NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just thinking the other day that I've never come across someone who was opposed to abortion but wasn't also religious in some way.

The average athiest is no more likely to be lacking in 'moral fibre' than the average religious person; for example, with regard to crimes like murder, theft or assault. Why does this particular moral issue seem to always have a religious flavour?

Opinions on abortion usually have either an explicit religious dimension or a distinct lack of one, but can religious belief be directly correlated with opposition to abortion or do too many anomalies exist on both sides of the argument?

I was just thinking the other day that I've never come across someone who was opposed to abortion but wasn't also religious in some way.

The average athiest is no more likely to be lacking in 'moral fibre' than the average religious person; for example, with regard to crimes like murder, theft or assault. Why does this particular moral issue seem to always have a religious flavour?

Opinions on abortion usually have either an explicit religious dimension or a distinct lack of one, but can religious belief be directly correlated with opposition to abortion or do too many anomalies exist on both sides of the argument?

I'm pro-life

But I'm even more pro-choice and contra-regulations.

I'm pro-life

But I'm even more pro-choice and contra-regulations.
Agreed if it was up to me I would never have an abortion ... but as it is not my body I don't feel the right to make the choice over anyone other then myself

Im pro-life.

Im atheist.


I believe everything has the right to live.

BuuUuuUUuuUUUUUUUt.

i do understand choice is needed.

As such i would like reeducation of to-be-mothers and better adoption homes.

This brings up another point. Can you really be pro-life and pro-choice?

This brings up another point. Can you really be pro-life and pro-choice?
Yup

Sure, I'm pro-life... Life is good.

Oh, wait. You meant anti-abortion.

My bad.

Yup

How though? The pro-life camp is all about preserving life, they believe that everything should have the right to live, and shouldn't be killed (or aborted, whatever).

Pro-Choice people support abortion because they support a woman's right to choice since it's her body etc.

Hmm, seems kinda contradicitary to me.

This brings up another point. Can you really be pro-life and pro-choice?

Yes.

How though? The pro-life camp is all about preserving life, they believe that everything should have the right to live, and shouldn't be killed (or aborted, whatever).

Pro-Choice people support abortion because they support a woman's right to choice since it's her body etc.

Hmm, seems kinda contradicitary to me.

No, Life and Choice aren't opposites, If you think your embryo shouldn't be killed, okay, you're pro-life and all. If you think other people have the right to choose whether or not they have an abortion, that's pro-choice. If you want an opposite to Pro-Life, It'd be something along the lines of compulsory abortions.

nope. Definitely pro-choice here!

How though? The pro-life camp is all about preserving life, they believe that everything should have the right to live, and shouldn't be killed (or aborted, whatever).


Which I find so Ironic that so many "pro lifers" are also pro death penalty

Which I find so Ironic that so many "pro lifers" are also pro death penalty

Eh the diffrence is that in the case of abortion, the unborn child has no defense. I mean jeez it's like a muscle bound kid beating up a scrawny nerdy kid. It's not a fair fight.

Where as to the death penalty, the guy knew what he did was wrong. MOST of the time he had an idea of right and wrong, and still chose to kill all those people. Now there are some cases where the person is/was mentally disabled, and in that case he should be put in a psych ward.

Eh the diffrence is that in the case of abortion, the unborn child has no defense. I mean jeez it's like a muscle bound kid beating up a scrawny nerdy kid. It's not a fair fight.

Where as to the death penalty, the guy knew what he did was wrong. MOST of the time he had an idea of right and wrong, and still chose to kill all those people. Now there are some cases where the person is/was mentally disabled, and in that case he should be put in a psych ward.


or falsely accused and wrongly put to death, never able to fight the injustice again

or falsely accused and wrongly put to death, never able to fight the injustice again

Yea, but how often does that really happen?

or falsely accused and wrongly put to death, never able to fight the injustice again

Which happen how many times again?

Eh the diffrence is that in the case of abortion, the unborn child has no defense. I mean jeez it's like a muscle bound kid beating up a scrawny nerdy kid. It's not a fair fight.

Where as to the death penalty, the guy knew what he did was wrong. MOST of the time he had an idea of right and wrong, and still chose to kill all those people. Now there are some cases where the person is/was mentally disabled, and in that case he should be put in a psych ward.
But they are then no longer all about preserving life, they believe that everything should have the right to live

They are all about preserving SOME life, they believe that SOME things should have the right to live


There is a massive difference

But they like you description ... it makes them sound more moral

Yea, but how often does that really happen?
More often than you'd think. :rolleyes:

How though? The pro-life camp is all about preserving life, they believe that everything should have the right to live, and shouldn't be killed (or aborted, whatever).

Pro-Choice people support abortion because they support a woman's right to choice since it's her body etc.

Hmm, seems kinda contradicitary to me.
No, they're not mutually exclusive; you can believe that the fetus isn't actually alive in the first place and thus in the woman's right to a choice, but also be in favor of allowing people to live.

Seriously. :headbang:

Yea, but how often does that really happen?

One innocent person being put to death by the state is too many.

In my personal opinion, all criminals that would be put to death should instead be given life in prison. death is the easy way out while prison is a pretty rough life.

Which happen how many times again?


I can't answer that... try google.

More often than you'd think. :rolleyes:

Would you care to back that up?


No, they're not mutually exclusive; you can believe that the fetus isn't actually alive in the first place and thus in the woman's right to a choice, but also be in favor of allowing people to live.

Seriously. :headbang:

Yea, but if you don't even consider it a human child, then you're not really pro-life because that would go against the camp's ideology.

One innocent person being put to death by the state is too many.

In my personal opinion, all criminals that would be put to death should instead be given life in prison. death is the easy way out while prison is a pretty rough life.

Yea, but the problem with that is that then you have to build prison to house them, which alot of people don't want, the taxes will go up etc. I mean in my own town they're going to destory a land mark resturant here to make way for another jail. That resturant has been here in Concord since the beginning.

This brings up another point. Can you really be pro-life and pro-choice?
I am, it doesn't always work out too well for me, the pro-choicers are mad because I am not pro-abortion, and the pro-lifers are mad because I don't think it's my right to force a my beliefs on someone else.

If however there were actual scientific evidence that couldn't be falsified that could prove that what I believe is actually true, I might re-think my pro-choice stuff. Since there isn't currently I have belief and not facts, so I don't advocate basing laws on what someone believes.

Yea, but the problem with that is that then you have to build prison to house them, which alot of people don't want, the taxes will go up etc. I mean in my own town they're going to destory a land mark resturant here to make way for another jail. That resturant has been here in Concord since the beginning.


Well thats a good reason to kill criminals. They cost too much and take up too much space.

Heres a couple questions for you since you are so worried about prison population - How many people are on death row? What percentage of the prison population is on death row?

Isn't it true (I heard this stat but am not sure) that it costs more to execute a criminal than it does to keep one in prison for life?

Perhaps we should stop putting so many people in prison for non-violent acts.

Well thats a good reason to kill criminals. They cost too much and take up too much space.

Well we also kill them because they killed other people. They infringed on their natural and man made rights.


Heres a couple questions for you since you are so worried about prison population - How many people are on death row? What percentage of the prison population is on death row?

Don't know.


Isn't it true (I heard this stat but am not sure) that it costs more to execute a criminal than it does to keep one in prison for life?

Please back it up.


Perhaps we should stop putting so many people in prison for non-violent acts.

Eh community service would help.

One innocent person being put to death by the state is too many.

In my personal opinion, all criminals that would be put to death should instead be given life in prison. death is the easy way out while prison is a pretty rough life.

While the number of innocent deaths by the people is fine where it is?

Yea, but if you don't even consider it a human child, then you're not really pro-life because that would go against the camp's ideology.

The camp! The camp! All for the camp! Geez, If you don't think abortions shouldhappen it's a Pro-Life stance.

Isn't it true (I heard this stat but am not sure) that it costs more to execute a criminal than it does to keep one in prison for life?

Eh, criminals in general get too much money, 6 times what our schoolkids get.
[quote

Well we also kill them because they killed other people. They infringed on their natural and man made rights.

And I say killing them lets them off the hook from actual punishment. You may believe the person is going to hell and that punishment will come later but that is irrelevant in this discussion (just in case that is what you believe). We shoudl assume that we have no idea what happens after death and that by ending someones life, real honest grueling life in prison punishment is then avoided.


Don't know.

I can't find stats on that. I bet though that of the over 2 million people in our prisons that a small percentage of them are on death row and do no therefore add to the prison population in any dramatic fashion.



Please back it up.


http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.



Eh community service would help.

How about decriminalizing things like drugs? (a whole other debate I know)

Yea, but how often does that really happen?

Over 100 times that we know of, which would be, oh, I don't know, 100 times too many.

Over 100 times that we know of, which would be, oh, I don't know, 100 times too many.

Would you care to back that up?

While the number of innocent deaths by the people is fine where it is?

I'm not following you



Eh, criminals in general get too much money, 6 times what our schoolkids get.



The stats I found, it's cost two million more to execute a criminal rather than give them life in prison. A price you are willing to pay?

Well we also kill them because they killed other people. They infringed on their natural and man made rights.



Don't know.



Please back it up.



Eh community service would help.

I think you should do some research. If you think that removing the death penalty would make any marked difference in the size of the prison population you are sadly mistaken. You keep admitting your ignorant of the fact yet keep arguing as if you have evidence for your assertions. Do a little work here, bub.

Yea, but if you don't even consider it a human child, then you're not really pro-life because that would go against the camp's ideology.
That or using the correct deffinition of "child" (hint the earliest it COULD be applied correctly is fetal stage)

Would you care to back that up?

Yep. As soon as I see a single link from you for your assertions. You keep asking everyone to do all of your work for you.

EDIT: Meh, just because you won't back up your assertions doesn't mean I won't.

http://www.karisable.com/crdna1.htm
December 2000, after spending 14 years on Florida's death row, Frank Lee Smith was cleared of the rape and murder of Shandra Whitehead, 8. Like nearly 100 prisoners before him, Smith's exoneration came as a result of DNA testing unavailable when he was convicted. 10 months before he was proven innocent, Smith died of cancer in prison, just steps away from Florida's electric chair.

This brings up another point. Can you really be pro-life and pro-choice?

Yes. I am, as is my fiance (who is an atheist and thus meets the topic question)

How though? The pro-life camp is all about preserving life, they believe that everything should have the right to live, and shouldn't be killed (or aborted, whatever).

For me, it's more that the potential life has value, and I think it should be allowed to become life. I also don't claim to know at what point a soul may become a part of a person - at what point they become a person. I figure it is better not to push it.

Pro-Choice people support abortion because they support a woman's right to choice since it's her body etc.

Pro choice people do not necessarily support abortion. I think abortion is a horrible thing and that it is almost always the wrong choice. However, it is not my choice to make unless *I* am pregnant (which I'm not, and as yet never have been, as far as I know).

What you need to remember is that pro-choice is not equivalent to pro-abortion.

Yea, but if you don't even consider it a human child, then you're not really pro-life because that would go against the camp's ideology.

Hardly. "Pro-life" as a political movement doesn't care why you are opposed to abortion, just that you are.


Which happen how many times again?

The fact that it happens at all means that our court system, run by fallible human beings, shouldn't have the power to put someone to death - as some of those killed will be innocent of their crimes.

I'm not following you


Eh, nevermind, I'm better off not arguing DP here...




The stats I found, it's cost two million more to execute a criminal rather than give them life in prison. A price you are willing to pay?

It was more a general thing that we shouldn't paying spending anything around that much money for criminals DP, LWOP or 5 years in prison, take the thousands per year we give them and put it to education.

Which I find so Ironic that so many "pro lifers" are also pro death penalty
It's not all that many. I've never met someone who opposed abortion and supported the death penalty. Must be a Protestant thing.

Here. Since some people like to make arguments with no support, I decided to do the work that prove their ridiculous assertions are just that.

The number of death row inmates at present: 3,373
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=9&did=188

The number of executions in the last thirty years: 1012

That means that in absense of DNA evidence, 100 people would have been executed. That's 10% of the number of people who have been executed. That's not an error rate with which I'm comfortable. I linked earlier to someone who died of cancer while on death row for a crime he didn't commit.

There are over 2.6 million people in prison -
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

That means that the death row inmates even if we executed all of them represent a drop in prison population of .1 percent. Negligible. Considering that the known error rate for death row is 100 times that, I would say that perhaps we should reconsider our arguments for the death penalty, huh?

See that is how people argue when they aren't just pulling stuff out of their butts.

How though? The pro-life camp is all about preserving life, they believe that everything should have the right to live, and shouldn't be killed (or aborted, whatever).

Pro-Choice people support abortion because they support a woman's right to choice since it's her body etc.

Hmm, seems kinda contradicitary to me.

I am pro-human life. All human life. I simply don't think in the case of elective abortions that it can be shown objectively that any life except the mother's exist.

Here. Since some people like to make arguments with no support, I decided to do the work that prove their ridiculous assertions are just that.

The number of death row inmates at present: 3,373
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=9&did=188

The number of executions in the last thirty years: 1012

That means that in absense of DNA evidence, 100 people would have been executed. That's 10% of the number of people who have been executed. That's not an error rate with which I'm comfortable. I linked earlier to someone who died of cancer while on death row for a crime he didn't commit.

There are over 2.6 million people in prison -
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

That means that the death row inmates even if we executed all of them represent a drop in prison population of .1 percent. Negligible. Considering that the known error rate for death row is 100 times that, I would say that perhaps we should reconsider our arguments for the death penalty, huh?

See that is how people argue when they aren't just pulling stuff out of their butts.

Acquitted due to lack of evidence=|=innocent.

If a prosecutor was unable to prove a case, or had the case overturned due to lack of DNA, does not mean that the accused was innocent. It means that the state failed its burden of proof. Sometimes there were multiple perpetrators, and not all left DNA behind.

And there is no evidence that any innocent person has ever been executed. If there were, it would be trumpeted from the highest parapets at the loudest possible volume. But anti-death penalty people got nothin.

I am pro-human life. All human life. I simply don't think in the case of elective abortions that it can be shown objectively that any life except the mother's exist.

I don't think that anyone can show that dead cells are growing inside the mother. They are/must be alive, otherwise no growth, no birth, no nothing.

And remember, the victims of a murderer were possessors of innocent human life as well, until the murderer took theirs away.

Acquitted due to lack of evidence=|=innocent.

If a prosecutor was unable to prove a case, or had the case overturned due to lack of DNA, does not mean that the accused was innocent. It means that the state failed its burden of proof. Sometimes there were multiple perpetrators, and not all left DNA behind.

Where I'm from we have this crazy notion called "innocent until proven guilty". This means: Acquitted due to lack of evidence=innocent.


And there is no evidence that any innocent person has ever been executed. If there were, it would be trumpeted from the highest parapets at the loudest possible volume. But anti-death penalty people got nothin.

Ah, people usually don't work to clear the name of dead men.

Acquitted due to lack of evidence=|=innocent.

If a prosecutor was unable to prove a case, or had the case overturned due to lack of DNA, does not mean that the accused was innocent. It means that the state failed its burden of proof. Sometimes there were multiple perpetrators, and not all left DNA behind.

And there is no evidence that any innocent person has ever been executed. If there were, it would be trumpeted from the highest parapets at the loudest possible volume. But anti-death penalty people got nothin.

It wasn't lack of DNA. They were acquitted because DNA evidence exonerated them. Are you just making things up?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/etc/synopsis.html

This man wasn't acquitted for lack of evidence. He was found to be innocent of the charges and they found the actual person guilty of the crime and two others for which other innocent people had been convicted. How about you educate yourself and stop humiliating yourself by saying things that can be proven to be false?

I don't think that anyone can show that dead cells are growing inside the mother. They are/must be alive, otherwise no growth, no birth, no nothing.

And remember, the victims of a murderer were possessors of innocent human life as well, until the murderer took theirs away.

Who said the cells weren't living? Living cells that are human =/= human life. Otherwise I would lament the fact that I cut myself last weekend and killed so many innocent skin cells.

And the problem is that we are taking or threatening to take innocent lives in the name of justice. The link I showed you was of a guy who died on death row for a crime he was not just not able to be found guilty of, but of which he was found to be completely and utterly innocent. There have a hundred others. All innocent. Considering only 1000 executions have occurred in the last 30 years, 100 people is a stunning level of error for the death penalty. It's indefensible, unless you're willing to just make things up as you've done.

Where I'm from we have this crazy notion called "innocent until proven guilty". This means: Acquitted due to lack of evidence=innocent.



Ah, people usually don't work to clear the name of dead men.

More importantly the courts are often unwilling to hear the evidence to clear someone who is already dead.

More importantly the courts are often unwilling to hear the evidence to clear someone who is already dead.
Why should they? The guy is dead.

It wasn't lack of DNA. They were acquitted because DNA evidence exonerated them. Are you just making things up?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/etc/synopsis.html

This man wasn't acquitted for lack of evidence. He was found to be innocent of the charges and they found the actual person guilty of the crime and two others for which other innocent people had been convicted. How about you educate yourself and stop humiliating yourself by saying things that can be proven to be false?

Sorry, I was making a general statement about "innocence" vs "acquittal", not commenting on that specific case, which I did not read about.

Sorry about not being clear.

Which I find so Ironic that so many "pro lifers" are also pro death penalty

When I went to school the lefties were generally pro-life whereas the right wing were pro-choice, as nothing was more important that a free market.

Who said the cells weren't living? Living cells that are human =/= human life. Otherwise I would lament the fact that I cut myself last weekend and killed so many innocent skin cells.

And the problem is that we are taking or threatening to take innocent lives in the name of justice. The link I showed you was of a guy who died on death row for a crime he was not just not able to be found guilty of, but of which he was found to be completely and utterly innocent. There have a hundred others. All innocent. Considering only 1000 executions have occurred in the last 30 years, 100 people is a stunning level of error for the death penalty. It's indefensible, unless you're willing to just make things up as you've done.

I thought that he was not executed, but that he was released due to DNA exoneration? And all the other "innocents" were people released or had their sentences changed due to DNA exoneration?

I did not see anything about innocent people actually being executed...

I guess I will have to re-read that anti-death penalty website ASAP. My mind/eyes may be playing tricks on me...

Why should they? The guy is dead.

Because a horrible injustice took place. We shouldn't just sweep that kind of thing under the rug.

Who said the cells weren't living? Living cells that are human =/= human life. Otherwise I would lament the fact that I cut myself last weekend and killed so many innocent skin cells.

And the problem is that we are taking or threatening to take innocent lives in the name of justice. The link I showed you was of a guy who died on death row for a crime he was not just not able to be found guilty of, but of which he was found to be completely and utterly innocent. There have a hundred others. All innocent. Considering only 1000 executions have occurred in the last 30 years, 100 people is a stunning level of error for the death penalty. It's indefensible, unless you're willing to just make things up as you've done.

from the website:
Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
The most recent exoneration is of John Ballard, No. 123, of Florida, on February 23, 2006.

I did not see anything about accidentally being executed and exonerated later?

I did not see anything about accidentally being executed and exonerated later?

Accidentally executed? I like that. ;)

from the website:
Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
The most recent exoneration is of John Ballard, No. 123, of Florida, on February 23, 2006.

I did not see anything about accidentally being executed and exonerated later?

You really think, with that amount of innocent people being wrongly convicted, that not one innocent person has been wrongly executed? That's a bit of a stretch, no?

I thought that he was not executed, but that he was released due to DNA exoneration? And all the other "innocents" were people released or had their sentences changed due to DNA exoneration?

I did not see anything about innocent people actually being executed...

I guess I will have to re-read that anti-death penalty website ASAP. My mind/eyes may be playing tricks on me...

If 10% of all convicts have been released because DNA evidence has finally proved their innonce, wouldn't this mean that those 10% percent would have been executed at times where the the technology was not advanced enough to provide this DNA evidence?

Sorry, I was making a general statement about "innocence" vs "acquittal", not commenting on that specific case, which I did not read about.

Sorry about not being clear.

However, in the vast majority of cases it was found that their is no evidence for a conviction at all or that someone else was actually found guilty of the crime. In many cases they know specifically how the person was railroaded and even why. Those cases pretty clearly fall on the innocent side of the acquittal spectrum.

from the website:
Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
The most recent exoneration is of John Ballard, No. 123, of Florida, on February 23, 2006.

I did not see anything about accidentally being executed and exonerated later?

Because they only count cases that the courts were willing to retry or revisit. They are rarely willing to revisit a case where the defendent is dead unless it had already been agreed to. The courts simply aren't willing to revisit cases where a change in the outcome makes no difference. They're busy. But don't tell me that you actually believe that 123 people were on death row for crimes they could not actually be found guilty of and in fact "evidence of their incidence" (by the way, I just read a summary of every one of those cases, some are so ridiculous it's amazing some of those prosecuters aren't on death row), and that none have ever been executed? Do you realize what an astonishing number 123 inmates is when only 1000 have been executed in that time?

I thought that he was not executed, but that he was released due to DNA exoneration? And all the other "innocents" were people released or had their sentences changed due to DNA exoneration?

I did not see anything about innocent people actually being executed...

I guess I will have to re-read that anti-death penalty website ASAP. My mind/eyes may be playing tricks on me...

He wasn't released. He sat in jail until died for a crime he is now known to have not committed. Read the case. The guy wasn't a good guy, but the actual events are stunning.

Why should they? The guy is dead.

Exactly. However, there will still be people who claim that since the courts won't rehear cases where the defendent is long dead that there must be no cases of innocence.

It's not all that many. I've never met someone who opposed abortion and supported the death penalty. Must be a Protestant thing.
Up here it is a catholic thing

You really think, with that amount of innocent people being wrongly convicted, that not one innocent person has been wrongly executed? That's a bit of a stretch, no?

Well, those convicted and sent to death row receive more than due process. The average time on death row during appeals process is over 12 years. And with over 7000 people sent to death row from 1973-2001, and 10% of those have been executed after spending an average of over 10 years on death row. Over 35% had their cases overturned on appeal, or had their sentence commuted.

Seems to me that the USA has lots of protections in place to avoid wrongful executions, which may be why, in spite of anti-death penalty advocates digging even after executions to find some, we haven't had any wrongful executions (that we know of) since at least 1900.

When a process is subject to so much scrutiny, it is hard for me to believe that we are executing people wrongfully.

So, no, I don't think that it's a stretch to suppose that the system is working to release even the wrongfully convicted but guilty, to avoid a wrongful execution.

Well, those convicted and sent to death row receive more than due process. The average time on death row during appeals process is over 12 years. And with over 7000 people sent to death row from 1973-2001, and 10% of those have been executed after spending an average of over 10 years on death row. Over 35% had their cases overturned on appeal, or had their sentence commuted.

Seems to me that the USA has lots of protections in place to avoid wrongful executions, which may be why, in spite of anti-death penalty advocates digging even after executions to find some, we haven't had any wrongful executions (that we know of) since at least 1900.

When a process is subject to so much scrutiny, it is hard for me to believe that we are executing people wrongfully.

So, no, I don't think that it's a stretch to suppose that the system is working to release even the wrongfully convicted but guilty, to avoid a wrongful execution.

In the absense of DNA evidence, there is absolutely reason to believe that the death penalty would have executed in some of these cases. DNA evidence in some cases was the ONLY reason the case was revisited by the courts, all other appeals were denied as in the case I cited.

There's nothing staggering to you about the vast variance in executions based on the race of the victim and/or the defendent? There's nothing staggering to you at the arbitrary way the death penalty is enforced? There's nothing staggering to you about the percentage of death row inmates who had court-appointed representation? There is nothing staggering to you about the vast number of defense attorneys in death penalty cases who were later disbarred or punished in some way for poorly practicing law?

The system is so blatantly flawed that defend one simply HAS to turn a blind eye. Did some of the people executed deserve the death penalty? Yes. I'm quite certain that is true. Do I support the death penalty in a less biased system? Absolutely. But in a system were conviction relies so much on the color of your skin, the color of the victim's skin, the amount of money you have and where you are, I can't support so final of a solution, particularly when there is no real advantage the death penalty from an objective standpoint.

On topic: It is possible to be atheist and pro-life. I just read a debate, atheist vs. atheist over that very topic on infidels.org.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml

On topic: It is possible to be atheist and pro-life. I just read a debate, atheist vs. atheist over that very topic on infidels.org.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml

You know I was liking this woman at first, but some of his statements are so spurious they bear noting -

1.
[/b]I find that in the dispute over "when life begins", people are rarely asking: at what point does an individual physical being come into existence? [/b]Rather, the question is usually: At what point does that being become a person which must be accorded rights? The first question can be answered scientifically, and intellectual honesty demands that we incorporate those findings into our positions. The second, however, cannot.

Utter BS. Almost every debate we enter involves a hearty discussion by both sides on when an individual physical being come into existence. This doesn't make her conclusion wrong, but this argument is just made up.

Next problem:

Put another way, reasoning and moral decision-making are personal acts. Not only does this make a certain intuitive sense, but if there were no beings who could reason and make moral choices, then there could be no beings with the ability to respect rights. Therefore, rights could not exist. I do not believe that Mr. Carrier and I differ substantially on this point, but I am confident that he will correct me if I am mistaken in that assumption.
In other words, rights are a result of the unique ability of humans to perform what she calls personal acts. Fine. I can live with that. Note that the personal acts are reasoning and moral decision-making. Also note that she limits personal acts that make a comatose but brain-functioning person equivalent to the brain-dead and she also could apply her definition of not doing personal acts to the sleeping.

That's where she and I part ways, but that's okay. That's not a flaw in her reasoning. I can handle her reasoning thus far. It's actually quite good.

Here's the flaw -
An infant, unlike a comatose person, has never performed a personal act. Is the infant, then, a non-person? Only if a non-person can become a person. However, if that is possible, then why do other non-persons, such as trees and ladybugs, never become persons? Presumably, there is something inherent in a human infant which differentiates her from other creatures. It is in the nature of the infant to develop into a being which can reason and make moral choices -- barring catastrophe, of course. The ability to perform personal acts is not added, by some outside force, to the developing infant. In the process of her growth, she naturally builds the mental structures necessary to function as a person. I would argue, therefore, that personhood itself is inherent in the infant.

Again, note that she intentionally defined personhood as not including infants so that she could make this argument. That way when someone says, "Listen, you idiot, you just made the argument that personhood cannot be created." Then she can claim they are now trying to take personhood away from infants.

She makes these assertions like they're in dispute but the thing is the only thing in dispute is her definition of personal acts, really. I've never met anyone that defines personhood in a way that excludes infants, the comatose, the mentally-challenged, the mentally-ill, etc. She then makes the case that by expanding the definition of personhood you set the tone for doing so. She wants to make this not about the definition of personhood, but about when an individual is created, so she sets up this crazy definition of personhood so it seems like something we are willing to compromise on already. Weak.

This is where the question, "At what point does an individual physical being come into existence?" becomes important. In species which reproduce sexually, this generally occurs when the male and female gametes join to form a new organism. (I must defer to the embryologists on the finer points of twinning and chimerism; that is, a person who is an identical twin could be said not to have attained an individual identity until the zygote split. This is an interesting question, but not particularly relevant to the public policy debate.)

Notice, earlier how she said we should look to the scientific and medical definitions for answers to the first question, the question repeated above, then she rather than doing exactly that, she just makes up a definition.

2. I know some will, but I take no issue with her second argument about parents providing for children. She states all of the assumptions she makes and admits the one that many won't agree with. She admits that she does so because there are people who agree that there is a child in the womb but that women have no obligation to carry it so she must use their assumptions in that argument. It's good debate.

3. I've never, ever heard anyone make the argument she argues against in her third part. I think she is referring to the concept that some argue (assuming there is no child) that is better to abort than to bring an unwanted, uncared for child into the world. It's not the same as she argues here, so the entire thing is a strawman in my opinion.

EDIT: I just read the rebuttal and he jumps all over these points. I definitely like his arguments and hers. However, he never defines person as a truism like she does. That's a major mistake on her part.

2nd EDIT: She also openly lies in her rebuttal.

Nationwide, the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 1.5 percent of abortions are done after the 20th week, although they do not have figures on how many are for medical reasons.

That's ridiculous. Most states require that they be for medical reasons at that point. She is making an unsubstantiated claim that doctors are killing viable prenates for not substantial reason. It's simply ridiculous. Late-term abortions are dangerous to the mother, unless there is distress it can be more dangerous than birth. It is also does not recognize the utter lunacy of suggesting that women are regularly carrying pregnancies for five months only to end them. Why? It's an argument that is only made for it's emotional effect. At the point she makes this argument her opponent has already conceded that elective abortion is immoral and should be outlawed at this point. She was doing so well before this point. I see this as an act of desperation. Her first rebuttal completely avoids any of the meat of his argument.

He nailed her in his rebuttal to her arguments here. He points out that some of her 'facts' have been openly disputed even by the people she got them from and points out each place where they fall apart and offers references for finding them. She at one point claims that 3000 late-term abortions were performed by a NJ clinic when in the year she cites there were only 672 late-term abortions in the whole state. That is so far off statistically that one has to be fairly incredulous of her later arguments.

"Why does this particular moral issue seem to always have a religious flavour?"

Because religions in general think of a human as being more than just a physical entity. They envision a person as something meant to be, as something that has a purpose, as something rooted in the divine.

That is why religion tends to treat a fetus as a person, they assign more to life than biological or psychological standards. They also have spiritual standards.

EDIT: It is rare that you find someone that doesn't assign natural life a value greater than it actually possesses.

"Why does this particular moral issue seem to always have a religious flavour?"

Because religions in general think of a human as being more than just a physical entity. They envision a person as something meant to be, as something that has a purpose, as something rooted in the divine.

That is why religion tends to treat a fetus as a person, they assign more to life than biological or psychological standards. They also have spiritual standards.

EDIT: It is rare that you find someone that doesn't assign natural life a value greater than it actually possesses.

That's an interesting perspective. Purpose is of major interest in religion. So it's not too surprising that so many religious folks hold that 'prenate' can have purpose even before exists. In fact, that is why this argument is so similar to arguments about birth control. Once you hold that purpose is predetermined then you must hold that anything that prevents your existence contravenes that purpose (assuming one finds God's ability to plan to be so short-sighted).

*snip analysis of Roth's argument*

The other thing I noticed is that she falls into the argument from potential trap. She claims that an infant or prenate is developing the abilities to meet her definition of personhood and, for that reason, should be granted the treatment of personhood.

She also gets stuck on the idea of "individual physical being." Of course every cell in my body could be considered to be an "individual physical being." That is why just being a physical entity has no place in the debate.

She actually lies here:

However, there are significant differences between a kidney donation and pregnancy. In the former case, the transplant is an extraordinary measure. The need for it is caused by disease or injury, and most people will never need one. The parents may not withhold from the child the opportunity to receive a new kidney -- they must seek medical care for her. But they need not provide a kidney themselves; they did not directly create the need.

Actually, a parent can legally withhold medical treatment on behalf of her child. Generally, if this is done, it is either for medical reasons or a sort of passive euthenasia, but it is legal. Thus, the parents absolutely can withhold the opportunity to receive a new kidney - by refusing treatment on behalf of the child.

Where's the anti-life option?

The other thing I noticed is that she falls into the argument from potential trap. She claims that an infant or prenate is developing the abilities to meet her definition of personhood and, for that reason, should be granted the treatment of personhood.

She also gets stuck on the idea of "individual physical being." Of course every cell in my body could be considered to be an "individual physical being." That is why just being a physical entity has no place in the debate.

She actually lies here:



Actually, a parent can legally withhold medical treatment on behalf of her child. Generally, if this is done, it is either for medical reasons or a sort of passive euthenasia, but it is legal. Thus, the parents absolutely can withhold the opportunity to receive a new kidney - by refusing treatment on behalf of the child.

Did you notice where she's from? I think I've had this conversation with her in person. The argument and her name seem so familiar. I am actually trying to figure out if I've met her for sure or not.

But the funny part is that she makes up a definition. Admits it doesn't include people who are sleeping, comatose, mentally-challenged, mentally-ill and infants, but suggests there is no flaw in it. Then she says unless people accept the conceptus into her definition they have to also exclude all the other people who don't fit into her definition. It's the most bizarre argument.

Her definition is flawed. She admits it. He points out that it would aslo include dead people, and it would since she says basically that so long as the cells are alive and all the parts are there, it must be a person. It's just silly.

She never really disputes his definition, just tries to pull the conceptus in using the potential argument.

Man, I thought she was doing so good at first but with each rebuttal she got worse. I find the lack of conclusions or summaries annoying on her part. She is clearly aware of the rules of debate as evidenced in her first arguments, but then she leaves out this MAJOR detail. He summarizes his position and makes specific points in that summary in ever rebuttal. This debate was a slaughter.

NOTE: For those who think I'm biased, I watched a live debate a few years ago at the university that was trying to make an objective case for and against God. Personal beliefs aside, I think it's a lot easier to make a case against God objectively. I have to say I was shocked to see the God side devestate the anti-God side. It was crazy. It always disappoints me when someone accepts this kind of debate and then shows up unarmed. My brother, a devout atheist, thought the same thing. It was a massacre. This instance was similar. He didn't just beat her on the points, she fell victim to a whole bunch of inconsistencies.