Friendly Atheist - Latest Comments

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

amycas — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:37:04 -0000

Yes, I have compassion for the woman who has to make this decision. Her right to make this decision is absolute: what decision she makes is not and it depends entirely on her individual situation (i.e. her needs, her family's needs etc).

Do you have any reason to believe that in this case, bodily autonomy does not trump right-to-life, when it does in all other cases?

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Nordog — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:25:05 -0000

Now that's what I call compassion (not really). At least we agree on what it is that you would destroy if you chose to exercise your full bodily autonomy. That's something.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Lucilius — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:24:08 -0000

You sound rather hysterical, a term that is etymologically very appropriate here.

You lecture me on how I shouldn't be telling others what to do, then immediately presume to instruct me on how (you believe) I should speak.

Did I say "I dictate how everyone must think?" Did I claim to be the final arbiter of these questions? No and no. I gave my personal opinion as part of a discussion.

Of course women's rights are to be strongly considered; did I not think so, I could easily declare that there's no right to abortion at all. I do not. I am pro-choice, and consider myself a feminist.

But the development of a fetus, leading to the birth of a child, is a complicated legal situation - one for which most attitudes and laws were formed long before there was any degree of medical understanding and before women's rights and opinions were seriously considered.

Quite obviously, there is some point at which a fetus must be recognized as a new, separate individual; religious fundamentalists would put that at the moment of conception, others at some developmental milestone, still others at the moment of natural birth. Anciently, when perhaps half of all children died in infancy, some cultures didn't confer that legal status until roughly age 3 - those who survived that long had a good chance of making it to adulthood.

The questions are when to recognize that separate-individuality, what criteria to use in deciding, and how to balance that with women's rights. As I said, that's not my decision to make, but my opinion as a member of the human community counts as much as others'. And no, before you start, I am not denigrating women's rights by saying they must be balanced against someone else's; in a collaborative society, every person's rights share frontiers with all others. That doesn't make anyone more or less important.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

amycas — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:24:01 -0000

Thank you!

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

amycas — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:17:25 -0000

Your daughters and your wife are very lucky.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

amycas — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:16:42 -0000

" Once "the thing" becomes a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever it is
no longer simply a collection cells in the way that my hair is a
collection of cells. "The thing" is a complete, unified, organism."

It is a complete, unified organism that is using my body to further its existence. I have a right to refuse its use of my body.

Bodily autonomy > right-to-life

If you don't believe me, then go try to make a law that forces people to donate blood/plasma.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Reginald Selkirk — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:15:32 -0000

"To talk as if pro-choice arguments are the only ones with any merit or
the only ones worthy of consideration is both patronising and factually
wrong."
.
To insist on the factuality of meritorious arguments you have not presented is factually stupid.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

JA — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:13:51 -0000

"Ultimately, that group of cells becomes a human."

This is untrue for the half of all pregnancies that end in miscarriage. Maybe the prolife movement needs to figure out a way to prevent all miscarriages because they kill far more "babies" than abortion does.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

LeftSidePositive — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:47 -0000

No, there is absolutely no valid secular argument for allowing the state to exploit someone's body against her will and subject her to definite physiological changes, incredible amounts of pain, and the very real risk of serious medical complications up to and including death.

So, if you don't believe in inalienable rights, may I then enslave you and flog you repeatedly? There are many valid secular arguments that can be made for both positions, and I think that things like the morality of slavery and torture don't have a clear cut right answer. To talk as if anti-enslaving-Anon and anti-torturing-Anon arguments are the only ones with any merit or worthy of consideration is both patronising and factually wrong.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

amycas — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:33 -0000

Technically, you are a serial murderer for every time you forgo sex. You are a mass murderer for every time you masturbate. ;-)

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Ibis3 — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:08:49 -0000

There's no such thing as a fully formed foetus. There's foetus (in various stages of development) and there's infant or neonate.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Pedro Lemos — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:08:11 -0000

"Whether or not that human will be loved or cared for orhave a fair life, makes that a very difficult decision and I don't have a concrete stance in that regard."

What you´re saying there is basically that we don´t know if the unborn baby will have a good life, be a great person or the contrary, be a murderer, a jackass, or simply, be a regular, average person. That is uncertain. But if a pregnant woman is willing to do an abortion, I´d say she´s pretty much certain her life will be miserable if she keeps the baby. So, I´ll go along with amycas in this one. You´re changing the certainty of a miserable life for a woman who will have to raise the child of someone who´s done a terrible deed to her, to the uncertainty of a good life to the baby. So I guess, the mother´s choice would prevail, considering she has a better critical thinking than someone who doesn´t even has a conscious yet. Her body freedom in this case is a bigger value than the baby´s life. And don´t tell me life should be always more valuable than anything, otherwise you would not be so condescending to death penalty there in the US.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

JA — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:08:07 -0000

I've never read a prolife argument from either an atheist or a theist that had any merit. Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is unjustifiable. The rights of a sentient being should take precedence over the rights of a clump of nonsentient cells.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Chris Leithiser — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:07:21 -0000

I have the potential to become a heart-transplant donor at some point in the future. Doesn't necessarily mean I should be treated as one RIGHT NOW.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

amycas — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:05:55 -0000

Don't worry, Ms. Kiessling is the one trivializing rape.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Chris Leithiser — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:05:46 -0000

As to the origin point of a human BEING''s rights to existence, I'm willing to compromise. The compromise is Roe V. Wade. I'm not willing to compromise further. Third-trimester abortions are incredibly rare, and extremely important to have as an option.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

LeftSidePositive — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:05:44 -0000

Yay George Carlin reference!

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Nordog — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:03:51 -0000

Not being created is not the same thing as being destroyed. There seems to be a dogged confusion here regarding the distinction between "never have been" and "no longer being".

There's a quote running around from Mark Twain in which he says that death is nothing to be afraid of because he was dead for thousands of years before he was born and it never bothered him a bit. I wonder if that quote is authentic. Twain was smarter than that. He was not dead before he was born. He simply did not exist. Death and destruction are not the absence of existence, they are the loss of it.

Another distinction often lost in these discussions is the nature of the thing abortion seeks to destroy. The following is clipped from an article on stem cells...

*******

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that at these
early stages we are not dealing with human beings, but with a cluster of undifferentiated
cells no larger than a period at the end of a sentence.

Typically, the embryos marked for destruction
are the so-called “surplus” from in vitro fertilization
efforts.

It is argued that they possess no
heartbeat and have no determinate sex. Supporters
say the embryonic stem cell cluster is human, yes, but not a human being. No one considers a cluster of human brain
cells to be a human being, so what is the difference?

The difference is the distinction between
growth and change. The difference
between an ovum and an embryo is a substantial one of change. That change in substance happens when the
nuclei of the sperm and the egg fuse into a new single nucleus. The result is a new, genetically unique,
complete, and unified human being. Ironically,
the stem cells themselves testify to the unity of a new human being in that while
they themselves are radically changing, they do so in a unified effort of
growth in behalf of the person.

The stem
cells change, but the unified person simply grows. This is the same way in which the cartilage
in a two-year-old child’s skeleton changes to bone as the baby simply grows into
adulthood. And just like the child and
the adult, so too are the embryo and child the same kind of thing. The only differences between the embryo, the
child, and the adult are those of growth and maturation.

Some supporters deny the distinction between
growth and substantial change, essentially arguing that a four-day-old embryo
is not really a human being because we cannot see its humanity; it’s too small. Or it is not a human being because it cannot develop
without a mother to provide its material need for a uterus and placenta. Or that it must not be a human being because
it is slated for destruction anyway.

Yet
we justly condemn these arguments when applied to other types of people. Bigots defended slavery by claiming an
inability to see humanity in an African.
Reports of newborns left to die in garbage dumpsters do not compel us to
deny the humanity of these babies simply because they do not have a mother to
provide them with their material need for milk.
And we naturally recoil in horror at claims of communist Chinese harvesting
vital organs from executed political prisoners.
We recoil despite our knowing that the prisoners were slated for
destruction anyway.

*******

Once "the thing" becomes a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever it is no longer simply a collection cells in the way that my hair is a collection of cells. "The thing" is a complete, unified, organism.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Daniel Hendricks — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:02:56 -0000

Because the believe Jesus was the Messiah and that Jewish traditions are cultural rather than religious. I think the problem is tied to "Jewish" being used as both a religious and a cultural/ethnic descriptor.

Messianic Jews are definitely ethnically Jews. They are often culturally Jews. But they are not generally considered religious Jews.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

LeftSidePositive — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:02:49 -0000

I frankly don't understand the idea of "'afford[ing] protection' to the unborn" because in this context it only means "protecting the unborn" AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WOMAN. If you're going to talk about protecting the unborn by making prenatal care free and widely available to women who seek it, great, but if you're going to declare that a woman's body is property of the state after a certain time in pregnancy (which is the only possible functional outcome of "'afford[ing] protection' to the unborn" and "state interest in protecting fetal life"), this is unacceptable.

While a fertilized egg is certainly different from a fully formed fetus, neither are entitled to exploit another human being's body without zir consent, because no being is ever entitled to exploit another in such a way.

Now, the vast majority of women in the later stages of pregnancy WANT to be pregnant, so it is not really an issue except for those who have dangerous medical complications, heart-wrenching fetal diagnoses, chronic lack of access to timely medical care, and lots of other incredibly desperate situations that we cannot possibly begin to police, who are going to be the most hurt by the state prying into personal medical decisions in the later stages of pregnancy.

Re: A Short Film About a Young Atheist and his Religious Parents

Alois Weber — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:00:57 -0000

So, Wonderful video, it does show real skill on both the part of the actors and the crew who produced it. I found the ending lacked closure, but perhaps that is because I am personally Catholic.

That said, being a catholic and interested only in fairness of representation (I am not here to start something, only get that difference of opinion in), that I would never argue my faith the way it was argued in this video. The reasons for believing are more complex in real life than they are presented here, and I don't personally know anyone of faith who would outright reject anyone, especially their own child, in the way that was shown here. And maybe those things were intentional, maybe not.

And that's all, much respect to you, well made video.

peace.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

JA — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:00:34 -0000

I think most people who are prochoice are against abortion. It is actually the prolife movement that is responsible for the huge number of abortions that occur because they are the ones who oppose easy access to birth control, morning after pills and comprehensive sex education. They are creating the very problem they are decrying.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Chris Leithiser — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:00:28 -0000

Several billion years ago.

Re: Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights?

Chris Leithiser — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:59:10 -0000

I'm pro-abortion in the same sense that I'm pro-heart-surgery--I'd rather nobody I care about ever need one, but I'm extremely glad it's available.

Re: Rush Limbaugh Inducted into Hall of Famous Missourians

BenZ — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:58:38 -0000

Here's an idea: Let's all leave condoms and pill bottles by his bust in the hall, especially empty birth control containers.