2 of 5
2
Jen Roth - Atheist Against Abortion
Posted: 22 September 2010 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Jim Lippard - 22 September 2010 06:01 PM

I think every point that she made was brought up in a debate I had with a Christian blogger on the topic of abortion, who similarly argued for an equation between personhood and human organism.  I wonder if she has any better rejoinders.  Does she think that IVF and therapeutic cloning are immoral?  IUDs?

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/vocab-malone-on-abortion-and-personhood.html

What about forcing a 9 year old rape victim to bear her stepfather’s twins? angry

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2010 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-09-22

While this does not change my personal position, the discussion did point out that I had not critically examined some of the pro-choice arguments (specifically, when is a fetus human).  However, until all people have control of their reproduction, the right to a legal and safe abortion should remain legal.  Reducing the “need” to have abortions (the child impregnated by rape, etc.) will reduce the number of abortions.  The right to terminate a pregnancy still needs to be there.

The anti-abortion movement still terrifies me though, as many of those who speak for the movement are more against women’s rights than anything else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2010 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
joannebb - 22 September 2010 07:24 PM

The anti-abortion movement still terrifies me though, as many of those who speak for the movement are more against women’s rights than anything else.

That’s what I see. Control the uterus, control the females. Many of the GOP against abortions (for any reason at all) are also against birth control…of any kind. It is like they want to take us back into the 19th century. What is next..taking away the ability to vote?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2010 10:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2010-09-08

With euthanasia, she honestly tried to compare a depressed suicidal person with someone going through physical torment and certain death?

REALLY?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2010 05:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-18
asanta - 22 September 2010 08:34 PM

That’s what I see. Control the uterus, control the females. Many of the GOP against abortions (for any reason at all) are also against birth control…of any kind. It is like they want to take us back into the 19th century. What is next..taking away the ability to vote?

asanta
your attitude comes across to me sounding just as strident as the worst of the prolife attitudes.  That’s the worst slippery slope rant I ever heard! Tell me you are trying to be more reasonable than passionate.  I appreciate its a gut level debate for many.  If there ever will be an accommodation with opposing views it is unlikely to arise from the attitude you seem to be displaying.  Have you thought of changing your tone if not your opinions?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2010 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
rg21 - 18 September 2010 05:35 PM

I’m atheist but conservative. I’m not pro-life, I’m anti-abortion. The unborn babies are killed because they are inconvenient and powerless and that’s morally wrong. End of story.
  There is no right to privacy, at least not in the Constitution, and if there was, we should honor it first by getting rid of zoning, not prohibitions on abortion. What’s private about an abortion anyhow unless you do it yourself?
  Most of the blabber about logical consistency, etc. etc. is liberalism as religion substitute lite. The problem is liberalism does not recognize tradition and hasn’t the slightest clue about morality. This is the liberal conceit I keep talking about. You can never work all the contradictions and unintended consequences and injustices out from your inflated impression of your own wisdom. That’s why we have tradition, a cobble that has been tested and works or close enough to it so it isn’t worth the risk to change it especially for a load of half baked baby boomer self exculpation.
  Same reason I’m dead against all the sexual freedom blabber and homosexual excuses. Sex should be extremely tightly linked to responsibility and held extremely private. Same flaw for the opposition. Anything else really messes up people, enough to eventually bring down the whole.

I’m against abortion only because I think life should be given a chance. I wouldn’t want to decide that an potential individual life is inconvenient. People want freedom to act and freedom of being responsible for their actions.

However it is also against my belief to force a choice onto someone else. I would encourage them to support life but you can’t force responsibility on someone who doesn’t want it. I think you have to allow a person to make their choice and they are the one who has to live with it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2010 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
B9K9 - 23 September 2010 05:05 AM
asanta - 22 September 2010 08:34 PM

That’s what I see. Control the uterus, control the females. Many of the GOP against abortions (for any reason at all) are also against birth control…of any kind. It is like they want to take us back into the 19th century. What is next..taking away the ability to vote?

asanta
your attitude comes across to me sounding just as strident as the worst of the prolife attitudes.  That’s the worst slippery slope rant I ever heard! Tell me you are trying to be more reasonable than passionate.  I appreciate its a gut level debate for many.  If there ever will be an accommodation with opposing views it is unlikely to arise from the attitude you seem to be displaying.  Have you thought of changing your tone if not your opinions?

I was an adult woman when Roe v Wade became law. I remember what went on before its passage. I remember the difference access to birth control made, even though husbands routinely threw away their wives birth control. I remember when a woman had to get her husband’s permission to be sterilized. I saw the stigma attached to woman coming to the hospital where I worked to get a medically necessary abortion (to allow treatment for cancer for goodness sake!). I hear various far right GOP members wanting to outlaw birth control pills, IUD, and ‘the morning after’ pill—even in the case of rape or incest. Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnel and many others around them don’t believe in abortion for ANY reason.

People should shift their concerns for the children who are already on this earth, to make sure they have the means to grow up healthy and well balanced. How many people yelling ‘inconvenient’ take that time? How many people look the other way when children are abused because it is ‘None of my business’, yet if the woman wants an abortion—suddenly they feel it is a great deal of their business?

Yes, I am strident. I think we should expend our energy to care for the, impoverished, unwanted, neglected, abused children who are living on the earth, and recognize that if someone doesn’t want to have a child, maybe it is to prevent bringing onto the earth more neglected, abused children, and perhaps to prevent themselves from wallowing further into poverty.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2010 02:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2010-07-24

This podcast is a new low for POI since it is so full of inconsistency, irrational back-patting, and emotional pleading as to be disgraceful to the CFI’s mission.

Did Jen Roth really argue that the opinion wherein fetuses are not considered “fully human” (what does fully human even mean?) is unscientific and emotional?  Say WHAT? Because it seems to me that is exactly what a purely scientific opinion would hold.  A clump of cells has no thoughts, no perception, no awareness (things we generally associate with being human) or even any functioning organs and tissues, yet she still wants to accord it full rights as if it was a member of some persecuted minority!  She may not believe in gods, but how are her views functionally different from those that claim life begins at conception when the soul is created?  By her logic (and that of some on this thread), we should outlaw menstruation and masturbation to prevent eggs and sperm from being cruelly denied their right to person-hood. (I’m looking at you, Gnostikosis.  “I’m against abortion only because I think life should be given a chance.”)

She hold extremely naive views about the issue considering this is supposedly her chosen cause.  Of course we’d all prefer a world where women are equal, can choose their sexual partners, and use contraception if they want, but this is totally irrespective of the world we currently live in.  In reality, she is just offering opinion and little else.  This is, at best, wishful thinking.  Her efforts offer nothing practical toward helping her ideal world come to fruition, but they do muddy the waters in the fight against religious ideologues who would deny women these things.  All they do is make those of us in favor of women’s equality divide our attention unnecessarily.

Opponents of abortion that I’ve encountered (whether theist or now “atheist”) all seem singularly focused on the gestation of the child without any thought as to its welfare post-birth.  Can the family feed and clothe another child?  Will the child be loved?  Will they be subject to neglect or abuse?  If the pregnancy occurred due to the failure of contraception, how are the parents going to feel towards a child that was essentially forced on them?  Pregnancy should always be a choice, never a punishment.

Roth is also either pitifully ignorant of the stark difference between capitol punishment and euthanasia, or willfully dishonest.  To equate someone suffering in a hospital bed with a criminal sentenced to death is simply ridiculous!

@ccbowers #9  Don’t mind, rg21.  (S)he may be an atheist, but if so it’s only through the most basic definition of not believe in gods.  I’ve dealt with him/her before and (s)he is not skeptical, rational, or even very secular.  My best assessment of rg21 is “shit disturber”

@B9K9 #20  Your comment belies both a lack of originality (apologists use “strident” ad nauseum;  in fact I’m surprised “shrill” was omitted) and an inability to counter Asanta’s arguments.  Even the word, “strident”, is merely a comment on HOW an argument is PRESENTED, not the VALIDITY of said argument.  You’re all focused on the “passion” and “tone” of her argument yet provide no counter-arguments.  A common tactic when one’s arguments are poor.

[ Edited: 24 September 2010 02:20 PM by Hardcore ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2010 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2010-09-25

reducing the number of abortions is an important thing to strive for.

A common point of agreement made across both sides of the abortion debate is that we all agree that reducing the abortion rate is a good thing.


I’d actually go with the opposite.  If anything, there are too many unloved, unwanted, under-cared-for children in the world as it is.  I’m a hopeless utilitarian, but I can’t help that, if purely looking at the production of suffering, increased abortions would likely reduce suffering overall.  The world will have been a better place if many people were simply not born to begin with.

I understand that the reaction to this idea will strike many as cold or cruel.  But think of it this way.  Imagine a car is filled to capacity, and an extra passenger would face severe risk.  Should the passenger be asked to wait for the next car?

I’m probably sounding like I believe in reincarnation.  If only.

I just don’t understand why a fetus must be made sacred.  Beyond its ability to feel pain (and we’re talking about, if anything, a very brief period of discomfort - certainly no worse than the agony I surely felt when I was circumcised), what is there?  The parent’s feelings would be next in line.  Then I suppose there is the squishy idea of social normative behavior.  Do we want people going around aborting fetuses?  I don’t have a problem with it.

The last concern is largely designed to deal with the inevitable question of when it is OK to kill a developing human.  Many draw the line at viability.  But that’s a slippery term.  When is a fetus viable.  Medicine had been advancing considerably, leading to earlier and earlier viability.  But what would be the argument anyway?  It seems an arbitrary point, designed generally for winning an argument, if not merely for public health and legal reasons - like the driving or drinking age.

No, I think the question that needs to be answered is whether it would be OK to kill a newborn.  Or what about a three month old, etc.?  If done without suffering, there is no cost to the individual.  And what if the mother and father don’t mind? Grandparents?  We must draw the line somewhere in concentric rings of possible indirect suffering.  And yet this point could be made about any individual, really?  A thought experiment:

  If you were stranded on a desert island with a stranger, with no hope of ever being rescued, would it be morally OK to kill him in his sleep?


He wouldn’t suffer.  No one would mourn his loss.  In fact, the same could be said for many fellow citizens with no apparent social ties.  It appears the only recourse to which we are left is an appeal to moral decency.  Well, Jesus Christ, what the Hell is that?!!!!


It’s an excellent question.  But I think we can put one foot in the right direction with this proposition: we ought to do what we think everyone ought to do.  It’s not unsimilar from the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  The trick is in the details, of course.  Not everyone is like me.  I might find it perfectly reasonable to kill my newborn child.  A horrible thought, indeed!  But, maybe in some circumstances, after terribly wrenching moral anguish, I determine that the child would be better off dead, then off we go.  But to simply allow for such behavior by law, willy-nilly, seems very untoward.


Why this is might hold the key insight.  Moral anguish.  My wife had a miscarriage.  Zero moral anguish.  Couldn’t care less, really.  What was it but a plop of barely activated DNA sequences floating about in a loose organization of cellular membranes?  But fast forward to the moment of birth and a father’s heart melts.  This is highly intuitive, mammalian shit right here.  We don’t kill babies.  Those of us who do are monsters.  Well, to be accurate, they are deeply dysfunctional individuals whose lack mental faculties make them unfit for civilized society. 

That’s not quite how I’d describe myself.  And yet I still can’t get worked up over a blastocyst.  I’m sure that when my chromosomes combined with those of my wife, it had made quite an interesting string of DNA.  But just as I wouldn’t mourn the lost of a recipe I just printed off the internet in the same way I’d mourn the loss of a triple-decker cake I just spent hours lovingly crafting before it crashed to the floor, a fetus is only slowly moving toward my heart.  It exists as much in the eyes of my wife as I watch her belly grow, or the joy we share as the little feller begins to kick.


Oh, and by the way I wouldn’t kill a stranger on a desert island.  But I’m not sure I’d mind if you did.  Although I’m sure I wouldn’t think it wrong if you did.  And if we’re ever stranded on an island together, just make sure it’s quick and painless.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2010 09:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
rg21 - 18 September 2010 05:35 PM

  Same reason I’m dead against all the sexual freedom blabber and homosexual excuses.


`
Could you explain what you specifically mean by “homosexual excuses”?

thanks.

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2010 09:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
hamax - 19 September 2010 04:36 PM

Also I would be intersted in her response to the following (simplified) thought experierment:  There is a fire and she only has time to save either one 4 year old child or two fertilized embryos ready for implantation.  Which would she choose?  If she views them all as “humans” you see the conundrum.  It appears to me that being anti-abortion poses more consistency challenges.

I’d go even further.
If I’d have to choose between fertilized embryo and a dog, I’d go for a dog.
They are certainly more intelligent and self aware then embryos.

Any thoughts?

`
I’ll add another ‘ditto’ to this :)


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2010 11:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Axegrrl - 25 September 2010 09:35 PM
rg21 - 18 September 2010 05:35 PM

  Same reason I’m dead against all the sexual freedom blabber and homosexual excuses.


`
Could you explain what you specifically mean by “homosexual excuses”?

thanks.

`

I missed THAT! Being that the fact that homosexual couples can’t procreate ‘naturally’ is s major fundie argument against them, I’m not sure why he threw them in. If he knew how many children were conceived via IVF, he’d probably try to outlaw that too!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 12:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
asanta - 25 September 2010 11:49 PM

Being that the fact that homosexual couples can’t procreate ‘naturally’ is s major fundie argument against them, I’m not sure why he threw them in. If he knew how many children were conceived via IVF, he’d probably try to outlaw that too!


`
Oh good grief, the procreation red herring yet again *rolling eyes* Either declare that the ability-to-procreate is essential to/for marriage or get off the pot.  If it is, then they need to start focussing their rabid disapproval on every couple that can’t reproduce but expects to be eligible to marry ~ including all of the young, healthy, heterosexual couples who are biologically ‘barren’......and every senior citizen that wants to marry.

They should ALL watch this (it’s brilliant I tell you!):

It’s all about children (or at least the anatomical possibility thereof)

Then either give their anti-same-sex-marriage vitriol a rest, or go to town condemning a bunch of other people as well ~ if intellectual honesty/consistency means anything to them, that is.

(my favourite bit of the video was the graphic of someone holding a picket sign saying “it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and some old lady!!”)

*teehee*

Yeah!  why don’t we see people aggressively attacking the elderly marrying?  I mean, after all, how DARE they!


`

[ Edited: 26 September 2010 12:19 AM by Axegrrl ]
 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 03:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

I don’t understand the (ir)rationality about polygamy. If marriage is all about children, you would think they would be proponents of polygamy, after all, that would produce even more children, or polyandry which would make it more likely for a woman to become pregnant, if she were fertile.  cool grin  They are very inconsistent with their logic!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2010-07-24

@vidoqo

Well said!  I guess that makes me a cold, cruel, utilitarian too.

@Asanta, Axegrrl

You bring up some very interesting points I hadn’t previously considered regarding the whole “marriage being all about children” thing.  Unfortunately, I think logical consistency is asking a bit much from most of these people.

[ Edited: 26 September 2010 12:37 PM by Hardcore ]
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2