Why are most atheists politically liberal?

[amortalman]

It seems to me that most atheists are politically liberal. But why is that? And should we include agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers? Most creationists tend to be political conservatives. Has it always been this way or is this relatively new? In the U.S., the polarization of the two parties is so severe that the thinking seems to be that if one identifies with either side he is expected to buy into the entire philosophy.

I've asked a lot of questions because as an agnostic I consider myself a conservative on most issues. Am I a man without a country? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about any or all the questions I presented.

[amortalman]

amortalman said: "3) Who can calculate the value to society that millions of discarded lives might have furnished?"
Clownboat answered with:

Let's be honest here, this isn't even close to being a 'pro'.

I was being honest. If I'm wrong in my statement then I've been untruthful. There is a difference. If a person claims that there's a purple elephant with six legs in his attic he might be perfectly honest because he firmly believes what he says. But he is also being untruthful because obviously there is no purple elephant in his attic.

Look at your words above in bold. You asked a 'who' question.
Your 'who' statement is not a 'pro'.

I was answering as one might in a casual disagreement. If that isn't proper for a debate format I stand corrected.

What if one of those "unwanted" lives turns out to be another Albert Einstein,

Or a Hitler or a Mohammed!

That response was very predictable. But we're dealing with "pro" points right now.

Your 'what if' is not a pro.

My "what if" question is a method employed to make a point by getting the reader to consider apparent alternatives by asking a question. If that isn't proper for a debate format I stand corrected.

Is this shortlist sufficient that you get the point?

Again, you asked a 'who' question and it did not reflect a benefit to allow women to choose to carry a fetus to term or a benefit to not allow women to choose to carry a fetus to term.

I think it would be a great benefit to have someone with the intellect and talents of Albert Einstein and the others I mentioned. Perhaps not to every expectant mother but certainly a benefit to society.

Pride cometh...

So far you have insinuated that I am dishonest and prideful and I resent that.

As for the questionable point of unwanted babies: Who does not want them?

An aborted fetus is unwanted by definition except for cases where saving a mothers life is on the line (then a wanted fetus may be aborted).
You could argue that a soup kitchen would want them and it will not affect that the fetus is unwanted by the mother, therefore the fetus is unwanted. This is how I am defining unwanted fetus when I use it.

I'm glad you clarified the point because "unwanted" and "unwanted by the mother" are very two different things!
This also reflects the basic difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The pro-choicers believe the mother has the right to end the life of the child she carries simply because she doesn't want the child. They don't see it as yet being a real human being. Pro-lifers see the unborn baby as a living human being with the same protective rights as a baby in its mother's arms.

Who is going to take care of a million unwanted babies?

Please answer your own question. It is a good one.

I did answer it and it's a legitimate answer. Many answers are given by asking another question.

Who took care of them before abortion became a means of birth control?

Please learn the difference between birth control and abortion. It will help to foster good debate.

And it fosters good debates if neither one of us engages in condescending statements.
When birth control or self-control fails and a woman ends up pregnant she often turns to abortion to end the life of the healthy child simply because she did not intend to get pregnant. In a very real sense, she has used that procedure as a means of birth control.

Either way, I fear you mean back when infant morality rates were through the roof?
Let me inform you that nearly half of all births died before reaching puberty.
Back then, 1/2 (if not more) of all conceptions aborted naturally. The fetuses that did make it to term had a 50% chance of making it to puberty.

Condescending statements weakens your position, IMHO. But I am not above being informed if need be...and I very often need to be.

This thinking of your is arcaic and you should amend it IMO.

No. Believing the earth is flat is archaic thinking. Moral thinking needs no amending.

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

Marco does have a way with words, doesn't he?

[Clownboat]

Marco does have a way with words, doesn't he?

Yes, Marco does.

Other than that, not a single question was posed for me to respond.
As for being condescending, sometimes it may be appropriate...

For some irony, see amortalman in post 27:
"What part don't you understand? Ok, I'll spell it out for you."

Some people might feel silly comparing things now with how they were back when infant mortality was through the roof. Times have changed. I'm sorry it this is condescending.

However, you made this argument: "Who took care of them before abortion became a means of birth control?"
During a time when over half of conceptions aborted naturally (still do to this day actually), and when half of fetuses that did make it to term died before puberty, it stands to reason that the ratio between adults that could take on an unwanted child would be drastically different 2,000 years ago (for example) compared to today. Therefore your argument doesn't apply.

If you think your argument still stands, then the proper thing would have been to refute what I said and not pretend to be a victim. You chose the latter...
This observation probably sounds condescending too. Sorry.

[amortalman]

Marco does have a way with words, doesn't he?

Yes, Marco does.

Other than that, not a single question was posed for me to respond.

At this point, I think it expedient to revisit a previous post. Here is an excerpt from your post #26:

amortalman wrote:

[Replying to post 23 by Clownboat]

Clownboat wrote:

"I don't see where you listed much for the 'Pros' to having the discussed unwanted fetuses being born."

As you undoubtedly know, that all depends on how much value one puts on the pro-points I listed. I put a great deal of value on them but I can understand that others do not.


You said: "1) IMO any society that does not respect the sanctity of life cheapens life."
I hear your opinion, but not sure where sanctity of life is coming in to play as I'm asking you about 1 billion unwanted fetuses that have now been born and how that would benefit society (be a 'pro'). I can respect the sanctity of life myself, yet still see the repercussions of what 1 billion unwanted fetuses being born would inflict on humanity (the many 'cons').

What I said was: 1) IMO any society that does not respect the sanctity of life cheapens life. I think that when life is cheapened it leads to a general disrespect for life and increased murder and suicide rates. (added emphasis) You see, when you read the whole statement it clarifies a lot, or it should have.

The obvious point was that fewer murders and suicides would benefit society. You could have responded to that but for some reason, you didn't.
By the way, a billion babies would take a very long time to have since the USA has a population of only about 327 million at present and it has taken 244 years to get that.
As for the "cons", you only asked for the "pros".

You said: "2) Studies have shown that many young women, after aborting their child, suffer guilt and depression."
This does not address those that feel relief for not being forced to attempt to birth a fetus that they do not desire to attempt to carry to term. Your use of the word 'many' excludes far too many.

No, it didn't address it because you asked for pro points, not con points.

You said: "3) Who can calculate the value to society that millions of discarded lives might have furnished?"
Let's be honest here, this isn't even close to being a 'pro'.

I think I explained that after you couldn't get past the "who question".

For some irony, see amortalman in post 27:
"What part don't you understand? Ok, I'll spell it out for you."

I did remember that comment and that's why I said this in my last post: "And it fosters good debates if neither one of us engages in condescending statements."

Some people might feel silly comparing things now with how they were back when infant mortality was through the roof. Times have changed. I'm sorry it this is condescending.

I don't follow you there. Why would someone feel silly comparing things now with how they were back (then)? Because times have changed? That's no cause for feeling silly. Not condescending at all, just confusing.

However, you made this argument: "Who took care of them before abortion became a means of birth control?"

I meant that family or society took care of them. But I concede that I should have said that the first time for clarity.

During a time when over half of conceptions aborted naturally (still do to this day actually), and when half of fetuses that did make it to term died before puberty, it stands to reason that the ratio between adults that could take on an unwanted child would be drastically different 2,000 years ago (for example) compared to today. Therefore your argument doesn't apply.

Look, the bottom line is that this is a moral issue. An issue of life or death. An issue of basic human rights. Not an issue about who is going to take care of them. Not in our history have we had to kill children because there wasn't anyone to take care of them, so that whole premise fails. There have been many babies born whose mothers didn't want them. They were given up for adoption and most went on to lead happy productive lives. Others were raised in orphanages or by family members.

As long as there is abortion on demand no one will seriously look for viable solutions like education, abstinence, birth control, and making the biological fathers of single mother's children accountable for their part in bringing another child into the world.

If you think your argument still stands, then the proper thing would have been to refute what I said and not pretend to be a victim. You chose the latter...
This observation probably sounds condescending too. Sorry.

I'm sorry you got so ticked off about my mentioning the condescending statements. At least I tried to smooth it out by including myself in there. You have given no quarter. Neither has there been an apology for your attacks on my character. Sad. It reveals much.

If I haven't refuted you what have we been arguing about in these 30 posts? Only a casual look back will reveal there's quite a lot I refuted you on.

So, am I pretending to be a victim when I call you out on ad hominem and condescending statements? Or was it when I took issue with your total unnecessary deflections about "who' and "what if" questions? How, exactly did I "pretend to be a victim?"

In closing this post, I must say that this so far has been a distasteful debate, It has degenerated into petty squabbles over side issues unrelated to the OP. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here. Have a nice day.






[/b]

[Clownboat]

What I said was: 1) IMO any society that does not respect the sanctity of life cheapens life. I think that when life is cheapened it leads to a general disrespect for life and increased murder and suicide rates. (added emphasis) You see, when you read the whole statement it clarifies a lot, or it should have.

I don't feel a need to debate against your opinion here. What perhaps cheapens life is designating it to such a thing as a fetus or blastocyst, but that is on you and outside of this debate.

The obvious point was that fewer murders and suicides would benefit society. You could have responded to that but for some reason, you didn't.

It seems that you value your opinion more than I do. Somehow we are now talking about murders and suicides. Must I really respond? Have you made some link to them that I'm not aware of? If you have, I apologize.

By the way, a billion babies would take a very long time to have

Yup, but irrelevant. These billion babies were hypothetical (aborted fetuses that hypothetically were born).
I said after all: "I'm asking you about 1 billion unwanted fetuses that have now been born.

As for the "cons", you only asked for the "pros".

Still asking for them. So far the 'pros' haven't been pros or at least we could argue they are poor.

You said: "2) Studies have shown that many young women, after aborting their child, suffer guilt and depression."
This does not address those that feel relief for not being forced to attempt to birth a fetus that they do not desire to attempt to carry to term. Your use of the word 'many' excludes far too many.

No, it didn't address it because you asked for pro points, not con points.

And I showed how your pro can actually be a con and how it excludes far too many. Making it not much of a pro. 1 -1 = 0

I think I explained that after you couldn't get past the "who question".

It is not healthy thinking to not consider the consequences of our actions. On this I'm sure you agree.
We could wear metal clothes and be bullet proof! Why don't we? This would be because the cons out way the pros.
You have failed to address any 'pros'. At least nothing better than wearing metal clothing IMO.
Noting that we may miss out on an Einstein misses the obvious fact that we may be missing out on a Hitler. 1 -1 = 0 Zero is neutral here. Not a pro or a con.

I meant that family or society took care of them. But I concede that I should have said that the first time for clarity.

So you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort a unwanted fetus that has a 50% chance to abort naturally and force the family or society to take care of the fetus if it is born? Forcing people to take care of unwanted children should be something we seek to avoid, not encourage. I reject this as a pro and consider it a con.

Look, the bottom line is that this is a moral issue. An issue of life or death. An issue of basic human rights. Not an issue about who is going to take care of them. Not in our history have we had to kill children because there wasn't anyone to take care of them, so that whole premise fails.

You must think I'm a monster if you think I'm arguing that we should be killing our children.
I'm discussing whether or not we allow women to choose whether they will attempt to care a fetus to term or not. Don't kill children! That is murder and we have laws against such a thing.
I do suspect that you know this already and are just making an emotional argument though.

There have been many babies born whose mothers didn't want them. They were given up for adoption and most went on to lead happy productive lives. Others were raised in orphanages or by family members.

I think adoption is great and wish every mother would go that route when dealing with unwanted potential babies. I get the feeling from you that you think that I think abortion is some great thing. I'm not a fan of abortions as I have said already.

As long as there is abortion on demand no one will seriously look for viable solutions like education, abstinence, birth control, and making the biological fathers of single mother's children accountable for their part in bringing another child into the world.

Please show that you speak the truth and no one will seriously look for viable solutions. I think this is just another emotional argument because we both know that taking a pill for example is preferred over having an abortion.

If you think your argument still stands, then the proper thing would have been to refute what I said and not pretend to be a victim. You chose the latter...
This observation probably sounds condescending too. Sorry.

I'm sorry you got so ticked off about my mentioning the condescending statements.

Now you are arguing my emotions. Odd...

At least I tried to smooth it out by including myself in there. You have given no quarter. Neither has there been an apology for your attacks on my character. Sad. It reveals much.

Please try to stick to debating. If you feel I have wronged you, that is what the report feature is for. In lieu of that and to continue to bring it up sure seems like the victim card is being played.

In closing this post, I must say that this so far has been a distasteful debate, It has degenerated into petty squabbles over side issues unrelated to the OP. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here. Have a nice day.

I think there will be some readers of this that have learned from our exchange. This is a very emotional topic for many and keeping feelings out can be difficult.

Be well...

[amortalman]

What I said was: 1) IMO any society that does not respect the sanctity of life cheapens life. I think that when life is cheapened it leads to a general disrespect for life and increased murder and suicide rates. (added emphasis) You see, when you read the whole statement it clarifies a lot, or it should have.

I don't feel a need to debate against your opinion here.

Fair enough.

The obvious point was that fewer murders and suicides would benefit society. You could have responded to that but for some reason, you didn't.

It seems that you value your opinion more than I do.

Obviously.

By the way, a billion babies would take a very long time to have

Yup, but irrelevant.

Just making an irrelevant point I guess. I was still thinking about who would take care of them and subtly reminding you that a million or a billion babies would not be dumped on society in a brief period of time.

As for the "cons", you only asked for the "pros".

Still asking for them. So far the 'pros' haven't been pros or at least we could argue they are poor.

I gave you a "pro" in that some of those discarded lives could become extraordinary people and a great benefit to society. You said that this is a "poor" pro point. That is your opinion. Yes, it is true that these beneficial lives are offset, or even possibly exceeded, by destructive lives. But how can we know how it would all play out? You had asked for "pro" points and that's what I offered. It is up to you to then present the "con" points. Otherwise, I would be debating myself. Only when all the pros and cons are tallied up can we begin to try to make a judgment. Do you see?

You said: "2) Studies have shown that many young women, after aborting their child, suffer guilt and depression."
This does not address those that feel relief for not being forced to attempt to birth a fetus that they do not desire to attempt to carry to term. Your use of the word 'many' excludes far too many.

No, it didn't address it because you asked for pro points, not con points.

And I showed how your pro can actually be a con and how it excludes far too many. Making it not much of a pro. 1 -1 = 0

That's fine. But what I'm objecting to is that you were expecting me to also make the "con" points. You said: This does not address those that feel relief for not being forced to attempt to birth a fetus that they do not desire to attempt to carry to term.

You have failed to address any 'pros'.

Does my elimination of a list of cons mean that I failed to list any pros? No, it does not. As poor as it may seem to you it is still there.

Noting that we may miss out on an Einstein misses the obvious fact that we may be missing out on a Hitler. 1 -1 = 0 Zero is neutral here. Not a pro or a con.

Wrong. It is both a pro and a con.

I meant that family or society took care of them. But I concede that I should have said that the first time for clarity.

So you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort a unwanted fetus that has a 50% chance to abort naturally and force the family or society to take care of the fetus if it is born?

I never made that statement nor listed it as a pro. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Forcing people to take care of unwanted children should be something we seek to avoid, not encourage. I reject this as a pro and consider it a con.

First of all, I can't imagine any force being applied. Secondly, "unwanted children" has a very different meaning from "children unwanted by their mothers" as I stated earlier. Thirdly, the "50% chance" of a miscarriage works in the aborting female's favor. "Can't get an abortion? Don't worry, you have a 50% chance of losing it anyway."

FYI the term "natural abortion" is a contradiction of terms. Abortion by definition is a deliberate act. However, according to one women's clinic, a natural abortion is used to describe the process of terminating a pregnancy on one's own.

Not in our history have we had to kill children because there wasn't anyone to take care of them, so that whole premise fails.

You must think I'm a monster if you think I'm arguing that we should be killing our children.

Not at all! Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The point was that there always was (and always will be) someone to take care of babies saved from abortion. Obviously, we won't become so overpopulated that we have to start killing all those children who were weren't aborted - and that is an obvious exaggeration to make a point!

There have been many babies born whose mothers didn't want them. They were given up for adoption and most went on to lead happy productive lives. Others were raised in orphanages or by family members.

I think adoption is great and wish every mother would go that route when dealing with unwanted potential babies. I get the feeling from you that you think that I think abortion is some great thing. I'm not a fan of abortions as I have said already.

Sorry, but you're arguing as if you are defending it. And I'm responding as if you are.

As long as there is abortion on demand no one will seriously look for viable solutions like education, abstinence, birth control, and making the biological fathers of single mother's children accountable for their part in bringing another child into the world.

Please show that you speak the truth and no one will seriously look for viable solutions.

Could you please reword that because I'm not following you there.

I think this is just another emotional argument because we both know that taking a pill for example is preferred over having an abortion.

Emotional arguments are often the most effective. Again, the only way I know to argue is to argue against the position you're taking regardless of whether it's your true conviction or not. I don't normally debate someone who agrees with my basic position so pardon me if I sometimes forget that. As you said, it's an emotional subject.

If you think your argument still stands, then the proper thing would have been to refute what I said and not pretend to be a victim. You chose the latter...
This observation probably sounds condescending too. Sorry.

I'm sorry you got so ticked off about my mentioning the condescending statements.

Now you are arguing my emotions. Odd...

No. Just making an observation.

At least I tried to smooth it out by including myself in there. You have given no quarter. Neither has there been an apology for your attacks on my character. Sad. It reveals much.

Please try to stick to debating.

Speaking of sticking to debating! When someone insinuates that I'm not being honest and that I'm prideful I'm going to strike back. I have been dishonest at times in my life and I've been prideful, just not here, and even if I was your attacks are uncalled for and you should know it.

If you feel I have wronged you, that is what the report feature is for. In lieu of that and to continue to bring it up sure seems like the victim card is being played.

Well, it is you who just brought it up again. I have no desire to bring it to the attention of a moderator. As far as I'm concerned, it's done.

In closing this post, I must say that this so far has been a distasteful debate, It has degenerated into petty squabbles over side issues unrelated to the OP. Unfortunately, that happens a lot here. Have a nice day.

I think there will be some readers of this that have learned from our exchange. This is a very emotional topic for many and keeping feelings out can be difficult.

Be well...

You are right. I'm one of those who has learned from it.

[Clownboat]

I gave you a "pro" in that some of those discarded lives could become extraordinary people and a great benefit to society. You said that this is a "poor" pro point. That is your opinion. Yes, it is true that these beneficial lives are offset, or even possibly exceeded, by destructive lives.

The best pro you have to offer is that 'maybe' the humans that will benefit society will outweigh the humans that would destroy society.
Maybe this is a pro, maybe this is a con. Either way, it is poor reasoning IMO to not allow a women to have the choice to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not.

But how can we know how it would all play out?

We don't know. Therefore we don't know if this is a pro or not. Therefore, I'm not willing to consider it a pro and neither should you since it is unknown.

You had asked for "pro" points and that's what I offered. It is up to you to then present the "con" points.

That was done.
Hitler was presented and I showed the lack of a pro via math.
1 -1 = 0

That's fine. But what I'm objecting to is that you were expecting me to also make the "con" points. You said: This does not address those that feel relief for not being forced to attempt to birth a fetus that they do not desire to attempt to carry to term.

Actually, this was me responding to what you thought would be a pro.
Remember, we don't wear metal clothing for many reasons. If I inform you that you will be bullet proof, would you consider wearing metal clothes? Of course not. In what you posted, we are ignoring those who suffer for being forced into a pregnancy they would prefer to not be in. I can't in good conscience call this a pro while ignoring the cons that would come with it.
For all we know you could be presenting a 1 -2 = -1 scenario.

Does my elimination of a list of cons mean that I failed to list any pros? No, it does not. As poor as it may seem to you it is still there.

No. Your failure to list any convincing pros is what is failing to change my current idea that I feel women should have the right to choose to carry a fetus to term or not.
Eliminating or not a list of cons does not improve your current pro argument.
It is so far shown to be just as much of a pro as wearing metal clothing would be.

Noting that we may miss out on an Einstein misses the obvious fact that we may be missing out on a Hitler. 1 -1 = 0 Zero is neutral here. Not a pro or a con.

Wrong. It is both a pro and a con.

Zero is a neutral number or integer since it is neither negative nor positive. Whole numbers to the right of zero, or greater than zero, are known as positive integers. Whole numbers to the left of zero, or less than zero, are known as negative integers.
Zero is neutral. To argue otherwise is to change the definition.

I meant that family or society took care of them. But I concede that I should have said that the first time for clarity.

So you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort a unwanted fetus that has a 50% chance to abort naturally and force the family or society to take care of the fetus if it is born?

I never made that statement nor listed it as a pro. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please stop playing this card!
As everyone can see, there is a question mark at the end of what I said. Clearly I'm asking for clarification.

Care to clarify? I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort an unwanted fetus and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?
I'm asking this because we are talking about abortions and you brought up family and society as a vehicle to take care of all the unwanted babies that would be pouring in.

Forcing people to take care of unwanted children should be something we seek to avoid, not encourage. I reject this as a pro and consider it a con.

First of all, I can't imagine any force being applied.

We are a nation that enforces laws. No imagination is required for this fact.

Secondly, "unwanted children" has a very different meaning from "children unwanted by their mothers" as I stated earlier.

I don't disagree with this. What you failed to do so far is to make a point. Unwanted and unwanted by their mothers is different. I grant you this. Please make a point.

Thirdly, the "50% chance" of a miscarriage works in the aborting female's favor. "Can't get an abortion? Don't worry, you have a 50% chance of losing it anyway."

Yes, everyone reading here should get this. What I don't understand is what you are attempting to claim that follows from this point.
I'm reading this as if you are telling me the sky is blue... I'm starting to feel dense here.

FYI the term "natural abortion" is a contradiction of terms. Abortion by definition is a deliberate act. However, according to one women's clinic, a natural abortion is used to describe the process of terminating a pregnancy on one's own.

Will it help us to debate if I call it a spontaneous abortion?

"A spontaneous abortion is as opposed to an induced abortion. In a spontaneous abortion, it is purely accidental, that is spontaneous." Almost like it happened all by itself, naturally.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... ekey=17774

You must think I'm a monster if you think I'm arguing that we should be killing our children.

Not at all! Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The point was that there always was (and always will be) someone to take care of babies saved from abortion. Obviously, we won't become so overpopulated that we have to start killing all those children who were weren't aborted - and that is an obvious exaggeration to make a point!

I agree that we care for the needy. Not always the best of care, but we have things in place. What I fail to realize is how forcing women to carry these unwanted fetuses to term, thus putting a drag on society is a good thing. A pro.
I agree with what you say. Disagree if you consider this a good thing for society. This is where you can attempt to change my mind.

Sorry, but you're arguing as if you are defending it. And I'm responding as if you are.

I'm arguing against what I see as a greater evil. Both should be avoided, but IMO, especially the right for some humans to tell other humans what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Emotional arguments like calling the blastocyst a baby will not work well.
The majority of abortions in 2016 took place early in gestation: 91.0% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation;
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... ortion.htm

Emotional arguments are often the most effective.

I would think we should prefer reason over emotion.
"I'm arguing for a reason" should be preferred to "I'm arguing due to emotions". If there are emotional concerns, using reason will bring them to light.

Again, the only way I know to argue is to argue against the position you're taking regardless of whether it's your true conviction or not. I don't normally debate someone who agrees with my basic position so pardon me if I sometimes forget that. As you said, it's an emotional subject.

I dislike the idea of abortions, just like you. Just find dictating what women can or can't do with their own bodies to be the greater evil. I once did not feel this way and have been convinced otherwise. Therefore I'm open to change...

[Purple Knight]

Put simply I'm pro-choice because I ought to have been aborted, but my family didn't believe in it for whatever reason. They're Unitarian, not Christian, so I still have no earthly notion why this is.

My case isn't unique either, and it disproves the "but, adoption" argument a lot of people like to use.

Women may intend to give up a baby, but when they go through labour, their hormones kick in and they don't. This doesn't alter reality, however, and they still don't want a baby.

Being told you're keeping your mother from a relationship because it's that much harder to enter into a serious one if you have baggage isn't fun, but unfortunately it's the truth. If a woman is unmarried especially, she has to understand that keeping the baby will basically mean becoming a female incel and giving up relationships. If she's not willing to accept that, the hormone flood will make her think otherwise, but it won't be otherwise. I wouldn't date a woman who already had children; I admit that. I don't want to spend resources on somebody else's bastard; I want to spend them on my own child.

If the woman wants an abortion and doesn't get one, she'll change her heart after going through labour, but not her mind, and she'll mistreat the object of her resentment.

As to the question of the thread, liberalism is clearly the more basic philosophy. Why are you liberal? Most people can't answer that question any more than you could answer if asked why murder is wrong.

I always wished I was a liberal for that reason. I would be content with my life if I could give an answer like this:

Why would it surprise you that humanists and free thinkers would be liberal in general (and hence also politically liberal?) It just seems like a natural fit, so much so that I am finding it hard to answer your question. I mean, why wouldn't we be politically liberal?

This is moral certitude, and I envy it unimaginably.

[amortalman]

I gave you a "pro" in that some of those discarded lives could become extraordinary people and a great benefit to society. You said that this is a "poor" pro point. That is your opinion. Yes, it is true that these beneficial lives are offset, or even possibly exceeded, by destructive lives.

The best pro you have to offer is that 'maybe' the humans that will benefit society will outweigh the humans that would destroy society.

No, the best pro I have to offer is that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do and should take precedence over most other arguments against it. That's the bottom line for my position. It makes no difference if one grows up to be a murderous psychopath and another a genius who finds a cure for cancer. Every child should have an opportunity for life.

I've gotten off track debating the pros and cons of saving lives. To me, there are no cons in the equation. Opinion? Yes. Emotion? Yes.

Maybe this is a pro, maybe this is a con. Either way, it is poor reasoning IMO to not allow a women to have the choice to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not.

It is wrong to murder a baby unless the mother's life is in danger. You speak of the mother's choice to have the child or to destroy it. She had a choice before pregnancy (with the exception of rape) - she chose to have sex, and for whatever reason, maybe she and her partner did not use contraceptives or the contraceptives failed. But the day could still be saved by a morning-after pill. Of course, abstinence was also a choice and it appears to be 100% effective and 100% not used.

But the fact is "The single biggest reason for unplanned pregnancy isn’t ineffective birth control -- it’s from a couple not using any contraception." - Maureen Phipps, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island.

You think too highly of a woman's choice in this matter. There are sufficient preventative measures that could be taken and in most cases, they aren't. Now she is pregnant with a child she does not want. Is there a price to pay for the negligence? Is the price unreasonable? I think not compared to the alternative. The price is that she must carry the child to term. That's called taking responsibility for one's choices. That's called respecting life and putting a high value on it. And that is the only moral choice she has. If more women had to carry to term maybe they would take more precautions with their bodies because once they become pregnant the game changes. No longer is she one life but now two lives. The presence of another life in her body takes precedence over her "choice".

That's fine. But what I'm objecting to is that you were expecting me to also make the "con" points. You said: This does not address those that feel relief for not being forced to attempt to birth a fetus that they do not desire to attempt to carry to term.

In what you posted, we are ignoring those who suffer for being forced into a pregnancy they would prefer to not be in.

What a woman suffers in carrying a baby can't compare to the pain of a baby being torn from its mother's womb.

I meant that family or society took care of them. But I concede that I should have said that the first time for clarity.

So you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort a unwanted fetus that has a 50% chance to abort naturally and force the family or society to take care of the fetus if it is born?

I never made that statement nor listed it as a pro. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please stop playing this card!

I don't play cards. I don't even like cards.

As everyone can see, there is a question mark at the end of what I said. Clearly I'm asking for clarification.

Not so fast. You were obviously trying to paraphrase my arguments. Those words are your words, not mine. You can't do that! Did I just play another card? Sorry.

Care to clarify? I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort an unwanted fetus and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?

Again you are trying to put your words in my mouth. I am not going to answer that question because the terminology does not give a clear understanding of my position. It is terminology you have consistently used and I have consistently not used it. If I answer yes I am agreeing that babies are called fetuses, a medical term but it tends to dehumanize them, IMHO; that they are unwanted by society; and that they are being forced on family and society.

I think it would be a good thing to abolish abortion on nothing more than moral grounds.

Forcing people to take care of unwanted children should be something we seek to avoid, not encourage. I reject this as a pro and consider it a con.

First of all, I can't imagine any force being applied.

We are a nation that enforces laws. No imagination is required for this fact.

Premeditated murder often carries the death penalty and double murder has been enforced in cases where a mother and her unborn baby were killed. Yet if that same mother deliberately took the life of her baby while still in the womb she would walk out of the clinic with everyone's blessings. How more screwed up can it get?

Beyond that, do you know of a law that forces someone to care for an "unwanted" baby? Maybe I can learn something here.

Secondly, "unwanted children" has a very different meaning from "children unwanted by their mothers" as I stated earlier.

I don't disagree with this. What you failed to do so far is to make a point. Unwanted and unwanted by their mothers is different. I grant you this. Please make a point.

One point is that some people might get a false impression that these babies are rejected by society and are worthless. Saying they are unwanted by the mother provides needed clarity. Another point is that it is an attempt to make your argument a little more palatable to imply that these are unwanted fetuses.

FYI the term "natural abortion" is a contradiction of terms. Abortion by definition is a deliberate act. However, according to one women's clinic, a natural abortion is used to describe the process of terminating a pregnancy on one's own.

Will it help us to debate if I call it a spontaneous abortion?
"A spontaneous abortion is as opposed to an induced abortion. In a spontaneous abortion, it is purely accidental, that is spontaneous." Almost like it happened all by itself, naturally.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... ekey=17774

That's better. I just don't know why you dislike the word, miscarriage. that's all.

You must think I'm a monster if you think I'm arguing that we should be killing our children.

Not at all! Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The point was that there always was (and always will be) someone to take care of babies saved from abortion. Obviously, we won't become so overpopulated that we have to start killing all those children who were weren't aborted - and that is an obvious exaggeration to make a point!

I agree that we care for the needy. Not always the best of care, but we have things in place. What I fail to realize is how forcing women to carry these unwanted fetuses to term, thus putting a drag on society is a good thing. A pro.

I agree that a full-term pregnancy and delivery is a hardship but in the majority of cases, it could have been prevented. The thing that can be prevented now is the taking of a life.

I agree with what you say. Disagree if you consider this a good thing for society. This is where you can attempt to change my mind.

If I haven't changed your mind by now I doubt that I can. But changing your mind was never my intention. I've been debating your position of giving women the right to take a healthy life, even if she is carrying that life inside her.

Sorry, but you're arguing as if you are defending it. And I'm responding as if you are.

I'm arguing against what I see as a greater evil. Both should be avoided, but IMO, especially the right for some humans to tell other humans what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

So you are especially against some people telling other people what they can or can't do with their own bodies. The law sees fit to do that all the time. For example, I can't kill my body. The lawmakers and police tell me that and other things I can't do with my body. I can't use my body to hide illicit drugs in my mouth or my anus. That goes for women as well, except that women have an extra hiding place. In fact, I can't swallow illicit drugs. I can't sell my body for sex or to do anything illegal with it.

I don't think pro-life folks are telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies. They are advocating that it is wrong for a woman to abuse someone else's body.

The majority of abortions in 2016 took place early in gestation: 91.0% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation;
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... ortion.htm

In 2016, 623,471 legal induced abortions were reported to the CDC from 48 reporting areas. That means that 56,113 abortions were performed after the first trimester. That's 18,652 more deaths than in auto accidents in 2016. (37,461 traffic deaths in 2016 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

Emotional arguments are often the most effective.

I would think we should prefer reason over emotion.
"I'm arguing for a reason" should be preferred to "I'm arguing due to emotions". If there are emotional concerns, using reason will bring them to light.

Agreed. But adding emotion to reason is quite effective. Worked for Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinnie.

Again, the only way I know to argue is to argue against the position you're taking regardless of whether it's your true conviction or not. I don't normally debate someone who agrees with my basic position so pardon me if I sometimes forget that. As you said, it's an emotional subject.

I dislike the idea of abortions, just like you. Just find dictating what women can or can't do with their own bodies to be the greater evil. I once did not feel this way and have been convinced otherwise. Therefore I'm open to change...

I'm very pleased to hear that. Have a great day!

[amortalman]

Put simply I'm pro-choice because I ought to have been aborted, but my family didn't believe in it for whatever reason. They're Unitarian, not Christian, so I still have no earthly notion why this is.

Wow. I'm trying to figure out if you think you ought to have been aborted or your mother thinks you ought to have been aborted.

My case isn't unique either, and it disproves the "but, adoption" argument a lot of people like to use.

Women may intend to give up a baby, but when they go through labour, their hormones kick in and they don't. This doesn't alter reality, however, and they still don't want a baby.[/quote']

Certainly not true in all cases.

Being told you're keeping your mother from a relationship because it's that much harder to enter into a serious one if you have baggage isn't fun, but unfortunately it's the truth.

In my opinion, it's not the truth. It's a cruel thing to say.

If a woman is unmarried especially, she has to understand that keeping the baby will basically mean becoming a female incel and giving up relationships.

Where do you get these ideas? It means nothing of the kind. It might mean that she has to try a little harder. Men marry women with children all the time. My son did and they are happily married.

If she's not willing to accept that, the hormone flood will make her think otherwise, but it won't be otherwise.

I don't follow you.

I wouldn't date a woman who already had children; I admit that. I don't want to spend resources on somebody else's bastard; I want to spend them on my own child.

Would true love make any difference in your position? Would you at least be open to loving her child if you truly loved her and she loved you?

If the woman wants an abortion and doesn't get one, she'll change her heart after going through labour, but not her mind, and she'll mistreat the object of her resentment.

I guessing that this is your opinion. I'm not saying some women don't act this way. But if some do they are obviously mentally ill and need help. There are other options instead of keeping the child and mistreating it. At any rate, it's not the child's fault.

As to the question of the thread, liberalism is clearly the more basic philosophy.

You will need to explain what you mean by "basic philosophy".

Why are you liberal? Most people can't answer that question any more than you could answer if asked why murder is wrong.

Not so. I think most liberals, if not all, would give you an answer to both questions.
I am conservative on most issues because I don't believe in big government, high taxes, open borders, national health care, and other issues. I believe murder is wrong because it takes the life of another, disrupts society, and is a drain on society.

I always wished I was a liberal for that reason. I would be content with my life if I could give an answer like this:

Why would it surprise you that humanists and free thinkers would be liberal in general (and hence also politically liberal?) It just seems like a natural fit, so much so that I am finding it hard to answer your question. I mean, why wouldn't we be politically liberal?

This is moral certitude, and I envy it unimaginably.

You don't have to be a liberal (or anything else) to have moral certitude.

[Divine Insight]

When birth control or self-control fails and a woman ends up pregnant she often turns to abortion to end the life of the healthy child simply because she did not intend to get pregnant. In a very real sense, she has used that procedure as a means of birth control.

I think it's important to understand that using abortion as a means of birth control is only one possible reason for wanting to have an abortion.

I would totally agree subjectively, that it's "immoral IMHO" to turn to abortion as a means of birth control simply because the woman was too ignorant to take the necessary precautions during consensual sex. But that's only one possible reason for a woman to want to have an abortion.

Moreover, a liberal isn't defending the idea that it's "morally okay" to use abortion for birth control when they object to making laws that make criminals out of women who do want to get an abortion.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons for a woman to want to get an abortion.

If she was raped, why should we want to bear the child of the rapist? For her to want an abortion in this case is not "birth control". She never planned on having sex to begin with.

So if we make laws that say that anyone who gets an abortion is a criminal, then we force this woman into a situation that she will either have to have the baby of her rapist, or become a criminal. How is that right? IMHO, it's not right.

And what about a woman who wants to have an abortion because she has discovered that here baby has a terrible condition or birth defect? Perhaps she values the baby and would like to put it out of its misery rather than bringing it into a world where it will just suffer, either from the disease, or from public rejection.

There are many legitimate reasons for wanting to abort a pregnancy.

All liberals are saying is that we can't make laws trying to force our "moral values" onto other people simply because *some* women might want to use abortion as a means of birth control simply because they are too irresponsible to use other means of birth control.

You can't just toss everyone into the same basket and proclaim that we need to make criminals out of everyone just because *some* women might abuse abortion.

That would be immoral on our part.

That's my position on the legislative question of abortion. In no way am I encouraging anyone to have an abortion. Nor am I condoning any specific abortions. I'll leave that up to the people involved.

So to even try to bring this into a "moral question" is nonsense. It's not a question of morality, it's a question of legality.

Should we make criminals out of every women who wants to have an abortion and every doctor who might assists in the process?

My answer is no, we should not make those kinds of laws.

This really isn't a question about abortion at all. It's a question of whether or not we should make laws that make criminals out of people who have an abortion.

That's a huge difference.

Who are we to judge the motives and morals of people who chose to have an abortion?

Who are we to force these women to become criminals? Either that, or force them to have babies they are dead set against having?

IMHO, people who think this way about about making legislation shouldn't be allowed to take part in the legislative process.

If you are making laws based on who you deem to be "immoral" then you shouldn't be making laws at all.

That's my position. It has nothing at all to do with whether any particular abortion should be deemed to be moral or immoral.

In fact, religious people should be the first to leave those judgements up to the God. If there's a God let him judge who's moral and immoral. Making laws to force people to behave in certain ways doesn't change who, or what they would have chosen to do if there were no laws anyway.

So the so-called "conservatives" are simply exhibiting an inability to distinguish between morality and law. You don't make laws to force other people to do what you deem to be moral.

If they don't want to have an abortion they don't need to have one. But making laws to make other people into criminals for making different choices is just not right.

If a "conservative" believes in a judgemental God, then leave the moral judgements up to God.

And if they don't believe in a God, then stop trying to force moral opinions onto other via the law.

Either way the conservative are wrong. Period.

The liberals aren't saying, "Yes we support abortion!"

That's baloney. All they are saying is that we don't want to make laws that force people to become criminals for making deeply personal choices about their own life and their own "family" (which includes any unborn children they might be carrying)

It's not our place to force moral decisions onto other people via the law.

That's the bottom line.

It's not about "condoning" abortion on a moral level. It's about making laws that aren't based on moral opinions.