Why are most atheists politically liberal?

[amortalman]

It seems to me that most atheists are politically liberal. But why is that? And should we include agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers? Most creationists tend to be political conservatives. Has it always been this way or is this relatively new? In the U.S., the polarization of the two parties is so severe that the thinking seems to be that if one identifies with either side he is expected to buy into the entire philosophy.

I've asked a lot of questions because as an agnostic I consider myself a conservative on most issues. Am I a man without a country? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about any or all the questions I presented.

[Purple Knight]

Wow. I'm trying to figure out if you think you ought to have been aborted or your mother thinks you ought to have been aborted.

Both. And while I understand that the hormones don't cause the mother to keep an unwanted baby in all cases, from my experience it's true in most.

What I think is more likely to happen is that the mother turns around from the hormone flood and is subsequently content to live for the child. I just don't think it's likely enough to happen to justify intentionally bring so many others into the world to suffer abuse from a parent who doesn't want them.

If the world needed more people, okay, sure. But it needs less.

Where do you get these ideas? It means nothing of the kind. It might mean that she has to try a little harder. Men marry women with children all the time. My son did and they are happily married.

I'm sure it happens, but not to everyone. My mother was very beautiful and very selfish - the ideal woman, but only if she's young and has no baggage. This type of female speaks directly to the sex drive, and the type of male who will be attracted to that will also be turned off by having to raise another man's child.

Maybe I was being harsh when I said female incel, but already having a child does lower a female's chances to mate. It does, and she won't be thinking about it that way doped up in the hospital. That means she hasn't changed her mind; only her heart. She will say she wants to keep the baby, but she really doesn't.

Would true love make any difference in your position? Would you at least be open to loving her child if you truly loved her and she loved you?

Even if I could feel that, if it was an exceptionally nasty child, then no. I was a very obedient child but I was also much smarter than I ought to have been and no one really understood why I did or said anything.

I guessing that this is your opinion. I'm not saying some women don't act this way. But if some do they are obviously mentally ill and need help. There are other options instead of keeping the child and mistreating it. At any rate, it's not the child's fault.

Well then, what solution do you propose other than just let it happen so other children who might not be abused can be born?

Wouldn't it be a travesty that when a woman wants an abortion, and might mistreat the child, she could be restrained against it by law or even just pressured out of it, then mistreat the child, especially when there isn't room for any more people on this planet?

If you wanted to (and I am not really arguing for this, this is merely an illustration) you could use psychological profiles to screen out terrible parents and spay them before they even had a chance to hurt a child, thus not only preventing abuse but making the world a better place at the same time by combating overpopulation.

I'm not saying we should make peoples' judgments for them. Far from it. But when someone, by their own judgment, is trying to correct their own mistake, and this will make the world a better place, I don't think we should stop them.

You will need to explain what you mean by "basic philosophy".

Basic as in intuitive. Most people don't reason when they say murder is wrong; they don't need to. Therefore the idea that murder is wrong is basic in the sense I'm using it. Would you still believe murder was wrong if society accounted for it, and the person being murdered was an illegal immigrant on welfare? This would reduce it to your objection: Because it takes the life of another. That would be pretty basic, don't you agree?

Not so. I think most liberals, if not all, would give you an answer to both questions.
I am conservative on most issues because I don't believe in big government, high taxes, open borders, national health care, and other issues.

Each of these can be reduced to a basic. If I pried enough (I'll take just one: national health care) and asked you why you don't support that, we'd probably get down to a right to keep one's own money one has earned and use that for one's own health care. We would also probably come to the idea that people shouldn't be punished for preparing for the worst, which is one thing redistribution does, since those who turn out their pockets are rewarded with the necessary care, while those who scrimped, saved, sacrificed and bought themselves a house are left having to sell the house. Well, they shouldn't have sacrificed, then. (I am aware of at least two instances of this, which is frightening as I don't know many people.)

You don't have to be a liberal (or anything else) to have moral certitude.

Surely you have noticed that politically liberal people, generally, have greater moral certitude.

I have also seen a degree of moral certitude in the extreme liberals and libertarians that I don't believe exists in conservatives.

[Purple Knight]

So the so-called "conservatives" are simply exhibiting an inability to distinguish between morality and law. You don't make laws to force other people to do what you deem to be moral.

Well, to be fair, we do, if that immorality is as strong as murder.

The tough thing here is that they believe it's murder and there's really not a good case that it isn't.

I concede that it's murder, I just think that even though murder is wrong, abuse of a child is wrong, overpopulation is wrong, and these things do weigh against each other.

To anyone who says overpopulation isn't as wrong as murder, I say that overpopulation is murder. People are already dying in some countries because there are too many of them and there isn't enough food.

These deaths are the victims of murder, and the murderers are those who reproduced so wantonly that there wasn't enough food for everybody and it was a certainty that some would starve.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 40 by Divine Insight]

So if we make laws that say that anyone who gets an abortion is a criminal, then we force this woman into a situation that she will either have to have the baby of her rapist, or become a criminal. How is that right? IMHO, it's not right.

I would not advocate making a law that says, anyone who gets an abortion is a criminal.
In the case of rape, I'm not on board with that. I think it could be psychologically damaging to the victim to carry her rapist's baby for nine months.

And what about a woman who wants to have an abortion because she has discovered that here baby has a terrible condition or birth defect? Perhaps she values the baby and would like to put it out of its misery rather than bringing it into a world where it will just suffer, either from the disease, or from public rejection.

You make a good point. In this case, I think it depends on the seriousness of the disease or birth defect and all extenuating circumstances need to be considered. A blanket law covering all pregnancies would be a big mistake IMO.

All liberals are saying is that we can't make laws trying to force our "moral values" onto other people simply because *some* women might want to use abortion as a means of birth control simply because they are too irresponsible to use other means of birth control.

Laws are made to protect people. I and many others believe that applies to the unborn. Besides that, it is morally wrong to murder, rape, and abuse a child and there are laws forbidding it. So moral values are being forced on people all the time.

So to even try to bring this into a "moral question" is nonsense. It's not a question of morality, it's a question of legality.

I disagree with that. It certainly is a moral issue for fully half the people polled by Gallup. No one is arguing that it isn't legal. Being legal isn't the issue.

This really isn't a question about abortion at all. It's a question of whether or not we should make laws that make criminals out of people who have an abortion.

We make laws that make criminals out of people who murder. I doubt you think those laws are wrong.

Who are we to judge the motives and morals of people who chose to have an abortion?

By the same token, who are we to judge the motives and morals of people who chose to willfully kill innocent people?

Who are we to force these women to become criminals?

No one is forcing them to become criminals. They can choose to carry and give birth to the baby.

Either that, or force them to have babies they are dead set against having?

With that, I refer you to my earlier post in debate with Clownboat:

It is wrong to murder a baby unless the mother's life is in danger. You speak of the mother's choice to have the child or to destroy it. She had a choice before pregnancy (with the exception of rape) - she chose to have sex, and for whatever reason, maybe she and her partner did not use contraceptives or the contraceptives failed. But the day could still be saved by a morning-after pill. Of course, abstinence was also a choice and it appears to be 100% effective and 100% not used.

But the fact is "The single biggest reason for unplanned pregnancy isn’t ineffective birth control -- it’s from a couple not using any contraception." - Maureen Phipps, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island.

You think too highly of a woman's choice in this matter. There are sufficient preventative measures that could be taken and in most cases, they aren't. Now she is pregnant with a child she does not want. Is there a price to pay for the negligence? Is the price unreasonable? I think not compared to the alternative. The price is that she must carry the child to term. That's called taking responsibility for one's choices. That's called respecting life and putting a high value on it. And that is the only moral choice she has. If more women had to carry to term maybe they would take more precautions with their bodies because once they become pregnant the game changes. No longer is she one life but now two lives. The presence of another life in her body takes precedence over her "choice".

IMHO, people who think this way about about making legislation shouldn't be allowed to take part in the legislative process.

If you are making laws based on who you deem to be "immoral" then you shouldn't be making laws at all.

It's not an issue of "who" they deem immoral but rather "what" they deem immoral.

So the so-called "conservatives" are simply exhibiting an inability to distinguish between morality and law.

What do you mean by "so-called conservatives?"

Because something is lawful does not mean it is also moral.

If a "conservative" believes in a judgemental God, then leave the moral judgements up to God.

What kind of link are you trying to make between conservatives and believers? Can I not be a conservative atheist?

Making moral judgments against a person is wrong. Holding a position that seeks to outlaw the killing of babies is right. There's a big difference. That's my position. Some pro-choice folks accuse pro=lifers of judging and condemning them, of trying to force their "morals" on them. That's no more than a deflection. In truth, all pro-lifers want is the end of the killing. If that is also the moral thing to do it goes with the package.

[Bust Nak]

Moreover, a liberal isn't defending the idea that it's "morally okay" to use abortion for birth control when they object to making laws that make criminals out of women who do want to get an abortion.

Let me go there: this liberal think it's morally okay to use abortion as birth control.

[amortalman]

Wow. I'm trying to figure out if you think you ought to have been aborted or your mother thinks you ought to have been aborted.

And while I understand that the hormones don't cause the mother to keep an unwanted baby in all cases, from my experience it's true in most.

It would be interesting to see some documentation of that.

What I think is more likely to happen is that the mother turns around from the hormone flood and is subsequently content to live for the child. I just don't think it's likely enough to happen to justify intentionally bring so many others into the world to suffer abuse from a parent who doesn't want them.

But will what you "think" stand up to the facts? Some research on your part might prove you're correct. But until then your opinion doesn't carry much weight in a debate unless your point is common knowledge. Someone might say I think the sun will rise tomorrow which is obviously common knowledge (based on the fact that it has been doing that for 4.5 billion years) and requires no documentation.

If the world needed more people, okay, sure. But it needs less.

In this case, birth control is preferable to abortion. Most unwanted pregnancies are due to the failure of couples to use any contraceptives.

Where do you get these ideas? It means nothing of the kind. It might mean that she has to try a little harder. Men marry women with children all the time. My son did and they are happily married.

I'm sure it happens, but not to everyone.

So then she just gives up? Your thinking here is a cognitive distortion. An all-or-nothing-attitude.

My mother was very beautiful and very selfish - the ideal woman,

If she was truly selfish would that not make her less than ideal?

but only if she's young and has no baggage.

A man who thinks a single woman's child is nothing more than baggage is one she shouldn't give a second look. And no mother who loves her child would ever look at her child as "baggage."

This type of female speaks directly to the sex drive,

Are you serious? Do you really believe that the only kind of man a beautiful woman can attract are sex hounds? That's a huge insult to women, don't you think?

...and the type of male who will be attracted to that will also be turned off by having to raise another man's child.

That type of male is a cad and a jerk and any woman with any self-respect at all would run from him like the plague.

...already having a child does lower a female's chances to mate.

No, no. NOt to mate. It might lower her chances to find a mate. And it never eliminates her chances to find a mate.

It does, and she won't be thinking about it that way doped up in the hospital. That means she hasn't changed her mind; only her heart. She will say she wants to keep the baby, but she really doesn't.

It's tragic if that's what happened to your mother and I wish you the best in dealing with it. But to project that scenario on all new mothers is again, cognitive distortion.

Would true love make any difference in your position? Would you at least be open to loving her child if you truly loved her and she loved you?

Even if I could feel that, if it was an exceptionally nasty child, then no. I was a very obedient child but I was also much smarter than I ought to have been and no one really understood why I did or said anything.

I really don't see much healthy thinking here. I find myself trying to council you but I am not qualified to do that.

I guessing that this is your opinion. I'm not saying some women don't act this way. But if some do they are obviously mentally ill and need help. There are other options instead of keeping the child and mistreating it. At any rate, it's not the child's fault.

Well then, what solution do you propose other than just let it happen so other children who might not be abused can be born?

Well, obviously it begins with prevention. If that fails adoption might be the way to go or an orphanage. Maybe the child could be fostered or put with a caring family member while the mother gets appropriate psychological help. No system is perfect but there are systems in place to care for unwanted babies and any system beats taking the baby's life.

Not so. I think most liberals, if not all, would give you an answer to both questions.
I am conservative on most issues because I don't believe in big government, high taxes, open borders, national health care, and other issues.

Each of these can be reduced to a basic. If I pried enough (I'll take just one: national health care) and asked you why you don't support that,..

I'm not interested in debating a new topic in the middle of this one.

You don't have to be a liberal (or anything else) to have moral certitude.

Surely you have noticed that politically liberal people, generally, have greater moral certitude.

I surely have not.

[Clownboat]

No, the best pro I have to offer is that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do and should take precedence over most other arguments against it. That's the bottom line for my position.

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. Let it be known to all that amortalman thinks that the preservation of life is the morally right thing to do, except for when it isn't (bold).

Readers, good luck attempting to apply this kind of thinking to abortion specifially.

It is wrong to murder a baby

This is correct. Please start your own thread. We are not discussing the murder of a baby here. You will need to use reason over emotion as I have already mentioned.

You speak of the mother's choice to have the child or to destroy it. She had a choice before pregnancy (with the exception of rape) - she chose to have sex, and for whatever reason, maybe she and her partner did not use contraceptives or the contraceptives failed.

We are biological creatures that reproduce via sexual reproduction. Sex without contraceptives a part of our nature. We should seek out education, not laws that dictate what a women can or cannot do with her own body. This type of law would increase suffering.

You rail on about preserving life, yet don't seem to be accounting for the suffering that it will cause to do so.

But the day could still be saved by a morning-after pill. Of course, abstinence was also a choice and it appears to be 100% effective and 100% not used.

Abstinence is like the war on drugs.
I grew up in a Christian home with 4 siblings. We all made the choice to save our selfs for marriage (promise rings and all for some of us). All 5 of us born again, spirit filled, drunk in the holy ghost Christians failed.

But the fact is "The single biggest reason for unplanned pregnancy isn’t ineffective birth control -- it’s from a couple not using any contraception."

This is true. Shame on you for pushing abstinence. Nothing causes more pregnancies than pretending you are going to be abstinent. Educating Christians about sex will prevent unwanted pregnancies for example as they will be prepared.

You think too highly of a woman's choice in this matter.

As a man. What choice do I have in a womens life? No idea what thinking too highly means in this instance.

The presence of another life in her body takes precedence over her "choice".

No... it doesn't. She is of more value than the fetus in her that may or may not make it to term. The words may sound callus, but they are true upon examination.

What a woman suffers in carrying a baby can't compare to the pain of a baby being torn from its mother's womb.

This is wrong and already addressed by another.

Not so fast. You were obviously trying to paraphrase my arguments.

There you go again! You just can't stop can you?
ques·tion mark
/ˈkwesCHən ˌmärk/
noun
a punctuation mark (?) indicating a question.
used to express doubt or uncertainty about something.

I don't find your arguments convincing. That does not make you a victim.

Care to clarify? I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort an unwanted fetus and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?

Again you are trying to put your words in my mouth.

I trust the readers here can clearly see what is actually taking place.

I think it would be a good thing to abolish abortion on nothing more than moral grounds.

I cannot agree with you as to do such a thing would be immoral.

Premeditated murder often carries the death penalty and double murder has been enforced in cases where a mother and her unborn baby were killed. Yet if that same mother deliberately took the life of her baby while still in the womb she would walk out of the clinic with everyone's blessings. How more screwed up can it get?

Very. I could set her cat on fire for example. Why are you asking? Are you trying to make a point?
Since it is not clear why you typed those words, let me attempt to clarify. If abortion is deemed illegal, should we put mothers to death that still have the procedure?

Beyond that, do you know of a law that forces someone to care for an "unwanted" baby?

I don't know of one. However, and I think this point escapes you... most unwanted fetuses are aborted. You for some reason seem to want to increase the amount of unwanted fetuses that get born. I just don't understand the desire for more unwanted babies. What is the ideal amount of unwanted babies that we should seek as a nation in your opinion?

One point is that some people might get a false impression that these babies are rejected by society and are worthless.

How many unwanted babies are you prepared to take in? I'm looking for a number from you.
I personally don't want any and I know I'm not alone.

Another point is that it is an attempt to make your argument a little more palatable to imply that these are unwanted fetuses.

My words are accurate.
Murdering babies is emotional. I recommend you go that route if you cannot form any convincing arguments though.
Make a convincing argument and you just might get me to return to the anti abortion side of things.

That's better. I just don't know why you dislike the word, miscarriage. that's all.

Semantics.

I agree that a full-term pregnancy and delivery is a hardship but in the majority of cases, it could have been prevented. The thing that can be prevented now is the taking of a life.

At what cost? I'm not sure you are considering that side of things. See Purple Knight's post for some first hand knowledge.

If I haven't changed your mind by now I doubt that I can.

Not with the arguments put forth so far anyway. Remember, I once shared your position so I am willing to change.

I'm arguing against what I see as a greater evil. Both should be avoided, but IMO, especially the right for some humans to tell other humans what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

So you are especially against some people telling other people what they can or can't do with their own bodies. The law sees fit to do that all the time. For example, I can't kill my body.

Correct. The exception being if you are causing harm outside your body.

The lawmakers and police tell me that and other things I can't do with my body.

Yes, and removing an unwanted fetus is one thing we allow women to choose to do or not. For some reason, you think you are involved and I don't understand why 'your' feelings are even relevant.

I don't like the idea of aborting a fetus, but I keep my feelings out of it. Comes across as pompass to me to pretend I know what is best for a women and what she does with her body.

I can't use my body to hide illicit drugs in my mouth or my anus.

You stated why in your own sentence.

il·lic·it
/i(l)ˈlisit/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.

In fact, I can't swallow illicit drugs. I can't sell my body for sex or to do anything illegal with it.

Perhaps we should start a debate on making such things legal?

I don't think pro-life folks are telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies. They are advocating that it is wrong for a woman to abuse someone else's body.

Would you not seek to pass a law that would prohibit such a thing? Let's be honest please, that is exactly what most pro-life/anti-choicers want.

In 2016, 623,471 legal induced abortions were reported to the CDC from 48 reporting areas. That means that 56,113 abortions were performed after the first trimester. That's 18,652 more deaths than in auto accidents in 2016. (37,461 traffic deaths in 2016 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

(Keep in mind, many of those fetuses would have misscarried).
By your logic, we should remove the choice that we currently have to drive. You said that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do. Do you no longer stand by that? Or would you use reason to make an exception for driving?
(Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.)

Agreed. But adding emotion to reason is quite effective. Worked for Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinnie.

Great! Apply reason as to why we should pass a law that would prevent women from being able to remove an unwanted fetus.
Preservation of life is the morally right thing to do can not be the reason or else we end up removing vehicles and stairs and on and on.
Preservation of life can be a goal when we are using reason to pass laws, but using reason is what will allow us to continue to drive.
Some argue it is reasonable to allow a women to remove an unwanted fetus. I currently agree with that position even though I have emotions that come with it.

[Purple Knight]

It would be interesting to see some documentation of that.

The best I can get is a politifact that was "proven false" because they distrust reports from the Knights of Columbus.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ving-abor/

If the Knight of Columbus are to be believed, women change their minds just from seeing the ultrasound. Seeing the baby > Seeing ultrasound.

This source says the most likely times a birth mother changes her mind about adoption are right before and after she's placed the baby for adoption.

http://www.americaadopts.com/hoping-to- ... -her-mind/

...However, at admits that no one knows how often this happens. I would say it's relatively common knowledge that you abuse a child less, the more you want that child, just on common sense.

I admitted it was mostly my own experience, but I have also talked to others who were treated poorly by their parents and gotten the answer that they were going to be aborted or adopted, but their mother changed her mind. Two out of three were also fatherless.

In this case, birth control is preferable to abortion. Most unwanted pregnancies are due to the failure of couples to use any contraceptives.

Of course that's preferable but it has nothing to do with the question of whether abortions should be legal. They didn't use protection, they're probably the kind of people who won't use protection, so now what?

Where do you get these ideas? It means nothing of the kind. It might mean that she has to try a little harder. Men marry women with children all the time. My son did and they are happily married.

I'm sure it happens, but not to everyone.

So then she just gives up? Your thinking here is a cognitive distortion. An all-or-nothing-attitude. [/quote]

Of course it's all or nothing. You either get a permanent mate or you don't. That having baggage reduces your chances is intuitive.

If she was truly selfish would that not make her less than ideal?

My experience is that only totally selfish women have no flaws. If they "try harder" it's a massive turnoff. What is she hiding? What is she trying to make up for? Most women who make the effort to care about the other person aren't 10s, and that's all I, and yes, most men, care about. Yes, there's research to support that.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychol ... e-4753.php

men pay more attention to physical attractiveness, whereas women are more concerned about the financial and social status of their potential spouse

A man who thinks a single woman's child is nothing more than baggage is one she shouldn't give a second look. And no mother who loves her child would ever look at her child as "baggage."

That type of male is a cad and a jerk and any woman with any self-respect at all would run from him like the plague.

Okay, he's a jerk, but he's most men. My point was about the mating game, and it was correct, but your rebuttal has to do with the players, not the game. Personally I wish we all had access to genetic engineering and/or didn't live in such a cutthroat world where one's offspring might easily fail to succeed and has to be given the best chance possible.

Are you serious? Do you really believe that the only kind of man a beautiful woman can attract are sex hounds? That's a huge insult to women, don't you think?

They can also attract smart, successful men.

No, no. NOT to mate. It might lower her chances to find a mate. And it never eliminates her chances to find a mate.

First of all, men are slightly less common than women. So we're talking about a game of musical chairs already, with the women playing. That's not counting that more women are in the market for permanent mates than men.

Yes, you might still not lose immediately even if you give yourself disadvantages, but it would still be crazy to do so.

It's tragic if that's what happened to your mother and I wish you the best in dealing with it. But to project that scenario on all new mothers is again, cognitive distortion.

Oxytocin is real, and it has been proven to have profound effects on behavior. I'm not making that big a leap to suggest that other women will make the same mistake.

I guessing that this is your opinion. I'm not saying some women don't act this way. But if some do they are obviously mentally ill and need help. There are other options instead of keeping the child and mistreating it. At any rate, it's not the child's fault.

Maybe it is my opinion but I think it's my right to be for abortion because I'm someone who ought to have been aborted and wasn't. I wish unqualified people wouldn't have children at all, frankly, but I especially don't like forcing them to.

any system beats taking the baby's life.

Then we have a difference of opinion. I say anything beats having the baby abused.

Surely you have noticed that politically liberal people, generally, have greater moral certitude.

I surely have not.

That's shocking, since some of the politically liberal think it's permissible to punch people for their beliefs, and to my knowledge, no conservatives think this. Liberals can very easily define a good chunk of the political right as Nazis and then say it's alright to hurt them physically. To me, this is magnificent moral certitude. I'd give up a lot to have that.

[amortalman]

No, the best pro I have to offer is that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do and should take precedence over most other arguments against it. That's the bottom line for my position.

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. Let it be known to all that amortalman thinks that the preservation of life is the morally right thing to do, except for when it isn't (bold).

Readers, good luck attempting to apply this kind of thinking to abortion specifially.

It's amusing that you seem to be overly concerned with the "readers" since this is about the third time you've mentioned them. It's almost as if you're trying to influence a jury. I say that with the hope that you will stick to debating.

I don't believe it is necessary for you to interpret my opinions for the "readers". I'm sure they smart enough to interpret that for themselves.

It is wrong to murder a baby

This is correct. Please start your own thread. We are not discussing the murder of a baby here. You will need to use reason over emotion as I have already mentioned.

Reason assumes correctly that it's wrong to murder babies.

You speak of the mother's choice to have the child or to destroy it. She had a choice before pregnancy (with the exception of rape) - she chose to have sex, and for whatever reason, maybe she and her partner did not use contraceptives or the contraceptives failed.

Sex without contraceptives a part of our nature.

Huh? Do you seriously want to blame unwanted children on nature?

You rail on about preserving life, yet don't seem to be accounting for the suffering that it will cause to do so.

I addressed that very thing in post 38:
"What a woman suffers in carrying a baby can't compare to the pain of a baby being torn from its mother's womb."
"I agree that a full-term pregnancy and delivery is a hardship"

To be fair, you haven't addressed the pain the baby/fetus feels during an abortion.

Women and men considering abortion often ask whether the baby feels pain during the abortion procedure. The age at which a fetus begins to feel pain is debated by scientists. Unborn babies recoil away from stimulation of the abortion procedure, which demonstrates that the nervous system is experiencing a physiological stress response. Some states have laws designed to protect unborn babies from abortion past a certain stage because of evidence of fetal pain.

A recent NIH study noted: “The threshold for tactile stimuli is lower at earlier stages of gestation. The pain inhibition mechanisms are not sufficiently developed during intrauterine development, which is another factor leading to increased intensity of pain in the fetus. All this points to the fact that the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli, and that this fact should be taken into account when performing invasive medical procedures on the fetus.� - Pregnancy Clinic

But the day could still be saved by a morning-after pill. Of course, abstinence was also a choice and it appears to be 100% effective and 100% not used.

"Abstinence is like the war on drugs."

You obviously missed that I said abstinence is also a choice. Do you care to refute that statement?

But the fact is "The single biggest reason for unplanned pregnancy isn’t ineffective birth control -- it’s from a couple not using any contraception."

This is true. Shame on you for pushing abstinence.

I would not be ashamed even if I did push for abstinence, but I didn't. I mentioned it as one means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I neither condoned nor forbade it. But to be clear, millions of men and women, boys and girls, have used it effectively throughout history. Apparently, it was much more effectively used prior to the free love movement.

Nothing causes more pregnancies than pretending you are going to be abstinent.

That's not true. Nothing causes more pregnancies than the failure to use contraceptives as I pointed out earlier.

Educating Christians about sex will prevent unwanted pregnancies for example as they will be prepared.

I mentioned education in an earlier post. Thanks for reinforcing that point. But I have to take issue with what you just said. What about non-Christians? Do you really believe that non-Christians cannot benefit from sex education and that they will not be prepared?

You think too highly of a woman's choice in this matter.

As a man. What choice do I have in a womens life?

For one, the choice to use a condom. Two, the choice to pull out. Three, the choice to not have unprotected sex.

No idea what thinking too highly means in this instance.

I meant that for many women (and men) to throw precaution to the wind, to disregard effective ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, carries with it the consequences of the act and the parties involved should not just be excused as if they had just bought socks they no longer wanted. It's a "take it back, I don't want it" attitude that victimizes the child and pronounces a death sentence on him or her. IMO you think too highly of the woman's choice to end an innocent life.

The presence of another life in her body takes precedence over her "choice".

No... it doesn't. She is of more value than the fetus in her that may or may not make it to term.

No one is talking about her life being compared to the life of her child. What you are saying is that her comfort is more important than the life of a child.

What a woman suffers in carrying a baby can't compare to the pain of a baby being torn from its mother's womb.

This is wrong and already addressed by another.

How is it wrong?

Not so fast. You were obviously trying to paraphrase my arguments.

There you go again! You just can't stop can you?
ques·tion mark
/ˈkwesCHən ˌmärk/
noun
a punctuation mark (?) indicating a question.
used to express doubt or uncertainty about something.

I saw the question mark the first time and I fully understand what that little punctuation mark means. You would have done better to try to understand my reply than to waste your time defining words for me.

Care to clarify? I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort an unwanted fetus and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?

Again you are trying to put your words in my mouth.

[qquote]I trust the readers here can clearly see what is actually taking place.

That you can't frame an understandable question?
Let's look at the question again. You said, "I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow a women to abort an unwanted fetus and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?

Maybe the whole problem we're having with this question is the wording. Had you written, "I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow women to abort an unwanted fetus?" and stopped right there I probably would have answered yes, it would be the moral thing to do. But when you added, "and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?" it changes the whole complexion of the question. Now, if I answer "yes" it seems as if I agree with your idea that family or society is being forced to do this, which I don't. In that respect, you're trying to put words in my mouth.

I think it would be a good thing to abolish abortion on nothing more than moral grounds.

I cannot agree with you as to do such a thing would be immoral.

So can we now put that issue to rest? Agree to disagree?

Premeditated murder often carries the death penalty and double murder has been enforced in cases where a mother and her unborn baby were killed. Yet if that same mother deliberately took the life of her baby while still in the womb she would walk out of the clinic with everyone's blessings. How more screwed up can it get?

Very. I could set her cat on fire for example.

Brilliant. Surely you can make it more screwed up than that!

Why are you asking? Are you trying to make a point?

I will kindly explain - It's a rhetorical question.

Since it is not clear why you typed those words, let me attempt to clarify.

No need. An answer isn't called for.

If abortion is deemed illegal, should we put mothers to death that still have the procedure?

No more than we should prosecute someone who has committed suicide.

Beyond that, do you know of a law that forces someone to care for an "unwanted" baby?

I don't know of one.

Neither do I.

What is the ideal amount of unwanted babies that we should seek as a nation in your opinion?[/question]

That question doesn't even deserve an answer.

How many unwanted babies are you prepared to take in? I'm looking for a number from you.

Classic deflection. Doesn't deserve an answer.

Another point is that it is an attempt to make your argument a little more palatable to imply that these are unwanted fetuses.

My words are accurate.

Must we revisit this? They are likely "unwanted" 'by their mothers," not by society.
Maybe we can also but that issue to rest.

Murdering babies is emotional.

I'm very pleased that you agree.

Make a convincing argument and you just might get me to return to the anti abortion side of things.

Ha!

The lawmakers and police tell me that and other things I can't do with my body.

I don't like the idea of aborting a fetus, but I keep my feelings out of it.

You just interjected your feelings into it.

Comes across as pompass to me to pretend I know what is best for a women and what she does with her body.

Misses the point entirely, and purposely I'm afraid.

I can't use my body to hide illicit drugs in my mouth or my anus.

il·lic·it
/i(l)ˈlisit/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.

Are you writing a dictionary? Allow me to remind you of the statement I was responding to:
Quote:
I'm arguing against what I see as a greater evil... for some humans to tell other humans what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

Do some people tell other people what they can or can't do with their bodies or not?

In fact, I can't swallow illicit drugs. I can't sell my body for sex or to do anything illegal with it.

Perhaps we should start a debate on making such things legal?

The last time I checked you can do that if you want to but I think you will need to start another thread. Seriously, see my response above.

I don't think pro-life folks are telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies. They are advocating that it is wrong for a woman to abuse someone else's body.

Would you not seek to pass a law that would prohibit such a thing?.

In a little baby's heartbeat, I would.

Let's be honest please, that is exactly what most pro-life/anti-choicers want.

Yes, it is but saving the life of an unborn baby is specific to a unique situation. It is not telling a woman what to do with her body in a general sense, as in telling her she can't dress in a thong and go to the beach, or telling her she can't drink beer.

In 2016, 623,471 legal induced abortions were reported to the CDC from 48 reporting areas. That means that 56,113 abortions were performed after the first trimester. That's 18,652 more deaths than in auto accidents in 2016. (37,461 traffic deaths in 2016 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

(Keep in mind, many of those fetuses would have misscarried).

Most miscarriages occur before the first trimester. These are the abortion numbers for after the first trimester as I stated.

By your logic, we should remove the choice that we currently have to drive. You said that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do. Do you no longer stand by that? Or would you use reason to make an exception for driving?
(Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.)

Let's use reason to see those traffic deaths are unintentional whereas abortion is intentional.

But adding emotion to reason is quite effective. Worked for Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinnie.

Great! Apply reason as to why we should pass a law that would prevent women from being able to remove an unwanted fetus.

I've already done that but you haven't accepted it. You are going to say I didn't. I say I did. How long does this go on?

Preservation of life is the morally right thing to do can not be the reason or else we end up removing vehicles and stairs and on and on.

We should seek to preserve life where we can. I think the NTSB is at least trying to do a good job by demanding safer vehicles and educating drivers. Pro-lifers are trying to preserve life on another level. You don't outlaw cars and you don't kill women who want an abortion but you do what you can. Science has given couples plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy and for the most part these ways are ignored.

Some argue it is reasonable to allow a women to remove an unwanted fetus. I currently agree with that position even though I have emotions that come with it.

Ahah! Emotion! Didn't I say basically the same thing?

[Clownboat]

Maybe the whole problem we're having with this question is the wording. Had you written, "I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow women to abort an unwanted fetus?" and stopped right there I probably would have answered yes, it would be the moral thing to do. But when you added, "and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?" it changes the whole complexion of the question.

No it doesn't. Someone will have to take care of the unwanted babies. If it will not be family or society, whom do you suggest?

Now, if I answer "yes" it seems as if I agree with your idea that family or society is being forced to do this, which I don't.

How about you just offer an alternative to forcing family or society to take care of all the unwanted babies we have added to our population in this scnario we are discussing?

In that respect, you're trying to put words in my mouth.

I did not put words in your mouth. I think you are just feeling trapped as far as where this thought of adding millions of unwanted babies to our population is going. Rather than follow this to its logical conclusion, you are once again a victim. If I'm wrong, please offer an alternative to family or society.

If abortion is deemed illegal, should we put mothers to death that still have the procedure?

No more than we should prosecute someone who has committed suicide.

This response comes across as dishonest to me. Someone who has committed suicide cannot be prosecuted. Someone that gets an illegal abortion can. My question is on point and was dodged.

Are you afraid I'll hold your feet to the fire the next time baby murder is brought up? This question follows from that line of thought. I would not want to answer it if I was in your position either.

What is the ideal amount of unwanted babies that we should seek as a nation in your opinion?

That question doesn't even deserve an answer.

It does when you say things like this: "the best pro I have to offer is that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do"
Seems like you are waffling now about whether preserving life really is the morally right thing to do.

I honestly thought your answer would be 'all of them' (possibly discounting cases of rape or medical reasons).

Then we could talk numbers as we know how many unwanted fetuses are aborted each year. From there we could discuss how family or society (or another mechanism if you can think of one) will take care of them. I wouldn't want to go down this path either though if I were you.

The question did deserve an answer though IMO.

How many unwanted babies are you prepared to take in? I'm looking for a number from you.

Classic deflection. Doesn't deserve an answer.

I think I have successfully demonstrated that there is likely a shortage of those willing to take care of the unwanted babies you argue to force women to attempt to give birth to.

Must we revisit this? They are likely "unwanted" 'by their mothers," not by society.

Please define this society you speak of that wants unwanted babies. I fear it is imaginary. Is there a small portion of society that does so? Yes, but we are discussing adding 3/4 of a million or so unwanted babies. The responsible thing to do would be to discuss their care. You seem unwilling to do that.

I can't use my body to hide illicit drugs in my mouth or my anus.

il·lic·it
/i(l)ˈlisit/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.

Are you writing a dictionary? Allow me to remind you of the statement I was responding to:

Please notice that what you copy/pasted was actually my response to you.
You commented about illicit drugs in your mouth/butt. I responded to that statement. None of us are allowed to do illegal things. Therefore your statement was irrelevant.

Do some people tell other people what they can or can't do with their bodies or not?

You're not a parent are you? Parents do this kind of thing all the time.
We are discussing women and law though. Therefore this comparison fails.

I can tell my children what they can or can't do with their bodies, therefore I should be able to tell women that they must attempt to carry an unwanted fetus to term... does not follow.

By your logic, we should remove the choice that we currently have to drive. You said that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do. Do you no longer stand by that? Or would you use reason to make an exception for driving?
(Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.)

Let's use reason to see those traffic deaths are unintentional whereas abortion is intentional.

I see. So the preservation of life being the morally right thing to do only applies when you feel it should? In this case whether intentional or not. How cavalier.

Preservation of life is the morally right thing to do cannot be the reason or else we end up removing vehicles and stairs and on and on.

We should seek to preserve life where we can.

Restricting the ability to drive would do this and you know it. So follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion if you really stand by it.

Science has given couples plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy and for the most part these ways are ignored.

Your words are clearly false here, sorry.
More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.
Some 60% of all women of reproductive age are currently using a contraceptive method
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/c ... ted-states

There does not seem to be enough willing people to take care of all the unwanted babies you argue for. Therefore I feel it is not a morally responsible thing to do to force a women to carry a fetus she does not want to term. The first hand reasons that Purple Knight brought up should not be ignored either. Doing so would be irresponsible IMO.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 49 by Clownboat]

Greetings Clownboat,