It seems impossible to reason with religionists.

[Klaatu]

It seems impossible to reason with religionists.

My niece has been hopelessly brainwashed by her mother (my sister) to believe that
abortion should be made illegal, because of the flawed argument that "life begins at conception."
We hear this same illogical reasoning over and over, ad nauseam.

I tried to educate her that this is not a legal definition. This is only an opinion put forth by
the Catholic Church. There exists no science that a freshly-fertilized human egg is the
same thing as a human being. I drew an analogy to an acorn and an oak tree:
An acorn can potentially become an oak tree. But it is still not an oak tree. It will become
an oak tree, but is not, in fact, the same thing as an oak tree. If an acorn is not planted,
it will never grow into an oak tree. Or it may even be eaten by a squirrel!

Therefore, by logical deductive reasoning, sperm+egg is only a potential human, not a human.
Remove that sperm+egg from the host's incubation vessel, and it dries up and dies.
It cannot survive and develop into a human. Therefore there can be no legal definition
of "life begins at _____________" (fill in the blank) stage of development, until actual birth
takes place. A full-term baby can indeed survive, once naturally born, therefore IS human.

My relatives' definition are thus merely their own opinions, which they are certainly entitled
to express. If they believe the Catholic definition, so be it. But they have no right to impose
their opinion, by law, onto other pregnant women seeking to terminate their pregnancies.

But just suppose, for a minute, they are actually correct in that abortion is murder, then they
should consider the fact that a lot of women have miscarriages (natural abortions) and that a
god that allows this to happen (or commands this to happen) must be a very evil god indeed.
So they need to take a serious look at whom they pray to: a god that "murdered" their child!

This evil god "murdered" my own child. But see, I don't think of it that way at all.
I just think of mother nature as being imperfect. Nature sometimes ends pregnancies.
Nature does this, and (according to religionists, anyway) man has dominion over nature,
therefore man has the same right to end pregnancy as nature does. Why not?

And sometimes pregnancies happen, despite the best efforts of a man and woman to
circumvent them via birth control. And sometimes these unintended pregnancies happen to
under-age girls. Sometimes through rape or incest! But that is another matter altogether.
Regardless of the reason, a couple has a right to plan their own family, free from interference
from the state. Or from people with opinions based on superstition and unscientific reasoning.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Arguing with the religionists is a lot like yelling at the rain;meaning it's nearly impossible for a real debate to take place.They are so consumed by their beliefs that anything that enters the dark,scary realm of plausible science is a threat that needs to be eliminated or in the very least demonized to the point of uselessness.All thought that doesn't stem from their old,dusty and outdated book is a product of satan (after all what else could drive people away from the glorious word?--Note the sarcasm).

For example a family member of mine is forced to work with one of these fanatics at their workplace and is exposed to their beliefs.The fanatic honestly believes that the earthquake which struck Hati and did all that damage was the hatians own fault because they were, in her own words, "devil worshippers." How the hell is somebody suppose to argue with a person like that? That's right you can't because it's throughly impossible! You can only walk away in disbelief because any attempt at real "debate" is doomed to failure or a yelling match (In which case neither wins).

It's sad that something with so much potential (religion) turned out to be one of humanity's greatest blights.

[Klaatu]

True. And a lot of these people are being elected to public office. That's scary.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Realize that these Christian types didn't reach their current ideas through reason, so it is highly unlikely that they will be persuaded away from them through reason.

[L.A.P.]

The right-wing are so self righteous about being "True Americans" but yet they would want something as un-American as to impose what a woman can do with her body because of religious beliefs (completely disregarding "separation of church and state" one of the very basic concepts of the American Liberalism that founded this country).

[Klaatu]

I forgot to mention that my niece is a graduate of a Catholic university. She feels as though she has "all of the facts" on this. I guess they forgot to tell her that there exists no legal definition as to "when human life begins." I think there is no scientific definition, either, but if there were, it might include "viability," that is, when the organism can live on it's own, sans host organism. I don't like to put it this way, but an embryo is, by definition, actually a parasitic organism. That is not to say that it is bad, like some sort of plant or insect parasite. I am saying that because the embryo fits the definition. It ceases to be parasitic once the gestation period is complete, and a human infant comes into being.

And no one is "killing babies" here. A newborn, viable human infant is a welcome addition to a loving mother and their family.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well to be fair, even the smallest cells are, scientifically speaking, living things, which a "baby"(I use that term because I don't know what the actual scientific term is, excuse my ignorance) technically is. The point that needs to be driven home is who gives a fuck about the potential for life if the woman doesn't want it there. Of course it could be put more gently but that's the gist of it for me.

What drives me crazy is when my sister calls me ignorant when I tell her the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. She's the older one too that wants to be a youth pastor :cursing:

[Tablo]

What drives me crazy is when my sister calls me ignorant when I tell her the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. She's the older one too that wants to be a youth pastor :cursing:
That is like my younger sister. She believes the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is a lie. I point out that all evidence points to the contrary, but she says I'm wrong. She also calls me all the time trying to bring me to Jesus or whatever the fuck that means.

I want to say something like "I boned Jesus and bust a nut in him like one time and the fucker won't leave me alone", but she would hate my guts for it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Realize that these Christian types didn't reach their current ideas through reason, so it is highly unlikely that they will be persuaded away from them through reason.

You might not think it, but reasonable argument can work, although it can take years to sink in. Throw enough mud at a wall...

[manic expression]

Whenever you argue with Christians on this issue, you should harp on one thing:

FORGIVENESS. OK, let's assume it's a sin. Fine. But go read Augustine, he says that we're all sinners, that we can't even help it. In fact, the worst sin happens before abortion is even possible: SEX. It's highlighted by Augustine as THE sin. So if you're going to abolish abortion for being a sin, why stop there?

The point is that in Christianity, NO ONE below God is to judge the actions of mankind. He who is without sin may cast the first stone...and NONE of us are without sin. On the other hand, what would Jesus do? He would forgive. That's what these (so-called) Christians need to figure out.

But yeah, you're not getting anywhere with the more stubbornly dogmatic religious individuals unless you argue on their terms, but thankfully that's possible because there is a positive side to almost every major faith.

[anticap]

My niece has been hopelessly brainwashed by her mother (my sister) to believe that abortion should be made illegal, because of the flawed argument that "life begins at conception."

"Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings." --Sam Harris

[hatzel]

To be honest, the abortion issue is tough anyway, and I don't think blaming Catholicism is particularly productive. I mean, they're probably writing on their forums somewhere that it seems impossible to reason with secularists, let's not forget that! Fact of the matter is...you might say life starts at conception, you might say life starts at birth, or you might pick some arbitrary number between the two, 24 weeks or something, to decide when abortions are and aren't legal. Nobody's ever going to agree on the except time, particularly when it's just a random number of weeks into a pregnancy which has been picked, and everybody will complain that nobody else can be reasoned with.

Personally I oppose 'cheap' abortion, abortion used almost as a contraceptive measure by people who just can't be bothered to take precautions to avoid pregnancy, not least for the health implications, but I also hold that the life of the mother takes priority, whatever that means, over the potential life of the child. Until we can actually see that kid in birth, they aren't a living being. And this, so you know, is a religious belief, so it's impossible to reason with me on it :laugh:

[Volcanicity]

It is possible to talk people back to reality,a lot of people have come away from being in a cult and had years of brainwashing and have come to be level-headed.But I think Dawkins is right about it being a form of child abuse.

[anticap]

... you might say life starts at conception, you might say life starts at birth, or you might pick some arbitrary number between the two.... Until we can actually see that kid in birth, they aren't a living being.

Why should life be the deciding factor? Why not personhood? We seem to value one another as persons, not as mere life forms. That's why we can squash a bug for being "icky," but we could never kill a person for the same reason.

Life does begin at conception. That clump of cells is alive. But so what? As Sam Harris implied, there is nothing special about those cells. The question is personhood.

But when does a human become a person? That's a difficult question, but at least it doesn't threaten to enslave women as involuntary incubators if the political winds change. I've got my own thoughts on the matter, but frankly I'm afraid to voice them here, because they lead to uncomfortable conclusions and we've been warned that this forum is being monitored.

[hatzel]

Why should life be the deciding factor? Why not personhood? We seem to value one another as persons, not as mere life forms. That's why we can squash a bug for being "icky," but we could never kill a person for the same reason.

Life does begin at conception. That clump of cells is alive. But so what? As Sam Harris implied, there is nothing special about those cells. The question is personhood.

But when does a human become a person? That's a difficult question, but at least it doesn't threaten to enslave women as involuntary incubators if the political winds change. I've got my own thoughts on the matter, but frankly I'm afraid to voice them here, because they lead to uncomfortable conclusions and we've been warned that this forum is being monitored.

Okay, I think this is semantics. Maybe we should say 'a human life', and deciding when the clump of cells becomes a true organism. I'd say trying to pick some point between conception and birth as the 'transition' point is far too scientific for me to have any constructive input on the matter, though :laugh:

[anticap]

Okay, I think this is semantics. Maybe we should say 'a human life', and deciding when the clump of cells becomes a true organism.

It isn't semantics. I'm not conflating "person" with "human"; to the contrary, I'm suggesting that personhood might not begin until the human organism has developed a sense of self.


I'd say trying to pick some point between conception and birth as the 'transition' point is far too scientific for me to have any constructive input on the matter, though :laugh:

Arbitrary and pointless. Everyone knows that life begins at conception, but that's not what the debate is really about. It's really a political debate over who ought to control a woman's body. Just because she has a clump of cells inside her doesn't justify enslaving her as a forced incubator. And, as I'm suggesting, it may not even matter if the human organism is already born. If we determine that personhood doesn't begin until, say, age two, then what are the implications for a one-year-old? These are the uncomfortable conclusions I was alluding to.

[Klaatu]

If the religionists are so vehemently opposed to abortion, I say let them figure out a way for embryos to be "adopted,"
long before natural birth. That being said, it might be a good idea if all Catholics, et al, opposed to "killing embryos
and fetuses," to dig into their deep pockets, and start up scientific research on how it might be possible to remove
the embryo, and either:

(A) implant it into another host female, or

(B) raise it for it's complete gestation period in a high-tech incubator.

I know this is already possible to some extent, in that one of my nieces was born in the 6th month of pregnancy.
She spent her final 3 months in an incubator. She is now a full grown, healthy adult.

[Quail]

If the religionists are so vehemently opposed to abortion, I say let them figure out a way for embryos to be "adopted,"
long before natural birth. That being said, it might be a good idea if all Catholics, et al, opposed to "killing embryos
and fetuses," to dig into their deep pockets, and start up scientific research on how it might be possible to remove
the embryo, and either:

(A) implant it into another host female, or

(B) raise it for it's complete gestation period in a high-tech incubator.

I know this is already possible to some extent, in that one of my nieces was born in the 6th month of pregnancy.
She spent her final 3 months in an incubator. She is now a full grown, healthy adult.

I think that kind of research could be useful anyway, because there are a lot of people who can't have children naturally, and fetus donation could catch on if it was simple and safe for the woman who didn't want to be pregnant.

I obviously don't think it would be a good idea (as a catholic might) to replace abortion with such a procedure, because that might lead to loads of babies being born and not enough people willing to look after them.

[Klaatu]

I think that kind of research could be useful anyway, because there are a lot of people who can't have children naturally, and fetus donation could catch on if it was simple and safe for the woman who didn't want to be pregnant.

I obviously don't think it would be a good idea (as a catholic might) to replace abortion with such a procedure, because that might lead to loads of babies being born and not enough people willing to look after them.

I agree in that the idea of homeless children is a tragedy. Many wind up in prostitution, or worse, in poor countries. This is where the state comes in. Our extremely-rich country (USA) can very easily afford to build and maintain huge orphanages. Not that that is a better alternative than adoption, but we can most certainly afford such institutions.

[NecroCommie]

They cannot be debated, but they can be defeated in their own game. Don't make arguments, just declare these assholes as immoral, stupid, without any touch in reality and others... In my case at least, they will wear out before I do. :D

[Comrade Olgilvy]

While I am Catholic, I despise fundamentalists of any stripe. Ignorance makes me angry.