Atheist Experience #449: Does pro-life rhetoric make sense?

[WaltonSauce]

If you're abstinent you won't get pregnant, unless it's the second coming :P

[DanRaccoon]

Why does Tracy remind me of Ripley from Aliens.

[TheCoolestGeekEver]

Why did Don try to grope Tracie @11:52? I mean I kno she's cute and all but damn dude!

[xaviqaz]

I´m both atheist and pro-life

[berniebay]

@xaviqaz

Okay

[somewhatd]

Tracie is too hot.

[ezelouie]

so glad they made an intro video, the song over while they sit there is so awkward

[EliteDoomer]

Tracie nailed it at 26:30

[EliteDoomer]

Plants are life, vegetarians are also not pro-life. (completely lol)

[quidnick]

You can easily take a moderate, secular view on abortion like me. We are in the 21st century and there's a thing called 'birth control' *gasp*. I don't think a potential individual should be lost due to some douche who fucks without contraceptives who has no self-responsibility. It's all circumstantial, see if one person can adopt a baby, but if for medical reasons or rape a woman can't deliver, then kill it. Treat everything with non-aggression.

[EliteDoomer]

@quidnick 100% agree, unfortunately the religious folks don't want contraceptive education because they want more followers, even if it financially breaks the parents as many are not ready for kids.

[Mandragara]

@quidnick But what about overpopulation problems?

[Hatrimn]

@AdNeeb @AdNeeb The most basic knowledge in biology acutally dictates the moral imperative to refrain from aborting. Zygotes and embryos are individuals (not potential individuals) belonging to the Homo sapien species, otherwise known as people.

Attempting to purport anymore criteria for what constitutes a human life that is worth protecting is arbitrary, ambiguous, and impels a breeding ground for human error and corruption.

[Hatrimn]

@AdNeeb The cells in my body are not H. sapiens, they compose interdependent parts that maintain the vital processes of a H. sapien. They are not offspring or individual organisms in any way.

Do tell of the complications of recognizing an individual specimen in biology, that's a new one.

[Hatrimn]

@AdNeeb Yes. Single organism. Once budding occurs. The result is one person that has absorbed another (similarly like how conjoined twins are two individuals sharing an organic union). Gamates are individuals, but they are not human individuals like zygotes are.

[sonykroket]

@Hatrimn

You talk alot and wanna sound like an intellectual. But it doesn't hide the fact you're a relimuppet forcing crap on other people.

Prolife is antichoice and if you're against choice then you're an idiot

So that would be you

[Hatrimn]

@sonykroket How have I talked a lot or implied that I want to sound like an intellectual? And what is a relimuppet? Is that a word used by people who don't talk much and want to sound retarded?

LOL, yea people should be free to make choices like murdering and raping others. Antichoice is so idiotic! Brilliant.

[sonykroket]

@Hatrimn

So a woman choosing if she wants to have a baby or not is the same as letting people choose to rape?

What kind of sick fuckin fundie are you, cheating maggot. Don't play wordgames, it only shows you're deluded

Lemme guess, biblemaggot or quranparasite?

[Hatrimn]

@sonykroket You said "if you're against choice then you're an idiot." We are all "against choice" in many matters, so obviously, it isn't idiotic in and of itself.

Women do not have the right to harm their offspring. They can give them up, but they cannot harm them in the process. We don't even allow cases of child abuse as a result of NEGLIGENCE go unpunished, nevermind a wanton act that would indubitably kill the child.

I'm an atheist.

[sonykroket]

@Hatrimn

Keep yapping all you want. If you're against a womans right to choose what she wants to do and then come up with crap like we should also let rapists choose?

Then you're a threat to society and the democracy we try to maintain. Ever heard of freedom?

You could be a ballerinagirl, for all i care with your "i'm an atheist"crap

If you spew nonsense, you get responses

[Hatrimn]

@sonykroket LOL, yea and women have "the right" to leave their babies in dumpsters too, right? Freedom man, totally!

I don't know if you know this, but you aren't actually free if you partake in society. If you want true autonomy, then you need to go live off of the grid.

You asked if I was a "biblemaggot or quranparasite", and when I correct you, you act like you don't care, LOL. Don't ask questions if you don't want the answers. Or you can continue to be a douche... whatever.

[sonykroket]

@Hatrimn

If it wasnt for the anti-abortion crap you maggots try to force on everyone, these women wouldn't even feel so desperate to leave their children in a dumpter, you contradictory douchebag.

You are not an atheist and even if you are, you sure are a fucked up one. Something tells me you're a mosquedweller

Either way, you're a fuckin moron

[Hatrimn]

@sonykroket Haha, way to avoid the commitment that your argument provides. Women are justified in leaving their babies in dumpsters, what difference do their reasons make? It is their right to do it regardless of why, right?

I'm not an atheist because I'm against the murder of unborn children? LOL, how does that work?

[sonykroket]

@Hatrimn

You're a lying sack of shit with a hidden agenda

I'm against people who are against choice

How bout that one, cheating dorkie?

[Hatrimn]

@sonykroket What do I benefit from lieing about being atheist? If me being atheist persuaded you to be pro-life, then you would be even more wrong than you already are.

You're against protecting people from injustices, I get it.

[sonykroket]

@Hatrimn

Put a sock in it, dumbass

[Hatrimn]

@sonykroket LOL, are you busy calling people "relimuppets" and getting schooled elsewhere?

[sonykroket]

@Hatrimn

WTF are you yapping about, stupid fundie

[daiitokumyouou899]

@Hatrimn A born baby is a different matter. An unborn child is one, risking the life of the mother and so she has the right to neglect, and two not defined as a person and so does not have rights under law. Should an unborn child be defined as a person? Of course not. Even if it was, women still have the right to an abortion because her life is at risk by carrying the child and giving birth. If you were a match kidney donor we do not force you to give up your body. Why should a woman?

[Hatrimn]

@daiitokumyouou899 Abortion should be an option when the mother's life is actually in danger. I personally wouldn't let my child, or any child for that matter, die so that I can live if it's possible to save them, but whatever.

The law is inconsistent: murdering a pregnant mother is TWO counts of murder, therefore the unborn are considered people in certain circumstances. And why shouldn't an unborn baby be defined as a person? "Person" is just synonymous with human.

[Hatrimn]

@daiitokumyouou899 I'll pose the analogy to you more accurately.

If you consented to donate an organ, and then demanded it back even though it would kill the recipient, should the government sanction it? Of course not.

[daiitokumyouou899]

@Hatrimn Child birth in itself is an investment and puts the mother in danger. Your analogy is akin to the mother wanting an abortion after giving birth, once the deed is done it is done.

Can you give an example where a man was tried for two murder counts after killing a pregnant mother? Because I do not believe that is the case.

Still it would not matter, the mother has rights to her body and if she does not want to host another thing, or person, she should not have to, period.

[Hatrimn]

@daiitokumyouou899 When and if the mother's life is determined to be in danger by physicians, then abortion should be an option.

No, it is akin to a woman consenting to sex and then a life is created. Once the deed is done, it's done.

Look up: Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

[daiitokumyouou899]

@Hatrimn If a woman wants an abortion she obviously did not consent to getting pregnant. It is her body, her choice. If a woman wants an abortion in any country, legal or not, she will get one whether you like it or not. Why not ensure that she gets a safe abortion performed by a caring physician?

Until the child is outside the mother it is her choice, no one has rights to another person's body. I do not have rights to your kidney, a child does not have rights to a woman's uterus.

[Hatrimn]

@daiitokumyouou899 You're suggesting there is no accountability in doing something that you know carry certain risks?

I would rather ensure she is provided with prenatal care and the counseling to instill a respect for life and community. Encouraging the "let me do what I want regardless of the repercussions" outlook is not preferable.

Again, I have rights to my property and money, but that doesn't stop society from dictating what I do with them when concerning the well-being of others.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn I'm curious: Are you a woman?

[Hatrimn]

@RamoneHoffman No and no.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn I thought not on both counts, which is fine. But perhaps you should know the calamity of pregnancy from the female side of the fence.

[Hatrimn]

@RamoneHoffman Of course I know, I don't live in a vacuum. I know females who are very close to me that have undergone strenuous pregnancies. We should work towards alleviating the hardships of pregnancy, not snuff out those who are burdensome.

I do think that abortion should be an option if it is determined that the pregnancy is life threatening.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn But what justification do you have when dealing with reproductive rights? You do not produce the offspring, it's not really your call. Same reason why I would never advocate abortion, adoption or keeping a birthed child. Not my call.

[Hatrimn]

@RamoneHoffman The same justification I have when confronted with some loon who kills their toddler and claims "reproductive rights".

It isn't our call who one reproduces with, or how many times, but once a new life is created, it should be protected.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn I'm not speaking of mentally ill mothers whom kill their offspring once birthed.

If you cannot draw lines of distinction between these scenarios, it's no wonder you get all spinebristled on the subject.

[Hatrimn]

@RamoneHoffman Anyone who would choose to kill an innocent human is mentally ill.

Also, I retract my last statement about reproducing with whoever you want. Incest is widely prohibited, and rightfully so. You see, rights are limited when they negatively impact the well-being of others.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn Really? So many American troops in Iraq were maniacs, yes? And how do you dictate innocence? Why are you the ultimate judge of said title? Seems a bit egocentric.

I am never in favour of rape, forcible sex, forcible anything. It's a violation of another human being, I can understand the mindset. But do you have documentation, true, psychologically approved documentation for your claim? Do you think incestuous unions are all forced? Some of these people have chosen to do so.

[Hatrimn]

@RamoneHoffman LOL how is it egocentric of me to recognize innocence? Do you never determine someone to be guilty\innocent? Innocence is plainly defined as being free from any wrongdoing, and the unborn obviously qualify.

I don't care about the act of incest itself, what concerns me and most rational people is the affect it has on offspring. Doing something that knowingly impairs a child for the rest of it's life is tantamount to child abuse.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn You do realise that just about every single person on this little blue dot has a differing view of innocence and guilt, right?

You think having an abortion is a "guilty" verdict, I don't. Many people are on both sides.

You know the irony to this? Judgment in the early Christian social structures was to slay the guilty to purify the innocent. Guess which religion dictates guilt to EVERYONE? This is the type of fallacious reasoning I am trying to stamp out.

[Hatrimn]

@RamoneHoffman You do realize that just about every single person agrees that babies aren't guilty of anything, despite their dissenting opinions on morality, right? You think that may be because you have to DO something in order to be guilty of something?

According to you, if you have an opinion on whether someone is guilty or innocent, no matter how you arrive at it, you are egocentric. A mother kills her toddler, who are we to judge? Maybe that ankle biter deserved it! LOL

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn Whom carries the child? Do they just magically form in bubbles? Oh, wait, that's right, a LIVING PERSON carries them and makes them whole.

You are assigning guilt to someone whom, by their own choice, legally viable and sound, did not have the child.

You didn't even read what was written. My personal judgment, then social judgment, then LEGAL JUDGMENT. Is abortion illegal? And I realise this is a mild argument from authority, but I also weigh my own thoughts with such.

[Hatrimn]

@RamoneHoffman Do children ever choose to be incubated in another living person? Do they ever do anything that inadvertently lands them in someone else's belly? Nope, so they are innocent.

LOL "social and legal judgment" is irrelevant. Do I really need to refer to the countless ridiculous things accepted in cultures and law throughout human history? Public opinion doesn't amount to shit if it relies on being public opinion for justification. And abortion isn't legal the world over anyways.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn And I don't like to point and shout "GUILTAY!" I weigh the actions, I determine what I can perceive as the reasoning for the action, and compare it to what is acceptable to me, and filter this through what society says must conform. Doesn't mean I agree, it simply means I've levelled the conflict with available or required factors.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn I'm not one to be happy about incest, but I also know what is my business. I think it's a bit mental to run and dictate such things.

[RamoneHoffman]

@Hatrimn Second query: Do you adhere to any particular religious dogma?

[Hatrimn]

@daiitokumyouou899 People have rights to their homes too, but children cannot be harmed in those homes. Children can be given up or evicted from homes, but it is a process to do so and the children must remain unscathed in the meantime.

Moreover, then the unwanted children are sustained by the state. The state is funded by taxpayers. We have rights to our bankroll, but we are made to sustain the lives of the disadvantaged. It is communal responsibility, and no, mothers should not be exempt.

[Hatrimn]

@AdNeeb Arbitrary? No more arbitrary than it was to determine that minorities are people too and therefore shouldn't be discriminated against. Ambiguous and incoherent? LOL, not for anyone who has a basic understanding of the English language, it's rather simple and straightforward.

I did not suggest that only humans merit any ethical consideration. What trolley problem? Capital punishment should be abolished.

[Hatrimn]

@AdNeeb Your point is irrelevant. We weren't having a discussion on how a species comes to qualify for the right to life, we were talking about whether fetuses are human or not to determine if they qualify for the presupposed right to life that humans are presently provided. They are two separate discussions, so I didn't sneak anything in, and I have been completely coherent.

[ThirdRAILKink]

@Ician100

He was talking about overpopulation in reference to China's laws about how many children a citizen can have and the possible legal penalty of forced abortion. He didn't say the U.S. was facing an overpolulation problem, he said it might ONE DAY-maybe not even in our lifetime-and that china IS facing that problem. Maybe you should really listen to what's being said before you call it rubbish.

[V0lpes]

Interesting points raised that were well explained, I enjoyed the few seconds after 1:07:56 the most though,"my explanation is this..." * woo woo woo* (Matt : *_*) lol. That noise couldn't have occured at a better time.

[vcomp1960]

After watching my wife in labor for 20 hours and "pushing" for three hours, and being as she described it, in the greatest pain she's ever felt in her life, I can't believe that any woman would be forced to have a baby she didn't want.

[helllababe]

I am a prolife atheist. My beliefs on abortion are based on SCIENTIFIC FACTS, such as the fact that human life is created at conception. I don't think that having an abortion will land you in hell, but it does result in a dead baby and there's nothing okay with that.

[ThirdRAILKink]

@helllababe

Late term abortions may result in a dead baby, but earlier abortions kill zygotes, foetuses and embryo's. you can choose to refer to any of those as a baby, but really they're just potential babies and potential people. Do you believe killing a non-sentient human being (non-person/potential) is the moral equivalent of killing a sentient human being (person/realized)? Do you believe abortion should be illegal? Not putting you down, I disagree and I'm curious what you believe.

[dudev]

@Ician100

"There is no overpopulation problem in the U.S."

Why do you limit that statement to the US? The Earth is overpopulated.

[Pelonetillo]

how is it not equivalent? what facts do you have to support that assertion?