abortion

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I believe abortion is very often ethical. I come to this conclusion from a hedonistic utilitirian perspective. Suffering will not be increased overall if abortion occurs in many or most situations.

If the goal is simlpy limit suffering, kill them all. Doesn't seem
right to me to pick and choose which ones we can kill to make
someone else feel better.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
ME: I'll leave it to Bbarr to discuss his definition of personhood the philosophical basis of which differs from mine, though the result is the same in this case. I will say as a legal matter, it was never a double homicide until fairly recently when a pregnant woman was murdered; those laws are of recent vintage. I would also state that in traditional ...[text shortened]... a manner she would not have agreed to and violate the Social Contract.

But that's me.

The legal aspect of abortion leans heavily on the underlying philosophy, which is what I'm more interested in discussing...

Originally posted by wib
So you're against the death penalty?

(Just thought I'd throw a little more fuel on the fire)

Most of the time. See the capital punishment thread for a better answer.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I believe this to be true. Both we and God are eternal. You suggest that because of this reason it doesn’t matter if we kill each other or not. From an atheists perspective you would have a point. To believe in God though is to believe that he put us here for a reason. So what right do we have to deny another their God given time here on Earth.

This came out wrong. I don't think that you (LordOfTheChessBoard) are an athesist.

Originally posted by Halitose
I think that is one of the fundamental differences between the theist and atheist: the basic right to - and sanctity of life.

You are wrong.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are wrong.

Please substantiate...

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are wrong.

As an athiest, where and how do you find a basis to the right to life? And when it comes to sanctity, well, we're talking another language, right...?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
This came out wrong. I don't think that you (LordOfTheChessBoard) are an athesist.

Then what is he? Strong agnostic? His pro-life stance is refreshing...

Originally posted by Halitose
Strong agnostic?

Lol. I -- really -- don't -- know!

Originally posted by Halitose
Please substantiate...

No, I won't waste my time. We've been over the same subject matter over and over again. The history of theism offers no evidence that theists hold to any "sanctity of life"; the philosophies of numerous non-theists do. Your statement was absurd.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I won't waste my time. We've been over the same subject matter over and over again. The history of theism offers no evidence that theists hold to any "sanctity of life"; the philosophies of numerous non-theists do. Your statement was absurd.

The history of theism offers no evidence that theists hold to any "sanctity of life"; the philosophies of numerous non-theists do.

Now that is so absurd, it should be labelled obscene, stupid or just ignorant. No evidence? Wow. Your reading must be extremely limited, or just limited to anti-thiest propaganda.

Originally posted by RatX
As an athiest, where and how do you find a basis to the right to life? And when it comes to sanctity, well, we're talking another language, right...?

A) I'm not an atheist;

B) The Social Contract;

C) If Halitose was using the term "sanctity" as something only done by God and thus the "sanctity of life" as something ONLY theists could believe, then his post was a tautology. Since a tautology is always correct by definition, I can't argue with it but to say only theists believe that GOD SANCTIFIES life, ain't saying much.

Originally posted by RatX
[b]The history of theism offers no evidence that theists hold to any "sanctity of life"; the philosophies of numerous non-theists do.

Now that is so absurd, it should be labelled obscene, stupid or just ignorant. No evidence? Wow. Your reading must be extremely limited, or just limited to anti-thiest propaganda.[/b]

If all (a word I should have added) theists believed in the "Sanctity of Life", theists wouldn't have committed mass murders of people with different belief systems throughout history. Those mass murders were obscene, stupid and ignorant.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I won't waste my time. We've been over the same subject matter over and over again. The history of theism offers no evidence that theists hold to any "sanctity of life"; the philosophies of numerous non-theists do. Your statement was absurd.

Why do you use history when refuting my claim of theism and then philosophy when substantiating for atheism? This is like adding x to y to prove z. If you want to look at history, just dwell for a while on (atheistic) communism and its great respect for human life.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If all (a word I should have added) theists believed in the "Sanctity of Life", theists wouldn't have committed mass murders of people with different belief systems throughout history. Those mass murders were obscene, stupid and ignorant.

Those mass murders were obscene, stupid and ignorant.

What are those mystical "those" you keep talking about?

And while you're at it - please post your "social contract". You couldn't be alluding to Rousseau's, right? That recipe for revolution and oppression?