Is This Only A Blob Of Cells?...

[Tally Marx]

Since my assertion that abortion leads to an unstable society remains uncontested, your talk of nanny states is out of place. The government would not be a nanny state in protecting the unborn any more than it is one for protecting atheists from hate crimes, or doing anything else that keeps society stable in the long-term.

I find your talk of free will particularly inappropriate. Yes, humans have free will. Using it to rob human individuals of their lives is not typically something to be applauded or valued for "diversity". Your focus and assumptions are ridiculously skewed. **Laws against abortion wouldn't be for the purpose of ensuring some people live righteous lives. It would be for the purpose of ensuring some people get to actually live their lives.**

Edited July 31, 2012 by Tally Marx

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343581857' post='2459962']
Stevil, why don't we just change the laws to help the mother decide then? It seems like you would agree to this.
[/quote]
I've had more of a think about this comment.

I certainly would be in support of abortion being a point of topic in Sex Education class in schools.
They could show images of a zygote growing into a fetus and into a baby etc. They could explain the abortion procedure, how it works, how the baby dies, what risks there are to the mother. That way, mothers make informed decisions. Have time to think about it well before the panic of being pregnant sets in.
I would be fine having some tax money going towards education.

Edited July 31, 2012 by stevil

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343432733' post='2459484']
My outlook, which is reasonably consistent with most atheists I have talked to, is more inclusive, and more liberal than some religious positions.
Government to intervene only when society is in danger.
So for example gay people are oppressed by some religious groups, wanting gay marriage against the law, wanting gay sex against the law, in some places (some people) wanting gay people put to death (Hitler for example).
Me, I am not gay, do I care if people around me are having gay sex or gay marriage, nope, I don't care, doesn't impact me. So I have no interest to support law against gay people, actually I see laws against gay people as dangerous because oppressing these people may cause them to rebel violently. So I am in support of a minority group here, well, more precisely, I am opposed to law oppressing this minority group.
If the government wanted to put in laws against Bhuddists in my country, I would be opposed to it. I don't see it as government's place to oppress Bhuddists, these Bhuddists aren't making society dangerous, so I am opposed to this type of law. If I let government set this precedent, where they can pick on certain groups based on their own wants rather than society safety concerns, then whose to say they won't pick on me at some stage. I belong to many minority groups.
[/quote]
So according to your logic, the only reason it was wrong for the Nazis to slaughter the Jews is because the Nazis might get hurt if the Jews fight back.

The idea that morality should based only on selfish motives of self-preservation leaves so many gaping holes, it's hard to know where to start (as well as being utterly repugnant to any sane and decent person).

By this logic, it's fine to slaughter people so long as you don't calculate there being much danger of retaliation.
Thus, there's no reason to condemn genocide if it's really successful, and you are able to completely wipe out the group of people. After all, if they're all dead, they won't be able to mount much of a retaliation. The Nazi holocaust of the Jews was actually going along pretty nicely, and might well have been completely successful if the Allies hadn't won the war and stopped it.

Or, I guess it's all fine just so long as you target those who are too weak and helpless to fight back. After all (with apologies to Mr. Godwin), maybe the Nazis should have just stuck to their original program of killing off the "unfit" mentally and physically disabled.
Kill the weak and helpless, and it's all good, right?

Also, it can definitely be argued that brutal dictators such as Stalin in fact made their own societies more "stable," and helped preserve themselves, by killing off any actual and potential enemies.

Your atheistic "morality' in practice boils down to nothing more than "might makes right" and the law of the jungle with the strong preying on the weak.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343433279' post='2459486']
Most people do this. Most people are in support of abortion.
[/quote]
What "most people" do or support is irrelevant to whether something is right or wrong. If morality means nothing more than majority opinion in a given time and place, then any moral debate is pointless.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343681430' post='2460374']
Cosmically caused Double Post .....
[/quote]
God thought your post was amesome and it was his way of giving it props!

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343774654' post='2460876']
What "most people" do or support is irrelevant to whether something is right or wrong. If morality means nothing more than majority opinion in a given time and place, then any moral debate is pointless.
[/quote]
I have no belief in morality.
I certainly don’t think that laws should be based on someone’s morality belief.
We ought to be able to behave immorally, if we want to. E.g. work on the Sabbath or commit adultery. We live with the consequences of our own actions, and presumably by your belief system we face consequences after death as well. Unless you are of the belief that JC paid the debt of your sin and you will thus face no consequences.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1343776305' post='2460881']

God thought your post was amesome and it was his way of giving it props!
[/quote]I just peed a little laughing. I'm sure a god has better things to do if he was even aware if us. If we want a better world, we have to do it ourselves. A god isn't going to enlighten stevil with grace. It's our job.

[Anomaly]

Nm

Edited August 1, 2012 by Anomaly

[mortify]

Abortion will never be revoked because it's considered advantageous for our society. Why should the Government play with eugenics when the poor and minorities are killing themselves off willingly.

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343774535' post='2460875']
So according to your logic, the only reason it was wrong for the Nazis to slaughter the Jews is because the Nazis might get hurt if the Jews fight back.
[/quote]
1. I don’t believe in absolute right or absolute wrong. Thus the statement “it was wrong” is meaningless to me.
2. I don’t believe in morality (if morality is an umbrella term for absolute right and wrong)
3. I think moral beliefs have no place in defining law governing a society, because of course, I don’t believe in morality.

Now to address this statement of yours.
If I belong to a society containing Nazis and Jews and the Nazis then seek to slaughter the Jews, the main issues for me are as follows:
1. Am I likely to be killed in this conflict?
2. Why did the Nazis choose to slaughter Jews, could this premise be applied to me in future? Thus is it foreseen that the Nazis could become a threat to me? If so, do I let them divide and conquer or do I stand united with the Jews and oppose them with a bigger opposition?
3. Do I have alliances with Jewish people? Am I motivated to risk my life to save them?

If we look at WWII:
Many European countries stayed out of the war until they were attacked or their alliances were attacked. Germany was largely given a reprieve, they were allowed to attack countries one at a time, picking them off rather than having to fight everyone all at once.
USA stayed out of it, despite being heavily influenced by Christian values (morality). They only got involved once they were attacked by the Japanese.
It was a war of survival rather than a defence of moral righteousness.

[stevil]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1343801593' post='2461003']
Abortion will never be revoked because it's considered advantageous for our society. Why should the Government play with eugenics when the poor and minorities are killing themselves off willingly.
[/quote]
Are there any objective studies that suggest wealthy people are have more children than poor people?

[mortify]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343802618' post='2461007']
Are there any objective studies that suggest wealthy people are have more children than poor people?
[/quote]

There are stats that show poorer women are more likely to have abortions

"The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women"

[url="http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/"]http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/[/url]

[stevil]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1343802930' post='2461008']
There are stats that show poorer women are more likely to have abortions

"The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women"

[url="http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/"]http://www.abort73.c...ion_statistics/[/url]
[/quote]
Abortion rate is one thing, but your claim was implying that they are endangered because they are killing themselves off (an application of eugenics). So evidence to back that up would be with regards to how many living offspring they have in comparison to the wealthy or the majority races. More abortions doesn't necessarily mean less children in a poor family in comparison to a wealthy family. The poor might be leading in both these categories, IDK, I did a quick google search but couldn't find any studies on this topic, just many opinions by bloggers.

[mortify]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343806592' post='2461011']
Abortion rate is one thing, but your claim was implying that they are endangered because they are killing themselves off (an application of eugenics). So evidence to back that up would be with regards to how many living offspring they have in comparison to the wealthy or the majority races. More abortions doesn't necessarily mean less children in a poor family in comparison to a wealthy family. The poor might be leading in both these categories, IDK, I did a quick google search but couldn't find any studies on this topic, just many opinions by bloggers.
[/quote]

The poor generally have more children than the wealthy despite having more abortions but that doesn't disprove my point. From a secular point of view, society still benefits from these abortions because the burden of supporting the poor is lessened.

[stevil]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1343809460' post='2461016']
The poor generally have more children than the wealthy despite having more abortions but that doesn't disprove my point. From a secular point of view, society still benefits from these abortions because the burden of supporting the poor is lessened.
[/quote]
Is it possible that with less children to support, the poor can get out of poverty, thus lessening the gap between rich and poor?
The elder kids can focus on school and education rather than looking after the younger kids or dropping school to earn money for the family. Maybe the kids can continue with school rather than becoming young parents themselves.