Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

MasterOfOnesOwnMind, I apologize for using the word ignorant, in retrospect I can see its a negatively-charged word and I didn't mean it as an insult. But if I am being completely honest I did mean to come at you kind of hard and knew I would probably generate a hard response from you so I'm also sorry for that.

Thanks for the apology. I apologize for calling you a bigot... That wasn't very civil of me lol.

I would also like to respond to your post...

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

Then I am sure you will agree and won't distance yourself from the fact that the ideology of evolution killed the most people last century. Let alone the Holocaust of abortion taking place today.

Abortion is much different than invading and murdering people for not holding the same beliefs as you. Not even comparable. Not to mention a fetus is a fetus, not a human being yet. Preventing life is not taking life.

With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about... A fetus is not a human being? What?... Are you referring to a gorilla fetus or something?

A fetus is a fetus, not developed into a human being yet. I know what I'm talking about, so don't tell me I don't just because your opinion is different, bigot.. You have no right to dictate what a woman does with her reproductive organs, just because your fairy tale book tells you it's wrong.

I have no interest in dictating what a woman does with her reproductive organs.

Then abortions should be none of your concern.

ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman.

Why is that? What if I lived in Nazi Germany and I decided that Slavic and Jewish people were sub-human?

Slavic and Jewish aren't fetus', they are human beings. "Deciding" that a certain group of people are sub-human is ethically immoral.

Can I make that determination subjectively?

No.

Can I decide that a human fetus is not a human being until it leaves the birth canal and takes its first breath?

Have you ever been pregnant? If so, and you chose that the human fetus was a human being and decided it wasn't ethical to get an abortion, then that would be your subjective opinion on the matter and since you were the one who was pregnant, making that decision was not wrong. Same could be said if you decided a human fetus is not a human being and went through with an abortion.

Does some sort of magic happen at the moment of birth to make the fetus transform into a human being?

Generally speaking, abortions after 20 weeks is considered unethical and in most places you can't get an abortion after 20 - 24 weeks. If someone's getting an abortion right before birth, I would consider that very unethical and can safely say that it is murder.

The irony of all this is that we aren't leaving it up to women to decide, there is a political machine that tells us what to believe about abortion.

The reason for the government making it illegal to do abortions after 20 weeks, is because of the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of a fetus. Most fetus' become viable around 27 weeks, but no fetus' are viable before 21 weeks.

The men aren't allowed to have a say in whether or not human fetuses are human beings... Unless of course their opinion matches the current PC opinion.

Please see bold, I think you just answered your own question. Whether or not human fetus' are human beings. Human fetus'.... I think after the viability point it's safe to say it's now a human being.

I find it interesting when some people refuse to refer my opinion as "Pro-life" instead naming it "Anti-choice".

You don't care about the mothers life, and you feel you have the right to dictate what she does with her body. That's anti choice.

What is the reason for this? In my opinion it can only be a ploy to try and wrest the moral high ground.

Is it moral to encourage overpopulation of the planet? There's 2 sides to every coin don't forget.

No problem, when it comes to killing a human fetus I am anti-choice. I'm also anti-choice when it comes to unjustly killing any human being.

Again you've just differentiated a fetus and a being, which you've been arguing against almost this whole time.

Strangely, pro-choice people are also anti-choice. You aren't allowed to choose to determine that a human fetus is a human being that deserves to be protected from having its life ended. You have said as much to me yourself.

I've only said that it's subjective and the only subjective opinion that matters is the pregnant woman's.

You think partial birth abortion and harvesting the fetus' organs is PREVENTING life not TAKING it?

Without using the words "partial birth" and "harvesting the fetus' organs", yes I do think that abortion is preventing life of a HUMAN BEING. I don't have proof, but like I said above, the status of a fetus is subjective opinion. Can you prove a fetus is a human being? No, you can't.

Yes I absolutely can.

What proof do you have that a human fetus is a human being?

So the ultimate choiec is left up to the pregnant ladies moral conscience. You anti-choicers seem to be confused between the difference of the adjective "human" and the noun "human being". Is afetus human??? Well it certainly isn't an alien from outerspace. Is a fetus a "human being"??? In my humble opinion, no. It is not developed and can't feel pain, can't converse, doesn't have cognition, doesn't have feelings...

It's not developed? Why are they harvesting organs from human fetuses then? Who told you a human fetus can't feel pain? A human fetus can't converse... I'll give you that. Neither can human newborns, can a mother decide they aren't human beings too?

They have to finish developing the organs to make them useable.

And as for conversing, I'd say communication of some sort takes place while the mother is still pregnant. Like kicking and responding to stimuli. Reacting to singing and music.

A fetus isn't developed, and the nerves required to feel pain don't become intact and functional until after 25 weeks gestation period.

The following excerpt is from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

"The first projections from the thalamus to cortex (the higher alarm) appear at 12-16 weeks' gestation. By this stage the brain's outer layer has split into an outer cortical rim, with a subplate developing below. The thalamic projections that develop from 12-16 weeks penetrate the subplate. Within the subplate, cortical afferents establish prolonged synaptic contacts before entering the cortical plate. The subplate is a “waiting compartment,� required for mature connections in the cortex.6,7 The major afferent fibres (thalamocortical, basal forebrain, and corticocortical) can wait in the subplate for several weeks, before they penetrate and form synapses within the cortical plate from 23-25 weeks' gestation. Subsequent dissolution of the subplate occurs through prolonged growth and maturation of associative connections in the human cerebral cortex.

Spinothalamic projections into the subplate may provide the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience,8 but this view does not account for the transient nature of the subplate and its apparent role in the maturation of functional cortical connections.6 A lack of functional neuronal activity within the subplate calls into question the pain experience of a fetus before the penetration of spinothalamic fibres into the cortical plate.

Current theories of pain consider an intact cortical system to be both necessary and sufficient for pain experience.9,10 In support are functional imaging studies showing that activation within a network of cortical regions correlate with reported pain experience.9 Furthermore, cortical activation can generate the experience of pain even in the absence of actual noxious stimulation.10 These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation. The period 23-25 weeks' gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity.1 By 26 weeks' gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain,6,7 and it has recently been shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25 weeks.11 Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks' gestation."

How does this compare with "ideology of evolution" killing people? Evolution has nothing to do with killing people, it is a process that happens naturally.

Yes that's right and I think Darwin's (And arguably Hitler's) point was we are unnaturally blocking evolution from improving the human race.

Well we have empathy for the weak, elderly and disabled, which doesn't happen in nature. Sick, weak, disabled or old animals in nature are left behind, often hunted and naturally are taken out in some form or another, leaving only the strong.

I disagree with that. I believe we are special and what makes us special is that we create social structures and relationships that protect the weak and stand up for those who can't speak for themselves.

Again this comes to a two sided coin. Mentally we ARE strong, but our mental strength (i.e. empathy, sympathy ect.) takes away from our physical strength as a whole. But societal factors allow us to care for the weak, elderly and disabled without forming weak spots. We don't have to migrate, we don't have to hunt and gather... Our system is what allows us to care for everyone.

Furthermore, and to bring this back to the OP, I submit that the high regard for other human beings from the teachings of Christ provides sufficient reason to allow the ideology of christianity to persist.

Christianity doesn't have high regards for women, homosexuals and atheists. I can't get a job in office unless I pretend I'm religious.

What about burning witches? That is still happening to this day! Because of something Christianity taught!!! How is the teachings of christ infer regard for human beings? You guys disregard science and force your ideologies on people who want nothing to do with them. I think you guys should go to church, and pray at home, but leave your ideologies there and keep them out of our schools and separate church from state.

[AdHoc]

MasterOfOnesOwnMind, I apologize for using the word ignorant, in retrospect I can see its a negatively-charged word and I didn't mean it as an insult. But if I am being completely honest I did mean to come at you kind of hard and knew I would probably generate a hard response from you so I'm also sorry for that.

Thanks for the apology. I apologize for calling you a bigot... That wasn't very civil of me lol.

Thank you I forgive you.

I would also like to respond to your post...

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

Then I am sure you will agree and won't distance yourself from the fact that the ideology of evolution killed the most people last century. Let alone the Holocaust of abortion taking place today.

Abortion is much different than invading and murdering people for not holding the same beliefs as you. Not even comparable. Not to mention a fetus is a fetus, not a human being yet. Preventing life is not taking life.

With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about... A fetus is not a human being? What?... Are you referring to a gorilla fetus or something?

A fetus is a fetus, not developed into a human being yet. I know what I'm talking about, so don't tell me I don't just because your opinion is different, bigot.. You have no right to dictate what a woman does with her reproductive organs, just because your fairy tale book tells you it's wrong.

I have no interest in dictating what a woman does with her reproductive organs.

Then abortions should be none of your concern.

But a human fetus is not a woman's reproductive organ so I say it is incorrect for you to suggest that they are the same thing. And to be honest, my problem isn't with women who choose abortion my problem is with the PC climate that doesn't allow a reasonable debate about the issue and the brainwashing that goes on to downplay the risks, obsfucate the facts surrounding the human fetus and paint adoption in a bleak light while painting abortion in a rosy light. If the facts are discussed and no one is coerced I believe most people will make a good decision.

ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman.

Why is that? What if I lived in Nazi Germany and I decided that Slavic and Jewish people were sub-human?

Slavic and Jewish aren't fetus', they are human beings. "Deciding" that a certain group of people are sub-human is ethically immoral.

I agree 100%

Can I make that determination subjectively?

No.

Can I decide that a human fetus is not a human being until it leaves the birth canal and takes its first breath?

Have you ever been pregnant? If so, and you chose that the human fetus was a human being and decided it wasn't ethical to get an abortion, then that would be your subjective opinion on the matter and since you were the one who was pregnant, making that decision was not wrong. Same could be said if you decided a human fetus is not a human being and went through with an abortion.

Does some sort of magic happen at the moment of birth to make the fetus transform into a human being?

Generally speaking, abortions after 20 weeks is considered unethical and in most places you can't get an abortion after 20 - 24 weeks. If someone's getting an abortion right before birth, I would consider that very unethical and can safely say that it is murder.

I agree with you but yesterday something happened in your country that stands at odds with that thinking.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/07/kill ... man-being/

So while you and I agree that abortions are unethical after 20 weeks, in Canada you can kill a woman's 22 week old unborn baby and that country doesn't even recognize it as a human being.

This is a tragic event and it is of course more tragic that the woman lost her life because she had a partner and friends and family that had a relationship with her. And that woman also had a relationship with her unborn child. Surely Canada should provide protection for a woman's unborn child for that reason alone.

The irony of all this is that we aren't leaving it up to women to decide, there is a political machine that tells us what to believe about abortion.

The reason for the government making it illegal to do abortions after 20 weeks, is because of the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of a fetus. Most fetus' become viable around 27 weeks, but no fetus' are viable before 21 weeks.

The men aren't allowed to have a say in whether or not human fetuses are human beings... Unless of course their opinion matches the current PC opinion.

Please see bold, I think you just answered your own question. Whether or not human fetus' are human beings. Human fetus'....

To clarify my thoughts on this, not all fetuses are human beings but all human fetuses are human beings.

I think after the viability point it's safe to say it's now a human being.

I sincerely wish Planned Parenthood shared this opinion.

I find it interesting when some people refuse to refer my opinion as "Pro-life" instead naming it "Anti-choice".

You don't care about the mothers life, and you feel you have the right to dictate what she does with her body. That's anti choice.

What is the reason for this? In my opinion it can only be a ploy to try and wrest the moral high ground.

Is it moral to encourage overpopulation of the planet? There's 2 sides to every coin don't forget.

So is abortion a means to control the population of the planet? I have never heard that before? Who are we making room for? Is Canada overpopulated? It's the second largest country on earth.

No problem, when it comes to killing a human fetus I am anti-choice. I'm also anti-choice when it comes to unjustly killing any human being.

Again you've just differentiated a fetus and a being, which you've been arguing against almost this whole time.

Strangely, pro-choice people are also anti-choice. You aren't allowed to choose to determine that a human fetus is a human being that deserves to be protected from having its life ended. You have said as much to me yourself.

I've only said that it's subjective and the only subjective opinion that matters is the pregnant woman's.

You think partial birth abortion and harvesting the fetus' organs is PREVENTING life not TAKING it?

Without using the words "partial birth" and "harvesting the fetus' organs", yes I do think that abortion is preventing life of a HUMAN BEING. I don't have proof, but like I said above, the status of a fetus is subjective opinion. Can you prove a fetus is a human being? No, you can't.

Yes I absolutely can.

What proof do you have that a human fetus is a human being?

It is a being that is part of the human species, it has unique DNA, unique fingerprints, it's alive and growing.

So the ultimate choiec is left up to the pregnant ladies moral conscience. You anti-choicers seem to be confused between the difference of the adjective "human" and the noun "human being". Is afetus human??? Well it certainly isn't an alien from outerspace. Is a fetus a "human being"??? In my humble opinion, no. It is not developed and can't feel pain, can't converse, doesn't have cognition, doesn't have feelings...

It's not developed? Why are they harvesting organs from human fetuses then? Who told you a human fetus can't feel pain? A human fetus can't converse... I'll give you that. Neither can human newborns, can a mother decide they aren't human beings too?

They have to finish developing the organs to make them useable.

And as for conversing, I'd say communication of some sort takes place while the mother is still pregnant. Like kicking and responding to stimuli. Reacting to singing and music.

A fetus isn't developed, and the nerves required to feel pain don't become intact and functional until after 25 weeks gestation period.

The following excerpt is from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

"The first projections from the thalamus to cortex (the higher alarm) appear at 12-16 weeks' gestation. By this stage the brain's outer layer has split into an outer cortical rim, with a subplate developing below. The thalamic projections that develop from 12-16 weeks penetrate the subplate. Within the subplate, cortical afferents establish prolonged synaptic contacts before entering the cortical plate. The subplate is a “waiting compartment,� required for mature connections in the cortex.6,7 The major afferent fibres (thalamocortical, basal forebrain, and corticocortical) can wait in the subplate for several weeks, before they penetrate and form synapses within the cortical plate from 23-25 weeks' gestation. Subsequent dissolution of the subplate occurs through prolonged growth and maturation of associative connections in the human cerebral cortex.

Spinothalamic projections into the subplate may provide the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience,8 but this view does not account for the transient nature of the subplate and its apparent role in the maturation of functional cortical connections.6 A lack of functional neuronal activity within the subplate calls into question the pain experience of a fetus before the penetration of spinothalamic fibres into the cortical plate.

Current theories of pain consider an intact cortical system to be both necessary and sufficient for pain experience.9,10 In support are functional imaging studies showing that activation within a network of cortical regions correlate with reported pain experience.9 Furthermore, cortical activation can generate the experience of pain even in the absence of actual noxious stimulation.10 These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation. The period 23-25 weeks' gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity.1 By 26 weeks' gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain,6,7 and it has recently been shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25 weeks.11 Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks' gestation."

How does this compare with "ideology of evolution" killing people? Evolution has nothing to do with killing people, it is a process that happens naturally.

Yes that's right and I think Darwin's (And arguably Hitler's) point was we are unnaturally blocking evolution from improving the human race.

Well we have empathy for the weak, elderly and disabled, which doesn't happen in nature. Sick, weak, disabled or old animals in nature are left behind, often hunted and naturally are taken out in some form or another, leaving only the strong.

I disagree with that. I believe we are special and what makes us special is that we create social structures and relationships that protect the weak and stand up for those who can't speak for themselves.

Again this comes to a two sided coin. Mentally we ARE strong, but our mental strength (i.e. empathy, sympathy ect.) takes away from our physical strength as a whole. But societal factors allow us to care for the weak, elderly and disabled without forming weak spots. We don't have to migrate, we don't have to hunt and gather... Our system is what allows us to care for everyone.

Furthermore, and to bring this back to the OP, I submit that the high regard for other human beings from the teachings of Christ provides sufficient reason to allow the ideology of christianity to persist.

Christianity doesn't have high regards for women, homosexuals and atheists. I can't get a job in office unless I pretend I'm religious.

I disagree with this. Unless by "christianity" you mean some christians. Where do you live that you have to pretend you're religious? Your profile says you're from Canada.

What about burning witches? That is still happening to this day! Because of something Christianity taught!!!

OK christianity never taught burning witches. Unless again you mean some christians. That may seem like a cop-out but I'm not going to try to agree with the actions of every professing christian who ever lived. If witches are being burned today that is unbelievable and immoral.

How is the teachings of christ infer regard for human beings?

Well lets use the example above to explore that idea. Based on the record of the gospels if Jesus Christ actually did exist and some religious leaders were going to burn a witch and they asked Him, "This woman is a witch and was caught in the very act of witchcraft. Our law tells us to burn her what do you say? What would you guess would be Jesus' answer?

You guys disregard science and force your ideologies on people who want nothing to do with them. I think you guys should go to church, and pray at home, but leave your ideologies there and keep them out of our schools and separate church from state.

You guys? What do you mean "you guys"? I disregard science and force my ideologies on people who want nothing to do with them? Your schools?

I think you might have gotten me confused with someone else. But if you're lumping me in with all religious people again I'll ask you, are you referring to Canada? Are the ideologies of; creation, abstinence before marriage, anti-abortion, Jesus' teachings taught in your schools in Canada?

That would be pretty interesting to me if that's the case.

[enviousintheeverafter]

And to be honest, my problem isn't with women who choose abortion my problem is with the PC climate that doesn't allow a reasonable debate about the issue

The problem with the way the issue is framed isn't that its overly "PC", its that its framed in terms of untenable religious ideas about ensoulment and such nonsense, rather than in terms of any real or relevant features of the issue.

If the facts are discussed and no one is coerced I believe most people will make a good decision.

What facts, specifically?

And @MasterofOnesOwnMind; rather than dispute whether a fetus is a human being, maybe just grant that a human fetus is, as a matter of biological designation, and point out that it doesn't follow from the mere fact that one is a human being that one is therefore a person or a moral agent. There aren't very many theorists who accept the minimal biological definition of personhood- because it just isn't very good- so this is likely the more fruitful route here; a person or a moral agent clearly has to have to have traits that a fetus doesn't have- self-consciousness, linguistic ability, moral comprehension, the ability to carry out morally pertinent actions (actions which could be judged as moral/immoral), make plans/have goals, etc. At best, a fetus will eventually become a person and moral agent, they are a potential person or moral agent, but not presently- but then, most pro-life arguments revolving around the moral status of the fetus (in virtue of being a person/moral agent) has gone out the window. There simply aren't many (or any) good general arguments against abortion if the pro-lifer is bereft of any religious arguments/premises.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 43 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

Eugenics and concepts of the master race come straight out of evolutionary understanding from the 19th to the 20th century culminating in the need for WW2.

Here's the kicker; eugenics just means 'good genetics'. The trouble was the individual unethical, power-greedy HUMANS, acting from some of our basest instincts to power. Eugenics became a force of human evil, but not because 'eugenics' is inherently evil. We humans have that special designation.

In exactly the same way, the theory of evolution is not inherently demonic as some Christians believe it to be. It's a 'tool' that can be harnessed in service to human evil, just like eugenics, or religion. Yes, even Christianity has been harnessed in service to human evil, which was Bill Maher's point.

Until folks get that WE are responsible for all of the evil ourselves, rather than assign it arbitrarily and conveniently to that which challenges religious faith, we're going to MISS seeing manifestations of human evil disguised (most often by religion or political ideologies) as 'good'.

As often as the points in your quote have been thoroughly refuted, why continue to insert them in debate, as if they conveyed any valid information at all?

[Lion IRC]

And to be honest, my problem isn't with women who choose abortion my problem is with the PC climate that doesn't allow a reasonable debate about the issue

The problem with the way the issue is framed isn't that its overly "PC", its that its framed in terms of untenable religious ideas about ensoulment and such nonsense, rather than in terms of any real or relevant features of the issue.

Trying to control the discussion and censor those who think that religion - which is an integral part of human culture around the world - is relevant to the abortion debate, is exactly the type of PC thought-control attempt to which AdHoc is alluding.

Whether Bill Maher likes it or not, abortion-on-demand is something which offends many peoples moral values and opposition to abortion is NOT religious oppression of women.

...And @MasterofOnesOwnMind; rather than dispute whether a fetus is a human being, maybe just grant that a human fetus is, as a matter of biological designation,...

Agreed. I have never understood why abortion-on-demand activists seek to dehumanize a living human being who happens to reside in a womb. The only reason I can see why they would try to use such (scientifically false) propaganda is because they know that once designated as a human being, a living person, their opponent's argument from human rights and autonomy gains more traction.

...it doesn't follow from the mere fact that one is a human being that one is therefore a person or a moral agent.

Yes, that's right. Abortion-on-demand campaigners know that even after an unborn human is begrudgingly conceded to "be" an actual member of the same species, it is still necessary to try and minimise their value and worth. Hence, we see arguments over personhood - not a real 'person' - or incapable of feeling pain therefore...etc. etc.
But such semantic quibbling seems to justify a whole raft of other scenarios in which the moral implications are swept under the carpet. Would we tolerate rape if the victim didn't know what had happened because they were drugged? Would robbing a bank be OK if nobody noticed that the money had gone missing?

...a person or a moral agent clearly has to have to have traits that a fetus doesn't have- self-consciousness, linguistic ability, moral comprehension, the ability to carry out morally pertinent actions (actions which could be judged as moral/immoral), make plans/have goals, etc. At best, a fetus will eventually become a person and moral agent, they are a potential person or moral agent, but not presently...

Here we see the classic line of reasoning of those who seek to minimise the worth of a person if that person can't do what 'real' people can.

Did you see how "linguistic ability" is accounted as a marker for personhood.
"make plans/have goals"

How astonishingly close this reasoning is to that of European colonists who didn't count indigenous humans as 'real' people and took their land by force by the legal principle of terra nullius, because the 'uncivilised' natives weren't using that land according to someone ELSES idea of the importance of "making plans" and "setting goals", and because they lacked the "linguistic ability" to define the concept of land 'ownership'.

...There simply aren't many (or any) good general arguments against abortion if the pro-lifer is bereft of any religious arguments/premises.

The religious (God, soul, afterlife) arguments are the strongest. If you take away the notion of transcendent, objective moral obligations and duties, and you nullify the idea that a human being is essentially special - endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, then all you are left with is a discussion which amounts to nothing more than pointless speculation over a lump of meat. If you take God out of the discussion, I agree, abortion is no different than any other utilitarian action from self-interest. No different than deciding which animal we feel like eating for dinner tonight.

...I'm sure Planned Parenthood would never sell aborted fetuses for food. Right?

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 115 by Lion IRC]

While the men are standing around explaining how women feel and making assumptions about women thinking abortion is a joyful, easy decision like which on-demand movie to watch tonight, I'd like to interject as an almost 50 year old woman who has not only had an abortion but also a child later in life. Women who seek abortion are very sensitive to a pregnancy, especially the first one. I don't think I would have entertained an abortion if I didn't feel 100% that it was the right decision for me (p.s. I won't go into my reasons because it's no one's business but mine). Had my circumstances been different, I may have chosen differently and had I had better parents (not religious freaks) I may not have gotten pregnant in the first place. As a mother now I am open with my 13 year old, she will be more informed and supported by me than I was at her age and would indeed council her if she ended up pregnant and support any decision she made. Bottom line, even without religion it is a tough decision. No one should try to minimize it.

In California, in her school district, they were sued to provide comprehensive health studies. As early as last year 9th graders were taught "absinence only" classes, you want to stop most abortions, cut that stuff out!

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 115 by Lion IRC]

Isn't it fortunate (or unfortunate) that there is an abundance of self-declared moralists and religionists who claim to know what is best for everyone.

Those who oppose abortion shouldn't have one. Period. Full stop.

Christian women have as many or more abortions per capita as other groups. Abstinence programs are a dismal failure in spite of all sorts of "pledges", promises and threats. Christians have as high a divorce rate and Christians are incarcerated at rates as great as or greater than other groups.

So much for "Christian morals." Before preaching about what others should do "take the log from your own eye" and show by your actions what should be done.

[Blastcat]

And to be honest, my problem isn't with women who choose abortion my problem is with the PC climate that doesn't allow a reasonable debate about the issue

The problem with the way the issue is framed isn't that its overly "PC", its that its framed in terms of untenable religious ideas about ensoulment and such nonsense, rather than in terms of any real or relevant features of the issue.

Trying to control the discussion and censor those who think that religion - which is an integral part of human culture around the world - is relevant to the abortion debate, is exactly the type of PC thought-control attempt to which AdHoc is alluding.

IF you are a woman, and IF you are pregnant, then it would be IMMORAL for anyone to force an abortion on you.

I hope you agree.

Forcing people to undergo any kind of physical procedure is just wrong. But you seem to want to legislate that a woman somehow CANNOT have a medical procedure that takes place in her body,

You want to be able to FORCE a woman to have a baby... just because her egg has been fertilized. You think that SOCIETY should tell her what to do about it. You don't care why she got pregnant, or what effect that it might have on her life. Even if we have a safe procedure to terminate the pregnancy.

You call this protecting human life.

I wonder however, why it is that biologists don't agree with your opinions?

I wonder why it is that you don't seem to care about pregnant women's opinions and feelings but you are so careful about religious people's opinions and feelings?

Why is ONE GROUP to be excluded in the debate about terminating unwanted pregnancies?.. Why do you want to EXCLUDE the people who are INVOLVED in this pregnancy.,. the very people who HAVE this pregnancy.. and INCLUDE people who have religious sensibilities?

Are you making a case from religious authority? Are you saying that we should have your particular brand of theocracy?

opposition to abortion is NOT religious oppression of women

Are you sure that this is the consensus amongst WOMEN?.. or do you care to ask them about it?

Yes, that's right. Abortion-on-demand campaigners know that even after an unborn human is begrudgingly conceded to "be" an actual member of the same species, it is still necessary to try and minimise their value and worth.

I have no evidence that this is happening. Humanists can be pro abortion.. pro freedom of choice.. humanists can be pro women.. I don't MINIMIZE human life.

I don't have to have unwanted pregnancies end in childbirth to prove that I love humanity.
We can have choice in the matter.

Women don't have to suffer needlessly because of an unwanted pregnancy. Women can have the right to chose what happens in their body.

We can debate what constitutes a human life for a long long while. There ARE differing opinions. Some people have very strict rules about what is right and what is wrong in the issue.

I advocate that the WOMAN who is pregnant gets the last say.

Now.. if you believe that abortion is wrong for YOU.. no matter what the reason, and you are a pregnant woman, then YOU ALONE should have the power to decide to bring a child to the world if that's your decision.

But it should BE yours to make.

The medical consensus is the best we have about what is to be considered a human not to be killed or not. This consensus should be based on the best medical SCIENCE and not some ancient mumbo jumbo superstitious ideas about it.

I advocate that we use the BEST MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE available to assist our society in making judgements about biology .. That's the best way. Let's use the BEST available knowledge we can find about a subject. Let's NOT use some extremely old and outdated ideas from long ago.

Let's NOT take other people's FEELINGS about a subject in order to tell what a woman should or should not DO.

Let's be as rational as we can .. This is a DIFFICULT issue.. it's COMPLEX.. lets use our BEST reasoning, and NOT use .. anything else. Did GOD say that abortions were wrong?

WHO CARES about any god.. let's see what REASON dictates.

Reason dictates that WOMEN make a decision. Some women might want to have the baby.. some might not.

Let's give them an option to CHOOSE FREELY.. since freedom of choice is what Christianity is all about these days?

Hence, we see arguments over personhood - not a real 'person' - or incapable of feeling pain therefore...etc. etc.
But such semantic quibbling seems to justify a whole raft of other scenarios in which the moral implications are swept under the carpet.

Do you think that most women want to kill as many fetuses as humanly POSSIBLE?.. is that their goal?

We have to make CHOICES in our lives. I don't think that a "too bad for you" attitude is good for society. Women should have the last say as to what happens in their body.

I think that medical science will continue to improve and be able to tell us more and more about life is and what's it all about. HOWEVER....

GIVEN an unwanted pregnancy NOW... we aren't quibbling about words. Lawmakers have to make a DECISION... based on the best information possible.

The best possible information is what science tells us. Sorry, but that just happens to be the case. Science isn't perfect or completed. But the best we have IS the best we have.

Religions CLAIM that their morality is superior to secular morality.. but that is just another religious CLAIM. What we NEED to make rational laws is more than just CLAIMS .. we need evidence and clear thinking.

Let's remove emotional thinking from our decision making.. it just muddles things up in unproductive ways.

Let's try to be as empathetic as possible when making laws.

Let's try to be as reasonable as possible.

IF we cannot get a societal consensus.. then we should allow for the differences in our law making. this isn't like drunk driving when everyone agrees.. there are differences in opinions here.

So, let's allow for differences of opinions.

How about we say this.. what is most fair?

Shall we allow everyone to decide for themselves if they will have an abortion or not?

That way, people who BELIEVE that abortion is wrong don't HAVE to have an abortion.

And that way, people who DON'T believe that abortion is wrong can go ahead and have a safe one.

And in the MEANTIME.. let's have the debates.. there are good arguments on both sides.

YOU make a very good case against abortion. But it makes more SENSE only if you are some kind of conservative Christian. .. It makes LESS sense as soon as your not.

Anyone who ISN'T a conservative Christian WONT be swayed by religious traditional thinking.. and arrive at THEIR conclusions using a DIFFERENT method. That method would be REASONING... that's it.

Most people want the best good for society.. NOBODY wants babies killed for no good reason. NOBODY..

BUT there are circumstances that change moral outlooks.. Every legal case is judged CASE BY CASE.. and there ARE extenuating circumstances. that's WHY we have courts of law.

The moral issues here are TRICKY.. and there should NOT be a one size fits all law concerning abortions. We SHOULD have abortions on demand.

And we SHOULD continue to get more accurate data and fantastic arguments on the subject.

Although I greatly DISAGREE with your CONCLUSIONS on abortion. if you were a pregnant woman, I would ALWAYS agree to your desicions about it, one way or another.

Do you know MY secret reason for this?
I imagine ME being a woman who has a baby I don't want. That's called using my EMPATHY ....

I can NEVER think that abortion isn't a valid option to consider. I would only HOPE that it was a real option.. and a safe and legal one.. And STILL I might not be able to carry it out... Abortions are so.... against the grain as it were.

I have two daughters.. I had to consider this early on... what would I say as their dad?

I would want to SUPPORT them in their time of need.. that's for sure. I would not pull out a bible.. again, for sure. I would try to discuss the pros and the cons of having the pregnancy come to term.

I would also discuss the issues surrounding having an abortion.. the pros and cons of THAT in THEIR context.. in THEIR lives.

It really MATTERS what circumstances they would have been in.. CIRCUMSTANCES is VITAL ...

I strongly DESIRE to be a grand father.. I would LOVE it for ME... I'm not. Two girls. no grand kids.. much to my chagrin.

HOWEVER...

I would NEVER jeopardize my child's happiness for my own purposes.

We would have the discussion. We would consult the experts.. psychologists if needed.. doctors for sure... I would talk about ethics.. YET AGAIN with them.. what is ethical in THIS CASE?

PROS AND CONS.. there are pros and cons to EVERY pregnancy.

You would want to establish a law FORCING one of my daughters to have an unwanted pregnancy? Now you have a FIGHT with dad.

I'm going to PROTECT my daughter from your religious sensibilitiies... too bad for YOU.. you aren't the one who is pregnant buddy.

So back OFF.....and go mind to YOUR business.. I promise YOU that I wont interfere with YOUR daughters moral issues.

Would we tolerate rape if the victim didn't know what had happened because they were drugged? Would robbing a bank be OK if nobody noticed that the money had gone missing?

[Blastcat]

Trying to control the discussion and censor those who think that religion - which is an integral part of human culture around the world - is relevant to the abortion debate, is exactly the type of PC thought-control attempt to which AdHoc is alluding.

IF you are a woman, and IF you are pregnant, then it would be IMMORAL for anyone to force an abortion on you.

I hope you agree.

Forcing people to undergo any kind of physical procedure is just wrong. But you seem to want to legislate that a woman somehow CANNOT have a medical procedure that takes place in her body,

You want to be able to FORCE a woman to have a baby... just because her egg has been fertilized. You think that SOCIETY should tell her what to do about it. You don't care why she got pregnant, or what effect that it might have on her life. Even if we have a safe procedure to terminate the pregnancy.

You call this protecting human life.

I wonder however, why it is that biologists don't agree with your opinions?

I wonder why it is that you don't seem to care about pregnant women's opinions and feelings but you are so careful about religious people's opinions and feelings?

Why is ONE GROUP to be excluded in the debate about terminating unwanted pregnancies?.. Why do you want to EXCLUDE the people who are INVOLVED in this pregnancy.,. the very people who HAVE this pregnancy.. and INCLUDE people who have religious sensibilities?

Are you making a case from religious authority? Are you saying that we should have your particular brand of theocracy?

opposition to abortion is NOT religious oppression of women

Are you sure that this is the consensus amongst WOMEN?.. or do you care to ask them about it?

Yes, that's right. Abortion-on-demand campaigners know that even after an unborn human is begrudgingly conceded to "be" an actual member of the same species, it is still necessary to try and minimise their value and worth.

I have no evidence that this is happening. Humanists can be pro abortion.. pro freedom of choice.. humanists can be pro women.. I don't MINIMIZE human life.

I don't have to have unwanted pregnancies end in childbirth to prove that I love humanity.
We can have choice in the matter.

Women don't have to suffer needlessly because of an unwanted pregnancy. Women can have the right to chose what happens in their body.

We can debate what constitutes a human life for a long long while. There ARE differing opinions. Some people have very strict rules about what is right and what is wrong in the issue.

I advocate that the WOMAN who is pregnant gets the last say.

Now.. if you believe that abortion is wrong for YOU.. no matter what the reason, and you are a pregnant woman, then YOU ALONE should have the power to decide to bring a child to the world if that's your decision.

But it should BE yours to make.

The medical consensus is the best we have about what is to be considered a human not to be killed or not. This consensus should be based on the best medical SCIENCE and not some ancient mumbo jumbo superstitious ideas about it.

I advocate that we use the BEST MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE available to assist our society in making judgements about biology .. That's the best way. Let's use the BEST available knowledge we can find about a subject. Let's NOT use some extremely old and outdated ideas from long ago.

Let's NOT take other people's FEELINGS about a subject in order to tell what a woman should or should not DO.

Let's be as rational as we can .. This is a DIFFICULT issue.. it's COMPLEX.. lets use our BEST reasoning, and NOT use .. anything else. Did GOD say that abortions were wrong?

WHO CARES about any god.. let's see what REASON dictates.

Reason dictates that WOMEN make a decision. Some women might want to have the baby.. some might not.

Let's give them an option to CHOOSE FREELY.. since freedom of choice is what Christianity is all about these days?

Hence, we see arguments over personhood - not a real 'person' - or incapable of feeling pain therefore...etc. etc.
But such semantic quibbling seems to justify a whole raft of other scenarios in which the moral implications are swept under the carpet.

Do you think that most women want to kill as many fetuses as humanly POSSIBLE?.. is that their goal?

We have to make CHOICES in our lives. I don't think that a "too bad for you" attitude is good for society. Women should have the last say as to what happens in their body.

I think that medical science will continue to improve and be able to tell us more and more about life is and what's it all about. HOWEVER....

GIVEN an unwanted pregnancy NOW... we aren't quibbling about words. Lawmakers have to make a DECISION... based on the best information possible.

The best possible information is what science tells us. Sorry, but that just happens to be the case. Science isn't perfect or completed. But the best we have IS the best we have.

Religions CLAIM that their morality is superior to secular morality.. but that is just another religious CLAIM. What we NEED to make rational laws is more than just CLAIMS .. we need evidence and clear thinking.

Let's remove emotional thinking from our decision making.. it just muddles things up in unproductive ways.

Let's try to be as empathetic as possible when making laws.

Let's try to be as reasonable as possible.

IF we cannot get a societal consensus.. then we should allow for the differences in our law making. this isn't like drunk driving when everyone agrees.. there are differences in opinions here.

So, let's allow for differences of opinions.

How about we say this.. what is most fair?

Shall we allow everyone to decide for themselves if they will have an abortion or not?

That way, people who BELIEVE that abortion is wrong don't HAVE to have an abortion.

And that way, people who DON'T believe that abortion is wrong can go ahead and have a safe one.

And in the MEANTIME.. let's have the debates.. there are good arguments on both sides.

YOU make a very good case against abortion. But it makes more SENSE only if you are some kind of conservative Christian. .. It makes LESS sense as soon as your not.

Anyone who ISN'T a conservative Christian WONT be swayed by religious traditional thinking.. and arrive at THEIR conclusions using a DIFFERENT method. That method would be REASONING... that's it.

Most people want the best good for society.. NOBODY wants babies killed for no good reason. NOBODY..

BUT there are circumstances that change moral outlooks.. Every legal case is judged CASE BY CASE.. and there ARE extenuating circumstances. that's WHY we have courts of law.

The moral issues here are TRICKY.. and there should NOT be a one size fits all law concerning abortions. We SHOULD have abortions on demand.

And we SHOULD continue to get more accurate data and fantastic arguments on the subject.

Although I greatly DISAGREE with your CONCLUSIONS on abortion. if you were a pregnant woman, I would ALWAYS agree to your desicions about it, one way or another.

Do you know MY secret reason for this?
I imagine ME being a woman who has a baby I don't want. That's called using my EMPATHY ....

I can NEVER think that abortion isn't a valid option to consider. I would only HOPE that it was a real option.. and a safe and legal one.. And STILL I might not be able to carry it out... Abortions are so.... against the grain as it were.

I have two daughters.. I had to consider this early on... what would I say as their dad?

I would want to SUPPORT them in their time of need.. that's for sure. I would not pull out a bible.. again, for sure. I would try to discuss the pros and the cons of having the pregnancy come to term.

I would also discuss the issues surrounding having an abortion.. the pros and cons of THAT in THEIR context.. in THEIR lives.

It really MATTERS what circumstances they would have been in.. CIRCUMSTANCES is VITAL ...

I strongly DESIRE to be a grand father.. I would LOVE it for ME... I'm not. Two girls. no grand kids.. much to my chagrin.

HOWEVER...

I would NEVER jeopardize my child's happiness for my own purposes.

We would have the discussion. We would consult the experts.. psychologists if needed.. doctors for sure... I would talk about ethics.. YET AGAIN with them.. what is ethical in THIS CASE?

PROS AND CONS.. there are pros and cons to EVERY pregnancy.

You would want to establish a law FORCING one of my daughters to have an unwanted pregnancy? Now you have a FIGHT with dad.

I'm going to PROTECT my daughter from your religious sensibilities... too bad for YOU.. you aren't the one who is pregnant buddy.

So back OFF.....and go mind to YOUR business.. I promise YOU that I wont interfere with YOUR daughters moral issues.

Would we tolerate rape if the victim didn't know what had happened because they were drugged? Would robbing a bank be OK if nobody noticed that the money had gone missing?

A woman who is pregnant knows that she is pregnant.
She has to agree to an abortion of her own free will.

She is told how it is to happen.
She is AWARE..

You think it's wrong.. OK.. I can see why you might. BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE AGREE with you. Get that?

Not all people are SO conservatively religious as to AGREE with you.. In a court of law.. religious ideas are IRRELEVANT.. .. unless of course you happen to live in Saudi Arabia.. or other fun places where theocracies exist.

Want to go back to the times when KINGS and QUEENS got their authority from GOD?... So that they can DECREE what is right and what is wrong? You like the old days before the American Revolution against a theocratic RULE?

Most Americans LOVE democracy... and if you ask them are OPPOSED to monarchy or any other kind of theocratic rule. So what now?

We can't invoke a god to make laws.. how about we use REASON then?

Ok.. I can plainly see that you have a reasonable position.. I can see that you have one. BUT.. the other side ALSO has a perfectly reasonable position.

What NOW?

How are we to decide the abortion conflict?

Use RELIGION or use REASON?

Did you see how "linguistic ability" is accounted as a marker for personhood.
"make plans/have goals"

How astonishingly close this reasoning is to that of European colonists who didn't count indigenous humans as 'real' people and took their land by force by the legal principle of terra nullius, because the 'uncivilised' natives weren't using that land according to someone ELSES idea of the importance of "making plans" and "setting goals", and because they lacked the "linguistic ability" to define the concept of land 'ownership'.

That's an interesting point.

You say that people who are in favor of abortions don't VALUE the fetuses as humans.. It's a good point. I agree somewhat with it too.

Yes, we don't VALUE the fetuses as much as we do the women who have the fetuses. I would say that's true of me.

I don't value a fetus as much as a grown up woman.. sorry.
I have to PICK a side. I go with the living, breathing woman who is capable to make decisions, and capable to have a baby..I go with HER.. I don't go with the unborn fetus.. sorry.. have to PICK ...

Women's rights or unborn fetus.. I go for the women...and you seem to go for the fetus....

What now.. arm wrestle?

The religious (God, soul, afterlife) arguments are the strongest.

Ouch.. that would be in YOUR opinion...

If you take away the notion of transcendent, objective moral obligations and duties, and you nullify the idea that a human being is essentially special - endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, then all you are left with is a discussion which amounts to nothing more than pointless speculation over a lump of meat.

False dichotomy.. please...don't GO there, bro.

We ask the scientists who are the MOST qualified to TELL us what they think a fetus is...we don't MAKE IT UP... or interpret some old book...

ONCE you are born.. THEN you are a human.. so the argument is.. WHEN do you begin to be "human"?

You say conception.. others disagree.

There IS a disagreement.. and there IS a medical consensus. I'm going to go with the experts in science and NOT the preachers, thank you. This is about reality and real bodies and real meat issues.. NOT some parable in some book.

If you take God out of the discussion, I agree, abortion is no different than any other utilitarian action from self-interest.

What is WRONG with self interest all of a sudden?
We are talking about the interest of the self... right?
What we don't agree on is what self has more rights... fetus or pregnant woman.

I want to live in a society where each individual can achieve as much of their self interest as POSSIBLE.. self interest is a GOOD thing.

Now.. if the self interest of ONE person interferes with the self interest of an OTHER person.. then we have an issue.

In abortion we have a very different case.. Fetuses who are aborted aren't considered really HUMAN BEINGS by the standard scientific definition and that is the best definition that we HAVE...

Sorry about that.. wish the scientific definition was a bit better. Philosophers and scientists are TRYING to get better definitions.. BUT while we are WAITING for those tricky definitions... lets try to do our best.

Now.. what is BEST is negotiable... it's DEBATABLE....

You have one opinion, and for as long as I ever thought about it.. I have another opinion.. but NEITHER side has much FACTS on the matter...
Science says that fetuses are not human beings YET..

That's the state of the art. ... that's what we know so far.

Let's go with what we Do know and not go with what some pre-scientific people in some distant land TELL us...

Are religious moral ideas FACTS ?

no.. they are not.
So, let's stop pretending and go with the fact as we KNOW THEM..........

No different than deciding which animal we feel like eating for dinner tonight.

It's hard to make a MORAL case for eating meat.. I think I really SHOULD be a vegetarian on moral grounds.. BUT.. I always think that if I did that.. I it's getting easier and easier to be a vegan...I would INEVITABLY be confronted that I still have to KILL plants to live.

Killing things is how I live... no choice.. what I eat.., I have a choice....

It's a dilemma that I usually just don't think about much because I'm not a fan of vegan.. Vegetarian... maybe a bit... but not REALLY for ethical reasons.. although it happens to have moral consequences...

I've BEEN to slaughterhouses.. I've BEEN to farms...I've BEEN jealous of the moral superiority that vegans seem to have....

And I still notice that I happen to BE a fan of grilled meat.....

lamb with rosemary?... I married a woman due to lamb with rosemary.. killed the rosemary and never flinched.

Divorce the wife.. kept the recipe.. good recipe.. inferior wife.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 115 by Lion IRC]

Religion's importance in the lives of many people does not grant this religion's preferences over the lives of anyone but that religion's adherents. Christians admonishing other Christians to not abort unwanted pregnancies is entirely appropriate and understandable. As Zzyxz notes, the number of Christians who obtain abortions give anti-abortion advocates plenty of opportunity to promote their agenda.

enviousintheeverafter wrote:
...And @MasterofOnesOwnMind; rather than dispute whether a fetus is a human being, maybe just grant that a human fetus is, as a matter of biological designation,...

Agreed. I have never understood why abortion-on-demand activists seek to dehumanize a living human being who happens to reside in a womb. The only reason I can see why they would try to use such (scientifically false) propaganda is because they know that once designated as a human being, a living person, their opponent's argument from human rights and autonomy gains more traction.

Flip it around to see how scientifically unjustified pro-life proponents are when they claim a human embryo or fetus has a 'soul', an entirely religious idea that holds less literal truth than calling a human embryo 'a lump of tissue'. Both sides are engaged equally in propaganda, which by nature is not meant to explain truth but grab folks by their emotional short hairs and manipulate them thus. If you are going to take apart your opponent's arguments, make sure the same can't be used to take apart your own.

enviousintheeverafter wrote:
...There simply aren't many (or any) good general arguments against abortion if the pro-lifer is bereft of any religious arguments/premises.

The religious (God, soul, afterlife) arguments are the strongest.

The strongest smelling, perhaps, in that it reeks of Christian self-importance and glorification long, long past what has been earned or deserved.

If you take away the notion of transcendent, objective moral obligations and duties, and you nullify the idea that a human being is essentially special - endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, then all you are left with is a discussion which amounts to nothing more than pointless speculation over a lump of meat.

Since the existence of a Creator with the capacity to imbue humans with anything at all is so unlikely as to be safely dismissed, you have to accept responsibility for the arbitrary conditions you and other Christians are imposing. You'd prefer that humans had special deity-dispensed significance perhaps because without it, your cynicism (being a lump of meat) makes your existence miserable. There's quite a few of us who find great meaning and purpose from life as it is, without needing to make up special stories.

If you take God out of the discussion, I agree, abortion is no different than any other utilitarian action from self-interest. No different than deciding which animal we feel like eating for dinner tonight.

Exactly my point. This self-loathing I see in some Christians is puzzling. I can only conclude without Christianity, there are those individuals who really do see abortion as no different than which animal to eat for dinner. Perhaps taking on the worldview of Christianity prevents such individuals from wreaking hell on the rest of us/

...I'm sure Planned Parenthood would never sell aborted fetuses for food. Right?

Your link shows a Google search page full of articles refuting the deliberate deception attempted by religionists against Planned Parenthood. There are a couple of articles from Fox News as well, trying to confirm it. Which ones were you hoping to use to make a point?