Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What's happened to the fo...
Today at 12:54 AM

New Britain
Today at 12:49 AM

Qur'anic studies today
April 23, 2024, 06:50 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 20, 2024, 12:02 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
April 19, 2024, 04:40 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
April 19, 2024, 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 19, 2024, 04:17 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Secular Pro-Life Debate

 (Read 17135 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     OP - December 30, 2014, 07:29 PM

    A video I recently watched on if the secular community should support the rights of the unborn.

    Warning: Graphic images from 25 minutes 36 seconds until 26 minutes 36 seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78_V1Z9CO4

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #1 - December 30, 2014, 07:33 PM

    Any interesting points raised? CBF'd watching it if they're just going to waffle on without coming up with anything revolutionary.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #2 - December 30, 2014, 07:45 PM

    The one for secularists supporting the pro-life view didn't really bring up anything new. The only noticeable thing is that she didn't use god as a justification. The one opposed (Matt Dillahunty, probably most well known for hosting The Atheist Experience) made the argument that having a biological function and pregnancy being an aspect of nature doesn't effect the individual rights of the person who's body is being used. Whether you agree with him or not, he got his views across clearly, though neither one minced words.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #3 - December 30, 2014, 07:50 PM

    So by "pro-life view" you mean not suicidal? Or do you mean "anti-abortion"? whistling2

    The term "pro-life" was originally invented as deliberate spin by US fundies*. No need to adopt it for them.

    *They figured it was more effective to promote themselves as being "pro" something good (like life, per se) which would then automatically imply their opponents were not in favour of "life" (per se).

    If they are just "pro-life" then this means they are not against rights for women, of course.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #4 - December 30, 2014, 07:53 PM

     Grin I could change the title of the thread.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #5 - February 27, 2016, 12:16 AM

    Just watched this debate. I like Matt, but I think the pro-life (anti-abortion) position resonates more with me. Frankly, the concept of abortion leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    I always assumed that I would naturally be pro choice without the theological suppositions that lead people to hold pro life positions, but I still think that the right to life is extremely important, and this is a violation of it. Not that I consider an early fetus to have the same intrinsic value as the mother, but it's life none the less, and that should be protected.

    I'd make exeptions in the case of rape and incest, but in the other cases, I don't see pregnancy as something that just happens to you like any other affliction out of your control (cancer, infection, etc.). I think people should understand that by having (consensual) sex, you are running the risk of pregnancy and should be prepared to deal with the consequences. The fetus is not just a leech that you can remove its support whenever you feel like it. It's a result of your action and people need to own up to that.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #6 - February 27, 2016, 04:30 PM

    Whatever right a fetus has, in my opinion ought to be determined by where it stands on a neurological gradient, from full rights (when it's born as a functional human infant) to no rights (early undifferentiated balls of cells stuff). I haven't studied all of the intricacies of embryology, so I'm not going to pull a Hamza Tsortsis here, but I do know there are some stages late in a pregnancy where that neurological function of an embryo would be enough to have the discussion of which "human rights" ought to be afforded to it.

    However, that would of course be an idealized discussion. Although I find neurological gradient to be one of the best and most flexible paradigms from which to view medical ethics, spanning such diverse issues as end of life care to animal research, unfortunately human regard for life is in reality just fucking messy. So while I do think we ought to live in harmony with dolphins, chimps, late pregnancy fetuses, or even fully grown humans who happen to live in different circumstances from us, I do suspect that such an aspiration would be an example of me living in cloud-cuckoo land.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #7 - February 27, 2016, 04:51 PM

    A neurological gradient seems extremely difficult to establish in any sort of objective way. Our view about what type of creatures can suffer, how much they suffer, how much they can experience other emotions like joy or fear, change all the time. Ultimately, all we have to go on is brain structure and we're completely blocked out from understanding what's going on in the organism's subjective experience. It's extremely difficult to judge whether a creature has sentience or not.

    I may need to fact check this but I've heard from multiple sources that before the end of the first trimester, the heart beat is there and most of the organs are pretty much formed into workable form. I find it hard to deny someone personhood at that point. And even before then, just out of respect for what that embryo is already starting to become, I think the time for stopping pregnancy lies squarely in the birth control stage.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #8 - February 28, 2016, 12:01 AM

    A neurological gradient seems extremely difficult to establish in any sort of objective way. Our view about what type of creatures can suffer, how much they suffer, how much they can experience other emotions like joy or fear, change all the time. Ultimately, all we have to go on is brain structure and we're completely blocked out from understanding what's going on in the organism's subjective experience. It's extremely difficult to judge whether a creature has sentience or not.

    I may need to fact check this but I've heard from multiple sources that before the end of the first trimester, the heart beat is there and most of the organs are pretty much formed into workable form. I find it hard to deny someone personhood at that point. And even before then, just out of respect for what that embryo is already starting to become, I think the time for stopping pregnancy lies squarely in the birth control stage.


    So addressing the second paragraph first. If there's no experience of suffering, why the fuck does a heartbeat or any of that other shit matter? And its past 20ish weeks that higher brain function develops (beyond basic reflexes and stuff), so that puts us around the start of the 3rd trimester for when we can start considering that experience and weighing it against the rights of the fully human and rather sentient being that's carrying it. The point of a neurological gradient is to at least eliminate some of this subjectivity in favor of focusing on issues that could matter.

    So with the first point, about the subjectivity about the neurological gradient, I definitely agree that subjectivity does exist. However, I think it does help to eliminate a lot of emotional arguments and focus on improving our understanding about what matters, our understanding of an experience of suffering. And yes, our ability to judge that is currently limited, true, but I think it's something that if we focus the debate on, its definitely possible to build social consensus. Hell, we do it with which things are more or less socially acceptable to eat: chickens yes; chimps probably no. Or with when it's okay to pull the plug; PVS probably yes, grandpa can't walk, no. Anyway, I don't think the idea that our understanding isn't fully developed is a good excuse not to really use the best ethical framework we have to guide the discussion.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #9 - February 28, 2016, 06:26 AM

    A coma patient lacks higher brain functioning. Should we have the right to off him or her because there is no capacity for suffering? Even when there is a strong chance of recovery? Seems to be higher brain function is not a necessary condition to personhood.

    I think we can have respect for somethings potential, especially if it's well on its way towards what it is to become sans external fuckery with natures course. Suffering is not the end all be all of deciding ethically of what we should avoid.

    As to the neurological gradient, I think since it is such an imperfect science, we should err far on the side of safety.


    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #10 - February 28, 2016, 01:22 PM

    A coma patient is a completely different story, and distinct from a persistent vegetative state. Coma patients often dream, listen, and engage in other mental activity that marks them separate from the sort of example you've given. In addition, their brains will often retain memories of their experience to that point. There's no way you can say any of this about a developing fetus, hence this is a false analogy.

    I think your last statement also betrays your sympathies in this discussion. How is respecting the rights of a potential human over an extant one "erring on the side of safety"?

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #11 - February 28, 2016, 01:48 PM

    Having a heart beat doesn't lead to sentience in any way whatsoever. Sentience is in the mind, not the heart. Nor, for that matter, does having a fully formed life necessarily lead to sentience. We can all agree that plants are not sentient. We all pluck plants and don't think twice of it. We certainly don't consider it murder.

    I also think talking about abortion like a woman gets pregnant and just decides to get the fetus out of her like it's the first thing she thinks about hugely misunderstands the matter. Abortion is emotionally taxing and a lot of women are traumatized for life after going through the procedure. There are a lot of support groups and such for women who have gone through abortions. Abortion is a last resort for women who absolutely need it. The women who abort the most are women who are incapable of raising a child, whether because they can't afford to, or due to other reasons. The point being is, do we really want to bring a child in this world who cannot be taken care of? What's the point of this "right to life" if this life is not given the other necessities of life we consider to be rights? What's so morally good about throwing children into a world of poverty, suffering, despair?

    At the end of the day, being "pro-life" is an incredibly privileged position to take. It assumes that children will be taken care of when they're born, when in fact the exact opposite is true. The children who would've been aborted before existing are the ones who end up living the worst lives, lives of misery, of abuse, of suffering.
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #12 - February 28, 2016, 05:38 PM

    How is respecting the rights of a potential human over an extant one "erring on the side of safety"?


    How do you square this characterization of my position with what I have said earlier?

    Not that I consider an early fetus to have the same intrinsic value as the mother, but it's life none the less, and that should be protected.


    And right to choose in our society is almost always trumped by the right to life. This is why I don't have the freedom to go out and "choose" to shoot someone.

    And my point with the analogy was to show that higher brain function is not a requirement to consider someone a person. There are coma patients where their higher brain function is completely offline for the duration of their coma.

    I don't even need to construct a hypothetical, since it happens all the time, but suppose a coma patient is in such a deep unconscious state that there is no experience at all. No hearing, dreaming, or suffering. This patient however still has a strong chance of recovery, because their system is essentially rebooting after fighting off a bad infection. The individual is hooked up to life support at very little cost to his or her family. Would it be moral to pull the plug on this individual?

    If not, I think you share my moral intuition that potential does, in fact, matter. Past memories are a red herring as they are not accessible in this state of unconscious and the only way they matter is that the patient has the *potential* to recall them once he or she recovers.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #13 - February 28, 2016, 05:56 PM

    Having a heart beat doesn't lead to sentience in any way whatsoever. Sentience is in the mind, not the heart. Nor, for that matter, does having a fully formed life necessarily lead to sentience. We can all agree that plants are not sentient. We all pluck plants and don't think twice of it. We certainly don't consider it murder.


    My argument does not live and die on the basis of sentience. I do think there is something to be said for sentience in fetuses (especially late in the pregnancy), but I find that when you think about it, you can show exceptions that show that the definition of personhood does not require sentience.

    I also think talking about abortion like a woman gets pregnant and just decides to get the fetus out of her like it's the first thing she thinks about hugely misunderstands the matter. Abortion is emotionally taxing and a lot of women are traumatized for life after going through the procedure. There are a lot of support groups and such for women who have gone through abortions. Abortion is a last resort for women who absolutely need it. The women who abort the most are women who are incapable of raising a child, whether because they can't afford to, or due to other reasons. The point being is, do we really want to bring a child in this world who cannot be taken care of? What's the point of this "right to life" if this life is not given the other necessities of life we consider to be rights? What's so morally good about throwing children into a world of poverty, suffering, despair?

    At the end of the day, being "pro-life" is an incredibly privileged position to take. It assumes that children will be taken care of when they're born, when in fact the exact opposite is true. The children who would've been aborted before existing are the ones who end up living the worst lives, lives of misery, of abuse, of suffering.


    I think you're generalizing a little bit on when a woman resorts to abortion. While I'm sure many women would use it only as a last resort, I also think there are some women out there who just don't want to deal with a child no matter what and just want to dispose of it as quickly as possible. This is a risk you run in a society that provides easy access to abortions.

    On the contrary, I think it is a little privileged for any woman who is pregnant to say that she has the right to determine whether her child's life would be worth living. She knows exactly how her child is going to feel about the life it is born into and it's completely up to her to deprive her child it's right to life on that basis.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #14 - February 28, 2016, 06:59 PM

    How do you square this characterization of my position with what I have said earlier?

    And right to choose in our society is almost always trumped by the right to life. This is why I don't have the freedom to go out and "choose" to shoot someone.


    But you can hunt and fish on your property all you want. The key is "human" life, and the "humaness" of the thing in question is the central issue. When we start talking about "potential humaness" instead of making our best determination of what it actually is at any given stage, we're doing a wrong to the woman bearing the fetus if we say it cannot be terminated.

    As far as a coma goes, I do think that this is a different situation altogether, as we're clearly talking about something which at the very least has been human, which cannot be said of a fetus.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #15 - February 28, 2016, 11:37 PM

    Is it really such a jump to go from: "this patient was a person in the past, and will be a person in the future, we should not kill the patient." to "this fetus will be a person in the future, we should not kill it."

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that the patient in the coma actually *is* a person, despite his lack of higher brain function. If you share that intuition, you may need to move away from having higher brain functioning be a necessary condition for personhood.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #16 - February 29, 2016, 02:02 AM

    Yes, its a big leap, because these are vastly different circumstances we're talking about. In the one case there's some sort of traumatic brain injury to a fully formed human, and we don't really know whether they'll make a recovery or not.

    In the other case we more or less know what we're dealing with. Some ball of cells differentiates, eventually starts to look like some fish-like thing, then over time begins to develop features that we associate with humanity. If you throw "potential" into the argument for this, then you're going to have trouble drawing any lines, and then we have to listen to arguments about having respect for what that undifferentiated ball of cells is going to become, and I'm not at all comfortable with any of that nonsense. My intuition tells me its bullshit.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #17 - February 29, 2016, 02:30 AM

    I thought the correct order was:

    First, its semen, then its a clot of blood, then it becomes a clinging thing (leech-like), then it grows bones and then it grows flesh over the bones.

    I have this on the authority of a very honest person. He has also explored a variety of female anatomy, so he knows what he's talking about  Wink


    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #18 - February 29, 2016, 02:31 AM

    But seriously, would you call the coma patient a "person"? And if you would, what is your definition of a person that could include such a patient?

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #19 - February 29, 2016, 06:11 PM

    A coma patient to me seems pretty obviously a human, in the same way that any other ill person is a human.

    If you could give me like, let's say 99.8% or some other arbitrarily high certainty that the brain injury they suffered could not be recovered from, and they would remain without perception or experience indefinitely, then yeah I might be willing to make a downgrade, but we don't have that kind of precision.

    A fetus has never gotten to that point of being "human". It gains "humanness" over time, until it is finally viable outside the womb and pretty indisputably has those rights (although there are some atheists I've heard of who eat them so you never know).

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #20 - February 29, 2016, 07:25 PM

    To me, the difference between a fetus and a comatose person is that a comatose person has lived and made memories and experiences. That, to me, is what defines us as humans and is essentially what marks our consciousness.
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #21 - February 29, 2016, 07:27 PM

    Also, the comatose patient does not require a human host to feed off of for three quarters of a year.
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #22 - February 29, 2016, 07:39 PM

    I'm also intrigued by the fact that this thread so far is all guys.



     whistling2 whistling2
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #23 - February 29, 2016, 09:08 PM

    Quote
    I'm also intrigued by the fact that this thread so far is all guys.


    I was waiting for someone to notice  Wink
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #24 - March 01, 2016, 01:33 AM

    I'm also intrigued by the fact that this thread so far is all guys.


    Damnit Absurdist, why did you go and blow my cover like that? I enjoy the reputation I've maintained over the years as being gender ambiguous.  Tongue

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #25 - March 01, 2016, 02:17 AM

    So can we synthesize all this into a clear definition of what it is to be a person? I try to avoid slippery slope arguments, but if we're just gonna cherry pick situations when a life is a life and other times it's not, this is ripe for abuse.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #26 - March 01, 2016, 02:35 AM

    I think I subscribe to the definition of anything with a human genome and functioning organs qualifies as human and therefore has a right to life.

    The only thing I could see as troublesome in this area is patients in a vegetative state. But pulling the plug on intensive, expensive, and drastic medical treatment is not along the same lines as actively killing the patient.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #27 - March 01, 2016, 03:55 AM

    Well, no one is actively killing fetuses. Abortion is literally pulling the plug, i.e. the life support they have. So you just shot yourself in the foot.
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #28 - March 01, 2016, 05:42 AM

    Many abortions involve going in and breaking the fetus skull in order to get it out. This is very much killing the fetus

    Even the aspiration vacuum procedures in the first trimester involve sucking the fetus out, tearing apart its structure (effectively killing it) and not merely removing it from its supply of nourishment

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Secular Pro-Life Debate
     Reply #29 - March 01, 2016, 01:01 PM

    So can we synthesize all this into a clear definition of what it is to be a person? I try to avoid slippery slope arguments, but if we're just gonna cherry pick situations when a life is a life and other times it's not, this is ripe for abuse.


    It's "life" from the moment it's a little spermy and eggy in mum and dad's reproductive organs. Question is when the life matters in a way that it can be compared to the needs of an indisputable person.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »