Theists: Some Questions About the Nature of Your God

[Minimalist]

Abortion is just a disagreement about the definition of "human being".

But what passes for an abortion debate here is about using that suck-ass book of theirs to oppress women.  You may notice, Mord, that the republiKKKunts lose interest in said "human beings" as soon as they are born.

[SteveII]

Nope.

Wrong again.

Got me there, just cant bring myself to believe in fairies.  

A swing and a miss.

I guess 1 out of 5 isn't bad?

Looks to me like you're a political christian, only one of the things in your list had anything to do with gods - so you probably imagine atheism as..essentially, the antithesis of whatever sort of politics you hold?

Well Dave took his playthings and left this site a couple of weeks ago but I hadn't seen that he conflated abortion with denying "the inherent and infinite worth of all human beings". Abortion is just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". One can have very humanistic sentiments and still support abortion as an unfortunate option that we sometimes have to use.

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

[Dānu]

Well Dave took his playthings and left this site a couple of weeks ago but I hadn't seen that he conflated abortion with denying "the inherent and infinite worth of all human beings". Abortion is just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". One can have very humanistic sentiments and still support abortion as an unfortunate option that we sometimes have to use.

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

Isn't that basically the same thing?

[pattylt]

“The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.“

I agree the unborn are human. What they are NOT is a person and have no rights until they are born. If you wish to forbid abortion upon yourself, that’s fine. Abortions aren’t forced (except by some men when it’s inconvenient for them). No one has the right to declare that someone else may not have one…no matter how much you dislike their decision.

[epronovost]

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

You can make the argument that while a fetus or embryo is human it's not a human being just like a human kidney is not a human being. Being, in such a context, becomes a term to describe some sort of personhood which grants rights and value to what is otherwise just flesh and bones of human origin. This is a semantic distinction though. I agree broadly with you with the idea that debate is about when human beings begin to have rights and personhood and how those rights match against those of other human beings. I would personally say at the third trimester of pregnancy around the 24th to 28th week of gestation a fetus gain the very basis of personhood and fundamental rights.

[Minimalist]

Well Dave took his playthings and left this site a couple of weeks ago but I hadn't seen that he conflated abortion with denying "the inherent and infinite worth of all human beings". Abortion is just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". One can have very humanistic sentiments and still support abortion as an unfortunate option that we sometimes have to use.

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

Actually it is about the rights of the mother to decide if she wants to be forced to raise another child because some dickheads who believe in an invisible sky-daddy say so.

[SteveII]

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

Isn't that basically the same thing?

No.

If a hypothetical religion (or even enlightened secular humanists) teaches that all human beings have intrinsic value and science has made it crystal clear that the unborn are separate human beings, it is not a matter of attaining rights at some point, but having rights (intrinsically) all along. It is a way more simple and rational approach.

[SteveII]

“The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.“

I agree the unborn are human.  What they are NOT is a person and have no rights until they are born.  If you wish to forbid abortion upon yourself, that’s fine.  Abortions aren’t forced (except by some men when it’s inconvenient for them).  No one has the right to declare that someone else may not have one…no matter how much you dislike their decision.

You are not characterizing it correctly. The unborn has rights, they are just subordinated to the mother's for some finite period of time. In fact, in many jurisdictions, a murder of a pregnant women will get you a double murder charge.

[SteveII]

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

You can make the argument that while a fetus or embryo is human it's not a human being just like a human kidney is not a human being. Being, in such a context, becomes a term to describe some sort of personhood which grants rights and value to what is otherwise just flesh and bones of human origin. This is a semantic distinction though. I agree broadly with you with the idea that debate is about when human beings begin to have rights and personhood and how those rights match against those of other human beings. I would personally say at the third trimester of pregnancy around the 24th to 28th week of gestation a fetus gain the very basis of personhood and fundamental rights.

Why draw the line in the third trimester and not some other place? The idea of 'personhood' is just a tautology for what we are talking about--in other words is only useful if you believe that being a human being does not give you intrinsic rights and some other arbitrary line grants you them. I would say there is no such concept.

ETA: Regarding your first sentence, that is in no way correct. An fetus is a separate human being and comparing it to an organ is a result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda.

[no one]

Hey stevie, how many unborn were killed in that little ole flood?

[Dānu]

You can make the argument that while a fetus or embryo is human it's not a human being just like a human kidney is not a human being. Being, in such a context, becomes a term to describe some sort of personhood which grants rights and value to what is otherwise just flesh and bones of human origin. This is a semantic distinction though. I agree broadly with you with the idea that debate is about when human beings begin to have rights and personhood and how those rights match against those of other human beings. I would personally say at the third trimester of pregnancy around the 24th to 28th week of gestation a fetus gain the very basis of personhood and fundamental rights.

Why draw the line in the third trimester and not some other place? The idea of 'personhood' is just a tautology for what we are talking about--in other words is only useful if you believe that being a human being does not give you intrinsic rights and some other arbitrary line grants you them. I would say there is no such concept.

ETA: Regarding your first sentence, that is in no way correct. An fetus is a separate human being and comparing it to an organ is a result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda.

He says while making an arbitrary line where those rights are granted.

[pattylt]

Steve, demanding that the fetus has rights from conception is absurd. It doesn’t. Even the OT declares life begins with first breath.

A fetus doesn’t have some symbiotic relationship to the mother, it’s a parasitic one. You conveniently ignore the wear and tear on the mother including the risk of death…a risk most pregnant women will bear but should never be demanded upon anyone. Men seem to often take the position that it’s a minor inconvenience for 9 months of the woman’s life. It’s much more than that and often lifelong issues without even looking at the care and feeding required. Yes, the baby can be given up for adoption…if it’s white and normal it’s an easier solution than if it’s black, brown or handicapped.

Abortion isn’t desired by anyone. It’s a medical necessity for some and has no business being legislated to begin with. It’s a private decision between the woman and her doctor. If a woman can be forced to carry to term, the father should be forced to raise, feed and educate the baby until adulthood by law, yet, I never see that being suggested. How about legislating reversible vasectomies on all men at 14 and not reversible until they are in a stable marriage? Abortions would be rare indeed then!

[epronovost]

Why draw the line in the third trimester and not some other place?

From our best knowledge it's early in the third trimester that human embryo start to develop the capacity for thought and the ability to use their senses to make sense of their environment (albeit in an extremely limited fashion) with the development of the neocortex. Considering that what grants a human life a fundamental value and it's most fundamental characteristic is human consciousness and that the most foundational characteristic of consciousness is the ability to think, explore one's environment and learn, a human fetus gains it's humanity proper when they achieve that level of development. A human without consciousness is after all, considered dead. It's a bit arbitrary of course just like adulthood is legally very arbitrary, but some arbitrary demarcation are often necessary. We both know there is no fundamental, reasonable difference between 17 years old a week away from their birthday and an 18 old a week after their birthday yet they do not have the same fundamental rights one from the other. We do recognize the difference between adults and children though and needed to make a legal distinction between the two when it came down to rights, legal protection and responsibilities.  

This is why I drew the line at the third trimester and not some other place. Prior to that time, the structures fundamental for human thoughts and consciousness are not developed yet and thus human life proper has not begun yet. What makes humanity valuable is not a specific arrangement of DNA, but specific set of mental experience and characteristics.  

ETA: Regarding your first sentence, that is in no way correct. An fetus is a separate human being and comparing it to an organ is a result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda.

I would say that comparing a single or handful of cells to a human being because they so happen to contain both contain human DNA is, in my opinion, just as if not even more ridiculous. A handful of cells is more easily compared to a single organ than an entire human being in all it's characteristics and complexities. You are correct that a fetus is not an organ, but in it's early stages of developments it has far more in common with an organ than with a baby. Denying such a reality is the result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda in my opinion. At that rate, you might as well consider a human being alive as long as one of their cells is still alive.

[mordant]

Abortion is just a disagreement about the definition of "human being".

But what passes for an abortion debate here is about using that suck-ass book of theirs to oppress women.  You may notice, Mord, that the republiKKKunts lose interest in said "human beings" as soon as they are born.

Yes, in fact I had started to mention that in my post but just couldn't be arsed to go over it all again. My fundagelical brother would just keep repeating every aphorism that proceedeth out of the mouth of Reagan and every GOP asshole subsequent to him. They are all just on auto-play.

[Rhythmcs]

Abortion is NOT just a disagreement about the definition of "human being". The unborn is not a rabbit. Saying the unborn is not a human being denies all science and is entirely ad hoc--for the sole purpose of the legitimizing abortion. It's a disingenuous argument. The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.

You forgot "even", as in, disagreements over abortion are not even disagreements over the definition of a human being.  Nor do they revolve over when or if human beings have rights.

Let's posit that unborn babies are human and have rights.  Cool..  Now, are you going to personally strap woman to gurneys and force them to have babies - or are you going to farm that out to someone else? Are you going to personally go around sniffing panties for pregger whores, or are you going to farm that out to someone else? Are you going to personally detain medical providers, or are you going to farm it out to someone else. What government agency will oversee this scheme, and who will pay for it?

The whole thing is just silly. There is no god...and even if there were, it doesn't give a shit. It doesn't give a shit in magic book, and it clearly doesn't give a shit in mere reality either. If you don't like abortions then don't have one. Hell, have a conversation before you stick your unprotected dick in someone, if the thought of evil baby killing women keeps you up at night. It really shouldn't be too hard for you to avoid. Or.... is your experience different? Have women been aborting your children left right and center? Do you feel like there should be someone you could call in law enforcement the next time you suspect a woman might not be having a child?

[airportkid]

... the father should be forced to raise, feed and educate the baby until adulthood by law ...

Outlawing abortion has NEVER been about sanctity of human life, it is and always has been about controlling women.

[SteveII]

Steve, demanding that the fetus has rights from conception is absurd.  It doesn’t. Even the OT declares life begins with first breath.

Life begins at first breath is an absurd position contrary to all of the science.

A fetus doesn’t have some symbiotic relationship to the mother, it’s a parasitic one.  You conveniently ignore the wear and tear on the mother including the risk of death…a risk most pregnant women will bear but should never be demanded upon anyone. Men seem to often take the position that it’s a minor inconvenience for 9 months of the woman’s life.  It’s much more than that and often lifelong issues without even looking at the care and feeding required.  Yes, the baby can be given up for adoption…if it’s white and normal it’s an easier solution than if it’s black, brown or handicapped.

Abortion isn’t desired by anyone.  It’s a medical necessity for some and has no business being legislated to begin with.  It’s a private decision between the woman and her doctor.  If a woman can be forced to carry to term, the father should be forced to raise, feed and educate the baby until adulthood by law, yet, I never see that being suggested.  How about legislating reversible vasectomies on all men at 14 and not reversible until they are in a stable marriage?  Abortions would be rare indeed then!

Of course the fetus has rights. The standard argument for abortion, technically, is that those rights are subordinated to the mother's: nearly all jurisdictions in the entire world recognize the end of that subordination at some point way before birth. So in practice, all across the world, for a certain amount of time (or under certain conditions--like the life of the mother), we allow the fetus' rights to be subordinated to the mother's. Then at some point, not. Why (really...answer the question)?

It would seem then that the debate about rights is much more nuanced that you think it is.

Your talk about men is a red herring. The idea that we have to allow the killing of unborn human beings because of pragmatic reasons is hardly a good basis for a morality and the reasoning is clearly a slippery slope to all kinds of other objectionable outcomes: should we kill sick people, dementia patients, just old people, handicapped, special needs?

[1Sam15]

Steve, demanding that the fetus has rights from conception is absurd.  It doesn’t. Even the OT declares life begins with first breath.

Life begins at first breath is an absurd position contrary to all of the science.

A fetus doesn’t have some symbiotic relationship to the mother, it’s a parasitic one.  You conveniently ignore the wear and tear on the mother including the risk of death…a risk most pregnant women will bear but should never be demanded upon anyone. Men seem to often take the position that it’s a minor inconvenience for 9 months of the woman’s life.  It’s much more than that and often lifelong issues without even looking at the care and feeding required.  Yes, the baby can be given up for adoption…if it’s white and normal it’s an easier solution than if it’s black, brown or handicapped.

Abortion isn’t desired by anyone.  It’s a medical necessity for some and has no business being legislated to begin with.  It’s a private decision between the woman and her doctor.  If a woman can be forced to carry to term, the father should be forced to raise, feed and educate the baby until adulthood by law, yet, I never see that being suggested.  How about legislating reversible vasectomies on all men at 14 and not reversible until they are in a stable marriage?  Abortions would be rare indeed then!

Of course the fetus has rights.  The standard argument for abortion, technically, is that those rights are subordinated to the mother's: nearly all jurisdictions in the entire world recognize the end of that subordination at some point way before birth. So in practice, all across the world, for a certain amount of time (or under certain conditions--like the life of the mother), we allow the fetus' rights to be subordinated to the mother's. Then at some point, not. Why (really...answer the question)?

It would seem then that the debate about rights is much more nuanced that you think it is.

Your talk about men is a red herring. The idea that we have to allow the killing of unborn human beings because of pragmatic reasons is hardly a good basis for a morality and the reasoning is clearly a slippery slope to all kinds of other objectionable outcomes: should we kill sick people, dementia patients, just old people, handicapped, special needs?

Does the soul of the aborted fetus go straight to heaven, never having to be judged?


You guys should have made the abortion fear story having the mother and baby being eternally tortured. 

A pathway to heaven with no strings attched is a perfect reason for Xian mothers having more abortions for the babies soul.

[SteveII]

Why draw the line in the third trimester and not some other place?

From our best knowledge it's early in the third trimester that human embryo start to develop the capacity for thought and the ability to use their senses to make sense of their environment (albeit in an extremely limited fashion) with the development of the neocortex. Considering that what grants a human life a fundamental value and it's most fundamental characteristic is human consciousness and that the most foundational characteristic of consciousness is the ability to think, explore one's environment and learn, a human fetus gains it's humanity proper when they achieve that level of development. A human without consciousness is after all, considered dead. It's a bit arbitrary of course just like adulthood is legally very arbitrary, but some arbitrary demarcation are often necessary. We both know there is no fundamental, reasonable difference between 17 years old a week away from their birthday and an 18 old a week after their birthday yet they do not have the same fundamental rights one from the other. We do recognize the difference between adults and children though and needed to make a legal distinction between the two when it came down to rights, legal protection and responsibilities.  

This is why I drew the line at the third trimester and not some other place. Prior to that time, the structures fundamental for human thoughts and consciousness are not developed yet and thus human life proper has not begun yet. What makes humanity valuable is not a specific arrangement of DNA, but specific set of mental experience and characteristics.  

Which is arbitrary. Possible starting points for rights are birth, heartbeat, brain activity, some stage of development. All are arbitrary. Upon conception, a new entity with all the information needed to live to a ripe old age, is created. This is the only non-arbitrary point, the point at which a human begins their development, that the new entity should be considered a person and have rights.

Which brings up what is a human right. Your analogy of a 17 year old and 18 year old is not, well, analogous. The rights we grant an 18 year old are based in civil law and are not the same kind of basic human rights we are talking about (the right to life). A basic human right is different in kind to other rights because they are based solely on the fact that you are a human being. The objection to abortion is an objection to a carve-out of those rights we assume in every other case.

Personhood is a philosophical question and NOT a scientific one.

ETA: Regarding your first sentence, that is in no way correct. An fetus is a separate human being and comparing it to an organ is a result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda.

I would say that comparing a single or handful of cells to a human being because they so happen to contain both contain human DNA is, in my opinion, just as if not even more ridiculous. A handful of cells is more easily compared to a single organ than an entire human being in all it's characteristics and complexities. You are correct that a fetus is not an organ, but in it's early stages of developments it has far more in common with an organ than with a baby. Denying such a reality is the result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda in my opinion. At that rate, you might as well consider a human being alive as long as one of their cells is still alive.

That is very unscientific of you. The scientific trajectory of a human being is well-documented. There is nothing to add to the handful of cells except nourishment and care to get a 90 year old man. Comparing it to another organ is a category error.

[SteveII]

But what passes for an abortion debate here is about using that suck-ass book of theirs to oppress women.  You may notice, Mord, that the republiKKKunts lose interest in said "human beings" as soon as they are born.

Yes, in fact I had started to mention that in my post but just couldn't be arsed to go over it all again. My fundagelical brother would just keep repeating every aphorism that proceedeth out of the mouth of Reagan and every GOP asshole subsequent to him. They are all just on auto-play.

It is nonsense that you have to have religious reasons to be pro-life. There are entire pro-life organizations that identify themselves as secularist and believe abortion to be immoral.

[SteveII]

... the father should be forced to raise, feed and educate the baby until adulthood by law ...

Outlawing abortion has NEVER been about sanctity of human life, it is and always has been about controlling women.

That's an ignorant position to believe. There couldn't possibly be philosophical grounds not to kill the unborn.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abor...ender.aspx

[SteveII]

Why draw the line in the third trimester and not some other place? The idea of 'personhood' is just a tautology for what we are talking about--in other words is only useful if you believe that being a human being does not give you intrinsic rights and some other arbitrary line grants you them. I would say there is no such concept.

ETA: Regarding your first sentence, that is in no way correct. An fetus is a separate human being and comparing it to an organ is a result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda.

He says while making an arbitrary line where those rights are granted.

Conception is not arbitrary. In fact, it and birth are the only non-arbitrary points.

[Mathilda]

Can you explicitly list the falsehoods of atheism for me? As I am unaware there were tenets to even be false!

1. Denial of God (atheism and making oneself one's god),

2. No ultimate hope or meaning to life or to the universe (nihilism),

3. Denial of the existence of miracles and spirits and souls (materialism),

4. In the final analysis, atheism cannot uphold absolute system of morals that apply to everyone (relativism / subjectivism).

5. Denial of the inherent and infinite worth of all human beings (abortion).

This is the thing I noticed about Dave's arguments. He had an implicit assumption that certain things were true and judged other world views on whether they agreed. For example he knows that Santa Claus doesn't exist but atheists don't believe that God exists. I notice a lot of theists have assumptions that they don't dare question and when you do they see it as asking the most stupid question ever.

And we see it again here:

1) assumption that there is a god or that there has to be one.
2) assumption that there is a universal meaning to be found
3) assumption that miracles, spirits and souls exist when he can't even define what they are
4) assumption that there is an  absolute system of morals that apply to everyone
5) assumption that worth isn't a human construct

[Mathilda]

“The debate is when does the unborn human being begin to have rights.“

I agree the unborn are human.  What they are NOT is a person and have no rights until they are born.  If you wish to forbid abortion upon yourself, that’s fine.  Abortions aren’t forced (except by some men when it’s inconvenient for them).  No one has the right to declare that someone else may not have one…no matter how much you dislike their decision.

You are not characterizing it correctly. The unborn has rights, they are just subordinated to the mother's for some finite period of time. In fact, in many jurisdictions, a murder of a pregnant women will get you a double murder charge.

Do the unborn have rights?

Do they have equal rights?

I ask because Forced Birthers are also generally less willing to afford equal rights to the foetus once it's born, often because of how it developed in the womb.

[Mathilda]

An fetus is a separate human being and comparing it to an organ is a result of poor reasoning in support of an agenda.

If it was a separate human being it could live independently of the mother.