Morality of abortion

[PointOfViewGun]

Only if they are her partner. Then I recommend a counselor of some sort. The man must bare in mind that he doesn't know what she is going through and can offer advice and emotional support.

Why does the partner have an equal say? Do they carry the child half of the pregnancy?

[Aexodus]

You have no say in it at all. If she confides in you then you can offer advice on where she might get it done legally, like here in South Africa. Her choice in the end. A female neighbour would only have any input if she has being in the same situation. By input I mean advice and emotional support only. Again it is the pregnant female choice.

So again, if she is going to have an illegal abortion, that’s none of my business?

[Gaidin]

So again, if she is going to have an illegal abortion, that’s none of my business?

As non sequitur as that is, are you law enforcement?

[basics]

Why does the partner have an equal say? Do they carry the child half of the pregnancy?

PointOfViewGun,

So, you're admitting that it is a child and so logically if it is killed by abortion that is murder? You said it not me.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

So, you're admitting that it is a child and so logically if it is killed by abortion that is murder? You said it not me.

Sigh... It's a figure of speech. I could have referred to a corpse as a child as well. Would that mean the corpse is alive? No. You really shouldn't have to rely on such wordplays. It's quite petty.

[Sogdog]

You indirectly challenged believers to explain a variety of paraphrased biblical passages. Why would you argue on the basis of faith when you don't care about faith based philosophies?

I am not arguing faith based principles just showing that religion is not in any position to argue about the morality of anything, hence it should stay out of the abortion debate!

“Never believe that anti-theists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-theists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

When speaking with an anti-theist, just say "the Lord rebuke you" and move on.

You assume one thing: we take religion seriously. We don't.

Not even then. Nothing moves forward without the patient's signature. Nothing stops without the patient's say-so. The patient and her partner may discuss options even as she would with the doctor and the specialists. But the decision is made and signed off on by the patient. Unless the patient is otherwise legally or medically unable to make the decision.

What people need to understand is that in the end there is nothing too medically unique about abortion compared to the rest of the medical decision making ethics and how things are handled. The doctors will go to the patient for the decision. They will make recommendations to the patient for the decision. They will not go to the partner and they will not go to the family. They will go to the patient.

All this hubbub about abortion? So what. The doctor will go to the patient for the decision. The family? The husband? White noise. The patient is the signal.

I completely agree with you. I mention the partner as I assume they have an interest in the well being of the woman involved in making the decision. Ultimately the decision rests on her shoulders.

So again, if she is going to have an illegal abortion, that’s none of my business?

Absolutely. It's not her fault your country's laws are archaic and patriarchal. I would question how you came to find out she was having an abortion in the first place? Are you contravening privacy laws?

[PointOfViewGun]

Sogdog, please use the button on the bottom right of each post to group posts together in a single reply or you can respond to one and then copy in the next response into the existing one by editing it.

[Sogdog]

Sure. Apologies.

[basics]

Sigh... It's a figure of speech. I could have referred to a corpse as a child as well. Would that mean the corpse is alive? No. You really shouldn't have to rely on such wordplays. It's quite petty.

PointOfViewGun,

How was it a figure of speech? A baby in the womb is as a matter of fact a child. Just out of interest have you ever heard anyone say with joy, we're expecting a fetus, a bundle of cells? Correct me if I'm wrong but the usual expression is, we're expecting a baby.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

How was it a figure of speech? A baby in the womb is as a matter of fact a child. Just out of interest have you ever heard anyone say with joy, we're expecting a fetus, a bundle of cells? Correct me if I'm wrong but the usual expression is, we're expecting a baby.

Well, I can play this petty game too. You did it there as well. You told me that people say they expect a baby, not that they have a baby. That goes against your position too... Nonetheless, that is just petty wordplay. They're merely figures of speech that we use in our daily lives. They have no place in a scientific discussion.

[basics]

Well, I can play this petty game too. You did it there as well. You told me that people say they expect a baby, not that they have a baby. That goes against your position too... Nonetheless, that is just petty wordplay. They're merely figures of speech that we use in our daily lives. They have no place in a scientific discussion.

PointOfViewGun,

When they say we're having a baby that confirms that there is a baby inside the mother. These are not figures of speech at all. These are demonstrative words telling people that a newborn is on the way. Figures of speech come down to the cruder type who use the expressions like, " a bun in the oven," or " up the spout," or other crudities like that.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

When they say we're having a baby that confirms that there is a baby inside the mother. These are not figures of speech at all. These are demonstrative words telling people that a newborn is on the way. Figures of speech come down to the cruder type who use the expressions like, " a bun in the oven," or " up the spout," or other crudities like that.

That's one way to ignore what I said completely. It shows me that you only value such figures of speech only when they suit you. Relying on such petty arguments shows us that your position has no merit.

[TheLeft]

In the 21st Century, I find it staggering that people genuinely hold the moral and intellectual position of:

"My invisible friend, whose voice I hear in my head (and isn't paranoid schizophrenia, honest!), told me that no-one should be allowed to have an abortion. Ever."

It's like declaring what the Tooth Fairy's position is on weekly bin collections and then treating it as law. Utterly farcical.

[Sogdog]

That's exactly what's it's like. Similar to " My religion says I am not allowed to do this therefore you can't do it either."
It's childish and dangerous. Hence us militant atheists oppose and call out religion's meddling where ever we see it.

[Prodromos]

I'm pretty sure "expecting" refers to anticipating the birth, not anticipating the unborn baby's transforming into a human being.

[basics]

In the 21st Century, I find it staggering that people genuinely hold the moral and intellectual position of:

"My invisible friend, whose voice I hear in my head (and isn't paranoid schizophrenia, honest!), told me that no-one should be allowed to have an abortion. Ever."

It's like declaring what the Tooth Fairy's position is on weekly bin collections and then treating it as law. Utterly farcical.

TheLeft,

Well the position is that murder is murder especially concerning human life which a baby is whether inside or outside the womb. One doesn't have to hear voices to understand that.

[PointOfViewGun]

TheLeft,

Well the position is that murder is murder especially concerning human life which a baby is whether inside or outside the womb. One doesn't have to hear voices to understand that.

One needs a logical and coherent argument to establish it. You don't have that.

[Sogdog]

And yet basics, the bible is replete with stories about how your god murdered everyone from children to animals. So I don't think you should try hold the moral high-ground nor lecture us on what is moral or not. Your religion is a blood cult.

[Prodromos]

One needs a logical and coherent argument to establish it. You don't have that.

The argument against abortion is that the deliberate killing of any innocent human being is evil, and abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, therefore abortion is evil. It's been posted about a dozen times in this thread.

[PointOfViewGun]

The argument against abortion is that the deliberate killing of any innocent human being is evil, and abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, therefore abortion is evil. It's been posted about a dozen times in this thread.

Yet, establishing a fetus as a human being failed miserably. You want to give it a try?