1) What is the view of you science-oriented atheists toward late term abortion and partial birth abortion?
2) Is the Pro-Choice lobby primarily made up of atheists?
I will start by saying I am not interested in the views of either Creationists (e.g., Ham, Hovind), mystical-magic nontheists (e.g., Anne Rice, Carlos Castendeda) and mystic socialists (e.g., Lysenko, Stalin, Bernard Shaw). I am asking about people who don't believe in God, Design, ghosts or sympathetic magic.
Here is some exposition to start the discussion.
Late term abortions have been promoted by the pro-choice lobby. In fact, many of these people champion partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion is on a biological level not different from infanticide.
The accusation is often made that the lobby for such procedures is popular among people without religion. I don't know about that. Consider partial birth abortion.
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryp
‘The partial-birth abortion procedure — used from the fifth month of pregnancy and later – involves pulling a living baby feet-first out of the womb, except for the head, then puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. The great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies for entirely non-medical reasons.
Throughout the 1990s, pro-lifers were busy educating the public on brutal partial-birth abortions. Many states, like Nebraska, were passing bans on partial-birth abortions during that era. Congress also had approved national bans on partial-birth abortion in 1996 and 1997. Unfortunately, President Bill Clinton vetoed both bans. This didn’t stop pro-lifers in their efforts to put an end to such a gruesome abortion procedure.
The Stenberg v. Carhart case decided in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled* Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional*on the basis that it didn’t include a health exception.’
Note that the ban is not a general ban on abortions. However, partial birth abortions were legal in the U.S. for several decades. Although enacted in 2003, its constitutionality wasn’t upheld by the Supreme Court until 2007.
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryq
‘The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117*Stat.*1201, enacted November*5, 2003, 18 U.S.C.*§*1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
This statute prohibits a method of abortion that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 15 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.’
It should be noted that not all atheists support late term abortions at the whim of the mother. Many of them support late term abortions only if the mothers health is seriously endangered. One example:
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryw
‘Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them’
Their position is actually based on scientific principle. There is no sharp division at birth. The biological development is gradual according to science so the ethics should reflect
http://ift.tt/1lSFXQo
‘Pro-life Humanists affirms the biological evidence that the development of a human body is a continuum, and with exception of asexual reproduction (twining/cloning) begins at sperm-ovum fusion, when two human beings’ sexual cells form a distinctly new whole: an entity that will continue its development and growth until adult maturity, baring interruption from illness or violence. *We oppose*discrimination against biological humans on the grounds of what they look like and how they function, and we believe that abortion should be rejected on the same ground as racism, sexism and ableism – which place greater importance on what the human entity does and looks like, than on what the entity in question actually is.’
Some of the issues involved the life and safety of the mother. The humanist position is that although a late term fetus is ‘human’, its life should not be weighed heavier than the the mother.
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryy
‘The facts around Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) are very specific. First, because its a late in the fetal stage it is illegal in all American states already, unless the mother's life is in danger. Further, very few doctors will actually provide such a service unless there is imminent danger to the mother if the PBA is not performed. Third, so few PBAs have actually been performed in N. America that that the law against it is almost redundant, and the Ban on PBA IS certainly redundant, as it still allows a doctor to go ahead with the procedure if the mother's life is at stake (which is already the process in place as the laws exist). The ban on BPAs achieves nothing.
People who are in favor of the PBAs (including Obama) are usually more aware of the circumstances under which they are permitted, and know that this procedure is so rare and used only under dire circumstances, that to be opposed to it is to make a medical decision without medical training.’
There are atheists who go the other way. They think that both partial birth abortion and first month infanticide is a matter of the mothers choice. However, I don’t think this is the common view.
http://ift.tt/1EyqtXa
‘Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.’
The view of God in religious scripture toward abortion is not any clearer. However, that deserves another thread.
2) Is the Pro-Choice lobby primarily made up of atheists?
I will start by saying I am not interested in the views of either Creationists (e.g., Ham, Hovind), mystical-magic nontheists (e.g., Anne Rice, Carlos Castendeda) and mystic socialists (e.g., Lysenko, Stalin, Bernard Shaw). I am asking about people who don't believe in God, Design, ghosts or sympathetic magic.
Here is some exposition to start the discussion.
Late term abortions have been promoted by the pro-choice lobby. In fact, many of these people champion partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion is on a biological level not different from infanticide.
The accusation is often made that the lobby for such procedures is popular among people without religion. I don't know about that. Consider partial birth abortion.
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryp
‘The partial-birth abortion procedure — used from the fifth month of pregnancy and later – involves pulling a living baby feet-first out of the womb, except for the head, then puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. The great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies for entirely non-medical reasons.
Throughout the 1990s, pro-lifers were busy educating the public on brutal partial-birth abortions. Many states, like Nebraska, were passing bans on partial-birth abortions during that era. Congress also had approved national bans on partial-birth abortion in 1996 and 1997. Unfortunately, President Bill Clinton vetoed both bans. This didn’t stop pro-lifers in their efforts to put an end to such a gruesome abortion procedure.
The Stenberg v. Carhart case decided in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled* Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional*on the basis that it didn’t include a health exception.’
Note that the ban is not a general ban on abortions. However, partial birth abortions were legal in the U.S. for several decades. Although enacted in 2003, its constitutionality wasn’t upheld by the Supreme Court until 2007.
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryq
‘The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117*Stat.*1201, enacted November*5, 2003, 18 U.S.C.*§*1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
This statute prohibits a method of abortion that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 15 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.’
It should be noted that not all atheists support late term abortions at the whim of the mother. Many of them support late term abortions only if the mothers health is seriously endangered. One example:
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryw
‘Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them’
Their position is actually based on scientific principle. There is no sharp division at birth. The biological development is gradual according to science so the ethics should reflect
http://ift.tt/1lSFXQo
‘Pro-life Humanists affirms the biological evidence that the development of a human body is a continuum, and with exception of asexual reproduction (twining/cloning) begins at sperm-ovum fusion, when two human beings’ sexual cells form a distinctly new whole: an entity that will continue its development and growth until adult maturity, baring interruption from illness or violence. *We oppose*discrimination against biological humans on the grounds of what they look like and how they function, and we believe that abortion should be rejected on the same ground as racism, sexism and ableism – which place greater importance on what the human entity does and looks like, than on what the entity in question actually is.’
Some of the issues involved the life and safety of the mother. The humanist position is that although a late term fetus is ‘human’, its life should not be weighed heavier than the the mother.
http://ift.tt/1Eyqryy
‘The facts around Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) are very specific. First, because its a late in the fetal stage it is illegal in all American states already, unless the mother's life is in danger. Further, very few doctors will actually provide such a service unless there is imminent danger to the mother if the PBA is not performed. Third, so few PBAs have actually been performed in N. America that that the law against it is almost redundant, and the Ban on PBA IS certainly redundant, as it still allows a doctor to go ahead with the procedure if the mother's life is at stake (which is already the process in place as the laws exist). The ban on BPAs achieves nothing.
People who are in favor of the PBAs (including Obama) are usually more aware of the circumstances under which they are permitted, and know that this procedure is so rare and used only under dire circumstances, that to be opposed to it is to make a medical decision without medical training.’
There are atheists who go the other way. They think that both partial birth abortion and first month infanticide is a matter of the mothers choice. However, I don’t think this is the common view.
http://ift.tt/1EyqtXa
‘Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.’
The view of God in religious scripture toward abortion is not any clearer. However, that deserves another thread.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1RAGbKp
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire