Pages

Monday, December 8, 2014

Which came first, the atheism or the support for abortion?

Polls consistently show that a strong majority of self-identified non-religious Americans call themselves pro-choice. That's in stark contrast to the American public at large, which is roughly 50-50, though leaning pro-life in recent years.

Some pro-choice atheists use this polling data as evidence that the pro-choice position is correct. The argument, in a nutshell, is that atheists become atheists because they are logical thinkers, and then become pro-choice for the same reason. Pro-life atheists are explained away as being still, partially, under the influence of religion.

While some people do become atheist and then become pro-choice, atheist author and Pitzer college professor Phil Zuckerman suggests that it's more commonly the other way around:
With an emphasis on seeking to make abortion illegal . . . conservative Christians have found a warm welcome within the Republican Party, which has been clear about its openness to the conservative Christian agenda. . . . What all of this has done is alienate a lot of left-leaning or politically moderate Americans from Christianity. Sociologists Michael Hout and Claude Fischer have published compelling research indicating that much of the growth of “nones” in America is largely attributable to a reaction against this increased, overt mixing of Christianity and conservative politics. The rise of irreligion has been partially related to the fact that lots of people who had weak or limited attachments to religion and were either moderate or liberal politically found themselves at odds with the conservative political agenda of the Christian right and thus reacted by severing their already somewhat weak attachment to religion.
The key here is to understand that while people on the fringes are the loudest, most people don't take their religion all that seriously. People don't necessarily take their churches as authorities on moral and political issues, and where church teachings deviate from their personal views, they may leave one religion in favor of another or of none at all. (Zuckerman focuses on liberals, but I note that this works for conservatives as well; in recent years, reconsideration of same-sex marriage by church leaders has threatened schisms in the Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian denominations.)

That's not to say that logical reasoning doesn't play a role in what people believe; it absolutely does. I am an atheist myself, and Christianity's unanswered questions had a lot to do with that. But the decision to publicly identify as an atheist—to lose your church community, expose yourself to scorn from the general public, and possibly damage family relationships—is a highly emotional one. And it's a lot easier to do if you already disagree with your church about abortion.

Conversely, if you've lost your faith in God but remain pro-life, and are part of a pro-life denomination,* there's less reason to publicly identify as an atheist. You might as well just remain another doubter in the pews, invisible to the pollsters.

*My own secular identification was made easier by the fact that I belonged to the Methodist Church, which disagreed with me both on abortion (pro-choice) and same-sex marriage (opposed).

504 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 504 of 504
secularprolife.org said...

Women ARE more sexually active when they are fertile, and men are drawn naturally to women who are fertile.


Selfish genes in action.


Hey, how familiar are you with genomic imprinting?

secularprolife.org said...

I just got home to 200 disqus updates in my inbox and am reading everything back to front!

At any rate, I have found it interesting that semen will trigger women to ovulate, which is one reason why women can get pregnant from rape, even if not fertile. Selfish genes in action, I say. I asked you about genomic imprinting in another comment, so just ignore this if you want.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't presume to say my ideas are set in stone. If I come across a better idea, or just something that can add some clarity to the ideas I already have, I am more than open to it. Like I said, homosexuality still presents a trouble for my biological imperative philosophy. I can't make an argument (and wouldn't want to) to call homosexuality unnatural or unethical, but it certainly doesn't fit neatly in my philosophy. I'm still working on that part. I wonder if there is a correlation between population and homosexuality, maybe to indicate that homosexuality is a natural form of regulation or something. I don't know. Like I said it's the weakest link in my philosophy right now. The easy was around it, and why I suspect it has been used so often, would be to simply say it's unnatural or unethical. I don't buy that.

I'd rather have a small hole in my ideals than a big hole in my integrity and logic. At any rate. I'll check the links out. Thanks.

secularprolife.org said...

I disagree, because sentient children can suffer. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses, not so much.

secularprolife.org said...

Not very, but I'll read up on it.

secularprolife.org said...

If you are in the USA and the CBC one doesn't work, you may want to try Netflix or *cough* do a creative internet search...

secularprolife.org said...

So should we legalize painless infanticide if this will hypothetically reduce the number of children who are abused and/or painfully killed later on?

secularprolife.org said...

I have a pretty "creative"
computer. It can be in whatever country it wants to be, while I am in the US. The CBC one should work. I'll check it when I get my youngest to bed. Right now it's Daddy time. Have a good night, or day whichever applies.

secularprolife.org said...

I still need to hook myself up with a 'creative' computer, but have been too lazy as of late to get that going..I will need to set up an extra machine for it too....

secularprolife.org said...

Babies can suffer, just like animals.

secularprolife.org said...

Sure, but they wouldn't suffer if they are painlessly euthanized, would they? Plus, even if they will suffer a little, wouldn't it be better than them suffering much more later on in their lives?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, they ARE oblivious tissue.

secularprolife.org said...

You know what? Your own side doesn't like you. I don't like you. Yes, I claim to be a nurse, and so does the Commonwealth of PA claim I'm a nurse. An abnormal conception, for whatever short time it lives, isn't a human life, and in the case of molar and partial molar pregnancy, decidedly NOT human life. Even though the mole is alive, and may or may not contain fetal tissue, nobody considers it human life. It is a NEOPLASM!

secularprolife.org said...

All of them in chains, rolling cigars, and starving. Muah ha ha!

secularprolife.org said...

I tried to be nice.

.................
'Tried' being the operative word. Epic fail - just like when you tried analogy. And tried humor. I stopped reading right there. I wonder what you wrote.

secularprolife.org said...

yeah, I can't read anything past "epic fail" sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to time travelling preteen girl from 2010. Are you a belieber?

secularprolife.org said...

Yes; however, my point here that some/many (but obviously not all) pro-choicers don't have a problem (or at least much of a problem) with killing non-viable prenatal lives (which is the aspect of abortion which politically anti-abortion people dislike the most by far) appears to remain a valid one.

secularprolife.org said...

Hemmorhoids have NOTHING in common with pregnancy.

..............
It is an analogy. We know you do not get how analogies work.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no right to life. If there were a right to life, the state could execute no one.

"Some philosophers have criticised rights as ontologically dubious entities. For instance, although in favour of the extension of individual legal rights, the utilitarian philosopherJeremy Bentham opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights, calling them "nonsense upon stilts." - wikipedia

secularprolife.org said...

I mean it in the ethical sense as well. Let's look at some of the processes we begin without consenting to the possibility of it continuing. We mow lawns and trim trees we planted. We breed wolf bitches to mate with any male that comes around when they are in heat, but prevent them from doing so except with sires we choose. We spray poisons and set traps to keep out pests we invite. We treat diseases and cancer even though it is often our actions that caused us to have them. We mend broken bones, broken hearts, even broken genes. And yes, we interfere with the biological process of reproduction--both before and after conception--in order that sex serves the purposes we choose. Most of these practices are considered ethically neutral. In some cases, it would be considered unethical not to do so. Human beings are not slaves to biological processes, and in fact it could be argued that it is the very nature of being human to not allow ourselves to be slaves to biological processes.

secularprolife.org said...

I've already stated in this very thread where and why I disagree with Russell's argumentation. If Jennifer wants to take me up on the topic, she is free to do so. You know, just like Russell himself did.

secularprolife.org said...

Of course you can disagree with some aspects of what I say, but the laws are really not debatable. Even if you think they are not laws, they are universally true and meet the definition of what is a law according to the vast majority of people. The theories I propose are in fact theories and are always open to debate. Theories are often as valid a description as a law.
So lets take up the topic.

secularprolife.org said...

The "Law of Charity" states there are more people dying than can be saved.

secularprolife.org said...

Could you link to your conversation with me. I am having trouble finding it.

secularprolife.org said...

It is very hard to see how one can apply that logic to consent to abortion and withhold it entirely from consent to pregnancy. Can you elaborate on how that works?

secularprolife.org said...

Humans have not only evolved away from estrus cycles, they have evolved away from reproduction being the only purpose for sex entirely. You have cited homosexual sex as a major hole in your theory, but even considering heterosexuals, your theory still has plenty of holes. Many of our sexual practices are not just inefficient for sexual reproduction--they are downright wasteful. We engage in oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation, none of which serves the biological purpose of reproduction. We have sex when we are not fertile. And I'm not just talking about having sex when the woman is not (about to) ovulate, either. Males have sex when they are not fertile. Women continue to have sex after menopause and after having hysterectomies or bilateral oophorectomies. And last, but not least, we employ devices, chemicals, and other means in order to prevent pregnancy when we have sex.

Meanwhile, a healthy sex life is increasingly regarded as essential to a human's total well-being, regardless of whether it leads to reproduction. A sudden decrease or loss of libido is now known to be a symptom of a number of ailments. Not having (enough) sex can play havoc on an individuals psychological health, not to mention the toll it takes on our relationships. We also employ devices, chemicals, and other means to enhance sexual pleasure (not to mention our libidos) without any regard to whether it will aid reproduction. Indeed, birth control itself is one of those means.

I've no doubt that I've only scratched the surface of the functions sex serves for human beings. I could also add the physical (though non-reproductive) and economic benefits of sex. Certainly those functions will aid the process of reproduction if pregnancy results from sex. But, again, to pick out reproduction and say that it is the only purpose for sex among human beings is arbitrary. Humans have simply evolved beyond that.

And to get back to your original argument, even if we grant that the only legitimate purpose of sex were reproduction among humans, that stipulation would still say nothing about what kinds of acts can be presumed to constitute consent to what what kinds of consequences.

secularprolife.org said...

Then why don't we invite a prospective partner back to our place for 'the human reproductive process'? Instead of saying that, we say 'lets have sex', with the intention 99.9% of the time being to avoid 'the human reproductive process'.

secularprolife.org said...

If it were reproductive material then your world of human / sock hybrids would exist. Greg Kells has asserted, however that it does not, and I have no reason to disagree with him. You are trying to say that one of the possible outcomes of orgasms is material, which in rare occurrences (relative to the amount of orgasms) can be a part of 'the human reproductive process'.

secularprolife.org said...

...except, by your own statements, when they don't.

secularprolife.org said...

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/secularprolifeblog/secular_pro_life_perspectives_which_came_first_the_atheism_or_the_support_for_abortion/#comment-1739171269

I had thought that your remarks were in response to my response to Ur the baggee here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/secularprolifeblog/secular_pro_life_perspectives_which_came_first_the_atheism_or_the_support_for_abortion/#comment-1738413650. I seem to have been wrong about that. However, that is where I stated I thought your argument was wrong, at least in the form it took.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't know about the "Law of Charity." That there are more people dying (assuming those deaths can be prevented) than can be saved is simply a matter of limited resources.

secularprolife.org said...

Pretty much everything I've argued against Greg will apply to your basic argument as well. Consent to risk does not imply consent to the undesired result should it occur.

secularprolife.org said...

Funny you mention that...

I was doing some research this morning that backs up what you and I have been saying..

http://kevishere.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/part-11-humans-are-blank-ogamous-sexaptation-the-many-functions-of-sex/


Someone makes a good point...running and sports. The original *purpose* of running was to chase down prey, which is what indigenous tribes currently do in Africa - they will chase some prey for days, until it wears out and eventually die. In the modern world, running is done for sport. Are we not perverting nature??


And I believe that Ann Morgan pointed out that our mouths originally evolved for eating - talking is a secondary purpose.

secularprolife.org said...

"I don't know about the "Law of Charity."

The law is based upon an observation of the fact that everyone dies and the impact that fact has on the human race. I apply it later to abortion and saving life in general. You must read it all to understand what the impact is.

For example, because no life can be saved, either born or unborn, one must choose which life to save ---- if they chose or claim to save life.

"That there are more people dying (assuming those deaths can be prevented) "

The law reflects the observation that no life can be saved eternally and that any saving is only temporary.

"than can be saved is simply a matter of limited resources."

No, resources have nothing to do with ---my --- point.
All people die so the number of resources do not matter. If a person is destined to die, no amount of resources will save them.

My wording is admittedly confusing if you do not read the supporting data. But that is not unusual for a law. The operation of a law must be explained in nearly every instance. If it were excessively obviously it would not be a law.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, I never saw this reply.

"That assumes conception actually occurs."

You are right. Conception that does occur, however, aborts 70 percent of the time. And for that reason consent to sex is consent to abortion.

"But as I'm sure you are well aware, sex, though perhaps necessary, is not a sufficient for conception to occur."

However, knowing that abortion will be the most likely outcome of conception makes it clear that consent to sex itself is consent to abortion.


"At most, when one has sex, one only foresees that conception and the resulting processes that will end in either birth or abortion will occur. Only if one intends for conception to occur can it plausibly said that one consent to the results of the process that then plays out."

If one intends for the conception to occur, they still consent to abortion. If one does not intend for the conception to occur but is aware of the possibility of abortion occurring 70 percent of the time they also are consenting to abortion. If a person is using birth control and does not thin conception is likely, they still understand that abortion is the most likely outcome should an accidental conception occurr and are therefore consenting to abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Can you link to your reply to Greg. I do not want to read all his BS.

secularprolife.org said...

Of course you are right in a sense. The "intentional consent" is only to sex. There are obvious consequences that are -sometimes- not anticipated that accompany any sexual act. For example there may be an impact on relationships or STD's or even abortion. People that choose to have sex are aware that these possibilities occur. They are real and they impact our actions. It is a fact that any choice to have sex will result in a 70 percent chance that there will be an abortion in the first trimester and an additional 25 percent chance of an abortion before birth occurs. That chance includes the chance of a late term abortion.
Regardless of whether a person is capable of understanding that fact, it exist. Therefore any choice to have sex is consent to abortion, whether or not the person "admits" to that fact.

secularprolife.org said...

In one sense you are correct. There is no admitted consent. The consent occurs because the pro lifer knows any that with any sexual act there are accompanying unwanted consequences. For example sexual activity is not intentional consent to an STD, but it is a possible consequence on occasion. And if the sex was intentional the consequence was intentional as well. The same with abortion. A person may not admit that they know there will be an abortion and hence consent to abortion, but the consent is part and parcel to the intentional sex. Any consent to sex is consent to abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. I really don't believe that everything in the world is designed to 'fit neatly' anywhere. Life is messy, not completely black and white--and not everything is going to make sense. .

secularprolife.org said...

Some people will tell you they drink to be social, or to relax, or just like the taste but the actual and only purpose to drink alcohol is to get the intoxicating effect.


I do drink for the taste, and my limit is one drink. I've never been drunk.

secularprolife.org said...

My parents intended to have three children, and they did. But their sex life continued after that. Condoms work very well.

secularprolife.org said...

"Greg's wife is one lucky woman to have such a romantic son of a bitch,"


Actually, I'm pretty much thinking the exact opposite at this point.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm a little old, and way too tired from raising kids to be led around by my twig and berries



Oh for heaven's sakes. I'm a person who believes in moderation, but you're only 42 and you're talking as though you already have a foot in the grave. You're not dead yet, you know.

secularprolife.org said...

Yep.


And how does this explain the many people - men and women - who will have sex for the bonding, and really not care if they orgasm or not. They just want to be intimate with their partner!


And really, if the trope - "we have orgasms so that we will reproduce and this is all that an orgasm will ever mean '" was 100pct true, then wouldn't everyone just be satisfied with masturbating? Why put all of the effort into working to find someone to have sex with if you can get off in a sock?

secularprolife.org said...

Your "noterminationwithoutrepresentation" is based on false reasoning. Abortion follows scientific laws that show the fetus cannot be proved to be human life until it is born. And those laws show that a choice to save a fetus is a choice to let a human being die.

In addition, pro life laws lead to a decrease in babies, disproving much of the pro life argument. Abortion has lead to more life, not less life.

You need to address those issues and the full set of laws here and on your page. Otherwise your blog has been a waste of time.

secularprolife.org said...

Government is immoral.

secularprolife.org said...

WAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

secularprolife.org said...

"scientific laws that show the fetus cannot be proved to be human life until it is born"


On the No Termination without Representation blog, please see the "Personhood" post.


"pro life laws lead to a decrease in babies"


I believe that your argument is based on scarcity of resources. On this page --


http://ViswakamalWelfareSociety.org/qa-population-and-other-questions/

-- please see the paragraph listing more humane solutions than abortion to any problem of overpopulation. I would add that should those solutions not be enough, sterilization should be encouraged through incentives or, if necessary, pressures. Though such an approach would be less than desirable, it would be much more humane than abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

You do realize that most people on this board are American, right?

secularprolife.org said...

Are the SPL people unconcerned about killing of the unborn outside the borders of the US?


Or if you found that the solutions I linked to would not apply to any present or future scarcity-of-resources problem in the US, please say why.

secularprolife.org said...

"not one of those points can be proved to be human life until birth. . . . any theory that there is human life at conception"


Define "human life."

secularprolife.org said...

Any form of expressed DNA that produces a living human being at birth.

secularprolife.org said...

"I believe that your argument is based on scarcity of resources."
No resources have no impact on the Law of Charity. All that matters is the choice that is made to save life. What ever resources are available should then be used via triage to save the most life possible.

secularprolife.org said...

I recognize the political difficulty of my suggestion.


And what is the source of that political difficulty? -- Adults can fight back, scream and organize. Unborn babies don't. Adults have it their way.


Please see:

http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/abortion-and-problem-solving/

secularprolife.org said...

I have no desire to look at your blog. And no, I don't think you're that familiar with our political situation.

secularprolife.org said...

The scarcity of resources would apply equally to saving babies or fetuses. The choice to let babies die is independent from whatever resources needed to save life. All that matters is the choice to let babies live or die.

secularprolife.org said...

Your blog fails to account for the Scientific Abortion Laws and therefore its assumptions are invalid.

secularprolife.org said...

And what is the source of that political difficulty?


Laws, courts, and what you would be proposing would be unconstitutional in the US.

secularprolife.org said...

The courts and the constitutional-amendment process are controlled by people who are already members of the elite club of the born and therefore will have it their way.

secularprolife.org said...

This country is governed by our constitution and our rule of law. You don't like it? Tough. Don't come live here.

secularprolife.org said...

A demand for me to prove that would be an arbitrary condition. Suppose you're 30 years old. We don't know if you will turn into a normal 31-year-old, but we don't kill you.

secularprolife.org said...

The difference is that you knew I was human at 30 and 31, you have no proof the zygote was ever human life. If it is not human at birth, it never was human........

secularprolife.org said...

We don't know that it's not, in fact we know it probably is, so we have to wait and see.

secularprolife.org said...

What do they die from?

secularprolife.org said...

The die from all causes.

secularprolife.org said...

We know that 70 percent of the time it will not become a born human being. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.full.pdf+html 70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester and of those that die 60 percent are not human enough to live as humans because of genetic flaws. After the first 70 percent die, 25 percent more die before birth.
We know that most will not produce human life. So we have to wait and see if they are in fact human and will be human at birth. The facts are that at conception most zygotes will not become human life.
Because of the changes at birth and the Law of Charity, we cannot assume that a fetus is a human being and wait. If the zef does not transform into a human being then it never was a human being. And we cant "wait and see" because born babies are dying at the rate of 1.8 each second. A second spent waiting is a second during which born babies die.

secularprolife.org said...

He's from India. Prefers infanticide to abortion.

Women in India are treated like livestock. This does not appear to concern Acyu.

Example:
http://jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.ca/2013/04/abandoned.html?m=1

Women have no say in how many children they will have. Treated like cattle, even if it kills them. People who live in places like India and seek to ban abortion clearly think very little of women, and tacitly support the rape culture there.

secularprolife.org said...

It's a shit analogy, there is no commonality. I guess you are unclear on how analogies work also. Keep pluggin away dumplin' someday you'll make a valid point. Until then, adios.

secularprolife.org said...

Then "pro-life" is a fantasy. "Society" has never been in a position to deny or allow abortion. Only to allow or deny safe, legal abortion. The denial of safe, legal abortion doesn't deny abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

LOL. Yes, it is an argument.

secularprolife.org said...

Analogy = pregnancy does not have to be endured because it is 'natural' to human females anymore than hemmorhoids have to be endured by anyone without medical interference just because they also are 'natural' to humans. Perfect analogy.

secularprolife.org said...

Except hemmorhoids are not distinct organisms, and NEVER become living human beings. Sorry not even a close analogy. You are absolutely adorable in you ineptitude, keep trying, you're cracking me up.

secularprolife.org said...

You are welcome. Say something interesting/pertinent or this conversation is over.
a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

secularprolife.org said...

This "conversation" has been over for awhile, you're just a little slow. Take note of your own definition though, "comparable to something else in significant respects". Sorry, your analogy is shit.

secularprolife.org said...

"The only objective purpose to put a penis inside of your vagina and stimulate it to ejaculation is to fertilize your eggs."

No, it's not the ONLY purpose or we would have estrus cycles and/or only want sex when we're fertile. And plenty of other animals have been observed to engage in sex acts without the purpose of procreation.

secularprolife.org said...

"Social bonding isn't necessary for the survival of the species"

Yes it is, or we wouldn't live in social groups.

secularprolife.org said...

All of that has been addressed in depth in other comments on this thread. We do have the evolutionary remnants of a estrus cycle, and the sex drive IS more pronounced during fertile periods. Males detect and respond instinctively to fertility as well. When I say "purpose" I mean biological. There are many motivations for sex, from social bonding to pure pleasure and many in between, but they all amount to motivation, NOT purpose. If you view it objectively, like you are observing a species in nature, like the bonobo that another poster mentioned, you see motivations like pleasure and social bonding as incentive to promote procreation, not an ends in themselves. A bonobo female may be receptive to sex when she isn't fertile, to promote bonding, but that bonding simply encourages procreation. It is all for a single purpose, propagation of the species. We are not special, we are not removed from nature, we are just smart apes. Our biological imperative is the same as any other species.

secularprolife.org said...

I see what you mean about the rape-y thing, totally unintentional. The point was about consent to the reproductive process though not so much about the details leading up to it. Until there is intentional and agreed upon ejaculation, there is no consent to further steps in the process. I am considering that the first step. Of course a woman can change her mind mid coitus, so can a man for that matter (but it's probably not as likely). I understand your point about only you being able to care, but I disagree. When I say nature doesn't give two shits, I mean nature is unforgiving. I won't get into my personal ethical issues involving abortion, as they are well documented and thoroughly discussed elsewhere on this thread. But I do not accept the premise of it being just one person's choice. Even if you ignore the product of conception, there is one other person who is deeply affected by that decision. Unless you agree to the idea that a father can choose to walk away without any ethical or legal implications, it's hard to argue that it is only the woman's choice. Of ocurse none of this is meant to say that a woman should be forced to give birth against her will, I just think it's only fair to present all sides and consider them objectively.

secularprolife.org said...

"When I say nature doesn't give two shits, I mean nature is unforgiving."

Women have to be unforgiving sometimes, especially when they already have children they're caring for. 2/3 of women having an abortion already have at least one child. That's a big factor in deciding to have an abortion.

"Unless you agree to the idea that a father can choose to walk away
without any ethical or legal implications, it's hard to argue that it is
only the woman's choice."

No, it's not. Women are WAY more invested, always. We NEVER have the option to "walk away" from an unintended pregnancy. We have to step up to both the ethical and legal implications and make the decision EVERY TIME as to whether we're going to have an abortion or give birth.

secularprolife.org said...

"Until there is intentional and agreed upon ejaculation, there is no
consent to further steps in the process. I am considering that the
first step."

So men are the only ones who get to decide when the ball gets dropped and starts the process of procreation? Every sperm is sacred, right?

secularprolife.org said...

"A bonobo female may be receptive to sex when she isn't fertile, to
promote bonding, but that bonding simply encourages procreation."

Bonobos males are receptive to sex with other males, as are bonobo females to other females. At least 1500 other species (other than human) have been observed to engage in homosexual sex.

Bonding encourages social connections that aren't related to direct procreation, i.e., creating ones own offspring. Again, with the social groups we live in. We have aunties and uncles and grandparents for a reason.

secularprolife.org said...

"the sex drive IS more pronounced during fertile periods."

And whose sex drive are you talking about, exactly? I don't know about yours, but mine is more pronounced during my NON-fertile time. And it's not really advantageous for humans when their females are constantly pregnant.

secularprolife.org said...

"But I do not accept the premise of it being just one person's choice."

Also, no. The only person who should have the final say in whether they're going take on the majority of the risks involved with gestation and birth is the one who has to actually take all of them on.

secularprolife.org said...

Not at all. We don't DECIDE anything. If intercourse reaches that point it's because of mutual consent (at least in the context of this discussion). If every sperm was sacred every sock drawer would be a vault of sacred relics. Sperm is just sperm until it finds that special egg to settle down with and mingle haploids. In the context of the reproductive process, men have very limited decisions. Women hold all the cards, make the bulk of the decisions, and carry the largest burden. As the old saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. Women have the bulk of the autonomic authority, and a share of the burden to match.

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly.

secularprolife.org said...

Hey, every errant sperm should have the power to derail a woman's life yes? Conception is just so fucking special!

secularprolife.org said...

I pointed this out. If it wasn't important, it would have never evolved the way it did.

Also, social bonding may have come first, as without that bonding , vulnerable human babies = toast. And reproductive success, specifically inclusive fitness, can't be achieved if none of your offspring make it to reproductive age.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, so your incoherent rambling convinces me: you think it's "ethical" to have girls die of pregnancies they're too young for, to have women die of eclampsia, infection from prolonged miscarriages, and other lethal ills of pregnancy and childbirth: you think forced birth of unwanted children is more "ethical" than women getting to choose how many children to have and when.

You think I'm "dumb as shit"? Dear boy, your inability to think through your opposition to the life-saving basic human right of abortion, is only matched by your inability to defend your position coherently and briefly without personal abuse.

secularprolife.org said...

[You had said: "The choice to let [born] babies die is independent from whatever resources needed to save life."
I then asked you what they die from. You replied "All causes." But that answer doesn't tell me whether any of those causes precludes the possibility that we can save both the born and the unborn.}
This is a difficult thing --at first-- to visualize. Like any other law, once you understand it, it is simple. There are 1.8 born persons, 1.4 unwanted fetuses and 10 wanted fetuses dying each second. They die in every imaginable way. There is no way to "save" any of them for an extended period of time. For example one can save an unwanted fetus from legal induced abortion only until it dies via natural abortion or illegal induced abortion. We have no control of when it dies. Likewise, we have no control over when a born person dies or a wanted fetus. In both cases we can only "attempt" to extend life.
Individual humans cannot control the relationship between resources and the number of people living and dying. We can do our best, and we can accumulate massive numbers of resources, but we do not control drought or other weather condiditions or other factors that determine if we have enough resources. Assuming we do our best, the number and sufficiency of resources does not matter. Whatever resources that are available can be used to support either born or unborn lives.

So people are dying from every imaginable cause. And there is no way to know for what length of time we can save them. And resources do not matter. The only thing we have control over is whom we choose to save.



{Only a cause of death that precluded that possibility would support an argument for abortion based on born babies dying. Scarcity of resources might seem to be such a cause of death, but you have already said -}

There is no claim that abortion should be based upon the fact that born babies are dying. You may choose to save unborn babies if you wish. The Law of Charity does not care which you choose. It supports either choice or no choice. It states a fact. There are more people dying than can be saved. What upsets you is that you make a choice that does not seem to be reasonable in your own mind. You choose to save fetuses and let babies die. I choose to save babies and let fetuses die. One or the other will die.

{"The choice to let [born] babies die is independent from whatever resources needed to save life"
-- and I have already suggested better ways to deal with any scarcity of resources that might arise.}

Resources have ----nothing--- to do with the law. The law simply states that you cannot save everyone that is dying, there are more people dying than can be saved. The law does not state anything about resources and is not affected by resources.

secularprolife.org said...

"Women hold all the cards, make the bulk of the decisions, and carry the largest burden."

So why does it seem like you're trying to make the point that men should be able to "walk away without any ethical or legal implications" while at the same time admitting that women NEVER can?

secularprolife.org said...

Citation needed for 'abortion survivors.'

secularprolife.org said...

"The only thing we have control over is whom we choose to save. . . . There are more people dying than can be saved. . . . babies . . . fetuses. . . . One or the other will die. . . . The law simply states that you cannot save everyone that is dying,"




Why not? Let's simply apply the well-known Law of Multi-Tasking.

secularprolife.org said...

look it up yourself plumpling

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that NEITHER can walk away without any ethical implications. The point of mentioning men's obligations is to illustrate that it isn't ONLY the woman who has an ethical interest in the decision.

secularprolife.org said...

That's what I've been saying. My point is only that it is not a decision that affects only her. Even if you don't believe the fetus is a living human being, or is entitled to a basic right to live, the father has a vested interest. It is a decision with ethical implications for at least two people. All I am saying is that when the woman is making that decision, it is not fair to think of it as just a choice about her own body.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm referring to studies done on the matter. Studies (as well as real world observation) also show that men respond to that in the same way other animals do. Human men are more prone to territorial or dominance displays when their partner is fertile. I agree that it would be a practical disadvantage for the species to have women constantly pregnant. That doesn't change the innate biological imperative to propagate the species.

secularprolife.org said...

That might be true if there were zero risk to one's life and health from gestation and birth. However, it is not. In almost every other circumstance, the only one who gets to make the decision about taking such risks is the one undergoing the risks.

secularprolife.org said...

Humans and bonobos also masturbate. That doesn't negate the biological imperative to propagate the species. I admit that my philosophy on the biological imperative lacks some clarity on the issue of homosexuality. I can't see a justification to call homosexuality unethical, or abnormal, but it does seem contrary to the idea of an instinctual imperative to procreate. I would need more information on homosexual behavior in nature to say anything definitively. However, I notice a couple irregularities between homosexuality in species other than humans. I have yet to see an example of homosexual behavior among females of other species. There also seems to be some indication that homosexual behavior among males of other species doesn't exclude them from heterosexual behavior. I can't say anything empirically about that, but it seems that it might be more of an issue of the biological urge to copulate. Males have an innate urge to copulate, when a suitable mate isn't present or willing to oblige, just about anything will do. I think in humans it is a little more complex. Having close family and friends who are homosexual, I think their sexuality in most cases was determined even before they were sexually active. In other words, I think they were gay before they even recognized it. Whether they were born that way or not is speculative, but I tend to think most homosexuals are. That's what I have a problem reconciling with the concept of a biological imperative. The easy way would be to call homosexuality unethical or abnormal. I can't do that and remain honest, so I chose to accept that my philosophy has a slightly murky area. It still makes far more sense overall than any alternative I've encountered, so I'll just keep thinking and reading. As I said to someone else on the matter, I'd rather have a small hole in my philosophy than a big one in my integrity.

secularprolife.org said...

Not everybody does. It certainly makes survival much more likely, but it's not a basic necessity.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you familiar with tabbed browsing and google? Why on Earth would I feel obligated to prove anything to you? You are without a doubt the most uninteresting person I have had the misfortune of conversing with. I am certainly not going to do anything to encourage further discussion.

secularprolife.org said...

BTW, I don't feel like digging through old comments to reply. It just isn't worth the time. About your Quaker comment. No I was not raised Hicksite. I was raised Orthodox Evangelical Quaker, hence the comment about Evangelicals. We still used "meeting" and meeting hall in place of church, but I chose to use a term the non-Quaker readers would understand, since the comment was directed at them. I'm not at all interested or concerned with your take on Orthodox vs. Hicksite Quaker traditions, and find it silly for you to imply that one is less Quaker than the other. At any rate, I left that behind years ago. I am now part of a mostly online community of Non-theist or Humanist Friends, which is more akin to the unprogrammed Hicksite tradition.

secularprolife.org said...

Quote = I am certainly not going to do anything to encourage further discussion.

secularprolife.org said...

You can't save everyone because everyone dies.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah? Tell that to indigenous tribes people.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 504 of 504   Newer› Newest»