Atheism and Abortion

Debate Room
81

I proved your accusation twice by your own words you dumbass.

Read what you write. Muppet.

82

Showing the dogma attached to the pro-choice movement is not me trying to dictate what a woman does with her body, your hack response only shows your inability to debate in good faith. Pandering for attention instead of actually engaging in debate.

83

No you presented your false delusion of what i said. You did NOT quote me directly. So i am still waiting.

84

LOL…do you read what you write?
First you want to take control of a woman’s body just 'because" then I have “false delusions?” OH LOL…you really are showing yourself to be intellectually deficient now.

85

“in my experience, within the context of debates about abortion, it is usually in an arbitrary way to claim conception is immediately comparable with a fully sentient human being. As of course the thread author has done in this case.”

When talking about where we can claim life to begin, the only logical and empirical point we have to start is at the beginning of the very biological process that creates life as we know it…THIS IS NOT ARBITRARY. Choosing to move the point based upon personal opinion and dogma, IS ARBITRARY.

86

Either quote me DIRECTLY or save yourself further embarrassment. I am still waiting.

87

" If you agree that you have the right to survive and act on threats, percieved or real, then so does the pregnant woman."

2020 would disagree with claim, as we have riots and protests over police trying to " survive and act on threats, percieved" and shoots an unarmed black man. Yet by the logic presented in your response they were totally justified, regardless of the actual threat to their life.

88

Do i really need to explain that just because something is legal, does not make it right?

Really?

89

Fair enough, I would have responded sooner but hit the post limit so i had to wait 12 hours.

I can provide a definition. I would like to limit the definition to apply to only human embryonic development, I don’t want to be asked if using Lysol is tantamount to genocide lol.

To be more specific, life is both the process of development and the end result, leading up to death. So for example, clearly a child developing in the womb is considered a life, as is the child playing with toys on the floor considered a life.

For potential life, i would define as that which (in regards to human embryonic development) has to potential to create life, but not on its own. So to give two clear examples, Semen and Eggs, both have the potential to create life but cannot on their own.

90

Read your arguments bozo. Your wish to take the freedom of bodily autonomy from a female human demonstrates your wish to enslave them to your idea of “correctness”

The very definition of enslavement.

Now do fuck off and play with your other incel cavemen mates.

1 Like
91

@LogicFTW

First thank you for taking the time to actually respond to my OP. You have raised some good points that are worthy of consideration.

" What this means is: when a clump of unique dna cells growing in a woman’s body = human with full rights to live that supersedes another human beings rights to her own body is strictly a matter of OPINION."

First, I agree that the debate around abortion is one centered around opinion…But this matter of opinion is one that can potentially have deadly consequences. If you agree that life begins at insemination, then the termination of the pregnancy is a termination of that life. This is only logically consistent.

“There is no hard data point where you can say without opinion: that this here is a human being with rights that supersedes a woman’s right to her own body, this here is not. There is no such line. All we can do is form our own opinions.”

Here we see the conflation of two separate issues:

  1. Where does life begin
  2. what rights over that life does the mother have.

The second issue needs more explaining, the question of ’ what rights over that life does the mother have? Includes the choice of either carrying that child to term or aborting it, quality of life, how the child is raised, etc.

If it can be shown that life in fact begins at insemination, then obviously the rights the mother has over that child is limited, much in the same way a mother cannot murder her child after birth, or abandon it at the store. Because we can see at this point (after birth) there is a life, so the choices available to a mother is limited based on this.

And we do in fact have a clear event we can point to and say “here is where life begins”, this point can be observed, independently replicated, and produces the same results, over and over again. Insemination is the beginning of the biological process that creates life this is not a radical or controversial statement it is rooted in empiricism and has the added effect of being a fact.

“But until that point, people are forcing their opinion on woman’s bodies, and I find that very wrong.”

No one is forcing opinions on anyone, I certainly am not, i am arguing that if we can sufficiently prove that life begins at insemination then the debate around abortion is not settled and we need to honestly asses the arguments on both sides. I argue that the pro-choice argument is built on hallow ground, that much of the justifications for the choice to get an abortion are built, not on reason or evidence, but on dogmatic assertions such as "her body, her choice’.

“Plus ofcourse inequality and general unequal status from males to females in the world also rear their ugly head in this argument and really make a mess of things.”

Well questions of alleged power dynamics between sexes we can leave to the academic sinkhole that is sociology. Which is just psychology, done poorly.

“Like the fact if the woman is rich or has access to money, getting abortion is never a problem, but that single mom working 2 jobs simply does not have that option which also very cruelly unfair.”

Questions about what is or is not fair are not the subject of discussion, lots of things in life are not fair, yet they still persist. Is it fair that a man has little say over his child, as long as that child is still in the mothers womb? No. But many people on this very thread clearly think it is, so how do we decide what is fair for the child, the mother and the father? Seems to me like we have a herculean effort on our hands if we take only what is fair into the equation. I argue that it is better to err on the side of life, and then question what rights a mother and father has from there. Much like we do in every other case where a child is concerned–whenever its outside of the womb.

92

Wow, 4 attempts and yet you fail every time. I see why your name is Old_man_shouts_at_cl, because you join threads, then yell to the void, responding to arguments no one ever made. You cannot even straw-man correctly lol.

93

@AlphaLogica157

Equivocation fallacy, when someone uses the same word or phrase or meaning in different senses within one line of argument. “Perceived threat” has different meaning within civil law, than it does with respect to evolutionary survival. You said you do think that you have a innate right to survival, no? You did answer yes. Would you like to change your answer? Because, if you have the innate right to survive, so does a pregnant woman.

94

“Equivocation fallacy”

No it is not. It falls right into what you provided. First you said:

“Because she has an inherent need to survive, as you do, she has the right to act on her fear or trepidation’s of pregnancy. If she thinks she may die or be injured, irrelevant whether those fears are real or unfounded, that is enough to validate abortion. If you agree that you have the right to survive and act on threats, percieved or real, then so does the pregnant woman.”

The scenario I proposed fits right into you own line of reasoning. That a cop thinks she may die or be injured, irrelevant whether those fears are real or unfounded, that is enough to validate pulling the trigger.

It is not a false equivalence.

"“Perceived threat” has different meaning within civil law, than it does with respect to evolutionary survival. "

We are not talking about civil law, or evolutionary survival.

You said you do think that you have a innate right to survival, no? You did answer yes. Would you like to change your answer? Because, if you have the innate right to survive, so does a pregnant woman."

I do not recall answering your question at all. But just so I do not dodge a question. Yes you have a right to survive.

Now does that right apply to a unborn child…Or is it exclusive to those outside of the womb?

Where does this right begin and end?

95

Cool, I am hopeful that: perhaps we can have a good solid debate that we can both gain something from.

I do not agree with that opinion.
Did you miss the part that I discussed that I believe, that life is a cycle. With no beginning or end. (Except maybe the formation and destruction of our planet.) This position well evidenced by reality by the way!
But I understand why that is your opinion, and how what the rest of what you wrote is logically consistent with that.

Yeah unfortunately we have to do that. It is simple reality that a fetus requires a woman’s body to survive. If woman simply laid self sufficient eggs, we would not have to be worried about a woman’s right to her own body.

But really, we have not even solved the first part. “where does human life begin.” We struggle with this because life does not really have one set starting point. It is a cycle. We can with opinion try to decide a starting point, but it remains just an opinion. "This point on the circle =start of life. Its arbitrary, opinion its trying to pick a starting point on a circle.

But it can’t. It is a nice IF, would be real useful, but it simply cannot.

For the example of insemination, it seems like a “nice starting point” and in some ways it is, the singular meiosis event along the cycle is certainly a major point, but it is not the “start of life” this should be obvious. The egg is alive and absolutely necessary, the sperm is “alive” and also absolutely necessary, they are the steps before on the cycle.

I understand why you wrote that before. Do you still stand by that after what I wrote now?

Err. You now stated twice “if” the “if” has not been settled! It is not rooted in empiricism and its not a fact.

So if you stand by what you wrote, then you realize if you tell a woman no she can not have an abortion, you are forcing your opinion on her body. And since you do not want to do that, you would allow the women to choose based on her opinions instead of yours.

My argument is not built on “evidence” it is built on the fact that your argument is not evidenced. To which you perhaps mistakenly admitted to twice with your “if” statements.

So you discount these enormous issues with a wave of your hand that you do not like sociology and think its psychology done poorly. I imagine you would not wave these issues so blithely aside if you were in such a situation.

Not the subject of discussion? Dang I was hoping for a fair honest debate, but now you are setting rules on what you are willing to talk about. That makes this less engaging for me. Hopefully you may be willing to discuss everything instead of not discussing things that are not convenient to your opinion.

When something is not fair purely because of someone’s opinion, should we not try to correct that unfairness?

But fine, I will not bring that up further, this debate is already branching out into a lot of areas. We should probably stick with you trying to evidence in any way that “insemination” is the start of life. And ignore all the other major issues around abortion for now. And address those once we have figured out a starting point that is not opinion.

Me personally I never seen anyone actually truly evidence a starting point. And they have failed to do so for a simple reason, life is a cycle with no beginning or end.

The man’s rights to his own dna submission to the meiosis step of the cycle of life supersedes a woman’s right to her own body because of your opinion on life starts when men simple easy fast pleasurable step is done? That sounds very much like misogynistic thinking to me, but hey that just my opinion

Letting women decide for themselves constitutes as a herculean effort to you? Huh?

Still haven’t established start of life yet! Try again!

Err, you mean when a woman’s right to her own body is no longer at issue? You are comparing that? That seems to be comparing apples to oranges.

2 Likes
96

You wriggle more than the maggots on my fishing hook.

The moment you take away a persons choice in bodily autonomy and give to another person or group of people that is slavery.

Don’t be such a prig and admit you are what you are. Muppet.

1 Like
97

@LogicFTW

“Cool, I am hopeful that: perhaps we can have a good solid debate that we can both gain something from.”

As am i. But first we need to address this:

"But really, we have not even solved the first part. “where does human life begin.” We struggle with this because life does not really have one set starting point. It is a cycle. "

Life in a cosmic sense is a cycle. Life for an individual is linear, it has a beginning and end.

“Yeah unfortunately we have to do that. It is simple reality that a fetus requires a woman’s body to survive. If woman simply laid self sufficient eggs, we would not have to be worried about a woman’s right to her own body.”

I do not want to be accused of sophistry, but i cannot help but see that even the very language you use only goes to demonstrate my point “It is simple reality that a fetus requires a woman’s body to survive.”

That we both can see this, only goes to prove that the fetus is alive, and thus can be considered ‘life’ Now where does sophistry come in? It could be simply a limitation in the English language and not a reflection of my argument, So i only want to point that out for what it is.

You claim that “we have not even solved the first part. “where does human life begin.”

Yet I have provided an explanation, rooted in observation, evidence, reason, and is supported by cases as numerous as the human population. I challenge anyone to meet me with the same standards in opposition to this point. It HAS been demonstrated, and can be replicated…what more do you want?

“The egg is alive and absolutely necessary, the sperm is “alive” and also absolutely necessary, they are the steps before on the cycle.”

Here is where i should have been more clear, so this is on me. I should have provided a definition to distinguish these points. I would like to limit the definition to apply to only human embryonic development, I don’t want to be asked if using Lysol is tantamount to genocide lol.

To be more specific, life is both the process of development and the end result, leading up to death. So for example, clearly a child developing in the womb is considered a life, as is the child playing with toys on the floor considered a life.

We can call an egg or sperm potential life, as they both have the potential to create life but only together, not on their own.

“Err. You now stated twice “if” the “if” has not been settled! It is not rooted in empiricism and its not a fact.”

Both the 'if statements, were just me clarifying my position, as it has been repeatedly misrepresented, from accusations to enslavement and being an incel lol. But you already shown you understand my position well enough, so no need to elaborate

“So if you stand by what you wrote, then you realize if you tell a woman no she can not have an abortion, you are forcing your opinion on her body. And since you do not want to do that, you would allow the women to choose based on her opinions instead of yours.”

No, by challenging the validity of the claim ‘her body her choice’ i am only challenging the validity of the claim, no more, no less. Just to get this pesky question out of the way:

I do not think abortion should be not illegal. But legality is no reflection on what is right or wrong. True or False.

“My argument is not built on “evidence” it is built on the fact that your argument is not evidenced.”

No my argument is built on the best evidence we have, empirical evidence.
The issue is my argument claims life is at the beginning of the biological process. You say it’s somewhere after that point.

Why, based on what?

“But fine, I will not bring that up further, this debate is already branching out into a lot of areas.”

This is the reason why i want to try and stay on topic, so thank you for understanding, it is difficult enough keeping up with 4 different posters covering a myriad of topics lol.

“The man’s rights to his own dna submission to the meiosis step of the cycle of life supersedes a woman’s right to her own body because of your opinion on life starts when men simple easy fast pleasurable step is done? That sounds very much like misogynistic thinking to me, but hey that just my opinion”

Nothing in my question is even remotely close to misogyny. I only presented a clear example of what is not fair. This should not even need explaining, and you said you want to have an honest discussion, yet make subtle accusations towards my character. I have had quite enough of that already here and would appreciate if you would attack my argument from here on out. As I have made no such accusations towards you.

“Letting women decide for themselves constitutes as a herculean effort to you? Huh?”

No, considering the issue of abortion from ONLY what is fair to the mother, the father (which you left out btw) and the child is a herculean effort. Please do not twist my words.

“Err, you mean when a woman’s right to her own body is no longer at issue? You are comparing that? That seems to be comparing apples to oranges.”

We are not talking about only the body of the mother, but also the body of the child, it is not only an issue of 'her body–But the life of the child, which is easy to see outside of the womb, why is life easy to see only when its outside the womb?

98

The reason why you keep doubling down and not providing any proof of your delusions is because you know you cant, you know you made a fool of yourself and instead of owning up to it, you try and troll your way out. But that only reinforces the obvious, you cannot back up a single claim you have made, if what you said was at all true, you would have quoted me directly, proving it already.

99

Run along sonny. You have wriggled and deflected since your first post.

State your case: should women have bodily autonomy or not?

Met your ilk before.

1 Like
100

AlphaLogic147
It’s a longer response - I did my best to quote you in context and separately from my own response

AL157. I would like to limit the definition to apply to only human embryonic development, I don’t want to be asked if using Lysol is tantamount to genocide lol.

I do not accept your “limit” of the definition. There are many properties that make up the definition of life not just one and within each property there are sub properties. I accept that a human “life” as “potential”
(which I clarified in post 73) and will repeat: term of “potential” was more in reference to an inability to be an independent life - like an egg- has the “potential” if regularly sat on by the hen or duck or whatever (well, not like an elephant whatever) as in contrast to the woman who is an independent (living) agent.

The seven characteristics of life include:
responsiveness to the environment;
growth and change;
ability to reproduce;
have a metabolism and breathe;
maintain homeostasis; (eg Examples of homeostasis in humans include the regulation of blood sugar via insulin, the regulation of body temperature by the hypothalamus, the constant surveillance and functioning of the immune system, regulation of blood pressure via sensors in the walls of arteries, the pH balance maintained by the lungs etc.)
being made of cells; and.
passing traits onto offspring.

AL157. ALSO life is both the process of development

A stage of “life” - there is no thought process and much of the development is reaction and reflex. The life in gestation
(depending on days/weeks/months in womb) may meet 2-3 of the characteristics listed above but “the placenta plays a critical role in the maintenance of homeostasis in pregnancy.” Also see: https://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v41n6/7205.pdf

AL157. Insemination is the beginning of the biological process that creates life this is not a radical or controversial statement (91)

A morning after pill is not the same as a late term abortion. (Both of which are legal in Canada).

AL157. Questions about what is or is not fair are not the subject of discussion, lots of things in life are not fair, yet they still persist.

This was referencing to “after the child’s birth”. However, this is where I see a pro-birth movement and not necessarily “life” (child after birth meets 5 characteristics) yet the quality of this child’s life is now deemed “as not fair” and the woman who is the host for gestation meets all 7 characteristics, yet she is to yield to a life form that meets 2-3. Quality of life is apart of the human experience and I would argue the most valued part of “life”. To suggest “someone” outside the woman determine her quality of life or her offspring in favor of a “life” that has had no experience or quality or thought-forms or capacity to survive outside the womb is IMO ridiculous.

AR157. you agree that life begins at insemination, then the termination of the pregnancy is a termination of that life.

Yes, I agree based on the characteristics of “life” at the varying stages of gestational development. However at “insemination” you have “one” cell before it begins its dividing process. A morning after pill (which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus… The egg must attach to the uterus to become a viable pregnancy.) Hence, the use of “life” in this instance is??? A virus at this stage has more “life characteristics”.

AR157. aLSO no hard data point where you can say without opinion: that this here is a human being with rights that supersedes a woman’s right to her own body, this here is not.

Until the baby is outside the womb, the child developing has no “human rights”. If the baby is premature, the parent/s want the child to survive, the medical community works with that decision and the baby (outside the womb now) is granted certain “rights” (say a nurse causes the infant’s death, the nurse can be charged)…likewise if the same gestation is with a pregnant woman who wants her child to full term, and say she is assaulted and the fetus dies, the assailant can’t be charged in respect to the damage caused to the fetus - just the woman (this is my understanding of Canadian Law)

How other countries decide, as a society, to establish their laws, that’s up to them.

AR157 Is it fair that a man has little say over his child, as long as that child is still in the mothers womb? No.

… the option before birth for a male human to remove himself from financial and physical support of a child SHOULD be an option (fatherhood should no more be forced on the male as motherhood should be forced on a female) - in effect, legally allowing or recognizing he was “just a sperm donor”. (Repeat of mine from previous post)
If he wanted the child carried to full term, and the woman didn’t, it’s like you mentioned previously “life isn’t necessarily fair” (women have miscarriages also) - so until an artificial womb can be used for this purpose (for a man who wants the child) …he has to acknowledge its her womb being used.

AR157 I argue that it is better to err on the side of life,

OK - the woman’s life has the seven characteristics. She has thoughts and emotions, the ability to reproduce and has agency. I will err on her side when supporting “life”.