casual abortion

[iLOVEmonkeys]

I find it funny that those with the strongest opinions and convictions in something more often than not get them from the invisible sky man.


Source?


So two unmarried people cannot do the same?

 

[Liquid]

Why should I?


This is interesting because a woman might have an 'accident' with a guy she doesn't really know, one night stand etc. If in your books a woman could have an abortion because she doesn't know the man, then it wouldn't just mean rape.

 

[VivaLaGrenade]

but by your same logic if a baby is aborted before it can survive independantly it is not alive - right?

No-one and i repeat NO-ONE would agree to abort a foetus that is so far developed as to be able to survive outside of the womb.

The question really hinges on at what stage you determine "life" to have begun?

An individual zygote?

A fertilised egg?

a cluster of cells?

an implanted cluster of cells (placentally connected to the mother)?

a feotus with a central nervous system?

the development of a beating heart and viable pulmonary system?

When? (

Abortions tend to occur at the cluster of cells stage, after implantation - but what makes the development of a placenta so special - after all the morning after pill prevents implantation of a fertised embryo - is that murder?

Women can naturally miscarry and never even know an egg was fertilised - should the childs life be morned when it was never more than a few cells?


There is also the issue of "doing the humane thing", to a child that would be born diseased or disabled...now if you knew a child would be born with a crippling disease meaning a negligable quality of life would it not be humane to abort the feotus before it developed?

 

[reagant]

I believe that until there is such a thing as 100% safe and 100% reliable contraception - made available free of charge to all sexually active, consenting adults...abortions should be available on demand.

They should be free and swift to arrange, thereby negating the need for late abortions, which bring further moral dileofftopics with them and more danger to the woman.

 

[legaleye3000]

Religious “choice” is false. An illusion. While technically choice is there, it’s a choice of this way and up to heaven, or not this way and down hell. Those that really believe this stuff would "chooes" the religious way simply to avoid hell, meaning it's not really a choice per se. Children especially will go along with it because they are terrified of the idea of hell, hence the reason for the "get them when there young" approach

There are “Hell Houses” in the US specifically designed to tell people, including children, what it is like in hell, and how they can avoid it

Just how successful would religion be if the idea of an eternal hell never even existed?

 

[nikonan21]

If anyone gives an absolute as to Gods existence it’s the people who believe in him. Whereas most atheists actually say that God does not exist. They usually say they don’t *believe* God exists. And they don’t believe he exists because there is no evidence for him and no reason to invoke him.

 

[Funginator]

If a baby dies during birth or within the first year, would it go to heaven? They’ve not developed morality or an understanding of most things in life, including religion, God, Jesus etc. How can they be judged?

And if they are in heaven, do they remain as they are, babies that are completely dependent on other people, unable to speak etc?

 

[imapirateaarr]

I did a smart thing and gave up arguing . I'm surprised that there are so many atheists here though. Its kind of like atheism is becoming a religion. They flock out and try to prove that their idea is right. They are unified in the idea that God does not exist, and are unified in action by trying to disprove God to people who believe in God to "convert" them to atheism. It is behaving like a religion, no?

Well, this is my simple answer to those who do not believe in any higher power. I emphasize simple. Where did the universe come from? The big bang you say automatically, without knowing what it is? Where did all the matter and energy come from contained in the tiny point before it "exploded" and spread over the universe? Something can't be created from nothing, right? What will you say? That it was always there, or that science hasn't found out yet? I don't think those are legitimate answers. Others will say that God was eternally present and created the universe, since the age of the universe can be determined, and shown that it was not there forever. Can you think of another answer?

 

[HeavenJ]

And I put it to you, that you have given up and taken the easy way out. Its a lot easier to say some guy in the clouds did it than to actually do the research and testing and find out for yourself.

But then again, being a christian, you probably arent very well apt to testing things on your own. You know, considering you believe what you believe because you've been told to. You didnt find your religion after searching the world, your religion found you.


But whatever.

 

[Medion]

Lol just because science cant yet answer this question does not mean a supernatural power was involved. Look up some of the work by Steven Hawking, he has a pretty good idea of what happened during the early moments of the universe.

This is an area that many of the worlds greatest minds are studying and trying to understand. Why do you think that they dismiss the bibles account? because it doesnt answer anything. Science gives you answers with mathematical proof.

The reason there are so many athiests here is because there are a lot of folks from the UK on this forum. Religion in the Uk is not as popular as in the US, I know very few people who practice religion of any kind and those who do are a lot more rational and open minded.

 

[Kinnari23]

What relevance does premature/c-section birth have to do with anything ? Abortion is not about removing Babies from Mothers. Abortion has nothing to do with formed Babies. Abortion is about removing cells that are about as alive as the enzymes in my spit.

So one more time for you, since you obviously don't grasp the main concept of your own arguement.

Abortion is not about killing Babies



You are wrong. Hell, even the Bible suggests you are wrong about this. Why do you think we are supposedly born with Sin ? Because we are born with instinct. Instinct - by definition - will over rule morality in every single person or ape-related creature on the planet. Including you.

[with in context of the Bible]That is what made Jesus different from you, and everyone else. He was the only person who had Morality that overruled Instinctive desire to Survive[/with in context of the Bible]

You can harp on as much as you want. You cannot refute this.



You really don't understand much about human nature.

Humans are not altruistic (purely good in their hearts). The Bible agrees with me on this. They do not have Children simply because it may make the world a better place. Utter Garbage.

Humans, as with any other living creature, have the instinctive urgency to breed. It is more important than living. That is why we will die for our children. That is why we will kill for our children. That is why we have characters in our History that will sacrifice themselves for the better of others. Jesus was one of them. Once again, The Bible agrees with me.



You are quite obnoxious for someone who clearly knows little about the Bible. I am not a Christian, but I have studied the Bible for over 10 years. You had a big cry earlier in another thread about people generalising Christians, but you go about doing the same for the other side of the fence ? Grow up. Stop preaching and actually do some learning first.



This has no relevance to this thread. What the hell are you on about ?

Stop preaching things that do not even belong in this thread. You need to pull your head in son.



Actually, nature does nothing of the sort. You're thinking about Comon Sense. Nature does not concern itself with reactions or consequences. It only cares about Survival and Breeding. That is why it's instinctive. It has nothing to do with being intelligent or responsible.



Yeah, so you agree Abortion is better than having unwanted children ? Nice one. You are so busy preaching in your obnoxious imature fashion that you forgot what you were trying to say.



Once again, you are wrong. The Church tells you not to have free sex because it is reassuring what the Bible said.

The Bible, however, was written for a different time.

[with in context of the Bible] The Bible also says that you shouldn't eat unclean meat. Why do you think this is ? Maybe it was Gods way to tell people back then, that by doing that, they will get disease [/with in context of the Bible]

Fortunately for us, that is irrelevant today, since the same diseases don't apply to the same unclean meats, etc.

The same can be said for Premaritial sex.

The Bible suggests it is wrong to do so. Why ? Because at the time, Monogomy was the best way to prevent Sexual diseases.

Once again, it does not apply as much today, because these things are circumstancial.




I have highlighted another contradiction in your argument, which you didn't notice because you were too busy putting yourself on a pedastool.

Oh, and incase you missed it earlier. Abortion is about ABORTING pregnancy. It is not about killing Babies. If a Baby is killed in Abortion, it is a late-Abortion which is not Abortion at all. That is a totally different situation which I am certian no one will agree with.

You just hopped on the Anti-Abortion waggon, without really understanding the issue. You simply saw it as another chance to preach to people on here.




More irrelevant drivel. You are embarressing yourself and anyone who actually does understand the significance of The Bible.

Not that it really matters, because just like every other forum-troll. I predict you will undoubtedly ignore all the points I have made in here, and will continue to embarress yourself in the same fashion.

 

[MegainH]

I've got absolutely no interest in proving or attempting to prove that god doesn't exist. I believe it's a logical impossibility, and I also have no problem with most people I know who are religious; only when people try to either distort things like science or push their religion-based morals onto me do I usually even bother to respond.



That's not really a simple question, and it wouldn't prove anything anyway. Even if we assume that all currently models are wrong, just because science doesn't know something doesn't mean there isn't something to be known or discovered a few years down the line. Nor does it make a convincing argument for a creator, as to the atheist that just raises further questions that can't be answered without some faith-based assumptions. Most atheists would prefer "I don't know" of an argument based purely on our ignorance of our natural surroundings.



Well, it's not and explosion or a bang per se, but an expansion of space and time from what appears to be ain infinitessimal region. This doesn't mean that something came from nothing in itself, as matter and energy could have always been a constant total energy sum, which wouldn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, or we could genuinely see a complete breakdown of the laws of physics as we approach the point of singularity.

The other interesting observation is that time itself becomes asymptotic as non-relativistic time approaches zero, which I actually interpret to mean that the universe is actually infinitely old from within the universe, as the observed time will continue to slow down compared to absolute time... I may well be wrong about this, but it's certainly an interesting point from my understanding of what an asymptote means!



I think I just covered 2 possibilities which explain the something from nothing "paradox" nicely.



That the universe was created last Thursday with all life, memories, etc included to give the appearence of great age. It's not something I really consider, but to me it's as reasonable an explanation as invoking a god to explain the creation event.

In any case, whether a scientist believes in god or otherwise, they study what they can observe and explain it with known laws, theories, facts and mathematics. The scientists who believe in god tend to state that they believe god created the universe, but are interested in trying to work out how. Those who don't instead want to just find out how the universe came into being. Same science, same goals, different philosophy.

 

[softballchica221]

I am an Atheist. I don't have any beef with people believing in God, so your generalisation is not apreciated. I don't consider believing in God or any other entity as harmful. However...

Most problems caused "by religion" is when people cause problems by using Religion as a tool. Quite an effective one.

Preaching, Evangalising, Converting, etc is the cause of so much death and suffering in the world. That is my issue with Religion.

I don't believe people such as yourself are a problem. People like Endeavor are, for obvious reasons.



Actually, people who bother to find these things out, have a pretty decent idea. One which does not appeal to untangible entities such as God.

Science is not about finding answers to mystories. It is about finding out how things work. Science will never appeal to a concept such as "God" because by saying "God did it" you totally render it pointless. As soon as you assume "God did it" you no longer have a need to find how "How God did it" and thus you are no longer operating in the field that is Science.

So, back on track; The Big Bang is when all the matter in the universe is at absolute singularity.



Matter can quantemly tunnel itself into existance. It happens all the time, all around us. For the Universes' matter to have done this, it would have had to be at a singularity point. So the concept is consistant with what we observe (Matter that spontaniously appears into existance) and how we know it would have had to have happened.



Actually, it can. We can actually observe this happening. The idea that something cannot come from nothing is a misconception that comes from the misunderstood fact that energy cannot be created.

Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Matter however, is only a form of Energy.

The total mass of the universe is something like 50billion ton. I forget what the supposed estimate is.

However, the total energy in the universe is 0.

This might seem weird, but I'll try simplify it.

0 energy = some energy + negative energy
0 energy = mass + negative energy

And so, quite simply, you can get something from nothing, but really, you still don't have anything!



Assuming God did it does not solve the problem. Who created God ? As soon as something does create God, that something automatically becomes God by definition. So God is just a word we use for that which created the Universe.

By putting a Label on something, you don't solve it, or identify it. That is why Science will never appeal to God.

Even if we have infinite evidence of God, Science will only appeal to the idea, once we can actually explain it. That includes the origins of it.

So even if we were sure God does exist, we would then need to explain the origin of God.

So the problem hasn't been solved.

Just some things to think about

 

[Jacinta]

First thing, neither me nor any other atheist is trying to discourage you from believing in your religion MAnewbie and secondly, maybe you guys sometimes should re-read your own posts a bit more closely and you might detect a hint of:"We aren't convinced you are doing the right thing, let me tempt you over to the right side !" in your writing. Contrary to many theists, who seem to want to convert anyone to their religions and seem to put in a:"I hope you realize at one point the good in god !" nearly every second post most atheists or agonist actually have some respect for ppl not believing the same as them. We don't go preaching the greater good in being an atheist with every word we print and we don't need to use a bible to defend our own belief.

Have some respect MAnewbie. I thought thats what is meant in being a good theist.

Christian

 

[Saz]

Siphus, being at the other end of that conversation I agree with you although to be honest, I was glad he gave up in the end. I saw no further point in continuing the conversation as we both had opposing viewpoints and he kept on pushing about a higher being I told him I didn't think was there. As its not really provable that their is a higher being there is no point really arguing about it. He can believe there is and I will stick by believing there isn't.

Christian

 

[barnsy]

like someone said, its ok to believe in something different. I'm just sick of people thinking they KNOW. Is it really so hard to say "I dont know". Because, no matter who you are. The pope, me, you, Billy the Kid, The Rock, anyone, the truth is, nobody knows.

 

[TyerH]

I’m not trying to convert anyone, I’m just showing how and why bad arguments are bad arguments. Theism is littered with them; hence theism often becomes the target.


I understand if you’re questioning this. I don’t really know that much about cosmology/physics myself so I don’t really understand what existed before the universe and exactly how it was created. I would assume that something (a void?) existed before the universe, and that universe came to be in it. Was/is this ‘void’ everlasting? Boundless? Nothing outside of it? Something I’m interesting in knowing.

All valid questions, BUT…. The problem arises when you go from this ignorance, to the assumption that a God did it. “I can’t explain it; therefore it must have been God” is akin to saying “I don’t know one word of Zulu, have never heard Zulu, therefore Zulu dose not exist.” Just because you don’t know something, don’t assume others don’t have the answer. If science as a whole is unsure, don’t assume science will not find out. A lack of understand of something does not automatically mean a different theory correct by default. The other proposition would need to exceed the level of explanation of the other theory.

Even if we assume that there is a higher power with regards to the creation of the universe, there is no justifiable reason to assume it is the Christian, Islamic, Hindu or any specific god(s), or that he/she/it even interacts with us, or judges us, or passes laws, or that there is an eternal life. If you argue they all have a different interpretation of the same god, you’re in no position to then say they are any less correct than you are. If there is a higher power there is no justifiable reason to assume any further than a deist god, one that created the universe and left it at that.


Why is simply saying who you don’t something not a legitimate answer. It’s better to admit you don’t know than to try and make up crap.

The problem with invoking God is God actually raises more questions, as not only are you still left to explain the original question (origin), you now also have to explain God.

Think about it, if everything needs a cause, which Christians proclaim is God, what was the cause of God? This would create a constant regress of creators. To get around this problem it’s argued, unsurprisingly, that God does not require an explanation or that he/she/it is everlasting. Yet, by exempting God from a cause renders the entire argument self-contradictory because it would therefore show that everything does not need a cause. Another problem is for God to have created the universe he would have to exist separately/outside from it, so who created he’s/she’s/its location?

The fact is, if everything needs an explanation, then so does God, no exceptions. If God can be argued infinite, why not just argue that the universe is infinite and save on the God claim. Science is doing fine without the God ‘explanation’ and adding God into the mix makes it complex beyond necessity.

 

[ziadb]

well the baby starts to take more of a human form around then, and it cant be good for a mother to see her child almost human-like dead in front of her

 

[crclapp@sbcglobalenet]

BendzR I usually agree with what you say and I can honestly say I dont think I will ever feel any sort of desire to help Endeavour in a debate but I personally have some issues with a post you made earlier. Hope you don't mind, I think your wrong in quite alot of your conclusions here but if you don't agree I'd be interested in your reply.


This is simply untrue. People may be primarily motivated by a survival instinct but they clearly do not follow their insticts more than the moral values their society has instilled. Look at feral children compared to children raised in society and see if you notice any difference in their behaviour. To say all humans have instincts is one thing to say that they are incapable of putting morals ahead of instinct is laughable. It might be instinct to want to have sex with a particularly desirable person but do you see people just hopping on and mounting people in the street?


Actually pretty much all the books Ive read on the subject would disagree with what you say (most recent stuff Ive read has been by Desmond Morris and Richard Dawkins) since there is quite alot of good evidence that homosapiens and their most recent ancestors have been developing lifetime pair bonds for a longtime now.


Again no... do you see monkeys and apes doing whoever they want all the time? Well actually I suppose you might think so but if you see even a single documentary on one of our close ape relatives you'll see they don't just do that... they adhere to the 'rules' of the established hierarchy in their group including rules on who can mate with who OR they get kicked out of the group. Social animals have to weigh up their overtly selfish desires against the advantages of being in a group and after millions of years of evolution it seems that if nature is telling us anything it's that social animals need to be accepted in a group to survive. Anyhow, this is all fairly irrelevant to humans as the majority of evidence as I already mentioned suggests our species has pretty much always formed long term pair bonds. So if you wanted to make a relevant nature comparison then it should be with other species who form similiar bonds- of which there are plenty.


We don't desire sexual activity because it 'benefits the species' we desire sexual activity because it benefits us. Its what our bodies were designed to do and its what our evolved instincts desire us to do. So in a way what you have been saying is correct but you have just jumped ahead several times from the simple premise of 'its natural for humans to desire sex' to the other conclusions you've arrived at.

And Siphus your secondhand smoke rant was completely idiotic. You could argue that the dangers of secondhand smoke are over exagerrated but its blatantly obvious to most people who frequent bars and nightclubs that exposure to secondhand smoke has bad effects on your body. From working in a bar previously I am doubly sure that being in a smoke filled environment is not good for your health. To top this off the carcinogenic dangers of cigarettes aren't theories thats why they have those warning stickers on the pack. The smoke coming from a persons mouth after they inhaled a cigarette didn't just appear magically it came from the cigarette so to suggest there is no health risk to second hand smoke is like suggesting there is no health risk to smoking a cigarette i.e. Its ridiculous.

And to make this post slightly on topic... it's easy for people to spout their views on abortion and the sacredness of human life but I have a feeling most commenting on this are males who have no potential of becoming pregnant (as incidentally are most of the people who made religious rules) or people who have never been pregnant and had to face the situation of an unwanted pregnancy. Experience I think might change even the most stubborn persons outlook.

 

[WhoCaresmt]

You raise a good point but i suspect the decision to abort is just as big for the father as it is the mother so men should be allows to voice their opinion just as much as women. I agree though that being faced with that decision might change someone’s view. And if someone has experienced it then their opinion is slightly more valid.