Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?


SquareOne

Recommended Posts

Vigile, I think we might have come full circle.


 


I've addressed all of those points already, and we simply don't agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Vigile, I think we might have come full circle.

 

I've addressed all of those points already, and we simply don't agree.

 

It's not a matter of agreement.  It's a matter of logic, as you've said.  I addressed your logic and showed you how it is not founded in rationality as you've claimed.  I don't believe you have addressed this.  If you have, it should be quite easy to refresh our memories by simply pointing out how my reasoning in my rebuttal to your OP above is wrong. 

 

For the sake of brevity, let's do it this way.  I claim that your entire argument falls apart if the concept of mere life is not in fact a miracle or sacred.  Show me how claiming it is such (a miracle and sacred) is a rational premise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Vigile, I think we might have come full circle.

 

I've addressed all of those points already, and we simply don't agree.

 

I haven't seen you address any of those points.  Many people have taken the effort to explain the issue in great detail.  You either dismiss them as being illogical or you dismiss their arguments as "not compelling".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to lie: I'm pretty tired.  Had a long day at work.  In fact, I'm still working at home.  My comment above was probably unduly dismissive.  I'll take a look at your comments in detail tomorrow morning (local time) Vigile.  Hope that's ok with you.

 

But I can handle one question, I think.

 

 

For the sake of brevity, let's do it this way.  I claim that your entire argument falls apart if the concept of mere life is not in fact a miracle or sacred.  Show me how claiming it is such (a miracle and sacred) is a rational premise. 

 

 

 
For starters, I don't believe life is actually, literally a miracle or sacred.  If I have used those words, I was using poetic licence.  Such words suggest the involvement of a deity, and I do not accept the involvement of a deity.
 
So let us say that the premise is that human life is inherently worthy of protection.
 
That premise is of course subjective.  It is flippantly biassed towards our own species.  Anthropocentric.
 
So I really don't believe that human life is inherently worthy of protection.
 
Nevertheless, the British legal system seems to me to be predicated on enforcing the general human view that human life should be protected.  Therefore murder, manslaughter, assault, etc. are illegal.
 
Now you could argue that those laws are based not on the fact that life is worthy of protection for its own sake, but because it is wrong to destroy something that is self-aware.  In reply to that I would say that newborns are not self-aware, and yet the law protects them all the same.  So it seems to me that the law is actually predicated on the notion that human life itself is inherently worthy of protection.

And if it is, then it makes no sense to have an arbitrary cut-off point at which that inherent value is said to no longer exist.
 
 
I suppose my argument would fall apart if you could demonstrate that the law does not regard human life as inherently valuable. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For starters, I don't believe life is actually, literally a miracle

or sacred.  If I have used those words, I was using poetic licence.

 Such words suggest the involvement of a deity, and I do not accept the

involvement of a deity.

 

Yes, I get that and I actually accept the concept you were trying to portray by the use of these words.  It isn't your use of these 'esoteric' concepts that I disagree with here, it's where you apply them that we diverge.  Biological life is as far as we can tell, merely a mechanical function of some as yet unknown phenomena.  While fascinating, we humans, for the most part, agree that it isn't in itself worthy of protection.  If we did, there would be large outcries against antibiotics and sterilizing chemicals.

 

If you wish to add a bit of nuance and add 'the experience of life' to the equation, then I can be pretty much in agreement with your terms miracle and sacred for lack of better words in our language.

 

 

Now you could argue that those laws are based not on the fact that life

is worthy of protection for its own sake, but because it is wrong to

destroy something that is self-aware.  In reply to that I would say that

newborns are not self-aware, and yet the law protects them all the

same.  So it seems to me that the law is actually predicated on the

notion that human life itself is inherently worthy of protection.

 

I see three separate factors here; self-awareness,the inherent worthiness of 'experiencing life' and the concept of human empathy.

 

I'll try and keep this brief, but it probably requires a dissertation of sorts to address properly.  A being that is not self aware cannot be harmed as it has neither experienced life (bonded with other humans, among other things) nor can it contemplate any value in the concept of life or experience any kind of emotional pain or suffering. The only difference between it and a bacterium is form and future. 

 

Nevertheless, we humans assign value to babies (and usually fetuses too) via empathy.

 

All well and good and fully agreeable as far as I'm concerned.

 

Moving on...

 

There is another party involved here in addition to the life that we assign empathy to.  The law then recognizes the fact that empathy for the non sentient being is trumped by that of the sentient being, who can experience suffering (empathy non quantifiable, sentience, quantifiable)After the non sentient being is separated from the sentient being that can experience suffering, the empathy applied to that non sentient being stands alone and is no long challenged by the previous dilemma. 

 

Therefore, there is no inconsistency in the law in this case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting hypothesis.

 

However, for me, empathy alone does not explain why we protect the lives of babies.

 

Humans empathise with animals, but do not attract the same protection as a baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting hypothesis.

 

However, for me, empathy alone does not explain why we protect the lives of babies.

 

Humans empathise with animals, but do not attract the same protection as a baby.

 

We empathize with their pain and emotions, but we also see a higher understanding in humans that makes our value for our own species significantly stronger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't see that understanding in babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't see that understanding in babies.

 

Reread my post.  It doesn't matter.  I showed why this empathy we have takes over as a protective force that trumps other considerations only when a sentient being's personal well-being is removed from the equation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans empathise with animals, but do not attract the same protection as a baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your stuck on the concept of empathy.  This is not the crux of my argument. 

 

I'm going to bed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vigile: Nevertheless, we humans assign value to babies (and usually fetuses too) via empathy.

 

Square One: empathy alone does not explain why we protect the lives of babies. Humans empathise with animals, but do not attract the same protection as a baby.



Vigile: We empathize with their pain and emotions, but we also see a higher understanding in humans that makes our value for our own species significantly stronger. 

 

Square One: We don't see that understanding in babies.


Vigile: It doesn't matter.  I showed why this empathy we have takes over as a protective force that trumps other considerations only when a sentient being's personal well-being is removed from the equation. 
 

Square One: Humans empathise with animals, but do not attract the same protection as a baby.



Vigile: You're stuck on the concept of empathy. This is not the crux of my argument. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It looks rather like you flip back between empathy and self-awareness/understanding as the justification for giving babies legal personhood.  When I debunk one, you flip back to the other.

 

If any else can make sense of what Vigile is saying please help me out here, because I feel like we're going in circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess it depends whether you think you should have nmore empathy for the woman with an unwanted pregnancy or the fetus.

 

This is why people should mind their own business and let the pregnant woman decide.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Vigile and I are discussing is the reason why the law confers legal personhood on newborns.

 

I do not believe that it is either because humans empathise with newborns (because empathy alone is not enough - we empathise with animals) and I do not believe it is because newborns are self aware (they clearly are not).

 

I assert that it is because the framers of our laws have found human life to have value for its own sake, and is therefore universally applicable from birth to death.  (To be clear, that's a statement of why I think the law is the way it is, not necessarily how I think it should be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame they don't use that same reasoning when bombing kiddies off the face of the earth, or not making sure they have adequate health care or food. It is just rhetoric, people only want to argue the point, they don't actually CARE about the children in the world. There is no justice in law. Only politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks rather like you flip back between

empathy and self-awareness/understanding as the justification for

giving babies legal personhood.  When I debunk one, you flip back to the

other..

 

I'm not back flipping, I'm trying to avoid going down rabbit trails on the subject of empathy and get you to back up and understand the argument I'm making.  You are missing the point, which I carefully outlined here:

 

There is another party involved here in addition to the life that we assign empathy to.  The

law then recognizes the fact that empathy for the non sentient being is

trumped by that of the sentient being, who can experience suffering

(empathy non quantifiable, sentience, quantifiable).  After the non sentient being is separated from the sentient being that can experience suffering, the empathy applied to that non sentient being stands alone and is no long challenged by the previous dilemma. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Vigile and I are discussing is the reason why the law confers legal personhood on newborns.

 

I do not believe that it is either because humans empathise with newborns (because empathy alone is not enough - we empathise with animals) and I do not believe it is because newborns are self aware (they clearly are not).

 

I assert that it is because the framers of our laws have found human life to have value for its own sake, and is therefore universally applicable from birth to death.  (To be clear, that's a statement of why I think the law is the way it is, not necessarily how I think it should be).

 

Again, this line of reasoning is a rabbit trail that distracts from the main crux of the broader debate on abortion, but for shits and giggles:

 

You are making a bald assertion here not supported by anything that looks or smells like logic or rational thought in the bolded.  Empathy is a continuum, not a binary measure.  Your earlier assertion that 'empathy alone is not enough' isn't a given. 

 

Moreover, Galien makes a good point that most of us don't really give a shit about human life.  If we did, we certainly wouldn't get all wound up when the government gets ready to march us off to yet another war, among other things.  Our values are very fickle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no requirement for an atheist to be anything. The only criteria is that you don't believe in any gods. It's completely acceptable for an atheist to be either pro-life or pro-choice.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not enough to say "There is another party involved here in addition to the life that we assign empathy to."  There is not.  I am not asking about the mother-foetus relationship.  This is not a question about abortions.  This is a question about newborn babies only.

 
If it helps, imagine you find a baby alone in the woods, with no parents or family or any other sign of human connection, and consider why it has rights.
 

Again, I ask:

 

For what reason do our laws protect newborn babies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck you're an idiot.  That fact you called me a moron after all of this is just mind boggling. That fact you can't grasp such a relatively simple concept even after you've had your hand held and been walked through it even more so. 

 

For your sake, I hope you're just trolling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really am not trolling.


Would you kindly point out where you answered the question without reference to a mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I'm done with you.  Go mentally masturbate with someone else now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

A general appeal: If anyone can read into what Vigile said in the twenty or so posts above and explain to me how he answered the question, I would be grateful.  Thanks all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

A general appeal: If anyone can read into what Vigile said in the twenty or so posts above and explain to me how he answered the question, I would be grateful.  Thanks all.

 

People who point to sentience and other such adult characteristics always run into problems because their theories never extend an equal degree of protection to infants without also extending it to fetuses (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personism). 

 

You're asking why 'the law' protects newborns. A plain reading of a typical murder statute makes this pretty clear: persons are human beings who have been born and are alive. Birth, life, and humanity are the only characteristics the law appears to monitor. Abortion is treated separately, banned unless justified under the statute. Take a look:

 

 

§ 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. “Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.
2. “Abortional act” means an act committed upon or with respect to a female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether she is pregnant or not, whether directly upon her body or by the administering, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner, with intent to cause a miscarriage of such female.
3. “Justifiable abortional act.” An abortional act is justifiable when committed upon a female with her consent by a duly licensed physician acting (a) under a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve her life, or, (cool.png within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. A pregnant female's commission of an abortional act upon herself is justifiable when she acts upon the advice of a duly licensed physician (1) that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, (2) within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. The submission by a female to an abortional act is justifiable when she believes that it is being committed by a duly licensed physician, acting under a reasonable belief that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy.

 

(NY) Penal Law § 125.05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squareone.... we protect newborns because millions of years of evolution have imbued in us very strong instincts to protect our young.. not because of philosophy or ethics or law. No intellectual thinking is going to change that... it has nothing to do with sentience, and everything to do with biology. At the end - we are just animals.

 

I don't know what it is like for men... but I'm a mother and I would gladly, without thinking, give my life to protect my child or even kill to protect her. I would break the law to do so and probably not think twice about that. The instinct is overwhelmingly powerful... and frequently highly irrational.

 

It is way stronger than the pair-bond...WAY, or philosophy, ethics, religion.. whatever, at least that's my experience.

 

Alternatively I have also had an abortion - and these two things seem incompatible but are not. I suggest that nature itself has made us so that this bond doesn't really happen in full strength until we 'know' the fetus is viable (in most cases when it breathes on it's own). If I remember my pregnancies right the 'maternal instinct' really didn't kick in until after the 4th/5th month... and not in force until my child was born (could have something to do with oxytocin released by the mother's body slowly late in pregnancy, the flood of it during childbirth [and nursing] - which also explains why women rarely get abortions after a certain time).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.