Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Nulono wrote:How do you vote?

Guilty, for not using protection and not aborting when they could. Both parents should be made infertile.

Now a question for you, Nulono. In the last year, millions of people have died in countries that you've probably never heard of. Many died of hunger, dirty water and cheaply treatable diseases. I accuse you, Nulono, of doing less than you could have done. You could have saved dozens, perhaps hundreds, but you didn't. How do you plead?

Do you even know what abortion is?

Nulono wrote:Do you even know what abortion is?

Abortion is the extraction of a fetus from a female body, either chemically or physically. During or right after that procedure the fetus dies.
Technically, abortion can be performed until the minute before birth. Morally, most pro-abortionists advocate abortion within the first 3 months after conception, well before the fetus develops a neural system that could support thought or emotion.

Let us, for a sake of argument, assume that we should consider a fetus a "human being" and should be treated as such - and let's examine how we do treat other human beings.

I'm living in the Netherlands, and it's cold outside. I know that some homeless people are freezing their buts off out there, possibly freezing to death. One of them could knock on my door, force his way in, and refuse to leave.
I would call the police. They would come, and they would force the man from my house. They wouldn't use excessive force, but they would use all necessary means. The police does not take "no" for an answer. The man would leave my house, dead or alive. Dead immediately, or alive to die a slow death in the street.

If we consider this police action justified, then how can we deny a woman the same right, when another human that hasn't invaded her home but her body? How can we deny her a doctor to use all necessary force to get it out?

There's a reason they're in that order[/url]; each depends upon the previous one(s) and each supersedes the following one(s). I'm sure you'd oppose using slavery or rape to pursue happiness, right?

The order in which they're in is besides the point I'm making. Also, slavery and rape are much more morally disgraceful, and keeping them legal is detrimental to society, rather than the opposite effect that legal abortion causes.

Okay, here's a scenario: Mr. and Ms. Robinson of Arizona have a dozen and one children (all ages measured from birth):

Peter (age 13)
Cecilia (age 11)
Christopher (age 16)
Samantha (age 4)
Maria (2 months, but was born 3 months premature)
Robert (11 months)
Alberta (age
Katherine (age 17)
Adam (age 6)
Phillip (age 10)
Christina (6 weeks)
Joseph (26 months)

and Stephen, who we won't discuss because he's 22 and living on his own.

Now, Mr. and Ms. Robinson are doing fine and are both employed at good-paying jobs and are supporting their family just fine. Then the recession hits and Mr. Robinson looses his job and Ms. Robinson gets a pay and benefit cut. After some hard thinking, they decide to behead Adam, poison Christina, burn Christopher, draw and quarter Alberta, and stab Peter. Nobody found out for whatever reason and they are now doing okay as a family with fewer mouths to feed.

Later, Ms. Robinson gets another cut and she's on the verge of loosing her job. They now decide to drive Maria out into the desert and leave her there, and they simply lock Robert in his room at every meal until he starves to death. Someone finds Maria's body (and learns of Robert's starvation and the 5 previous murders) and they are now on trial for murder and neglect. You are called for jury duty. How do you vote?

Interesting story, but hardly comparable to Neil's points on costs. I think his point was more about the cost that would be attributed to the state's fiscal responsibility in keeping all the "would be" aborted children alive and healthy. That alone stems a situation that is fiscally unsustainable and not even feasible.

Btw, did you come up with by yourself, lol? If so, that's a really good story! Drove out to the desert and left there, LMAO!

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:Interesting story, but hardly comparable to Neil's points on costs. I think his point was more about the cost that would be attributed to the state's fiscal responsibility in keeping all the "would be" aborted children alive and healthy. That alone stems a situation that is fiscally unsustainable and not even feasible.

I'm actually only thinking about the duration of pregnancy. During that time, the mother is the only one who can pay the costs, in food, risk and discomfort. Only she can decide to keep it or send it out in the cold.

After pregnancy society could bear the costs of raising a child - but I'm glad we don't. Parents should be prepared to pay for your own offspring.

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:

There's a reason they're in that order[/url]; each depends upon the previous one(s) and each supersedes the following one(s). I'm sure you'd oppose using slavery or rape to pursue happiness, right?

The order in which they're in is besides the point I'm making. Also, slavery and rape are much more morally disgraceful, and keeping them legal is detrimental to society, rather than the opposite effect that legal abortion causes.

How are slavery and rape MORE immoral?

Okay, here's a scenario: Mr. and Ms. Robinson of Arizona have a dozen and one children (all ages measured from birth):

Peter (age 13)
Cecilia (age 11)
Christopher (age 16)
Samantha (age 4)
Maria (2 months, but was born 3 months premature)
Robert (11 months)
Alberta (age
Katherine (age 17)
Adam (age 6)
Phillip (age 10)
Christina (6 weeks)
Joseph (26 months)

and Stephen, who we won't discuss because he's 22 and living on his own.

Now, Mr. and Ms. Robinson are doing fine and are both employed at good-paying jobs and are supporting their family just fine. Then the recession hits and Mr. Robinson looses his job and Ms. Robinson gets a pay and benefit cut. After some hard thinking, they decide to behead Adam, poison Christina, burn Christopher, draw and quarter Alberta, and stab Peter. Nobody found out for whatever reason and they are now doing okay as a family with fewer mouths to feed.

Later, Ms. Robinson gets another cut and she's on the verge of loosing her job. They now decide to drive Maria out into the desert and leave her there, and they simply lock Robert in his room at every meal until he starves to death. Someone finds Maria's body (and learns of Robert's starvation and the 5 previous murders) and they are now on trial for murder and neglect. You are called for jury duty. How do you vote?

Interesting story, but hardly comparable to Neil's points on costs. I think his point was more about the cost that would be attributed to the state's fiscal responsibility in keeping all the "would be" aborted children alive and healthy. That alone stems a situation that is fiscally unsustainable and not even feasible.

Btw, did you come up with by yourself, lol? If so, that's a really good story! Drove out to the desert and left there, LMAO!

But the children that are aborted are not "would-be" or "potential", but EXTANT offspring.

Niels wrote:

Nulono wrote:Do you even know what abortion is?

Abortion is the extraction of a fetus from a female body, either chemically or physically. During or right after that procedure the fetus dies.
Technically, abortion can be performed until the minute before birth. Morally, most pro-abortionists advocate abortion within the first 3 months after conception, well before the fetus develops a neural system that could support thought or emotion.

Let us, for a sake of argument, assume that we should consider a fetus a "human being" and should be treated as such - and let's examine how we do treat other human beings.

I'm living in the Netherlands, and it's cold outside. I know that some homeless people are freezing their buts off out there, possibly freezing to death. One of them could knock on my door, force his way in, and refuse to leave.
I would call the police. They would come, and they would force the man from my house. They wouldn't use excessive force, but they would use all necessary means. The police does not take "no" for an answer. The man would leave my house, dead or alive. Dead immediately, or alive to die a slow death in the street.

If we consider this police action justified, then how can we deny a woman the same right, when another human that hasn't invaded her home but her body? How can we deny her a doctor to use all necessary force to get it out?

Because the fetus's presence in the mother's body is not his or her fault, but is forced upon him or her. If I am kidnapped and placed aboard an airplane, you have no right to shoot me and throw me off.

Abortion is clearly not only the removal of the fetus if it can be used to kill a viable fetus.

Niels wrote:

Nulono wrote:How do you vote?

Guilty, for not using protection and not aborting when they could. Both parents should be made infertile.

Remember, they were fully capable of supporting their children until very recently.

Niels wrote:

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:Interesting story, but hardly comparable to Neil's points on costs. I think his point was more about the cost that would be attributed to the state's fiscal responsibility in keeping all the "would be" aborted children alive and healthy. That alone stems a situation that is fiscally unsustainable and not even feasible.

I'm actually only thinking about the duration of pregnancy. During that time, the mother is the only one who can pay the costs, in food, risk and discomfort. Only she can decide to keep it or send it out in the cold.

After pregnancy society could bear the costs of raising a child - but I'm glad we don't. Parents should be prepared to pay for your own offspring.

That's the problem here: as a humanist, I believe in embettering humanity and human beings, not killing them.

Nulono wrote:as a humanist, I believe in embettering humanity and human beings, not killing them.

As a pragmatist, I think you should answer my earlier question, Nulono. Here it is:

Now a question for you, Nulono. In the last year, millions of people have died in countries that you've probably never heard of. Many died of hunger, dirty water and cheaply treatable diseases. I accuse you, Nulono, of doing less than you could have done. You could have saved dozens, perhaps hundreds, but you didn't. How do you plead?

Guilty.

Nulono wrote:Guilty.

So am I - and so is 99% of all people. In my life, I met only one person (an atheist on the EvilBible board) that actually did all he could, spending all his spare money and time to help others.

I don't consider our behavior actually bad, I consider it morally neutral. I think we should have a right to be like we are - and I maintain that every woman should have that same right: the right to refuse to care for another being that she hasn't chosen herself.

After pregnancy society could bear the costs of raising a child - but I'm glad we don't. Parents should be prepared to pay for your own offspring.

Over 1.4 million babies are aborted a year in the US. One child is aborted every half-second worldwide. How could that be fiscally sustainable if all those children were to be raised, sheltered, and fed by the state? I guess it's possible, but not reasonable.

I believe the average cost of raising a child from birth to 18 years old in the US is anywhere around 200k. I know the state would definitely knock that number down, but if it's even close to 100k, then it will easily cost over a hundred billion dollars. The children will either be living in Hoover-villes, or the United States will go even more bankrupt than it already is...

Not to mention, I think everyone is aware that Foster Care does not provide the ideal living conditions for children as it is.

How are slavery and rape MORE immoral?

Even though morality is subjective, I think the reasons are obvious. Especially with rape.

But the children that are aborted are not "would-be" or "potential", but EXTANT offspring.

That's true, but still besides my point....

Are you suggesting that mass-homicide is acceptable for financial reasons?

Nulono wrote:Are you suggesting that mass-homicide is acceptable for financial reasons?

Niels already went through this with you. 99% of us are guilty of manslaughter, homicide, etc for not doing everything in our power to save and improve other's lives. By your standards, we are all guilty for not preventing every abortion, feeding every starving African, and providing heat for every homeless person during the winter. The list goes on.

The reason I agree with Neils' view, that it's "morally neutral", is because applying those standards in practical ways isn't feasible in terms of man-power, financial power, or within any amount of time. So by your standards, I guess I am suggesting mass-homicide is indeed acceptable for financial reasons. By your standards, though, you are also a hypocrite, for you, Neils, and I all plead guilty to homicide in one form or another.

I think the reasoning behind this particular debate is basically just semantics at this point.

I am not holding you responsible for every abortion. I hold the abortionist responsible for the abortions he or she performs.

Nulono wrote:I am not holding you responsible for every abortion. I hold the abortionist responsible for the abortions he or she performs.

So we should - like we hold a police officer responsible for firing his gun. So much responsible that I thank them for doing their jobs.

Are you suggesting that mass-homicide is acceptable for financial reasons?

Whenever any species, family, tribe, community or country finds itself without food, water or room, it will chose mass-homicide to save itself. It might invade anothers territory or start killing among its own members, but it will kill.

Killing for financial reasons might sound bad, but finances reflect resources and killing over resources seems inevitable - alas.

Wow.
Just wow.

...

I have nothing more to say.

Nulono wrote:Wow.
Just wow.

...

I have nothing more to say.

What exactly provoked this response? The fact that most women will thank their doctor for performing an abortion, or the fact that humanity wages war?

I'm guessing that Nulono's response was provoked by the word "but" following the statement "Killing for financial reasons might sound bad." You've gone from defending just abortion to defending ANY human killing based on that human's "unwantedness" or "inconvenience." You don't have to be religious to find that shocking.

Kelsey wrote:You've gone from defending just abortion to defending ANY human killing based on that human's "unwantedness" or "inconvenience." You don't have to be religious to find that shocking.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm not defending murder; I'm stating a fact about human nature. I very much wish we lived in a world where there was space, freedom, water and food for all - but we're not.

When I initiated this thread (and I do apologize for the temporary abandonment), my complaint was simply that Truth-Saves treats abortion as if no secular person could oppose it. The page assumes that pro-life opposition to abortion is based on religious doctrines about the existence of a soul. In the debate that's taken place here, we've found that abortion can be opposed by atheists on other grounds. You don't have to agree with these grounds, but it's ridiculous at this point to say that they don't exist. Therefore, I find it inappropriate to list the pro-life cause among the things that make the Bible "immoral." For many atheists, protecting the right to life at every stage of a human's life is a moral thing to do.

If you are going to keep the abortion page, it needs a rewrite, because numerous factual inaccuracies remain, namely:
1) "In turn, a "human embryo" in its earlier stages can be altered to from into another species and if you want to be technical during embryological development the embryo goes through many different stages of past evolutionary species before becoming a human fetus." At no stage can a human embryo be altered into another species, because membership in a species is determined by DNA. Various mammals develop similar embryonic structures at similar times, but this is because they have a common ancestor, not because the human embryo is going through "different stages of past evolutionary species."
2) "Does life begin at conception? Based on any basic understanding of biology the answer is clearly no. For starters an embryo is not an independent living organism and cannot naturally live separated from its host." By this logic, no parasite is alive, which will certainly come as a shock to microbiologists. Conscious humans who cannot live without the assistance of machines (i.e. kidney dialysis) are also apparently excluded from the living!
Although a simple and universal definition of "life" is hard to come by, scientists agree that living organisms are those that exhibit behaviors like homeostasis, metabolism, and growth. Human embryos possess all of these features. As I stated before, mainstream embryological textbooks agree that human life begins at conception.
3) "No, making abortion illegal will only make things worse! Outlawing abortion is not the answer because it will not prevent abortions from continuing to occur. It will only prevent abortions from being safe." I really don't blame you for including this one, because it has been repeated so often that it has come to be seen as fact. But the numbers just don't bear it out. Abortion supporters often compare apples to oranges-- a country with modern medicine where abortion is legal versus a developing country where it is not. No surprise how THAT comes out! But when you remove the confounding factor and make an honest comparison between economically similar nations, the picture changes dramatically. Countries where abortion is restricted commonly have the lowest maternal morality rate in that region (Mauritius in Africa, Chile in South America, Ireland in Europe, Sri Lanka in East Asia, etc.)

Your website is supposed to be about the truth. I respect your opinion-- I only ask that you not use lies to support it. You are undermining your whole mission when you do.

Finally, I'd like you to know that SecularProLife.org has spoken out in opposition to Ireland's anti-blasphemy law. There's something we can agree on!

Niels wrote:I very much wish we lived in a world where there was space, freedom, water and food for all - but we're not.

Fair enough. But I don't feel that killing human beings, at any stage of development, is the appropriate response to overpopulation. Our actions must come before conception, by encouraging responsible sexual activity. Otherwise, we sacrifice a fundamental human right.

Kelsey wrote:When I initiated this thread (and I do apologize for the temporary abandonment), my complaint was simply that Truth-Saves treats abortion as if no secular person could oppose it.

I agree with you that the literal text of that page doesn't reflect the facts - but I don't really care, since none of the offending statements has any bearing on my personal reasons for supporting abortion.

Perhaps Nuluno should have started a new thread to discuss abortion itself, instead of hijacking your thread. Perhaps the moderators should have split the thread. Perhaps none of us should have replied to Noluno, to keep this thread on topic.

Meanwhile, the damage is done. We'll have to live with a thread that discusses not just the site, but also abortion itself, and even human rights in general. I note that you have already accepted that, by replying to my comments...

Kelsey wrote:Otherwise, we sacrifice a fundamental human right.

Which human right states that we have "a right to be kept alive at all costs"?

The only thing I'm defending is, that if one can't take care of himself, he can't demand others to do it for him. Taking care of others is very nice and moral, but that doesn't make it our duty.

Niels wrote:I agree with you that the literal text of that page doesn't reflect the facts - but I don't really care, since none of the offending statements has any bearing on my personal reasons for supporting abortion.

Well then, I guess we're done. It's been nice talking to you.