Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Desk trauma]

i dont see atheists arguing for abortion at the last moment. this implies they dont care for it to be illegal

EAC meetings have been deadlocked on that issue for some time, hence the silence from members posting here.

 

[David Collins]

EAC meetings have been deadlocked on that issue for some time, hence the silence from members posting here.

as a christian, i think abortion is murder. what are you atheists trying to do in this thread?

 

[All Becomes New]

I don’t want to be pedantic, but I’m kind of a stickler for terminology. An embryo/fetus in utero is human in the biological sense. But it’s not a person in the legal sense. It doesn’t have 14th Amendment Constitutional rights. However, the Dobbs decision allows states to designate the unborn as persons under state law. Which makes things clear as mud. Of course, there’s no argument that legal personhood occurs at birth, no matter the degree of prematurity. And to be even more specific, obstetric tradition has it that birth has occurred when the newborn’s head is outside the mother’s body.

The law is not necessarily suitable for making moral judgments. Besides, the baby is not not a person 5 minutes before its head comes out, and as soon as its head comes out, it is a person. That's ridiculous.

 

[Desk trauma]

what are you atheists trying to do in this thread?

I only speak for one atheist, me, and I am in this thread for the same reason I am on the forum in general: to see and interact with differing points of view. When I can keep the snark under control which is less and less frequent.

 

[NxNW]

The study was in the last few months of pregnancy. So it supports the view that the pre-born are infact "human beings" as many seem to want to argue that they're not.

But it's in irrelevant timeframe, since (other than rare outliers) nobody is pushing for elective third trimester abortion. Roe was concerned with first trimester, when there is no shred of humanity.

 

[NxNW]

why is it my business if a pre-born is murdered?

If it's third trimester, it might be the business of the state. If it's first trimester, it can't be murder, since an embryo is not a human being.

 

[NxNW]

btw, just found this documentary, about how even birth control pills can cause silent abortions:

This is false.

All sex is meant for marriage only, and without contraception.

Some women take birth control pills for non-contraceptive reasons. Would you outlaw all contraception if you had the power?

 

[All Becomes New]

If it's third trimester, it might be the business of the state. If it's first trimester, it can't be murder, since an embryo is not a human being.

False. When does it begin to be alive? Can something that is not alive grow? We have no framework for when a person exists that is not subjective, so the best thing to do is go based on the lowest common denominator: when is it alive?

 

[NxNW]

I feel it prudent here to quote St. Pisentios, bishop of Qift in the 7th century, who in the first of his two extant letters warned us in plain language: "Any woman who aborts what she carries in her womb of the incomplete foetus the Lord shall throw her into the depth of the pit of Hades."

I don't think it's up to St. Pisentios.

If my story were your story, how do you think you would feel about abortion?

I was born healthy. However, if my mom had decided to have an abortion in the first trimester, before I was 'me', it would have been before I existed. You'd be missing out on my quality content here today, but at the time it would not have been the death of a human being.

To me it makes sense to say that if women's decisions regarding their own bodies ought to have pride of place in discussion of this issue (which is very sensible; they are the ones with all the wombs, after all), then there ought to also be a space, however small it may be, for people like me to also have our say...

I am a person too. Even if I scare everyone and inspire a million abortions, I am still a person. No rhetoric on any side can deny me what God has given me. I was born with it just like all of you.

You are a person now. During the first trimester of your mother's pregnancy, you were not a person.

 

[NxNW]

If the mother's argument is "I want to go on holidays" or "I want to finish my master" then the life of the fetus is absolutely more important. You don't agree with that?

No. Especially when it's an embryo and not a fetus.

 

[Desk trauma]

False

How so?

If it's the states business is a matter of opinion and no law in the US classes it as murder.

 

[NxNW]

False. When does it begin to be alive? Can something that is not alive grow? We have no framework for when a person exists that is not subjective, so the best thing to do is go based on the lowest common denominator: when is it alive?

The only question is when it becomes a human being.

 

[All Becomes New]

How so?

If it's the states business is a matter of opinion and no law in the US classes it as murder.

Morality is not subjective and as such we should attempt to put moral laws into place.

 

[NxNW]

as a christian, i think abortion is murder. what are you atheists trying to do in this thread?

Open your eyes to another point of view?

 

[All Becomes New]

The only question is when it becomes a human being.

At fertilization, it is a human. It has all the DNA code it will ever need at that point.

 

[NxNW]

Morality is not subjective

Actually, it is, since nobody can agree on it. Even laws and holy books are still subject to interpretation.

 

[All Becomes New]

Actually, it is, since nobody can agree on it. Even laws and holy books are still subject to interpretation.

Is it ever morally acceptible to torture a baby for fun? Morality is objective if it is never morally acceptable to do that.

Otherwise, what you are advocating for is mob rule. Pretty sure you don't want that option.

 

[David Collins]

Open your eyes to another point of view?

why are you trying to do this?

 

[NxNW]

At fertilization, it is a human. It has all the DNA code it will ever need at that point.

False. It could split into identical twins. It if does, did the twins exist before the split? If your answer is yes, then you're claiming that two humans existed in a single zygote, which is impossible. If your answer is no, then you're admitting that human lives being *after* fertilization.

Which of the above is your argument?

Also, human beings are quantifiable. At the moment of fertilization, it might split, or it might not. Nobody knows, and therefore, because we can't quantify how many embryos will result (one, two, or most likely zero), then it can't be human.

 

[All Becomes New]

False. It could split into identical twins. It if does, did the twins exist before the split? If your answer is yes, then you're claiming that two humans existed in a single zygote, which is impossible. If your answer is no, then you're admitting that human lives being *after* fertilization.

Which of the above is your argument?

Also, human beings are quantifiable. At the moment of fertilization, it might split, or it might not. Nobody knows, and therefore, because we can't quantify how many embryos will result (one, two, or most likely zero), then it can't be human.

Twins have the same DNA, so this is not the win you think it is.