Comments on: Theology and the Real World

By: Amara

Amara — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:53:07 +0000

(adding to Count Iblis' comment): and my favorite idea to help women combine career and family to bring about the next societal revolution.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:13:31 +0000

Although we should be used to this by now, it is still amazes me every time I read about grown up intelligent people saying that a fertilized egg is a human being. If you look at what ethical issues they are debating in Korea, what the British government has been looking into recently, and compare that with ethical discussions in the US, then it seems like the US is not just one century but one millenium behind.

By: unbelievable

unbelievable — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:14:38 +0000

#55: and how would you make the man suffer the consequences of "creation of unwanted life by the choice to have sex"? Would he have to pay damages to the woman for the physical damage to her body and psychological trauma of carrying to term an unwanted pregnancy? Can money even equate to the following consequences to a woman's body and health, forced upon her unwillingly - maybe we should physically maim the man somehow too so that it is fair. Or is it just female sexuality you want to suppress with the threat of pregnancy?

By: Bodhidharma

Bodhidharma — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:38:27 +0000

Don’t you think that your attitude towards ‘religions’ is pretty much formed and limited by those ‘western’ religions (from judaism to muslim)? There are other religions like Buddhism, who are very rational and don’t expect you to believe in a god-head, although theologists like to press them into such forms.
Abortion is killing – no question! Of course one can say killing a cell is not that grave, but where is that line when the cluster of cells turns into something that you would admit to be a being with a right to live?
The embryo developes pretty fast, you know!
But, be it killing, I think that society has no right to rule the belly of a woman! There is a being growing in the body of someone – does this being have the right to feed on this body? Can we *order* someone to share one’s body with someone else? I think *that* is the real question! Because then, we would have the duty to share our kidneys and livers and other organs with those in need, who would die otherwise! There is no final ethical solution on this issue. That is the problem with ethics compared to logic – sometimes there is no solution.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:00:14 +0000

I didn’t seem to notice anyone mentioning that a woman who had a unwanted pregnancy ususally chose to have sex. That was her choice (rape etc. excepted of course). Thus, she must accept (along with the man involved — he helped a lot too) the consequences of her actions. Just as accidental murder is called manslaughter, and comes with legal consequenses, the accidental creation of life comes with cosequenses. If she really doesn’t want to raise the child, there are many people who want children, but can’t have them (infertile, gays, etc). Let them raise them after birth, but good grief, grow up and accept the consequenses of your actions.

By: Pamela

Pamela — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:31:55 +0000

Not sure whether anyone is still checking this post, but I was a little late in reading it. I just wanted to say I’m a woman and an atheist and I couldn’t agree more with Ashlie.

As far as the statement that it’s obvious that a fetus isn’t a person, I must admit I was relieved to read that I’m not the only (rational) person who finds this statement ridiculous. I’ve long wondered whether I was the only (sort of) pro-life atheist.

For me, it’s got nothing to do with the fetus having a soul. Instead, I have a reverence for human life.

So, there you have it, Amara: a pro-life woman who doesn’t believe in god. I only hope one day you will meet another one, so our existence can be confirmed.

By: Haelfix

Haelfix — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:33:07 +0000

I find the whole ‘its my body, my right’ argument highly specious and rather irratating and childlike:

*As well as Seans usual conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get the feminists and don’t really care about the actual argument perse. No offense, but thats just absurd. No one in their right mind would spend so much time/effort and tears on such a pointless endeavour. *

The fact is, its not ‘your’ body anymore, you have something else that may or may not be a life. You are simply a host, and as such have a responsibility that you cannot simply exorcise at will. In fact the law can and will punish you for say killing a child minutes before birth, so whatever there goes that argument other than in extreme circumstances (risk of life etc).

Now, having said that, I find the notion that a 1 month old arrangement of chemicals is hardly what I would call sentient, in fact its not even close. Science comes to the rescue here and should provide the legal definition of life as well as the cutoff date for abortions +- an error zone. Simply take the 1 or 2 sigma margin of error, and there you have it, as close to humanly possible.

By: MaxPolun

MaxPolun — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:58:39 +0000

The best argument I've heard on this topic is from punkassblog basically body rights trump all. Also, it should not be forgotten that women have died giving birth, and still do on occasion, if they do not want to undergo the risks of giving birth, they should not have to, no matter what the reason.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:00:59 +0000

Is this post perhaps an elaborate joke? Lindsay’s position is absurd. I am amazed that someone with a sharp scientific mind can admiringly cite someone who offers as her argument “It’s just obvious”. Just because she sincerely believes something doesn’t mean that a reasonable person cannot hold a diametrically opposed point of view.

And I say all this as someone who supports abortion. Maintaining that people opposed to abortion are “simply wrong“, though, is rather too much for me to take.

Speaking as an atheist who doesn’t believe in any universal morality, it seems to me a first-principles argument about whether or not abortion is acceptable is not simple.
I think most people accept that contraception is OK, while murdering a new-born is criminal (Catholic church aside). There must be some continuous function linking those two points – But who knows what shape it should be? A step-function at birth seems unlikely to me. In the absence of any obvious “bright line”, it seems a linear interpolation is reasonable.
By that argument, abortion at any stage is reprehensible – though perhaps less reprehensible than the other alternatives.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:46:12 +0000

I do not consider myself either pro-life or pro-choice. Both are dogmatic. There are other considerations.

Let’s say a woman is pregnant, and considers abortion for whatever reason. Having met people who’ve done this, consider that the woman who has the abortion (assuming it was done properly) then goes through emotional hell. If there is a partner still involved, he’ll go through hell too. So, let’s say she decides to bring it to term, and put it up for adoption. More hell, though some adoptive parents may be happier (whatever that means).

Another issue. Do we need more people? By some estimates the 6,000,000,000+ we have is too much, endangering life on the planet. We’re certainly not desperate for more.

Let’s say that at six months pregnancy, it’s discovered that the child has some horrific genetic deformity, and this person will never be whole. Then what?

Let’s say that the child reaches 40 years old, but has turned out to be Hitler. Is retroactive abortion justifiable?

In all these cases, society needs to set guidelines. But bringing heated absolutes to the debate is not very helpful.

Humans have no natural preditors, and have reduced evolutionary pressure. Should breeding programs be set to advance human evolution? If so, should those not in the breeding program be sterilized?