Any atheists against abortion rights?

[Jolly_Penguin]

If at no fault of their own, and some fault of your own (absent rape), an innocent person is attached to you and using your organs, and operation is coming up to separate them but will be a while off, are you morally entitled to stab them to death with a knife? In other words, would you apply the same logic to the born as to about to be born? And if not, why not?

The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.

Seems rather arbitrary to me. What is so different about a being one second before birth and one second after in terms of anything but location? If nothing, then the analogy I wrote above seems applicable.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not convinced that the religious argument against abortion is anything other than a rationalization of a very natural instinct in human beings--to think of a developing embryo/fetus in a pregnant woman as a new person. From a social perspective, it isn't a person until it survives birth, but that is not the way adults as individuals tend to view the pregnancy. Relatives see the pregnancy as a new addition to the family. Miscarriages can have a deep emotional impact on the mother, husband, and other family members.

People here have pointed out that this is not a rational point of view to take. There are other issues--such as brain development, consciousness, etc. However, human beings don't normally think rationally. Most of the time, they react viscerally to events in their lives. Logic and reason tend to follow and are quite often employed as mental tools that function to justify or "rationalize" decisions and opinions that have already formed. Religion can be seen as a form of rationalization, but atheists can simply appeal to the visceral feeling that fetuses are "persons".

 

[Underseer]

I'm against late term abortion; really, that's just murder.

So even if the fetus is not viable and a threat to the life of the mother, you don't want to allow abortion because it would be "murder"?

If a pregnancy gets to late term, women will only choose abortion in pretty extreme cases (such as mentioned above), but you want to shove big government up their cunts and regulate their uteruses because those silly women can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies and need you to use big government to impose decisions on them?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm against late term abortion; really, that's just murder.

So even if the fetus is not viable and a threat to the life of the mother, you don't want to allow abortion because it would be "murder"?

By this logic, it would be homicide. If it is murder depends on if it is culpable. If the woman's life is seriously endangered, then a self-defence would seem to apply which makes it not culpable.

If a pregnancy gets to late term, women will only choose abortion in pretty extreme cases (such as mentioned above), but you want to shove big government up their cunts and regulate their uteruses because those silly women can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies and need you to use big government to impose decisions on them?

If you view it as homicide of an innocent person, then it seems appropriate to have government oversight. If you view it as merely the destruction of some cells and not of a person at all, then its not a problem.

 

[ronburgundy]

The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.

Seems rather arbitrary to me. What is so different about a being one second before birth and one second after in terms of anything but location? If nothing, then the analogy I wrote above seems applicable.

I already explained the difference and its one that is at the very core of the concept of rights and what it means to be an individual person. If you are and always have been inside another person's body, then you are not an individual person, and thus the normal concept of rights do not apply.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pretty much someone has to be an asshole to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. In general, late term abortions are extremely rare and more of a foil towards a windmill by the religious right. I think the arguments regarding the arbitrariness of a day or two is ignorant. We have so many arbitrary thresholds typically based on decades, centuries, or even millenniums of experience as a culture.

If at no fault of their own, and some fault of your own (absent rape), an innocent person is attached to you and using your organs, and operation is coming up to separate them but will be a while off, are you morally entitled to stab them to death with a knife? In other words, would you apply the same logic to the born as to about to be born? And if not, why not?

Probably the same reason that the Health Insurance industry doesn't charge a family an additional person when the woman is pregnant, and the child only becomes an independent entity after birth.

Your argument sounds very much like a farmer who has counted every egg as a chicken.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.

Seems rather arbitrary to me. What is so different about a being one second before birth and one second after in terms of anything but location? If nothing, then the analogy I wrote above seems applicable.

I already explained the difference and its one that is at the very core of the concept of rights and what it means to be an individual person. If you are and always have been inside another person's body, then you are not an individual person, and thus the normal concept of rights do not apply.

That's the core disagreement there. For how long did blacks weren't given rights?


It's a strange issue in general because both sides don't place a fetus with no respect but don't think of it as a full individual either.

 

[ronburgundy]

Seems rather arbitrary to me. What is so different about a being one second before birth and one second after in terms of anything but location? If nothing, then the analogy I wrote above seems applicable.

I already explained the difference and its one that is at the very core of the concept of rights and what it means to be an individual person. If you are and always have been inside another person's body, then you are not an individual person, and thus the normal concept of rights do not apply.

That's the core disagreement there. For how long did blacks weren't given rights?


It's a strange issue in general because both sides don't place a fetus with no respect but don't think of it as a full individual either.

Blacks were always objectively individual organisms. Whether we choose to give rights to all individuals is very different from the fact that the concept of rights cannot logically be applied if an organism is not objectively and physically individuated from another organism that has rights (i.e., the mother). At the core of rights, is the concept of the physical person and a natural limitation on rights is the boundaries between physically individuated persons. That's what allows us each to control our bodily movements, but as soon as that results in physical contact with another individual, now their right not to be hit takes precedence.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not convinced that the religious argument against abortion is anything other than a rationalization of a very natural instinct in human beings--to think of a developing embryo/fetus in a pregnant woman as a new person. From a social perspective, it isn't a person until it survives birth, but that is not the way adults as individuals tend to view the pregnancy. Relatives see the pregnancy as a new addition to the family. Miscarriages can have a deep emotional impact on the mother, husband, and other family members.

People here have pointed out that this is not a rational point of view to take. There are other issues--such as brain development, consciousness, etc. However, human beings don't normally think rationally. Most of the time, they react viscerally to events in their lives. Logic and reason tend to follow and are quite often employed as mental tools that function to justify or "rationalize" decisions and opinions that have already formed. Religion can be seen as a form of rationalization, but atheists can simply appeal to the visceral feeling that fetuses are "persons".

Yes.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I already explained the difference and its one that is at the very core of the concept of rights and what it means to be an individual person. If you are and always have been inside another person's body, then you are not an individual person, and thus the normal concept of rights do not apply.

That's the core disagreement there. For how long did blacks weren't given rights?


It's a strange issue in general because both sides don't place a fetus with no respect but don't think of it as a full individual either.

Blacks were always objectively individual organisms. Whether we choose to give rights to all individuals is very different from the fact that the concept of rights cannot logically be applied if an organism is not objectively and physically individuated from another organism that has rights (i.e., the mother). At the core of rights, is the concept of the physical person and a natural limitation on rights is the boundaries between physically individuated persons. That's what allows us each to control our bodily movements, but as soon as that results in physical contact with another individual, now their right not to be hit takes precedence.

There is also people who are fighting now for that distinction toward animals who before this century never gave any rights too either.

However everybody agrees that you have moral obligation to your offspring than you do anybody else. If I see you on the street I have no obligation to feed you, find you clothing, or house you. But as a parent I have those obligations. And for the guy I would be required to pay until the child reaches 18. So there is a higher obligation of a parent toward their child than ordinary obligations. It's whether that extends earlier when they are dependent on the mother to feed and house the child in utero.

 

[ronburgundy]

That's the core disagreement there. For how long did blacks weren't given rights?


It's a strange issue in general because both sides don't place a fetus with no respect but don't think of it as a full individual either.

Blacks were always objectively individual organisms. Whether we choose to give rights to all individuals is very different from the fact that the concept of rights cannot logically be applied if an organism is not objectively and physically individuated from another organism that has rights (i.e., the mother). At the core of rights, is the concept of the physical person and a natural limitation on rights is the boundaries between physically individuated persons. That's what allows us each to control our bodily movements, but as soon as that results in physical contact with another individual, now their right not to be hit takes precedence.

There is also people who are fighting now for that distinction toward animals who before this century never gave any rights too either.

Which is far more feasible and sensible than giving rights to fetuses, because at least animals are individual organisms, thus the concept of "rights" could be applied.

However everybody agrees that you have moral obligation to your offspring than you do anybody else. If I see you on the street I have no obligation to feed you, find you clothing, or house you.
But as a parent I have those obligations. And for the guy I would be required to pay until the child reaches 18. So there is a higher obligation of a parent toward their child than ordinary obligations. It's whether that extends earlier when they are dependent on the mother to feed and house the child in utero.

And there is no greater or more logically relevant distinction to rights (and thus such obligations) than whether the organism is an physically separate individual to which the concept of rights can even logically apply. Also, much of the parental obligation is not about the rights of the child but rather the rights of other people in society not to be victimized by consequences of your negligent parenting.

 

[Playball40]

I'm against late term abortion; really, that's just murder.

Define it

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just curious if an atheist can be "pro life" and what the arguments for that position are. I only hear religious arguments.

SLD

I'm very pro choice. However, I'm starting to wonder if it's a battle that is worthy to fight for. How many elections are we going to lose over this issue? Let's face it, a large majority of white women voted Trump. So, they don't give a damn about abortion rights. I'm starting to wonder why I should. It's another issue where the majority of people are prochoice, however, they aren't as committed for fighting for the right as the other side.

I wish you would stop saying this. Many white women DO care about protecting abortion rights.

 

[Playball40]

This is such bullshit on so many levels. To call it homicide is to criminalize it. If you are really going to go down that road then ANY abortion is justified self defense, as ANY pregnancy has the ability to kill the mother.

By this logic, it would be homicide. If it is murder depends on if it is culpable. If the woman's life is seriously endangered, then a self-defence would seem to apply which makes it not culpable.

If a pregnancy gets to late term, women will only choose abortion in pretty extreme cases (such as mentioned above), but you want to shove big government up their cunts and regulate their uteruses because those silly women can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies and need you to use big government to impose decisions on them?

If you view it as homicide of an innocent person, then it seems appropriate to have government oversight. If you view it as merely the destruction of some cells and not of a person at all, then its not a problem.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Blacks were always objectively individual organisms. Whether we choose to give rights to all individuals is very different from the fact that the concept of rights cannot logically be applied if an organism is not objectively and physically individuated from another organism that has rights (i.e., the mother).

What are your thoughts on conjoined twins? Are twins joined at the hip one person or two?

At the core of rights, is the concept of the physical person and a natural limitation on rights is the boundaries between physically individuated persons. That's what allows us each to control our bodily movements, but as soon as that results in physical contact with another individual, now their right not to be hit takes precedence.

Would you be for the right to shoot homeless people who were placed in your house against their will, and who are using your electricity and eating your food? Note that abortion isn't just removing the unborn from the womb. It is the killing of the unborn.

I understand the arguments made about conscoiusness and self awareness and ability to feel pain, etc. Some of those arguments for abortion are actually pretty good. We had someone on here arguing that you should be allowed to kill newborns based on that, and while I can't agree with his position, it had some logic to it. I don't see much logic in this "not a person until independent" line of thinking though.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is such bullshit on so many levels. To call it homicide is to criminalize it.

No, it is actually to deliberately NOT criminalize it. Homicide isn't criminal. Culpable homicide (murder) is criminal. The question is whether or not the unborn should be considered a person with the same rights as other people. It the unborn isn't, then there is no need for further consideration. If it is, then killing the unborn is homicide by definition, and the question becomes whether or not the person who killed the unborn had a right to kill that person.

If you are really going to go down that road then ANY abortion is justified self defense, as ANY pregnancy has the ability to kill the mother.

The degree of danger is not the same in all pregnancies, and self defence doesn't excuse murder charges if the danger is insufficient. Where to draw the line on how much danger is required is up for discussion.

 

[J842P]

When we are talking about just after conception, I don't see any secular argument against abortion.

When we are talking seconds from birth, we are asking if homicide is justified by a woman's right to choose. That can be a good secular debate. She is controlling her own body yes. But she is also actively killing an innocent person. Both need to be paid attention to and weighed in the analysis.

A newborn is not a person

Many would disagree.

 

[ronburgundy]

Blacks were always objectively individual organisms. Whether we choose to give rights to all individuals is very different from the fact that the concept of rights cannot logically be applied if an organism is not objectively and physically individuated from another organism that has rights (i.e., the mother).

What are your thoughts on conjoined twins? Are twins joined at the hip one person or two?

They are neither one or two people. But also, neither is inside another person that already had rights before they invaded them, so it isn't similar to a mother with a fetus. Yes, the extremely rare situation of viable conjoined twins is a special case where they do not have full rights others enjoy and their must be special laws that deal with them. A conjoined twin does not have full rights over their body, because their body is not entirely their own. Also, their rights and legal obligations under the law are not the same. If one twin commits a crime, then any kind of punishment is punishment of both and thus one twin is being unjustly punished without ever being convicted of a crime. OTOH, failure to punish the guilty twin the same as any other person, means they are getting special treatment under the law. This illustrates my very point that rights and legal responsibilities and crimes are all logically tied to the concept of physically individual persons and cannot be applied the same to situations where an organism is not physically separate. Twins rights are not the same as others, but are the same as each other because they are in the same situation. Whereas a mother and fetus are in entirely different situations, She was granted full individual rights, which means control over her body before the organism that was never an individual came along.

At the core of rights, is the concept of the physical person and a natural limitation on rights is the boundaries between physically individuated persons. That's what allows us each to control our bodily movements, but as soon as that results in physical contact with another individual, now their right not to be hit takes precedence.

Would you be for the right to shoot homeless people who were placed in your house against their will, and who are using your electricity and eating your food? Note that abortion isn't just removing the unborn from the womb. It is the killing of the unborn.

Complete false analogy. First, rights over one's own body are far more fundamental than property rights in every civil society. Second, the homeless person is an individual person and thus has rights, unlike a fetus. Third, the homeless person can be removed without threat to the homeowner's life, unlike a fetus.

Stop making analogies, because they are all false and irrelevant. There is no situation remotely comparable to the objective facts of a woman and the fetus inside her body.

I don't see much logic in this "not a person until independent" line of thinking though.

Then you don't understand the entire basis for individual rights and any legal system that hold individuals accountable (hint: being an "individual" is central).

 

[J842P]

There is no rational basis for distinguishing between late-term and day 1 abortions. Both have the biology that if not prevented from completing its natural course will develop human self-awareness and thinking and become individual persons. I have far more respect for people who are against non-life-saving abortions at any stage than those who decide that some moment when an arbitrarily sufficient number of stem cells have formed into the rudiments of particular structures.

The rational argument for abortion is that, by definition, the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body. Rights belong only to person's. Nothing and no one has rights that impact another person's body. So it follows that a living thing cannot be granted full rights over itself, if it is within another's body. The mother was there first as an individual person, so she retain's her rights. The fetus acquires rights only the moment it is physically an individual person.

The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

You merely prefer that demarcation point, and are question begging to get to your conclusion: "the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body." Well, that is *exactly* the point of contention in this discussion, usually.

Fundamentally, to me, it seems that the issue becomes "can you kill an infant", or rather, when and why does a human life become morally relevant. To me, conception and birth both seem pretty arbitrary.

Also, I think most people would disagree, if they saw a fetus as being worthy of moral consideration, that the right to bodily integrity necessarily overrides all rights of the fetus. Indeed, the issue in America at least is split about 50-50, it seems, and only about 55-41 men/women.

 

[ronburgundy]

When we are talking about just after conception, I don't see any secular argument against abortion.

When we are talking seconds from birth, we are asking if homicide is justified by a woman's right to choose. That can be a good secular debate. She is controlling her own body yes. But she is also actively killing an innocent person. Both need to be paid attention to and weighed in the analysis.

A newborn is not a person

Many would disagree.

Person: A human being regarded as an individual.

IOW, a newborn is physically individuated, thus a person, while a fetus inside the mother is not.

 

[J842P]

I'm not convinced that the religious argument against abortion is anything other than a rationalization of a very natural instinct in human beings--to think of a developing embryo/fetus in a pregnant woman as a new person. From a social perspective, it isn't a person until it survives birth, but that is not the way adults as individuals tend to view the pregnancy. Relatives see the pregnancy as a new addition to the family. Miscarriages can have a deep emotional impact on the mother, husband, and other family members.

People here have pointed out that this is not a rational point of view to take. There are other issues--such as brain development, consciousness, etc. However, human beings don't normally think rationally. Most of the time, they react viscerally to events in their lives. Logic and reason tend to follow and are quite often employed as mental tools that function to justify or "rationalize" decisions and opinions that have already formed. Religion can be seen as a form of rationalization, but atheists can simply appeal to the visceral feeling that fetuses are "persons".

But *none* of fundamental moral stances are rational in the least (which I believe is the point you might be getting at). There is no "rational" reason why I shouldn't kill someone and take their stuff if I am guaranteed not to be caught and/or punished. Meta-ethically, I am some form of non-cognitivist, so there's that.