Lol, do they really believe Hitchens is an idiot? Do they honestly think that he has never come across this subject and exhausted his resources regarding it?
@Sexxgod2000 My "creationist" science? Umm, okay. Whatever that means.
Btw, I think it's awesome how you feel meat is murder like the PETA people do, but abortion is a choice. Looks like you've got your priorities straight, buddy.
I'm one more atheist who's pro-life...generally. It does seem to make sense that us materialists *should* be pro-life, since this is the only life we'll have. I can't really see why the religious should be, other than what CH mentions here.
@Sexxgod2000 HA! Wow. Are you serious!? And who made up this rule that killing is okay if somebody doesn't have emotions?
And I'm sorry, my friend. But the science doesn't back you up on this. Unborn babies do have feelings and emotions. But nonetheless, please give me some evidence that that makes it okay to kill someone because they don't have feeling or emotions.
@Sexxgod2000 Woooow. It's funny to me how many people don't understand how someone can become so morally bankrupt as to feel that they are justified in killing millions of people, like the 100 million killed in communist regimes or the holocaust. Well, here you go. It's Mr. Sexxgod's type of twisted thinking that produces a Stalin or a Mao.
Well, you are right, Mr. Sexxgod. I mean, when you really think about it, killing a jew is really no different than cutting down a tree.
@Sexxgod2000 Will you please tell me what the hell you are talking about? I don't care what happens to a baby after they are born? Annnnd, where are you getting this from?
you see, this is what you retard libs do, you can't actually focus on the issues. You have to throw out these meaningless red herrings and refuse to actually offer sound arguments.
Buddy, YOU'RE the one who could give a crap about the unborn. Don't go trying to tell me I'm the heartless one.
There is something said in the new testament about homosexuality.
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 - 11. It goes as follows: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God...
People have intuitive physics as well, like the belief that a moving object will tend to come to rest. Physical intuitions may be of some use in predicting physical phenomena, but we can't get very far if we rely only on them and ignore Newton or Einstein. Similarly, I think we shouldn't rely solely on our moral intuitions to minimize suffering.
I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about Christopher Hitchens and act like he's such a hero for them when he disses religion, but right when he hints that fetuses might be people, they distance themselves from him, as if he's suddenly turned insane. Why don't they actually think about what he's saying? They attack his arguments like they do those of a religious person talking about faith. Seems they've already reached a conclusion and just look for those people defending their views.
I'm an atheist. I've read over the pro-life and pro-choice movements, and have come a conclusion. Both camps have fanatics. My stance is that pro-life should be encouraged, but the option (ESPECIALLY if there's a threat to the mother) of abortion should be open. Abortion should not be treated as contraception, but it shouldn't be considered murder either.
The points: 1) to see someone kick a pregnant woman has more emotional impact than to see a non-pregnant woman kicked in the stomach ... is innate in humans, has nothing to do with the testament. 2) that the abortion issue had been taken up by conservatives from the '70's onward is a form of political opportunism, to expand the political power base among Christians - has nothing to do with caring about the living, unborn or already born ... are points well made. Well done Hitchens.
Regarding what Hitchens said: "And that your instincts and emotions are a sound guide to you in this case".
My instincts and emotions don't agree with his view on this... pregnant or not, I feel the same way for the woman getting kicked in the stomach. So from what Hitchens said, my instincts and emotions are a sound guide, but they go against what he says, which just makes it a matter of opinion in the end.
I usually agree with what he says, but not regarding this.
I would feel worse if a pregnant woman got kicked in the stomach because Its likely that she was kicked against her will, and now her baby has been put in danger because of somebodies unwanted violence. I'm not against abortion. I care for the parents as much as the children. Having children is a difficult thing and if you too poor or emotionally premature to have a child then I don't think the child or the parents deserves to go through that
Let's get things in perspective, Hitch is has something to say that's worth listening to.. I want him to have my babies! He is fearless, intelligent and funny! A MAN! I don't care how long an individual lives, just do it and have integrity - and this he has!
Well it's easy to have opinions about laws that will never affect you as you'll never have to take the consequences. So while I might disagree with him on this subject, it doesn't really matter what he thinks about it as he'll never have to live with that fear.
Im familer with a lot of Hitchens babbel on abortion, hes hypocritical considering his numerous rants on freedom. Ultimatly , if as a society we agree sexual freedom for women, which we must in a free society. Then the freedom comes with their ownership over their reproductive organs. Why no one ever mentions developing sex education in schools and colleges and free contraceptives in schools and colleges is beyond me, It seems this would work.
Any woman who uses the argument "My body My choice" is a complete and total Narcissist. It is the main responsibility of a Mother to protect her child, not to have the child killed.
I agree with Christopher Hitchens. If it is wrong to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach than surely it is wrong to kill the occupant of the womb. This is a great argument that the pro-choice crowd will try and dance around and still convince themselves that killing fetuses is O.K.... A baby's right to live is more important than a womans right to choose.
Hitchens goes on about how something being offensive is no grounds for political action and then says we shouldn't let women make their own decisions because abortion offends people? I have enormous respect for CH but I think he's wrong on this count (and a few others)
The problem is where to draw the line between non-person and person, when the point at which a fetus becomes self-aware and capable of feeling pain differs from pregnancy to pregnancy. As far as I'm aware, there's no method for testing for self-awareness at the moment.
The Bible indeed says nothing about abortion, while early Christian thinkers, like St Paul and St Augustine, believed that a fetus could be legitimately aborted prior to ensoulment, even against the mother's will.
I do agree it would be worse to witness a pregnant woman be kicked then a non-pregnant woman and it makes sense that an instinct as such would come about, but I don't see how that would or should equate to any pro-life argument. What should be the basis of this argument is the question of suffering and if the baby would at all be self-aware. The answer to these questions should be the basis to determine the moral implications of abortion. I'm at odds with Hitchens on this one.
@sedatedcoho The example is about unwanted termination of pregnancy, not about choice.
We have the brains to understand the joys of having a newborn in the family just a few months down the line. It's not what could happen, it will happen, women get pregnant for no other reason. So the suffering is mostly on the part of the unborns family members who plan their lives around it.
@Stipoon I disagree with you. Hitchens talked about the viability of the unborn child before he mentioned the woman being kicked in the stomach. My guess is that you are at odds with Hitchens on this one too, and so you are rationalizing what he just said so it's closer to your belief.
@sedatedcoho How about we legalize the killing of an infant within 30 days of birth. But don't worry. It has to be done in a "humane" way. We can regulate it so it must be painless. We'll just sedate the newborn into a sleep. They won't even know it's coming. There ya go. Painless.
The baby doesn't think about anything really. No hopes and dreams. All it does all day is sleep, eat, and crap. They can't even really see.
Don't tell me I can't, and take away my personal choice.
@sedatedcoho So, you believe that assault and battery against a woman who happens to be pregnant is somehow a greater offense than assault and battery against a woman who happens to not be pregnant? Assault and battery is assault and battery; gender, age, and condition of pregnancy or not holds no relevance regarding the severity of the offense. If what should be obvious is not obvious to you, then that is your problem; your ignorance and stupidity is certainly not my concern. Or anyone's.
@sedatedcoho If only suffering and self-awareness are to be taken in to account couldn't one make the case for infanticide. After all, a newborn is barely self aware, and has no emotional attachment to anything in this world, a newborn would not feel fear or pain if one were to dispose of it quickly and efficiently.
Finally I have found something to disagree with on Mr. Hitchens. Abortion is horrible, no pro-choice person would ever say it is nice, but outlawing it won't put an end to it. It will just push the practice into the black market where women will be forced to do a 'backyard' job by a potential dodge doctor, which is not safe. The best way is to keep it legal by ensuring you have the right people doing it with the highest of clinical standards.
@sedatedcoho If something is fundamentally wrong, keeping it legal just so that people who would go outside the law to do it would be safer is poor argument I think. And I think if it were less available less people would do it. No it wouldn't be putting an end to it, but honestly it's like you said, it's "horrible", let the people who want to do a horrible thing do it without my help.
I generally respect CH, but here he seems to err ; he invoques emotions and feelings as a good response to the question of abortion, which goes against all his previous agruments on science. It is bad to kick a pregnant woman so abortion is bad?Or at least should not be advocated for?This is clearly a bad argument, and for a thinker who defends the freedom of humans, he doesn't even evoques the question of choice for a woman.He stays in the confortable argument that abortion is a necessary evil.
He contrasted a woman getting kicked and a pregnant woman getting kicked in the stomach, and points out the latter is much more shocking than the former. Ask yourself why that is if the occupant in the womb is just a celebration of cells.
@cowlark2000 I don't think either of them chose to be kicked in the stomach. So that's a poor argument. But I think the point you were trying to make is that the fetus is sentient, otherwise you wouldn't feel bad for it. I agree with you on that.
@Stipoon He assumes we're more shocked about a pregnant woman being kicked. But that is not the case. I am equally as horrified about the pregnant woman scenario as I am about the not pregnant woman scenario. The fetus, to me, does not make that woman's life any more precious. To kick someone, woman or man, is terrible. Period.
@lailadawn Not Christophers best argument, because he did anticipate a reaction that he didn't get from everyone. I think his remarks before that were more poignant. He speaks of growing technology and of the science of embryology and that through his knowledge of THIS, not just what he hears mind you, that he sees the fetus as an acceptable candidate for human rights.
@Stipoon well, the FACT IS that up to a certain point, its IS just a bundle of cells, so what are you talking about i can tell you a women is pregnant who is not and have another who is pregnant for a week with a fetus with no feelings and have someone kick then, you will still feel for the women with no baby, even thought there is no baby and you will still feel for the other even though we would know that i is just a bundle of cells, so what you said is nonsense
@Stipoon ask yourself why when a woman is pregnant, she doesn't say I have 3 kids, and instead says I have 2 kids and 1 expecting...BECAUSE THE ONE INSIDE OF HER IS NOT HUMAN YET...or when a woman aborts her child (which happens spontaneously dozens of times in the life of any women), there isn't a funeral? CAUSE ITS NOT A HUMAN BEING, ITS GOO IN BODILY FLUIDS
@sera7ares so a premature baby is not human so you should just kill it even when its out . so just the umbilical chord is your reasoning ...in canada women get abortions at 7 and 8 months .. thats a human being stop trying to be a typical uneducated leftist . .it is not right 2 tell a woman her child may have health problems you should think about abortion
@cb44ever A friend was told that her baby doesnt have kidneys and will inevitably die after she gives birth...do you think it's smart to still go through the 9 mo process & deliver a dead baby, or get rid of it while it's reasonable?
Does the emotional stress of the parents mean anything to you?
and no, your example with the premature baby is a straw-man argument, i never said that.
If my body gives life to another being, and it's hurting me in any way, i have the right to get rid of it!
@math581 No, there isn't an "err" in what he's said just because of the fact that you've "generally respected him" .... the fact is that he has a mind of his own and feels the way many people do of the situation.. you cannot expect him to agree with everything you like and believe firmly about just because you believe very strongly with him on one point... now he doesn't know what hes talking about? because he doesn't for (e.g) believe with a liberal who is an aitheist, but is pro Abortion?
@math581 He didn't say he is anti-abortion did he? He merely pointed out that the pro-life argument comes from an inherent emotional response to the thought a child in the womb rather than from religion. I'm not saying he isn't opposed to abortion; maybe he is. But I don't think you can so quickly attempt to infer Hitchens' view when he admits a truth that might damage a certain opinion. If he IS anti-abortion (though I doubt it), he probably does have good reason. He's just like that.
Abortion is an emotional minefield for many of us. The religious pro-lifers rationalise that by saying God's against it, but the Bible only says when TO do it and how - and specifies impaling the bellies of pregnant enemy women with swords
When all doctors were men, the unborn child was given priority over the mother if she'd carried to term; Caesarians meant killing the mother until Dr James Barrie pioneered a way to save both
And guess what: Barrie turned out to be a woman. DUH!
@aniboker a lot of it is mistranslation, theoligans talk about it alot but people ignore it because it's not about what the bible says when it all comes down to it, it's about their own prejudices.
an object may have the potential to become something. this does not mean it is that thing. for example an acorn could grow into a tree. but we dont call acorns trees. in fact if she used birth control the result would have been the same in the end. we only make this leap because humans feel special. like we are worth more than the animals because we eat them. i suggest everyone read freakanomics.
@theaces04 wrong, with all of the advancements in science we have been able to look inside the womb. By the time the woman knows she's pregnant (4-5 weeks that's because that's when hormones can be picked up by a blood draw or pregnancy test) the heart is already beating. By 12 weeks the baby is fully formed but very small. It moves like a baby, it sometimes sucks it's thumb. I'm not talking about very early abortion or the plan B pill, I'm talking about many babies at this stage that are human
@theaces04 You have horrible logic. When the sperm reaches the egg and conception occurs, THAT is the start of a human life. That's a fact. There is no "potential" of anything at that point - Human life has been created. Now, a condom stopping a sperm in its tracks is stopping "potential". Also, what does Freakonomics have to do with this? BTW, Freakonomics is a very mediocre book that is more about statistics than anything else. It's interesting on that level, but that's about it.
@theaces04 Actually if all of the oak trees were gone but there were a few acorns left we would not consider the oak species extinct. Why? Because some of the oaks would still be there -they just wouldn't be oak TREES.
I'm so glad Hitchens tackled this subject. I've had SO MANY debates with fellow materialists about abortion, and those of us who are atheists AND pro-life are in the vast minority; although I honestly can't see why.
Well, when you boil it down, all these lines that people draw are totally arbitrary.
Ohh it's not human until _______, insert whatever the arguer decided is the defining, and completely by the way subjectively derived, moment a fetus becomes human.
Abortion is pretty terrible I think, but it's something that must be done unfortunately in some cases.
@asheradensein -- This is precisely why I disengaged from the whole partisan structure as it stands. It fosters intellectual dishonesty, it stifles originality and authenticity. Often times a partisan will be compelled to resist an idea on no other apparent grounds than that it happens to be a main plank of the opposing party.
@asheradensein id have to say im not surprised that prolife is a minority, yes live and let live,but the woman have to make the decision on whether they should live with an unwanted\financial or potential genetic faults,or perhaps if they were raped and carried there attackers child,as im sure your aware of the set scenarios, we have to be realistic here. and btw, hitchens is great on religion,but falls down terribly when it comes to this issue,and iraq.
@kram83au Just because someone is in the minority (Such AS Athiests), doesn't mean they're wrong. And just because you are the stereotypical atheist doesn't mean you're right. Very poor argument.
But otherwise yes, there are certain situations such as you mentioned when it would not be desirable to carry the fetus to term. But that's really not the issue is it? The issue is to what point and in what situations should it be allowed. Currently it's for whatever she wants, that's what I'm disputing
@TheBoogdar stereotypical atheist ! your talking bollocks man, its a fair comment, and of course there are circumstances when the woman shouldnt nessesarly have the right either way, i take it you live in la la land with an imaginary friend , which no doubt sits well with people of an insecure nature. to be pityed are the deluded ones .
@kram83au I'm really not getting the ad hominem here. And the reason I said stereotypical athiest is because you are...at least on your views of both abortion and iraq, you tend to fall in line with most athiests. Which is fine, but my point was that just because you are sterotypical, you can't use that as an argument for being right. Your comment "I'm not surprised that profile is in a minority." is what I was disputing.
@asheradensein Yeah, i have a LOT of atheist friends, and im also an atheist, but im the only one who is pro-life... all the pro-life people i know are theists, so i was starting to get worried that i had somehow failed to form the correct opinion on abortion. Good to see there are other people in my boat.
@1234funsies Never fear that you fail to form the correct opinion because the other people around you all think different. Where would atheists be if everyone had feared this way? There were less atheists in the past than now, or at least they were less outspoken because of this fear. Never fear to state your opinion.
@asheradensein It bothers the hell out of me that if your pro-life people automatically think it's because you're a "crazy christian" and won't even listen to your argument. So happy that Christopher Hitchens' brain didn't fail him in this case either. It seems to me that a lot of atheists out there are using the culture of atheism to stop thinking too. Just like so many religous use their religion to do the same. It's a human nature apparently, and its sad.
@asheradensein because most atheists are rational enough, and generally sensitive enough, to recognise that what goes on in a woman's reproductive organs is her own goddamn business.
@asheradensein Clever enough not to subscribe to a movement founded completely in a desire for Christian theocracy and oppression of women. Either you're sadistic or stupid but anti-abortion atheists (never encountered a female one yet, funny how that works) are truly shameful.
@asheradensein I share many of your sentiments. I am a secular pro-lifer. However, I recognize that access to legal abortions is a necessary component of women's health. Like Ron Paul, I believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and abortion should be made into a state issue. If a pregnant woman from a state where they are illegal wants an abortion, there should be no laws against her traveling to another state where they are legal.
True. Jesus fully advocated all the disgusting ideas in the OT. Jesus (if indeed he ever existed) was all for; rape, murder, child-abuse, genocide, paedophilia, animal-abuse, pillage, racism, sexism, xenophobia. A truly disgusting man!
Lol, do they really believe Hitchens is an idiot? Do they honestly think that he has never come across this subject and exhausted his resources regarding it?
watisthis99 2 weeks ago
Volume is too low, damnit. :(
patlecat 1 month ago
NT doesn't say anything about homosexuality?! What about Romans 1:27-8, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10?
ReX342 6 months ago
new teastament has quite a bit about homosexuality. but i enjoy this video. abortion is soooo wrong!
bluegrassreb1 7 months ago
@Sexxgod2000 My "creationist" science? Umm, okay. Whatever that means.
Btw, I think it's awesome how you feel meat is murder like the PETA people do, but abortion is a choice. Looks like you've got your priorities straight, buddy.
ebeatworld 8 months ago
I'm one more atheist who's pro-life...generally. It does seem to make sense that us materialists *should* be pro-life, since this is the only life we'll have. I can't really see why the religious should be, other than what CH mentions here.
palui 8 months ago
@Sexxgod2000 HA! Wow. Are you serious!? And who made up this rule that killing is okay if somebody doesn't have emotions?
And I'm sorry, my friend. But the science doesn't back you up on this. Unborn babies do have feelings and emotions. But nonetheless, please give me some evidence that that makes it okay to kill someone because they don't have feeling or emotions.
Are you saying that killing a cow is murder?
ebeatworld 8 months ago
@Sexxgod2000 Woooow. It's funny to me how many people don't understand how someone can become so morally bankrupt as to feel that they are justified in killing millions of people, like the 100 million killed in communist regimes or the holocaust. Well, here you go. It's Mr. Sexxgod's type of twisted thinking that produces a Stalin or a Mao.
Well, you are right, Mr. Sexxgod. I mean, when you really think about it, killing a jew is really no different than cutting down a tree.
ebeatworld 8 months ago
@Sexxgod2000 Will you please tell me what the hell you are talking about? I don't care what happens to a baby after they are born? Annnnd, where are you getting this from?
you see, this is what you retard libs do, you can't actually focus on the issues. You have to throw out these meaningless red herrings and refuse to actually offer sound arguments.
Buddy, YOU'RE the one who could give a crap about the unborn. Don't go trying to tell me I'm the heartless one.
ebeatworld 8 months ago
There is something said in the new testament about homosexuality.
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 - 11. It goes as follows: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God...
First time i found Hitchens to be mistaken.
Godfred78 10 months ago
People have intuitive physics as well, like the belief that a moving object will tend to come to rest. Physical intuitions may be of some use in predicting physical phenomena, but we can't get very far if we rely only on them and ignore Newton or Einstein. Similarly, I think we shouldn't rely solely on our moral intuitions to minimize suffering.
ParanoidAndroid15 11 months ago
I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about Christopher Hitchens and act like he's such a hero for them when he disses religion, but right when he hints that fetuses might be people, they distance themselves from him, as if he's suddenly turned insane. Why don't they actually think about what he's saying? They attack his arguments like they do those of a religious person talking about faith. Seems they've already reached a conclusion and just look for those people defending their views.
mooney137 11 months ago 7
I'm an atheist. I've read over the pro-life and pro-choice movements, and have come a conclusion. Both camps have fanatics. My stance is that pro-life should be encouraged, but the option (ESPECIALLY if there's a threat to the mother) of abortion should be open. Abortion should not be treated as contraception, but it shouldn't be considered murder either.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
The points: 1) to see someone kick a pregnant woman has more emotional impact than to see a non-pregnant woman kicked in the stomach ... is innate in humans, has nothing to do with the testament. 2) that the abortion issue had been taken up by conservatives from the '70's onward is a form of political opportunism, to expand the political power base among Christians - has nothing to do with caring about the living, unborn or already born ... are points well made. Well done Hitchens.
socialmedic 1 year ago
Regarding what Hitchens said: "And that your instincts and emotions are a sound guide to you in this case".
My instincts and emotions don't agree with his view on this... pregnant or not, I feel the same way for the woman getting kicked in the stomach. So from what Hitchens said, my instincts and emotions are a sound guide, but they go against what he says, which just makes it a matter of opinion in the end.
I usually agree with what he says, but not regarding this.
danni13371 1 year ago
I would feel worse if a pregnant woman got kicked in the stomach because Its likely that she was kicked against her will, and now her baby has been put in danger because of somebodies unwanted violence. I'm not against abortion. I care for the parents as much as the children. Having children is a difficult thing and if you too poor or emotionally premature to have a child then I don't think the child or the parents deserves to go through that
Speiraz 1 year ago
Let's get things in perspective, Hitch is has something to say that's worth listening to.. I want him to have my babies! He is fearless, intelligent and funny! A MAN! I don't care how long an individual lives, just do it and have integrity - and this he has!
ritchloui 1 year ago
Well it's easy to have opinions about laws that will never affect you as you'll never have to take the consequences. So while I might disagree with him on this subject, it doesn't really matter what he thinks about it as he'll never have to live with that fear.
kioskvaltare 1 year ago
Im familer with a lot of Hitchens babbel on abortion, hes hypocritical considering his numerous rants on freedom. Ultimatly , if as a society we agree sexual freedom for women, which we must in a free society. Then the freedom comes with their ownership over their reproductive organs. Why no one ever mentions developing sex education in schools and colleges and free contraceptives in schools and colleges is beyond me, It seems this would work.
uncompromising34 1 year ago
More insightful than any lecture on the topic I've heard in a long while.
marlboroman1985 1 year ago
Any woman who uses the argument "My body My choice" is a complete and total Narcissist. It is the main responsibility of a Mother to protect her child, not to have the child killed.
7deadlyvirtues 1 year ago
Comment removed
kalars88 1 year ago
Comment removed
kalars88 1 year ago
Comment removed
kalars88 1 year ago
I agree with Christopher Hitchens. If it is wrong to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach than surely it is wrong to kill the occupant of the womb. This is a great argument that the pro-choice crowd will try and dance around and still convince themselves that killing fetuses is O.K.... A baby's right to live is more important than a womans right to choose.
7deadlyvirtues 1 year ago
humans aren't special. we are animals
imagine if one of our young was born unhealthy or too weak and we ate it...
like some species do
PhillipThunderGrunge 1 year ago
It's different because one presumes the pregnant woman actually wants the child.
Still I agree with Hitchens to some degree.
Naabenstadt 1 year ago
Hitchens goes on about how something being offensive is no grounds for political action and then says we shouldn't let women make their own decisions because abortion offends people? I have enormous respect for CH but I think he's wrong on this count (and a few others)
dimsimlord 1 year ago
The problem is where to draw the line between non-person and person, when the point at which a fetus becomes self-aware and capable of feeling pain differs from pregnancy to pregnancy. As far as I'm aware, there's no method for testing for self-awareness at the moment.
The Bible indeed says nothing about abortion, while early Christian thinkers, like St Paul and St Augustine, believed that a fetus could be legitimately aborted prior to ensoulment, even against the mother's will.
SkullOfYorick 1 year ago
I do agree it would be worse to witness a pregnant woman be kicked then a non-pregnant woman and it makes sense that an instinct as such would come about, but I don't see how that would or should equate to any pro-life argument. What should be the basis of this argument is the question of suffering and if the baby would at all be self-aware. The answer to these questions should be the basis to determine the moral implications of abortion. I'm at odds with Hitchens on this one.
sedatedcoho 1 year ago 15
@sedatedcoho The example is about unwanted termination of pregnancy, not about choice.
We have the brains to understand the joys of having a newborn in the family just a few months down the line. It's not what could happen, it will happen, women get pregnant for no other reason. So the suffering is mostly on the part of the unborns family members who plan their lives around it.
Stipoon 1 year ago 4
@Stipoon I disagree with you. Hitchens talked about the viability of the unborn child before he mentioned the woman being kicked in the stomach. My guess is that you are at odds with Hitchens on this one too, and so you are rationalizing what he just said so it's closer to your belief.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@sedatedcoho If one doesn't have access to knowledge of whether the foetus is self-aware, then what? Personally I think abortion is fine.
mrfrankincense 11 months ago
@sedatedcoho How about we legalize the killing of an infant within 30 days of birth. But don't worry. It has to be done in a "humane" way. We can regulate it so it must be painless. We'll just sedate the newborn into a sleep. They won't even know it's coming. There ya go. Painless.
The baby doesn't think about anything really. No hopes and dreams. All it does all day is sleep, eat, and crap. They can't even really see.
Don't tell me I can't, and take away my personal choice.
ebeatworld 9 months ago
@sedatedcoho So, you believe that assault and battery against a woman who happens to be pregnant is somehow a greater offense than assault and battery against a woman who happens to not be pregnant? Assault and battery is assault and battery; gender, age, and condition of pregnancy or not holds no relevance regarding the severity of the offense. If what should be obvious is not obvious to you, then that is your problem; your ignorance and stupidity is certainly not my concern. Or anyone's.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
@sedatedcoho If only suffering and self-awareness are to be taken in to account couldn't one make the case for infanticide. After all, a newborn is barely self aware, and has no emotional attachment to anything in this world, a newborn would not feel fear or pain if one were to dispose of it quickly and efficiently.
dannytibi 2 months ago
Finally I have found something to disagree with on Mr. Hitchens. Abortion is horrible, no pro-choice person would ever say it is nice, but outlawing it won't put an end to it. It will just push the practice into the black market where women will be forced to do a 'backyard' job by a potential dodge doctor, which is not safe. The best way is to keep it legal by ensuring you have the right people doing it with the highest of clinical standards.
sedatedcoho 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sedatedcoho If something is fundamentally wrong, keeping it legal just so that people who would go outside the law to do it would be safer is poor argument I think. And I think if it were less available less people would do it. No it wouldn't be putting an end to it, but honestly it's like you said, it's "horrible", let the people who want to do a horrible thing do it without my help.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
The original hippocratic oath was not secular, it invoked quite a few deities.
xxdiogenescynicxx 1 year ago
@xxdiogenescynicxx And? You don't think it's a secular idea to swear that you won't harm your patients? What is your point?
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@TheBoogdar I didn't say that it couldn't be a secular idea I was just stating that the hippocratic oath is not a secular document.
xxdiogenescynicxx 1 year ago
@xxdiogenescynicxx What I was getting at is that your comment really isn't doing anything except arguing semantics. What is your point?
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
I generally respect CH, but here he seems to err ; he invoques emotions and feelings as a good response to the question of abortion, which goes against all his previous agruments on science. It is bad to kick a pregnant woman so abortion is bad?Or at least should not be advocated for?This is clearly a bad argument, and for a thinker who defends the freedom of humans, he doesn't even evoques the question of choice for a woman.He stays in the confortable argument that abortion is a necessary evil.
math581 1 year ago 4
He contrasted a woman getting kicked and a pregnant woman getting kicked in the stomach, and points out the latter is much more shocking than the former. Ask yourself why that is if the occupant in the womb is just a celebration of cells.
Stipoon 1 year ago 9
@Stipoon Gosh, I wonder. Maybe because the latter case didn't choose to get kicked in the stomach?
cowlark2000 1 year ago
@cowlark2000 I don't think either of them chose to be kicked in the stomach. So that's a poor argument. But I think the point you were trying to make is that the fetus is sentient, otherwise you wouldn't feel bad for it. I agree with you on that.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@TheBoogdar You're right. I'm not sure why I understood that comment incorrectly. It led to an inappropriate response.
cowlark2000 1 year ago
@Stipoon He assumes we're more shocked about a pregnant woman being kicked. But that is not the case. I am equally as horrified about the pregnant woman scenario as I am about the not pregnant woman scenario. The fetus, to me, does not make that woman's life any more precious. To kick someone, woman or man, is terrible. Period.
lailadawn 1 year ago
@lailadawn Not Christophers best argument, because he did anticipate a reaction that he didn't get from everyone. I think his remarks before that were more poignant. He speaks of growing technology and of the science of embryology and that through his knowledge of THIS, not just what he hears mind you, that he sees the fetus as an acceptable candidate for human rights.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@Stipoon well, the FACT IS that up to a certain point, its IS just a bundle of cells, so what are you talking about i can tell you a women is pregnant who is not and have another who is pregnant for a week with a fetus with no feelings and have someone kick then, you will still feel for the women with no baby, even thought there is no baby and you will still feel for the other even though we would know that i is just a bundle of cells, so what you said is nonsense
blazereef 1 year ago
@Stipoon ask yourself why when a woman is pregnant, she doesn't say I have 3 kids, and instead says I have 2 kids and 1 expecting...BECAUSE THE ONE INSIDE OF HER IS NOT HUMAN YET...or when a woman aborts her child (which happens spontaneously dozens of times in the life of any women), there isn't a funeral? CAUSE ITS NOT A HUMAN BEING, ITS GOO IN BODILY FLUIDS
sera7ares 7 months ago
@sera7ares so a premature baby is not human so you should just kill it even when its out . so just the umbilical chord is your reasoning ...in canada women get abortions at 7 and 8 months .. thats a human being stop trying to be a typical uneducated leftist . .it is not right 2 tell a woman her child may have health problems you should think about abortion
cb44ever 4 months ago
@cb44ever A friend was told that her baby doesnt have kidneys and will inevitably die after she gives birth...do you think it's smart to still go through the 9 mo process & deliver a dead baby, or get rid of it while it's reasonable?
Does the emotional stress of the parents mean anything to you?
and no, your example with the premature baby is a straw-man argument, i never said that.
If my body gives life to another being, and it's hurting me in any way, i have the right to get rid of it!
sera7ares 4 months ago
@math581 No, there isn't an "err" in what he's said just because of the fact that you've "generally respected him" .... the fact is that he has a mind of his own and feels the way many people do of the situation.. you cannot expect him to agree with everything you like and believe firmly about just because you believe very strongly with him on one point... now he doesn't know what hes talking about? because he doesn't for (e.g) believe with a liberal who is an aitheist, but is pro Abortion?
houstonTx457000 1 year ago
@math581 He didn't say he is anti-abortion did he? He merely pointed out that the pro-life argument comes from an inherent emotional response to the thought a child in the womb rather than from religion. I'm not saying he isn't opposed to abortion; maybe he is. But I don't think you can so quickly attempt to infer Hitchens' view when he admits a truth that might damage a certain opinion. If he IS anti-abortion (though I doubt it), he probably does have good reason. He's just like that.
Loustrikesagain 10 months ago
1:55 Irrelavant example - It's not voluntary. Abortion is.
Viconiuz 1 year ago
@Viconiuz Abortion isn't voluntary for the kid, but I supose if you knew you had a mom like that, maybe its a better way to die, lol.
l337pwnage 1 year ago
@l337pwnage Study abortion. It's a bad way to die trust me. Oh and this isn't propaganda talking. I'm a nurse, I know what the procedures are.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@TheBoogdar You might wanna look up the word "sarcasm", lol.
Although, I did not have to use the word "way" to get my point across.
And, there is everything from abortion pills all they way to cuttin' 'em up on their way out, and, of course, the longer you wait, the nastier it is.
And some of the little buggers are so hard to kill that they survive and the doctors have to leave them on a cold table to die of heat loss.
l337pwnage 1 year ago
Abortion is an emotional minefield for many of us. The religious pro-lifers rationalise that by saying God's against it, but the Bible only says when TO do it and how - and specifies impaling the bellies of pregnant enemy women with swords
When all doctors were men, the unborn child was given priority over the mother if she'd carried to term; Caesarians meant killing the mother until Dr James Barrie pioneered a way to save both
And guess what: Barrie turned out to be a woman. DUH!
queenastilon 1 year ago
Nothing in the New Testament to forbid homosexuality?? What? Has Professor Hitchens not read Paul's epistle to the Romans?
aniboker 2 years ago
@aniboker a lot of it is mistranslation, theoligans talk about it alot but people ignore it because it's not about what the bible says when it all comes down to it, it's about their own prejudices.
bacholerno2 2 years ago
an object may have the potential to become something. this does not mean it is that thing. for example an acorn could grow into a tree. but we dont call acorns trees. in fact if she used birth control the result would have been the same in the end. we only make this leap because humans feel special. like we are worth more than the animals because we eat them. i suggest everyone read freakanomics.
theaces04 2 years ago 18
@theaces04 wrong, with all of the advancements in science we have been able to look inside the womb. By the time the woman knows she's pregnant (4-5 weeks that's because that's when hormones can be picked up by a blood draw or pregnancy test) the heart is already beating. By 12 weeks the baby is fully formed but very small. It moves like a baby, it sometimes sucks it's thumb. I'm not talking about very early abortion or the plan B pill, I'm talking about many babies at this stage that are human
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@theaces04 You have horrible logic. When the sperm reaches the egg and conception occurs, THAT is the start of a human life. That's a fact. There is no "potential" of anything at that point - Human life has been created. Now, a condom stopping a sperm in its tracks is stopping "potential". Also, what does Freakonomics have to do with this? BTW, Freakonomics is a very mediocre book that is more about statistics than anything else. It's interesting on that level, but that's about it.
VicInNocal 1 year ago
@theaces04 Actually if all of the oak trees were gone but there were a few acorns left we would not consider the oak species extinct. Why? Because some of the oaks would still be there -they just wouldn't be oak TREES.
Same principle applies with humans.
JohananRaatz 9 months ago
no god
CondorDM 2 years ago
I'm so glad Hitchens tackled this subject. I've had SO MANY debates with fellow materialists about abortion, and those of us who are atheists AND pro-life are in the vast minority; although I honestly can't see why.
asheradensein 2 years ago 29
Well, when you boil it down, all these lines that people draw are totally arbitrary.
Ohh it's not human until _______, insert whatever the arguer decided is the defining, and completely by the way subjectively derived, moment a fetus becomes human.
Abortion is pretty terrible I think, but it's something that must be done unfortunately in some cases.
Koshy2 2 years ago
@asheradensein -- This is precisely why I disengaged from the whole partisan structure as it stands. It fosters intellectual dishonesty, it stifles originality and authenticity. Often times a partisan will be compelled to resist an idea on no other apparent grounds than that it happens to be a main plank of the opposing party.
greatsea 2 years ago
@asheradensein id have to say im not surprised that prolife is a minority, yes live and let live,but the woman have to make the decision on whether they should live with an unwanted\financial or potential genetic faults,or perhaps if they were raped and carried there attackers child,as im sure your aware of the set scenarios, we have to be realistic here. and btw, hitchens is great on religion,but falls down terribly when it comes to this issue,and iraq.
kram83au 1 year ago
@kram83au
Well, I don't know what to say except that I disagree; I don't think it should be the mother's decision.
asheradensein 1 year ago
@kram83au Just because someone is in the minority (Such AS Athiests), doesn't mean they're wrong. And just because you are the stereotypical atheist doesn't mean you're right. Very poor argument.
But otherwise yes, there are certain situations such as you mentioned when it would not be desirable to carry the fetus to term. But that's really not the issue is it? The issue is to what point and in what situations should it be allowed. Currently it's for whatever she wants, that's what I'm disputing
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@TheBoogdar stereotypical atheist ! your talking bollocks man, its a fair comment, and of course there are circumstances when the woman shouldnt nessesarly have the right either way, i take it you live in la la land with an imaginary friend , which no doubt sits well with people of an insecure nature. to be pityed are the deluded ones .
kram83au 1 year ago
@kram83au I'm really not getting the ad hominem here. And the reason I said stereotypical athiest is because you are...at least on your views of both abortion and iraq, you tend to fall in line with most athiests. Which is fine, but my point was that just because you are sterotypical, you can't use that as an argument for being right. Your comment "I'm not surprised that profile is in a minority." is what I was disputing.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@asheradensein Yeah, i have a LOT of atheist friends, and im also an atheist, but im the only one who is pro-life... all the pro-life people i know are theists, so i was starting to get worried that i had somehow failed to form the correct opinion on abortion. Good to see there are other people in my boat.
1234funsies 1 year ago
@1234funsies Never fear that you fail to form the correct opinion because the other people around you all think different. Where would atheists be if everyone had feared this way? There were less atheists in the past than now, or at least they were less outspoken because of this fear. Never fear to state your opinion.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@asheradensein It bothers the hell out of me that if your pro-life people automatically think it's because you're a "crazy christian" and won't even listen to your argument. So happy that Christopher Hitchens' brain didn't fail him in this case either. It seems to me that a lot of atheists out there are using the culture of atheism to stop thinking too. Just like so many religous use their religion to do the same. It's a human nature apparently, and its sad.
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheBoogdar 1 year ago
@asheradensein because most atheists are rational enough, and generally sensitive enough, to recognise that what goes on in a woman's reproductive organs is her own goddamn business.
Bumblybee256 1 year ago
Comment removed
asheradensein 1 year ago
@asheradensein If only that were the case.
Bumblybee256 1 year ago
@asheradensein well said
badguyswearblack1 1 year ago
@asheradensein I'm also an atheist who opposes abortion.
NewVinland 11 months ago
@asheradensein Because most atheists aren't retarded, that's why.
gingerbreadcorpses 8 months ago
@gingerbreadcorpses
Nice one! Clever boy :).
asheradensein 8 months ago
@asheradensein Clever enough not to subscribe to a movement founded completely in a desire for Christian theocracy and oppression of women. Either you're sadistic or stupid but anti-abortion atheists (never encountered a female one yet, funny how that works) are truly shameful.
gingerbreadcorpses 8 months ago
Comment removed
asheradensein 8 months ago
@asheradensein I share many of your sentiments. I am a secular pro-lifer. However, I recognize that access to legal abortions is a necessary component of women's health. Like Ron Paul, I believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and abortion should be made into a state issue. If a pregnant woman from a state where they are illegal wants an abortion, there should be no laws against her traveling to another state where they are legal.
mlrockrules 8 months ago
excellent analogy, I believe most people who are pro-choice would fail that test.
ecksile 2 years ago 5
True. Jesus fully advocated all the disgusting ideas in the OT. Jesus (if indeed he ever existed) was all for; rape, murder, child-abuse, genocide, paedophilia, animal-abuse, pillage, racism, sexism, xenophobia. A truly disgusting man!
publicanimal9 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're a fucking tool.
TearsAmongAshes 2 years ago
An intelligent and well thought out comment there. I guess you're another sky-God worshipper? I should have expected nothing less.
publicanimal9 2 years ago
It's ok, Tearsamongashes is just a retard :) Ignore him.
Neonmindset 2 years ago 2
your ignorance on the subject is jaw dropping
DeJay17Revolution 2 years ago
And coming from a cretin who cannot separate reality from his idiot parent's infantile bed-time stories...Oh the irony! lol
publicanimal9 2 years ago