# A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Mar 21, 2014.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
+1

You should try out the FAP thread - yes, that's its title. As delusion fantasy about tacking arguments together goes, I give it four stars.

3. ### Mrs.LucysnowValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,879
Well what is it that the majority wants then in terms of abortion legislation? I'm speaking of the ones you're speaking of. The rational and open members accepting of different opinions? I'm asking because thus far the abortion debate is framed by extremist views. It would be helpful if you could outline a little what the view of this group would look like if they had a louder mic.

5. ### Mrs.LucysnowValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,879
Kitt that question wasn't around the context of LTA but abortions in general.

7. ### Mrs.LucysnowValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,879
No I was not calling you a liar. I was saying its dishonest to say someone teaching sex health and reproduction only has to teach about STD's and contraception. Its dishonest because its not the full picture. Is a male or female teenager to think they are always safe from pregnancy because they used a condom? What if it breaks and she becomes pregnant? Then what information does she have to go on? I'm saying that an honest assessment of a sexual health class includes ALL options.

Here you answered "Both are examples. Neither is the standard. Like every other aspect of life, every person is different." Which is why you cannot use Brian as an example of the whole pro life movement.

I said need and then I said I will give you that a woman want's an abortion instead of "need". I said I will give that to you and now you can answer the question of what exactly is wrong with a woman who wants an abortion if for example the reasons are not economic or health related.

What's the "first line of defense"? A woman gets pregnant against her desires but a male also impregnates the woman against his desires. It goes back to life being what it is. There are very few people who go to bed with sexual passion paying attention to their p's and q's dotting every i. That's just life. We would like it to be different but it isn't. Unwanted pregnancies happen. Sometimes they happen even when precautions have been taken. Sometimes no protection is used but like anyone can tell you you don't always get pregnant after having sex. But that's really besides the point unless it gets back to answering what is wrong with a woman wanting an abortion?

You say no one should have them unless its medically needed. Well that's an opinion and only your opinion, one I don't share. So now we get to the meat of the matter. A woman who wants an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy is bad unless I am totally misunderstand what you wrote (correct me if I have). If that is your assessment, then you simply disapprove and so could never really say you "care" about a woman in such a circumstance as you've already judged her as bad. This is the same sentiment I think is shared with all pro lifers. Its tinged with some misogyny especially since males are never added to the equation. She is bad because she bares responsibility and if she decides to take responsibility by having an abortion she still remains bad. Having an unwanted pregnancy makes her what then? Good?

Abortions do not necessarily leave scares, nor are they necessarily traumatic. I know more than a few women who don't suffer from any of that and they have had abortions. Actually I have never known a woman who has had deep regrets or trauma from having an abortion (and I have known women who've had more than one), I'm not saying they don't exist I'm just saying I have never known one. Abortion like pregnancy to term is more common than you think. Women who have had a non-traumatic, painful etc abortion don't have to make a fuss about it. They did it and its done.

From a study conducted in 2000

The impact of an abortion on a woman's mental health has been questioned for years. Some studies have suggested that many women suffer depression, regret and even a form of post-traumatic stress disorder called 'post-abortion syndrome.'But a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population.

The study's authors say the results agree with previous studies -- including one by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD -- showing that severe mental distress following an abortion is rare.

"Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again," writes study author Brenda Major, PhD. "These findings refute claims that women typically regret an abortion." Major is a professor of psychology at the University of California in Santa Barbara. For the study, published in the August issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, Major and colleagues interviewed 882 women undergoing abortion. The interviews were conducted prior to abortion, immediately after the procedure, and, for 442 women, again two years later.

Nearly 70% of women reported being satisfied with the decision, and 72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant. Experts express little surprise at the findings and say this study is more proof that for the majority of women, abortion has few aftereffects.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Nancy Adler, PhD, says that rather than contributing to mental stress, the studies suggest a significant decrease in mental distress and an increase in positive emotions and self-esteem.Adler, director of health psychology at the University of California in San Francisco, also points out that it is important to look closer at studies that have found psychological harm after abortion to evaluate whether distress really was the result of the abortion, or of other events.

"Experiencing an unwanted pregnancy is itself distressing, as may be the events associated with it. For example, a woman's partner may respond to the pregnancy by leaving her. The abortion then occurs in the context of loss and abandonment, yet depression or distress following the abortion would be attributed to the procedure," Adler writes. Facing hostile protesters and intimidation in seeking an abortion also may be factors that heighten risk for psychological problems postabortion in some women, she says.

http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion

You ask whether my friend used contraception. I told you she was married (she's now divorced) with two young boys. So no she wasn't using contraception. Sometime after the abortion she got pregnant again and then had a beautiful little girl who I believe is five or six years old now. You say you think its wrong to get an abortion out of convenience. But its convenient to be a male and say it is wrong since its not a decision you ever have to make. Its your opinion and I'm fine with that but doesn't make it wrong, it simply makes it your opinion and since you never have to get pregnant wanted or unwanted you are not really in a position to even claim you understand what an inconvenient pregnancy might mean. Its the main reason why I take male opinions on the subject with a grain of salt. After all, what do they know. But I asked you the question because the answer is ALWAYS subjective. Its always about what we personally would do, what we personally think is right and wrong for us. There is no way to say what are the right or wrong circumstances in any universal sense and that's what I am trying to point out to you. You cannot say what is convenient nor inconvenient for a stranger and pretend you know or understand or care about what you really don't know or understand. I tell my friends "Tell me what you decide and I will either accompany you or plan the baby shower". And that's it.

Palimony aside men don't have a say in terms of abortion and outside of the context of a personal relationship I don't think they should have a say.

Abortion is not a contraception, its what is used if there was no contraception or contraception failed. There is no "we". You can only say that potential human life is important to you and so its not something you would do without good reason. Outside of that you cannot determine for others whether potentials are relevant nor determine what is a good reason for another person. This is why "one size fits all" answer never works.

8. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,527
Close. I definitely think that abortion is, in general, the worst option for a woman to take. In some cases it is necessary for reasons of health or other well-being of the mother.

However in all cases it should be up to the mother and her doctor. (A caveat here is although I support a woman's right to end her pregnancy, I do not support her right to say "and I want it killed." This is, of course, only an issue in late term abortion.)

Messages:
7,464
Why so.???

10. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,527
Because it is killing a potential human being. Prevention of that pregnancy is a much better option to take. It's safer (for several reasons) and it involves no killing. Which is one reason that education is such an important tool in reducing unwanted pregnancies.

11. ### leopoldValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,455
yes, of course.
i was basing my opinion on "human life".
the best criteria i could come up with was self identity.

technically, it becomes a "human life" when the umbilical cord is cut and the kid draws its first breath.

12. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,527
Exactly. And which is why you are just as wrong to say "they don't care about women."
Abstinence and/or contraception.
It is killing a potential human being. That's a bad thing. In some cases (health of the mother) it is entirely justified. In some cases (failure of birth control) it is - perhaps not justified, but understandable. And in some cases (regular abortion in lieu of birth control) a bad thing.
No, I didn't.
Eliminate palimony and I mostly agree.
Definitely. Unfortunately some people use it that way. And while that is unfortunate, it is still up to the woman.

13. ### cluelusshusbund+ Public Dilemma +Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,464
You say "in all cases it should be up to the mother and her doctor"... do you mean that even for late term abortions.???

I ask that because of what you said here "(A caveat here is although I support a woman's right to end her pregnancy, I do not support her right to say "and I want it killed. This is, of course, only an issue in late term abortion.)"

14. ### Mrs.LucysnowValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,879
I say the pro life movement only cares about their belief. They don't care about "the woman" because they only care about what that woman decides concerning the fetus. They don't care about what the woman wants. Check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcr3Xx3orAk

This is how I see the pro life movement.

You see I don't understand how someone such as yourself really pertains to the debate since you say you are personally pro life while being pro choice. I mean If you are really as described then you are not interested in changing legislation regarding abortion and so you are just what I consider "normal". Meaning someone who lives their life by a certain principle and honors that principle. I can respect that. My problem is with a movement that wants their beliefs to dictate how another should live. The pro life abortion cannot accept abortions. I don't know of a pro life movement that accepts women having abortions because they want to have an abortion because as we all know the majority of abortions are done by women who are choosing to do so for reasons that don't pertain to health. So why do you call yourself pro life if your stance is really pro choice? You are pro choice because you don't want to alter another persons decision. So how can you be a part of a pro life movement?

Abstinence and contraception are all good and great but I have lived my life in the real world. Women have unwanted pregnancies. Women will always be in a circumstance where they will want an abortion we're just talking about how best to avoid a circumstance one would rather not put themselves through but this is life. As one guru said if all the worlds wisdom could be found in a book we'd all be enlightened. Life itself is not a rational experience, not emotionally, not psychologically, certainly not while your living it.

First you say its killing a "potential" and now you claim its killing a human being. Either way its only your opinion. There are those who believe life begins at conception, there are religions like Islam where they believe the human soul only happens in the third month and then there are those who believe a human being is only a human being when they exit the womb kicking and screaming. Go figure. Killing a potential human being is bad TO YOU. That's YOUR opinion and I respect you to live by your opinion but what I glean is that the pro life movement is not able to respect that another doesn't hold that principle and therefore doesn't accept that ideal.

Since we're not discussing palimony which is so far away from this topic and since I don't know why you are injecting it into the discussion I'm just going to ignore it. You can always start a thread on the topic and I'll give my two cents.

You cannot use abortion as a contraception because it isn't one. You can only use abortion to end a pregnancy. Contraception prevents pregnancy. If you have to have an abortion then you are not using a contraception you are having an abortion.

15. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
Somewhere I was reading a Supreme Court opinion which had something to do with States' rights. One of the justices made a remark of this kind--that since every State has a compelling interest in the just and proper application of the rule of law, then any outcome which might seem to offend that state's sense of its rights (as its attorney general might argue) would be trumped by the higher need to preserve itself as an institution of justice. States are not the holy innocent little victims of Big Government, which the Fundies like to insist. They convict and execute innocent people. They annex private property. They cut corners on pollution laws. They often hide their homeless and poor from the public view, while wrapping themselves around big enterprises of their own. Yet the Fundies have done a good job of convincing their followers that the federal government is the bad guy.

And to think that was the debate that was in play 40 years ago. And still the Fundies/Catholics won't leave it alone.

Those same Fundies who claim that Jesus literally told them to feed the hungry, or else be thrown in a lake of fire, are the same ones who are responsible for cutting the food aid allowance, down from under $7/day to around$6/day, and this despite the fact that Congress had reason to believe that food prices would rise with rising fuel costs.

Religion simply can't be divorced from politics. There is too much invested in it. There is a huge psychological investment, one that says "this is what I believe, and since I'm so sure I'm right, I'm going to treat you like an enemy--because you look different than me, you speak differently, you're poor/homeless/unemployed and I'm just barely making it, you come from a different country, or neighbor than me-- so odds are you don't think like me (about religion) so to hell with you". Meanwhile they fund their charities just to make sure they don't get throw in a lake of fire. I think it's just a modern version of selling indulgences, the main thing that led to the Protestant reformation in the first place! So they get active in politics, draw lines in the sand and start vandalizing some of the best agencies, programs and laws designed to help their enemies.

The present Culture War isn't just a clash of ideologies. It's a very real war of attrition, launched by the invading Christian extremists. They started it, they are prosecuting it, and the people who defend their targets are demonized, slandered, swift-boated, and victimized like never in history. And for the most part America barely blinks. It has created a huge backlash, particularly among atheists, who are sick and tired of seeing them mollycoddled. They're not special. For the most part they're not very well educated and their earning potentials are general sub par. We might even call them "trash" and not miss the mark. That's pretty much why I think the Tiassas and Yazatas of this discussion are on the wrong track.

16. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,527
For the most part, yes. I disagree with the "dry foot" thing, though.

17. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
For the bulk of people I know, it is simply that abortion up to the third trimester should be entirely the womans choice (though, realistically, she should discuss it with her husband if she has one... I mean, they have rather agreed to spend their lives together, and that is a rather important life-change). After the third trimester, there must be SOME reason why she has waited so long. Things we can take care of (given the right frame of mind) would be financial issues and other such things that would prevent a woman from having it done promptly. Again, if it's medical in nature, fine. If not... why not simply have the child and put him up for adoption? There are plenty of families out there who are incapable of having children who would dearly love to adopt a newborn to raise as their own; if it's safe for you to do so, why not? After all, you've already carried it for seven or more months... what's another two? Plus, if I'm not mistaken, you often receive some sort of monetary compensation in such a situation (at least that is what happened with a friend of mine - he got his girlfriend pregnant, they found a family who wanted to adopt, and they made a small sum of money out of the transaction... weird as I feel about the idea of "selling" a child)

Sounds very similar to my own beliefs - while I dislike the idea of abortion, I understand that in some cases it is necessary, and in others it is simply the best perceived option. However, I still feel like this is one of those cases where "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

18. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,527
True of the pro-choice movement too. The individuals within that movement are as different as anyone else out there.
Again, that's as accurate as saying that pro-choice people do not care about the life of children because they want to make it legal to kill them. (just as silly.)
In some cases I DO want the government to dictate how others live. I don't want powerplants to pollute my water and air and am quite willing to tell powerplant operators how to run their businesses. I don't want people to be able to beat their children bloody, even though that is definitely telling a parent how to live his or her life. I don't want people to be able to assault other people, even their spouses, even though that's dictating how another should live.

Is that "normal?" Well, most people feel a similar way. They DO want to tell others how to live their lives; I bet you have a similar list of rules you want other people to live by, even if it means dictating how another should live.

(The moral of the story - using inflammatory terms can backfire on you.)
?? I'm not. You assumed I was because I wasn't agreeing with everything the pro-choice people said.
I am definitely anti-abortion, the same way I am anti-smoking and anti-pollution. I consider those all to be bad things. In some cases they are . . . not good, but the least bad option. (Well, maybe not for smoking.)
Late term abortion is definitely killing a human. We had our son at 38 weeks and I can tell you for sure that he was 100% human. It is not LEGALLY killing a human being because of how we define that term.
OK. You were asking what rights a man should have in this whole process. Eliminate palimony and most of the rights he should have go away. Outside of that it doesn't have much relevance.
Sorry, I should have been more accurate and used the term "abortion as birth control." Sadly some women use it that way.

19. ### Mrs.LucysnowValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,879

No its not the same. Because a pro choice person believes its up to the individual woman to decide whether she wants to go to term or not. A pro life person can only believe that a woman's responsibility is to go to term. There is a big difference between giving a woman the freedom to decide and deciding that a woman should not make a particular decision. So no. You are being hypocritical by saying a pro life person can have any other belief other than going full term with the exception of narrow circumstances. Choice means just that. And so if you really believed in choice you could never say you are part of a movement that, by all accounts, doesn't accept a woman's choice to abort. The people in the movement share a particular belief and its not one made up of choice. Its made up of a fetus being the primary concern so the fetus survives no matter the circumstances. Sure they may make exceptions due to health but in general their idea is anti-abortion based on "choice". So why are you saying you are pro choice while saying you are pro life? A pro choice person can say they would never personally have an abortion but would never try and force another to live by their personal beliefs. THAT is choice. A pro life person decides that "abortion is wrong...except..." and they then go about trying to evangelize that principle. So you see its not the same. Why are you so personally schizophrenic on the subject? That's the only way I can describe someone who says they are pro choice but part of the pro life movement. Its not silly at all. Choice means honoring another's choice. The pro life movement doesn't make any bones about their position which is that abortion is wrong and so wrong for everyone. You yourself claim that a woman who aborts is "bad". So you are really pro choice? Meaning you, if you were a woman, would never have an abortion and as a male would never condone an abortion save rare exceptions but would not go out of your way to stop women from having an abortion or agree to legislate against abortion. Is that your position?

Did you watch the video?

No telling a parent they cannot beat their child into a bloody pulp isn't telling them how to live their lives its telling them they are not allowed to harm their child. You don't want someone to harm their spouse. Do you believe that having say an abortion out of convenience in the first trimester is harming "someone"? Do you think a fetus at two months is the same as a living child or a spouse? Is it equivalent in your mind? Because if it is then we can then have an honest discussion about both our beliefs. Meaning I can then say I am having an honest discussion with someone who is against abortion except in the rare examples of a woman's health being compromised and that this person is PRO LIFE NOT PRO CHOICE. You see I am really curious, not as to why those in the movement believe what they believe (even though I have questions on that account) I'm interested in why they think they have the right to tell other's that they should live by their beliefs. You see? I don't care if people are against abortion. I only care that they are against another person having an abortion, that they would take that right away from another. If you are not against taking that right away from another then you by de facto cannot be a part of the "pro life" movement, you would be part of the pro choice movement.

I only have rules for others that affect me personally. Like for example people who play their music too loud, too often, for too long. You see it affects my "peace of mind". If you are a non smoker its in your interest that there are bars and restaurants, public spaces that are "smoke free". I would say that then you can have a smokers bar and a non-smokers bar. But explain exactly how a random stranger having an abortion affects your personal life? What is the immediate impact on you? How does it affect your life and liberty? How does it affect your income? How does it affect your values which you're allowed to live even though some random woman is aborting? How is your liberty affected by a woman having an abortion?

I'm pro choice. I don't want to tell others what they should or shouldn't do in terms of abortion. How about you? Are you pro life too?

So no the "Moral of the story" doesn't backfire on me. I'm pro choice. I believe its up to the individual woman to choose despite my beliefs. How about you? Are you pro choice too?

Ahh! Now I get to the post where you say that you are anti-abortion. Good. Are you saying that because if you ever got pregnant you would never abort? Uhmm. I guess not since your a male but okay. Are you saying that you don't think abortion is nice the way you don't think smoking is nice? I mean how about if I smoke in my own home? How about if I open a smokers only bar? Is that okay with you? In terms of abortion. You say you are "anti-abortion". Does that mean its okay for women to have an abortion? Or if you could, would you decide that no woman can have an abortion anywhere? Except of course for those rare exceptions you deem "understandable" and "acceptable". I'm just curious. Especially since you say that the US values personal freedom AS a value.

By the way industrial pollution is not a great example since it pollutes all no matter what they believe. Smoking a cigarette in ones home or in a smokers bar where all there is no care about second hand smoke doesn't. Having an abortion affects others EVEN LESS!

LTA are so rare I'm curious as to why you even hinge on that point. Considering its 0.08% of all abortions. I do note however that you claim in another thread that "If a half-delivered, bawling baby is a person, then a zygote must also be a person. They must be exactly the same. That's the only possible rational argument you can make."

If that's the case is it safe for me to assume that you are anti-abortion even within say the first trimester? I mean since a bawling baby is a person like a zygote is a person and in your thinking "they must be exactly the same?"

Are you still sure you are pro choice? I mean no disrespect but it doesn't seem to be the case.

20. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
I stumbled onto that post as I joined the other thread: he was being sarcastic about one of Tiassa's more ill-founded suggestions. It's telling that it makes no sense to anyone else, either.

21. ### Mrs.LucysnowValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,879
Oh so it was a joke? It didn't read that way, so yeah it came across as confusing.

22. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
No worries. This thread is one of the stranger ones yet.

23. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,527
Agreed with the above. But that's not what I said. I said that people WITHIN the movements are very different.

Your claim - that all pro-life people are basically the same, they "only care about their belief", is incorrect. It's like claiming all democrats only care about destroying rich people or all republicans hate minorities. (The parties may have some of those characteristics but they certainly don't define everyone in those parties.) It's a prejudice; pre-judging all the people in a group because of one political position they hold.
I haven't. Once again, I have never claimed to belong to the political position "pro-life" although I share many of their views on the issue.
Oh, if that confuses you, then my positions on other issues will really bake your noodle. In general I ignore what the nearest position believes and instead decide based on my own values, experiences and research. For example, I share many views with environmentalists, but I also support nuclear power and large scale hydro. I think climate change is a serious problem but take exception to many of the alarmists who think we are on the brink of catastrophe. And as mentioned before I am very much anti-smoking while still thinking people should have the right to decide that for themselves.

I will generally confuse people who can see only two categories - people on "their" side and the enemy. (Which is one reason I bother Bells so much, I think.)

Ah! So in some cases you ARE going to tell people how to live their lives. Some parents believe strongly that corporal punishment is critical to raising a respectful child. You're going to tell them "No, you cannot raise your children the way you want to, you must raise them the way I want you to. You do not have rights over your children; I do." Yet I suspect that because you believe very strongly that the well-being of children is important, you are willing to tell those parents how to live their lives.

Pro-life people think exactly the same way you do, just on a different topic. They don't think they are telling other people how to live their lives, they are just telling them that they are not allowed to kill their child.
Nope. Nor is it a parasitic bunch of cells with no more meaning than a wart. It is a potential human being.
You just admitted above you have rules for people who beat their children even if it doesn't affect you personally. Which is it?
How is your liberty affected by a parent who thinks "spare the rod, spoil the child?"
More the way beating your children isn't nice.
If you were a friend or a relative of mine? I'd do what I could to convince you to stop. If you were some guy in a bar in Montreal I've never met? Sad for him but it's his life.
If it were up to me people would not get abortions. They also wouldn't smoke, or hit their kids, or drive single driver SUV's 30 miles to work every day. However, the important point - it's not up to me.
Because to me it's worse. (Not really an issue since you said you'd agree with a ban on late term abortions.)
Sorry, my attempt at sarcasm went awry. Clearly they are not the same.
I am. You may not think I am; that's fine.