abortions on your punch card and the 10th is free.

I know it's tough to lump people down into camps, but it seems like those 4 camps cover all of the possibiltiies? If not, maybe there's a 5th or 6th, and then once identified, we can go from there.

I'm really curious to see what correlative ideologies go along with people from each of these camps. I have a strong suspicion that people in Camp Murder (group 1) are all going to be extremely religious. I suspect few to no atheists are in this camp. But maybe I'm wrong and am looking forward to seeing how this shakes up.

Perhaps rather than extremely religious for Cat 1, I would say believers in the historical objective fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. I don’t think any other religion worships a person who did that, but I could be mistaken as I am not an expert in the 4k plus religions.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but I'm not aware of any historical objective confirmation of the existence of such a person in history.
My understanding is that all of the supposed confirmations are from interested observers, not objective observers.

Here's an analysis that I haven't verified myself but is very detailed: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... sus-exist/

I'll add to an already very long post. You may wish to read some of Dr. Montgomery's works. They typically present a well reasoned case for Christianity. He has quite the resume.

Always Be Ready: A Primer on Defending the Christian Faith Paperback – January 29, 2018 by John Warwick Montgomery

“Much to the dismay of its critics, defending the Christian faith does not rest on a complicated, philosophical quest nor illogical assumptions. The task of defending the Christian faith – or Christian apologetics – is for every Believer. In this easy-to-read, beginners guide to Christian apologetics, scholar and apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery lays the groundwork for why the case for Christianity is factually and historically compelling as well as how we should defend the faith.The book's three sections will lead you through the importance of Christian apologetics, issues the nonbeliever may raise, and how to bring the centrality of the faith – Christ on the cross – before atheists, skeptics and people from other worldviews. For those who want a lighthearted yet thorough introduction to the how, why and what of Christian apologetics, this primer is a go-to guide for those who hope to “be ready always to give an answer for the faith that is within” (1 Peter 3:15).”


About John Warwick Montgomery
To use C. S. Lewis's words, John Warwick Montgomery was brought over the threshold of Christian faith "kicking and struggling."

The year was 1949. The place, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Herman John Eckelmann, a persistent engineering student succeeded in goading Montgomery into religious discussions. Montgomery, a philosophy major disinterested in religion, found himself forced to consider seriously the claims of Jesus Christ in the New Testament in order to preserve his intellectual integrity. After no mean struggle he acknowledged his rebellion against God, asking His forgiveness.

Today, he is considered by many to be the foremost living apologist for biblical Christianity.

A renaissance scholar with a flair for controversy, he lives in France, England and the United States. His international activities have brought him into personal contact with some of the most exciting events of our time: not only was he in China In June 1989, but he was In Fiji during its 1987 bloodless revolution, was involved in assisting East Germans to escape during the time of the Berlin Wall, and was in Paris during the 'days of May' 1968.

He is an ordained Lutheran clergyman, an English barrister, and is admitted to practise as a lawyer before the Supreme Court of the United States and inscrit au Barreau de Paris, France. He obtained acquittals for the 'Athens 3' missionaries on charges of proselytism at the Greek Court of Appeals in 1986 and won the leading religious liberty cases of Larissis v. Greece and Bessarabian Orthodox Church v. Moldova before the European Court of Human Rights.

Dr. Montgomery is the author or editor of more than sixty books in six languages. He holds eleven earned degrees, including a Master of Philosophy in Law from the University of Essex, England, A Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a Doctorate in Protestant Theology from the University of Strasbourg, France, and a higher doctorate in law (the LL.D.) from Cardiff University, Wales. He is currently the Director of the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism and Human Rights held in Strasbourg, France and additionally serves actively as Professor-At-Large for 1517.

[Libertarian666]

Since Tortoise and perhaps Mountaineer believe that consensual sex abortion is wrong but maybe some allowance for rape...

How do we design a law that ensures women don't lie and say they were raped in order to qualify for an abortion? And design it in such a way that doesn't have false negatives where women who were genuinely raped are unable to prove it and qualify for the exemption?

I’m not sure about the rape exclusion. The baby is still a human being deserving of life regardless of how conceived.

Okay, so then perhaps there's 4 categories of mindsets possible:

1) No Abortion ever okay under any reason. Even if product of rape. Even if the woman is likely to die from pregnancy complications. Life is life, murder is murder.

2) Abortion okay under extremely narrow circumstances like rape or for well being of the mother's physical health given some high percentage chance of negative health reprecussions to mother.

3) Abortion is okay for any reason as long as it's within a certain frame like before the third trimester.

4) Abortion-palooza. Have at it, vale tudo, anything goes. Get nine abortions on your punch card and the 10th is free.

I know it's tough to lump people down into camps, but it seems like those 4 camps cover all of the possibiltiies? If not, maybe there's a 5th or 6th, and then once identified, we can go from there.

I'm really curious to see what correlative ideologies go along with people from each of these camps. I have a strong suspicion that people in Camp Murder (group 1) are all going to be extremely religious. I suspect few to no atheists are in this camp. But maybe I'm wrong and am looking forward to seeing how this shakes up.

Perhaps rather than extremely religious for Cat 1, I would say believers in the historical objective fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. I don’t think any other religion worships a person who did that, but I could be mistaken as I am not an expert in the 4k plus religions.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but I'm not aware of any historical objective confirmation of the existence of such a person in history.
My understanding is that all of the supposed confirmations are from interested observers, not objective observers.

Here's an analysis that I haven't verified myself but is very detailed: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... sus-exist/

I'll add to an already very long post. You may wish to read some of Dr. Montgomery's works. They typically present a well reasoned case for Christianity. He has quite the resume.

Always Be Ready: A Primer on Defending the Christian Faith Paperback – January 29, 2018 by John Warwick Montgomery

“Much to the dismay of its critics, defending the Christian faith does not rest on a complicated, philosophical quest nor illogical assumptions. The task of defending the Christian faith – or Christian apologetics – is for every Believer. In this easy-to-read, beginners guide to Christian apologetics, scholar and apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery lays the groundwork for why the case for Christianity is factually and historically compelling as well as how we should defend the faith.The book's three sections will lead you through the importance of Christian apologetics, issues the nonbeliever may raise, and how to bring the centrality of the faith – Christ on the cross – before atheists, skeptics and people from other worldviews. For those who want a lighthearted yet thorough introduction to the how, why and what of Christian apologetics, this primer is a go-to guide for those who hope to “be ready always to give an answer for the faith that is within” (1 Peter 3:15).”


About John Warwick Montgomery
To use C. S. Lewis's words, John Warwick Montgomery was brought over the threshold of Christian faith "kicking and struggling."

The year was 1949. The place, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Herman John Eckelmann, a persistent engineering student succeeded in goading Montgomery into religious discussions. Montgomery, a philosophy major disinterested in religion, found himself forced to consider seriously the claims of Jesus Christ in the New Testament in order to preserve his intellectual integrity. After no mean struggle he acknowledged his rebellion against God, asking His forgiveness.

Today, he is considered by many to be the foremost living apologist for biblical Christianity.

A renaissance scholar with a flair for controversy, he lives in France, England and the United States. His international activities have brought him into personal contact with some of the most exciting events of our time: not only was he in China In June 1989, but he was In Fiji during its 1987 bloodless revolution, was involved in assisting East Germans to escape during the time of the Berlin Wall, and was in Paris during the 'days of May' 1968.

He is an ordained Lutheran clergyman, an English barrister, and is admitted to practise as a lawyer before the Supreme Court of the United States and inscrit au Barreau de Paris, France. He obtained acquittals for the 'Athens 3' missionaries on charges of proselytism at the Greek Court of Appeals in 1986 and won the leading religious liberty cases of Larissis v. Greece and Bessarabian Orthodox Church v. Moldova before the European Court of Human Rights.

Dr. Montgomery is the author or editor of more than sixty books in six languages. He holds eleven earned degrees, including a Master of Philosophy in Law from the University of Essex, England, A Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a Doctorate in Protestant Theology from the University of Strasbourg, France, and a higher doctorate in law (the LL.D.) from Cardiff University, Wales. He is currently the Director of the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism and Human Rights held in Strasbourg, France and additionally serves actively as Professor-At-Large for 1517.

Thanks for the reference. If you're going to have a debate, you need to hear the strongest arguments of the other side.
However, I'm not interested in having a debate about this issue at this time because I have too many other pressing affairs to deal with.
If that changes, I'll let you know.

[Mountaineer]

A good assessment of Christianity is similar to the Covid investigation methods (evidence based):

The effort isn’t going to resemble movie-style moonsuit-clad narratives of disease detection, Daszak says—not least because, as of now, the teams still can’t travel to China. And, intellectually, it won’t proceed like them, either.
“There's a disconnect between what the public thinks goes on in missions like this and what can be done,” he says. “There’s an expectation of holding up a magnifying glass and finding the smoking gun, a criminal law approach. But we're never going to be beyond a reasonable doubt with the origins of Covid. Science doesn't work like that. Science works on the civil law approach: Where does the preponderance of evidence fit?”
Sachs, who chose Daszak to chair the task force, agrees. The goal, he wrote by email, is not “a forensic investigation … It is a scientific assessment.”