A bit of a philosophical type of question....(2 cents welcome)

[Samurai Goomba]

As for early-term abortions (the large majority of abortions in general) I just don't get why you want to have people ruining their lives because they made a mistake. It's a clump of cells without a brain, feelings, consciousness, anything. It's like scratching off a few skin cells with your finger nail.

I can fully understand people who are opposed to late-term abortions, hell, I even sort of agree with that (unless there's a serious enough reason to do so). But they make up the vastly minor number of all abortions.

Alright, let's just say I'm opposed to late-term abortions in most situations and move to the early term stuff.

How does it ruin somebody's life to have a kid and put it up for adoption? I realize pregnancy is very painful, but many women seem to be able to manage it just fine. And no, after the moment of conception, a fertilized egg is NOT directly comparable to a few skin flakes. The skin cells will not develop into a fully-functioning member of society given time. The fetus will.

And again, how is it a "mistake" to have a child? You don't have to keep it-that's what adoption agencies are for. Why should the child suffer for the parent's stupidity?

Why should the majority suffer for the sake of the minority?

Because we're living in democratic states where minorities have to be protected?
And why is abortion making "the majority" suffering? Who are you talking about? The fetuses?

Yes. The fetuses which, given time, will become human beings like you and me. Every person alive on this planet once was one. We should be thankful our parents did not consider us mistakes. Or, if they did, that they at least allowed us to live long enough to find people who cared about us.

Besides, it makes no mathematical sense to punish those with more years yet to live over those who've had a good 15+ years already to prove their worth to society. It's not my choice to make, but I'd take the kid's life over the mother's any day of the week, purely on the child's potential. The mother we already have the measure of, but the child could be another Einstein. Why sacrifice that?

Because we can make hundreds more, and the point at which it becomes a human is debatable. Also, even if it did have a preferable genetic combination, we can make better ones soon anyway.

So because we can make more, and MAYBE make better ones, that gives us the right to refuse them their shot at living? I sure wouldn't want that logic applied to me. What is a "better" human being, anyway? Go watch Gattaca.

And what does it matter WHEN it becomes human? The point is that it always WILL become human. My word, does nobody listen anymore? If my skin tissue would ALWAYS become human if left alone, I'd probably stop picking scabs, now wouldn't I? If cans of soda ALWAYS became kittens if left on the sidewalk long enough, I bet you people would stop chucking them in trash cans.

I'll tell you why everybody is so hung up on the "is it human yet" fetus debate: because when you deny the humanity of something, you can ignore its rights.

As for myself, I see no difference between the rights of existing human beings and the rights of human beings for which there is almost a 100% certainty they will develop into reasoning, thinking people given enough time. This is not some vague potential we are dealing with, but a known certainty that the fetus-> person almost every single time (on a percentage scale, at least). Why should a timeline allow me to deny somebody their right to life? They WILL tend to live if not interfered with, after all.

 

[Xskill]

Atheist...

One of the reasons is because many wars are started because of difference in religious beliefs.

I mean one example was the Crusades in the middle ages, and medieval times.

Knights, and priests would kill thousands of people, and was sanctioned by the church.

 

[wikicated]

ahhh i love reading these. being the weak willed spineless one i am i like to see which one has a greater pull on me. the arguments so far have me strained but not breaking to either side. its 1:23 am I'm going to bed ill read some more in the afternoon is when i get up usually.

 

[shadowstriker86]

Error: blanket statement
Error: ambiguous statement

By "value a life" do you mean their own or others? It matters entirely. The devout theist typically tries to convert people to "save their immortal souls" while atheists tend to care about their own lives more. To nitpick: The Crusades, and Atheists kill people (there just isn't a name for their great cullings). The point: you can't blanket statement since atheists and theists have done some messed up things to their fellow man.

i say just life in general, everything and everyone that encompasses our lives and what one can accomplish and do. its hard for me to be specific about this one, which is weird cause im a person who has to have specifics, but if i had to be specific, the only way i could go about is to paint a picture for you: Have you ever just taken the time to look up when the sky is just perfect, it's not hot or too cold, theres a soft breeze maybe, you just smile but no thoughts cross your mind, you take a look around and look at the detail of everything and just enjoy that moment. How much value do you put into the world you're in? Like i said it's hard for me to be specific aboot the definition of life, because like alot of peoples responses here, it depends on the person

 

[NimbleJack3]

It depends who they are. Many different people value life to varying degrees, regardless of religious standing.

 

[shadowstriker86]

oh one other thing, if i remember correctly science was the one to answer when life begins: when the sperm hits the egg and....i think its meiosis...or is it mitosis...well one of those happens.

 

[Kubanator]

So because we can make more, and MAYBE make better ones, that gives us the right to refuse them their shot at living? I sure wouldn't want that logic applied to me. What is a "better" human being, anyway? Go watch Gattaca.

And what does it matter WHEN it becomes human? The point is that it always WILL become human. My word, does nobody listen anymore? If my skin tissue would ALWAYS become human if left alone, I'd probably stop picking scabs, now wouldn't I? If cans of soda ALWAYS became kittens if left on the sidewalk long enough, I bet you people would stop chucking them in trash cans.

I'll tell you why everybody is so hung up on the "is it human yet" fetus debate: because when you deny the humanity of something, you can ignore its rights.

Oh FFS. Why is it that when we start a debate near anything religious, it turns into an atheistic lunatic, and a religious fanatic both shouting as loud as they can, hoping that the shouts of one can drown out the other.

To me, people have the right to choose. People make mistakes, and thus, they must be given a second chance. God said it, commies said it, American car companies said it, everyone agrees. A fetus is simply a couple cells that act as a parasite for 9 months, and then come out as an infant. A woman has full right to get rid of this parasite, but once it becomes an infant, she had her chance to reverse the decision. It's clear she wants it, and it's clear she will provide it with the love it needs.

If the mother doesn't want it, why would you force her to have it? That's how sociopaths get made, little kids who get no attention from the their parents, no care for what they do. They go untaught, do stupid things, damage property and people. So long as my country doesn't tell me that I don't have the right to choose, I don't care what a fetus is. If you want to use religion as an excuse to control people's lives, then may I introduce you to the separation of Church and State.

As for the question at hand, Atheists. If you have one life, then by law of supply and demand, you would value it more than one of your two lives.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

And what does it matter WHEN it becomes human? The point is that it always WILL become human.

Well, yeah--but then you have to show why things that are not human but will become human should be treated as human.

Because timelines are overrated? Because the recent past is another way of saying the present, and the future is just a present that hasn't happened yet?

If we ever discover that time can be manipulated, a lot of pro-abortion people are going to feel very silly.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

As for the question at hand, Atheists. If you have one life, then by law of supply and demand, you would value it more than one of your two lives.

Not really. Cheeze has already been over why this isn't true.

 

[shadowstriker86]

oh one other thing, if i remember correctly science was the one to answer when life begins: when the sperm hits the egg and....i think its meiosis...or is it mitosis...well one of those happens.

That's equivocating on the meaning of the word 'life': when science tries to describe life, it only describes it for purposes of biology. It makes no philosophical claim when defining life as such.

touche`, i didnt even think about that lol, but philosophically though....i'd have to say if you wanted to go to the very beginning, my girlfriend had an interesting take, that when the spirit travels through the heavens to the earth, thats when life begins, but then again thats her, and she's the type of chick who could watch a "princess bride" marathon and not get tired. me though, i have no idea

 

[the1ultimate]

It's not people's religion that determines how much they value life (both their own and other peoples') but their reasons for their beliefs. Thus it is impossible to make a blanket comparison, as people hold their beliefs dear for different reasons, however...

Saying that atheists care more about life because they believe it's the only one they have is like saying that parents who only have one child care more about that child than other parents do about their individual children.

Quite frankly I think that thats a really bad comparison,

Why?

I have to agree with Frozen_Soul here because even assuming people could love life like they love children, one day, or child would have to be loved as much as every other one in an infinite amount of children/days, and from what I have seen, people just don't have the capacity to do this.
A small amount of anything is precious, while an unlimited amount is bland.

Personally, I do not believe in any god I have heard of, but I believe that life has inherent value as something that is not easily replaced, which appears to be bound up with consciousness.

 

[Thaius]

Well, based on the popular religious idea of creation, human life is created by God as a sacred, valuable, and important thing. On the other hand, based on evolution, human life is nothing more than a random occurrence with no more value than the cells from which we came: I have been specifically and clearly told many times that due to this, life has no value whatsoever and the only reason not to just kill at will is for societal structure.

So you tell me who values life more.

 

[Kubanator]

Not really. Cheeze has already been over why this isn't true.

Christians + Protestants + Muslims > Quakers.

 

[grimsprice]

Did they? How do you know? And how do you know Muslim jihadists do it for the afterlife and not out of hate?

We know because thats what they scream right before they explode.

Look at atheists who would give up their lives for their Cult-of-Personality leader in an instant--any ideology can inspire fanaticism.

Who the fuck have YOU been talking to?

Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Josip Tito, Nicolae Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong-Il, etc.

Most people under those regimes weren't actually atheist, but were in fact forced to be.

I'm not talking about most people, I'm talking about the people who really believed in and did horrible things on the basis of a non-religious ideology.

Besides, their fanaticism had nothing to do with religion. If you want to argue that way, though, I could easily pull a reference to crusades, inquisitions, sharia law, oppresive theist rulers, etc.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here--could you clarify?

Those people made poor logical decisions, based on misinformation and educational indoctrination. Just like actual religions. Brainwashing is brainwashing whether a religion does it, or a group of any other kind of people.

And for the record he was trying to show that people do horrible things in the name of pretty much anything. Hence religions account for most of the man to man death in history.

As i said, people get duped, indoctrinated, and programed with dogma, it shuts down their empathy and compassion and leads to horrible things.