cashforsoul-deactivated20120317 asked: I was wondering about your stance on abortion. I know you are against it and i have seen you refer to it a few times as murder, I am definitely pro-choice but always wondering what exactly it is that makes most anti-choicers completely ignore the scientific evidence that a fetus is not a living conscious being. I know i don't have to link you to any science, and i hope this doesn't come off as the first stone but when i get into debates about this there is a blatant disregard for the facts of fetal development. As if the words i said or the sources i cite are literally impenetrable to the ear. I sincerely hope you are not anti-choice because of religious reasons as this usually leads t "Well the bible says...". Even if i wasn't an atheist i would need an argument that carried more weight.
I am definitely pro-choiceEveryone is pro-choice, unless they’re robots. And, unless they’re violent psychotics, they’re pro-life too. Those are stupid euphamistic terms used to prop up one’s own position while denigrating the others without actually making an argument. I generally do not bother dealing with such types because, simply by identifying themselves as “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” they have illustrated that they don’t actually understand the subject in the first place. But you seem earnest, so I’ll chalk it up to naivete and give you the benefit of the doubt.
The issue isn’t one of life or choice, so let us dispense with that nonsense right now. If you truly wish to discuss the matter, then let us do so candidly.
The issue is of abortion. Abortion is the intentional termination of an pregnancy by means of removing the maturing in-utero being inside of a woman’s uterus.
If you support the legalized (or illegal) practice of abortion, then you are pro-abortion. This includes supporting it by proxy, even if one were to personally abhor the practice but still sanction it for others (often deceptively presented as the, “I support the right of others to have the choice” argument). If you do not support the legalized (or illegal) practice of abortion, then you are anti-abortion. This includes decrying the practice of abortions in the face of non-convenience-based abortions (often hypocritically avoided as the, “I’m against abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother” argument).
I am anti-abortion. The practice should be outlawed in all cases, and those that accept the dangers of trying to get one despite have brought upon themselves the suffering of the consequences that come with it.
but always wondering what exactly it is that makes most anti-choicers completely ignore the scientific evidence that a fetus is not a living conscious beingI would posit, including my own personal stance on the subject in doing so, that it’s less “ignoring” the scientific evidence as it is doubting it. If it were as hard and fast a fact as the pro-abortion community claims, we wouldn’t even be having the debate in the first place. There’s a lot of things couched in science that are anything but—usually for the purpose of suiting some agenda that has nothing to do with the actual subject.
Of course, one could easily turn the argument around by pointing to the science surrounding the increasing survival rate of premature babies—which, of course, raises the question: “What’s different about this thing other than its location, such as to not make it a human life?” I’ve had this debate enough times to know that science falls on just as many pro-abortion deaf ears as the opposing science does on anti-abortion deaf ears.
I, however, do not take that line of reasoning. My argument acknowledges the lack of certainty we have on the subject. The honest reality is, we don’t know whether that thing swimming around in there is a human being or not. So, my argument is: why not give it the benefit of the doubt?
Your characterization of humanity defined as “living and conscious” betrays the fact that we treat unconscious adults as human (with all rights associated, in particular the right to life), and we make every effort to save ones that (by all appearances and, sometimes, medical definitions) have “stopped living.” The very act of “resuscitation” involves bringing a person back to life after an apparent death. Consider: you see a man clutch his heart and fall to the ground unconscious—no breathing, no pulse. Do you aid him (thus giving the benefit of the doubt to him being alive or revivable), or do you ignore him (having concluded that he no longer fits the criteria of being human and is thus undeserving of trying to preserve his life)?
The fact is, in all other circumstances of human existence, we give the benefit of the doubt to life. Why? Because we generally consider human life worth saving and protecting (and more significantly, it is an inalienable right). Even when we’re uncertain, we go to monumental efforts to do this. Yet, in the case of abortion, the pro-abortion stance flat-out ignores this.
If there were knock-down, undeniable, hard-and-fast factual evidence to conclude that the thing in utero isn’t a human life and settle that question once and for all, I’d say by all means—abort your little hearts out. But without that, I simply cannot come up with a reason to not give it the benefit of the doubt. And to date (and I’ve had this debate thousands of times), I have yet to see anyone posit a sound and valid reason to not do so.
I especially take this stance because of the possibility that it could one day emerge knock-down, undeniable, hard-and-fast factual evidence to the contrary—that, without a doubt, that thing’s a human being. Man, if that’s the case then consider the repercussions. That means that society will have tens of millions of killings on our hands. Perhaps unintentional killings, but killings just the same. In numbers that literally eclipse the deaths caused by the greatest travesties in histories combined. Ethically, that’s a risk I’d rather not take. And, for the life of me, I cannot understand anyone that’s eager to (ie. the pro-abortion community).
I say, better safe than sorry. And, when you present it in stark terms: the 9mo inconvenience of a woman that brought pregnancy on herself by virtue of her own actions (eg. 99.99% of pregnancies) vs. the intentional killing of something that might very well be human life—I have to say I side with the latter. I’d rather inconvenience someone (who could have avoided her predicament in the first place) than kill someone else, y’know?
I sincerely hope you are not anti-choice because of religious reasons as this usually leads t “Well the bible says…”.Mm, yes, those types are frustrating. Right for the wrongest of reasons, and zealously so. And worse, they don’t know why they’re defending their position. They’re just doing what they’re told. (Of course, after having put them to the test, I’ve encountered a great many pro-abortion types that are the same way. They tend to worship and zealously preach “relativism” instead of “god”—which is hilarious, because they’re the exact same thing. “It’s true because I believe it to be true.” Such nonsense.)
I’m curious—have you ever come across a secular anti-abortion position before having read mine? They seem to be far and few, at least in my experience.
Even if i wasn’t an atheist i would need an argument that carried more weight.That’s another thing one should never identify themselves as, for the same reason (and, interestingly, a lot of the same arguments) as why one should not use the “pro-life/pro-choice” monikers. Atheists and religious people, in virtually every respect (except the obvious one) have the same mindset. They’re simply paddling different boats in the same lake of ignorance. Both claim to “know” something they can’t possibly know given our understanding of reality. It’s silly, frankly, to limit one’s scope of knowledge by categorizing it in such ways.
