Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[Grumpy]

theAtheistofnoIllusions

The sociopath is always an atheist. It has been argued that the reverse is also true.

What a ridiculous argument. Neither statement is even remotely true. You strike me as a charicature of what a rabid theist THINKS an atheist is. You are either a theist posing as an atheist in order to depict us as something we are not, or you have deep issues having nothing to do with atheism, but are, in fact sociopathic in origin. Either way, you in no way represent any realistic description of atheists aand I will thank you not to say you do.

Grumpy

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Any person who speaks in the terms of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, cannot honestly call himself an atheist. What constant does he base this constant morality on? What authority does his perception of a situation have over me? In what ways are his opinions higher than mine? No, I think those you speak of are theists in denial, expressing schizophrenic anger at their "God".

Yes they can. Their basis is what they believe to be moral. Subjective morality is not the same as amorality. There doesn't have to be a god in order for people to believe that some actions are right and others are wrong.

I am rejecting any kind of claim that these laws have authority over me in any way if I choose to ignore them.

Kill someone and you will soon find just how much authority and weight the law carries.

Those who can, and will, force me to submit to the laws of society have no more moral authority over me than I have over them.

Law is not a moral authority, but that does not really matter. The purpose of law is not to tell us what is right and what is wrong.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

What they believe to be moral? And I should care about what they believe to be right and wrong because...?

That's my point. Subjective morality is amorality. That you or I believe something to be right does not make it so, that you or I am disgusted by something does not make it wrong. Quite obviously there doesn't have to be a god for someone to BELIEVE that they know what is right and what is wrong, for there is no god and people still believe in objective morality. However, if one wants to believe in objective morality, and if one wishes to even speak of morality one must believe in objective morality, one must accept a god, or some being which has determined that which is right and that which is wrong.

I already stated that the law has the power to arrest, detain and kill me if it so chooses. I am not claiming that laws will not be upheld, just that laws hold only as much authority as the people who follow them give them.

The purpose of the law is the purpose held by the man who wrote the law.

Sociopathy is to this day not totally understood, and I could be wrong at their motivations. From what I have heard, the sociopath feels no empathy, rejects morality, and is concerned only with himself. I feel empathy, but I do reject morality and am, like all others, concerned only with myself.

I know you will claim that you are not concerned only, or even primarily, with yourself, and if you do make this claim you are a liar. You care about others insofar as they please or displease you. You wouldn't feel a thing if I died, and I would not feel a thing if you died. We are totally selfish beings. Every choice you made was made simply because you wanted to do it, because that choice was perceived by you to be the best for you.

Scientific studies of the human brain have proven nothing. Prove to me that you think, feel, experience and dream and we'll talk.

Ah so its self-reflective consciousness that makes the human? Prove to me that no other animal has it. Than prove that you do.

Atheists, or those who claim the title, are surprisingly hypocritical.

In one breath you say:

"Either way, you in no way represent any realistic description of atheists..."

And yet in the next you will claim that atheism is NOT a belief like others, that its believers hold nothing in common other than their lack of belief in god/s.

So which is it? Can one believe just about anything and still be an atheist? Or must one follow his belief to its logical end to call himself an atheist?

I am concerned with a person that holds such contradictory beliefs as those I have met here.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

What they believe to be moral? And I should care about what they believe to be right and wrong because...?

That's my point. Subjective morality is amorality. That you or I believe something to be right does not make it so, that you or I am disgusted by something does not make it wrong.

It does not make it wrong to anyone but the person who thinks it, yes. A person can realize this, but still act upon their morals. They can view morality as subjective but act upon their moral viewpoints. These people do exist (me), and are not amoral. They have morals, but do not view them as applicable to anyone but themselves. In truth, I think we are largely in agreement here, and are kind of arguing over semantics at this point.

[Grumpy]

theAtheistofnoIllusions

Atheists, or those who claim the title, are surprisingly hypocritical.

In one breath you say:

"Either way, you in no way represent any realistic description of atheists..."

And yet in the next you will claim that atheism is NOT a belief like others, that its believers hold nothing in common other than their lack of belief in god/s.

So which is it? Can one believe just about anything and still be an atheist? Or must one follow his belief to its logical end to call himself an atheist?

I am concerned with a person that holds such contradictory beliefs as those I have met here.

My being an Atheist says absolutely nothing about my morals or the lack thereof. Atheism is not a philosophy, it is not a belief, it is simply the rejection of supernatural, superstitious, unevidenced and frankly stupid beliefs and fairy tales, PERIOD. By the way, I feel exactly the same about beliefs in ghosts, but I am not called an aspiritist, about vampires but I am not called an avampirist, about werewolves but I am not called an alycan. And none of those things say anything about my morals either. Why not cover them all by saying I am a realist, not a surealist. If it ain't real, I don't accept it as being, well...real.

If you want to know where my morals come from ask me about Humanism, but many humanists are also religious believers, atheism has nothing to do with morals. It is simply the lack of religious beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

Grumpy

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Wrong. Atheism is a philosophy, and a religion. It is the religion and philosophy of no god.

Where do your "morals" come from?

[McCulloch]

Wrong. Atheism is a philosophy, and a religion. It is the religion and philosophy of no god.

Atheism does not fit the definition of a religion. Neither atheism or theism are religions. They are beliefs. Theism is a belief that is a requirement for quite a number of religions. Which religions do you claim that the belief (or non belief) of atheism is an integral part of?

Where do your "morals" come from?

We atheists are an amoral lot. We rape, pillage and steal whenever we can get away with it.

If you believe that your morals come from God, then you have to answer the rather difficult question, where do my morals come from? However, I believe that our basic moral nature comes from our evolution as an intelligent social animal, and is expressed by human society. Humans frequently codify their society's morals and attribute them to various gods.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Theism is the belief in God/s. Since there are many definitions of God, there are many religions that are theists.

Atheism is the denial or disbelief in God/s. Since there can only be one definition of no-god, there is only one religion that is atheistic.

Religion can be defined as:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Therefore, Atheism can be defined as a religion. I believe the atheist MUST believe certain things along with the lack of belief in god/s, just as the Christian must believe certain things other than Jesus was the Christ.

Philosophy: Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Atheism cannot be argued using empirical methods, but relies on logical reasoning. It also attempts to explain nature, causes and principles of reality. Therefore it is a philosophy.

Never said that you didn't follow your own rules, just that these rules mean nothing to me or even you. You would drop those rules the instant they inconvenienced you, and you know it. That morality is written in our genes is proven wrong by the same argument you would use against a god-given morality: different moralities are shockingly different, and in every society there are many who ignore these rules. How can you make the argument that morality is evolutionary? What evidence has shown this to be a possibility? What EMPIRICAL evidence.

[Grumpy]

theAtheistofnoIllusions

Atheism is the denial or disbelief in God/s. Since there can only be one definition of no-god, there is only one religion that is atheistic.

Budism is an atheist religion(in most of it's sects).

Every Catholic is an atheist when it comes to Islam, Budism, Hinduism, and all other religions. An Atheist just takes it one step further.

Atheism cannot be argued using empirical methods, but relies on logical reasoning. It also attempts to explain nature, causes and principles of reality. Therefore it is a philosophy.

Atheism is not a philosophy, it has no precepts, no moral code, nothing that religions require.

Where do your "morals" come from?

As far as where my morals come from, I am a Humanist, that is a philosophy, it does have morals(though they are usually refered to as ethics) and I really don't care if you consider it a religion(though I do not).

I believe the atheist MUST believe certain things along with the lack of belief in god/s, just as the Christian must believe certain things other than Jesus was the Christ.

You are just wrong in such belief. Atheism is simply and only the lack of beliefs in a god or anything of a supernatural sort.

Never said that you didn't follow your own rules, just that these rules mean nothing to me or even you. You would drop those rules the instant they inconvenienced you, and you know it. That morality is written in our genes is proven wrong by the same argument you would use against a god-given morality: different moralities are shockingly different, and in every society there are many who ignore these rules. How can you make the argument that morality is evolutionary? What evidence has shown this to be a possibility? What EMPIRICAL evidence.

Morality is evolutionary because man is a social animal. If we did not develop morals we could not be a social animal. Morals are the rules we must follow in order to be able to live together.

I do not for one minute, believe you are actually an Atheist. I am almost certain you are a theist who is acting out a caricature of an atheist in order to paint us in an ugly fashion. What you have described above is a sociopath, not an atheist. You are simply a fraud.

Grumpy

[McCulloch]

Religion can be defined as:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religion can be defined that way, but normally it is not.

Religion is commonly understood as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.