So this would include infanticide? That's an interesting stance to take. Personally, I'm not so concerned with the legality of the issue but I was wondering in terms of morality if there are not certain moral responsibilities that might be associated with certain relationships? This doesn't neccesarily mean that rights should be restricted...we have the right to make immoral choices. I mean that in our actions if we enter into a certain relationship do we not also have the moral obligation to carry out the responsiblities associated with those relationships? If a man chooses to engage in sexual intercourse is he not bound to the responsibilites associated with the relationship he has entered into? Under the same logic as you have applied to abortion would it not also stand that there is really no such thing as a 'dead-beat' dad? As someone who obviously beleives strongly that a position of beleif must be based on rationality I was wondering if you might walk me through your position, not based on legality and rights, but on morality...again not neccessarily focusing on the moral status of the fetus but on the moral permissibility of relationships and responsibilities if you could.

Interesting choice of words. Having a child as a result of sexual intercourse is actually not a 'punishment', rather it is one potential and quite natural consequence of the act of sex. I don't know that I would call it good or bad...it just is.

Whose 'insane idea' was this?

I'm going to have a look through at your previous posts. Hopefully I'll get a better idea where you're coming from. To be clear, for me (although I would identify myself as a Christian) the moral permissibility of the act of abortion as I understand it has little to do with whether I beleive in the existence of God or not. I guess since some religious groups have been fairly aggressive on this issue it is appropriate that this discussion take place on this forum. As a final question I would ask if you might attempt for me to define what makes any human life valuable. My question is not whether a fetus is human or should have the rights associated with personhood. My question is simply what is it that makes it important for us not to murder. Is murder immoral and if so why? If you have indeed answered this question in an earlier post obviously no need to respond as I will come across it soon.

Obviously, you know that I am not religious, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to lean more towards the pro-lifers. (yes, they are crazy)

I can't find a source for this, but there was a special case several years ago, in a state where killing a pregnant woman's unborn child did not count as murder, where a man shot and killed a pregnant woman. However, the baby was able to survive for many hours, long enough for nurses at the hospital to deliver the baby out of the mother, and then the baby died. Because the baby died after it was born, the man was charged with two counts of first degree murder instead of one. 

I understand that there has to be some kind of cut-off, but it seems rather unfair that the baby would count as a person simply because it exited the mother.

Since you clearly put the "line" at birth, do you think we should be allowed to abort a baby one day before it is born? Two days? A week? A month? Being in the 21st century, we like to quantify things, but, biologically, there is no point where the baby suddenly transforms from being unalive to alive.

I just don't think that the right of the mother necesarily always overrides the right of the baby to be alive. Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I don't value life. If anything, I value it more. If my mother had aborted me, I would never have existed. Obvously, if I hadn't been born, then I wouldn't be around to worry about it, but that misses the point. I would want to exist.

This is why, currently, I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, when the birth might endanger the mother, etc. 

Ah, but then we're dealing with life based on an official definition that may or may not be justified. Individuals have different ideas of what consitutes a person. A pro-lifer would say that aborting any fetus is first degree murder while matt would say that it is like swatting flies. 

Furthermore, we could establish an objective point at which the fetus is alive, but how would be make this reliable? Every fetus develops at a different rate. 

"I'm sorry Mrs. Jones, but based on our X-ray, your fetus just became alive. So, you can't abort it anymore."

Personhood has to be a matter of law, not science.  The thing is, babies come from eggs and sperm, which are alive.  The eggs and sperm are created by a female and male, respectively.  Both of them are also alive.  Life doesn't begin and end.  It continues.  (Well, sometimes it ends, but it doesn't really begin except for that one time, a long, long time ago.)

You're right that there should be a cutoff at which a person is considered a person.  I believe that the only reasonable point for this distinction is birth.  Justifying abortion has only marginal importance in this justification, though.  The thing is, if a person becomes a person anytime before birth, you open up hundreds of cans of worms.  For one thing, consider that under U.S. law, any person who is unable to make and execute legal decisions for himself must be appointed an attorney ad litum, who then makes decisions for that person based on their own best interests.  If you extend personhood to before birth, are you really going to make every pregnant woman go through the process of being assigned an attorney for her unborn child?

Are you really going to be ok with the fact that it will be an attorney's legal duty to conduct a thorough investigation of every abortion, even if it was spontaneous and no fault of the mother?  {EDIT:  I'm referring to when the body spontaneously aborts a fetus.  Sometimes it's something the mother did.  Other times, it just wasn't a viable embryo.  Do you want an inquest every time this happens?  Also, do you really want an attorney checking your daily journals to make sure you didn't do anything that could potentially be against the best interests of your fetus?  Do you want to go to court to explain why you decided to go into that nightclub for ten minutes, even though you knew you'd be exposed to second hand smoke, and even though it's the only time you've done it since you got pregnant?}

Obviously, this part of the law will not apply to the unborn, so it kind of begs the question.  If so elementary a right of personhood is so easily discarded, can we honestly say that there's a good reason for applying personhood to a fetus?

I could go on with legal protections provided to persons for a long time, and the same kind of scenario would emerge each time.  Applying "persons' rights" to fetuses is simply not feasible or desirable.  In fact, the only two cases I'm aware of where people think it is a good idea are abortion and cases like the one you mentioned where a victim's family wants another murder charge tacked on.

The real question is this:  Is there a logically valid and objectively true argument for the selective application of only one right of personhood to the unborn?

I have yet to hear one.

Like it or not, humans, and most other higher animals, practice infanticide.  You may not like hearing it, but it's true.  It's built into our natures to sometimes kill our offspring.  Of course, this isn't an argument for abortion.  It's just a fact.  However, one can make an argument that abortion, performed in a clean environment, and performed as humanely as possible, is far more desirable than having a wetnurse take a newborn baby into the next room and suddenly "discover" that it died shortly after birth.

Personally, I think that abortions ought to be performed early in pregnancy, for a number of reasons.  Again, because this has to be a matter of law, not science, I think it's reasonable that the law provide a cutoff point that makes both sides happy -- women are able to get rid of fetuses they do not want, and people concerned for the physical pain of the fetus are reasonably assured of humane treatment.

This also brings up the very interesting (and not entirely valid) notion that humans are particular in the world.  We have no problem eating chicken fetuses by the billion.  It's not the "sanctity" of life we're talking about here.  Humans clearly don't value life.  They do, however, value human life over every other form of life on the planet.

I obviously can't argue that humans shouldn't value human life highly.  It's built into our genes.  However, there are LOTS of things that are built into our genes that we temper with reason.  In the same way that it's not automatically right to say that infanticide is good because it's natural, it's also not automatically right to say that preserving human life is good because it's natural!

Look at that last sentence again.  The same argument that defeats abortion also defeats anti-abortion!  The fact is, neither position is true just because it's natural, or highly emotional.  Consider for a moment if we learned that the human race was at a tipping point.  If our population increased any more, the total destruction of our environment would be inevitable.  (Just play along.  I know this is far fetched.)  At this point, we would realize that eliminating population growth was far, far more desirable than preserving every pregnancy.

The point of this example is not to say we ought to be doing anything in particular.  It's just to show that reason can override nature.  The fact is, abortion is just like anything else.  It can be looked at rationally and objectively.   If you find that your arguments contain only emotion, then you need to do a lot more thinking about what you believe.

This is fine if you want to just believe it because it feels good, but if you are going to argue for it, you need to have actual arguments.  As I've demonstrated, the emotional weight of the feeling doesn't contribute to the truth of the opinion.  For comparison, have you ever been pregnant in a situation where you felt extreme negative emotion at the thought of having a baby?  Have you ever been a Muslim woman who knew without a shadow of a doubt that when your pregnancy was discovered, you would be killed?  The fact is, humans are far too complex to make blanket statements about the way things should or should not be. 

Remember, please, that a right is something granted to a human by a government.  There are no inalienable rights.  Rights are justified through logic (or sometimes, illogic.)  If you want to argue for a fetuses right to be born, you need to have an actual argument.  Not just an opinion.

This is a lot like the theist argument:  If the universe wasn't exactly the way it was, we couldn't be on earth.  It's not an argument.  It's just an emotional appeal.  The fact is, this argument hinges on the point it's trying to prove.  Human life is inherently sacred because human life is inherently sacred.

Please realize I'm not trying to make you feel foolish here.  I'm trying to get you to think past your emotions and construct good arguments.  Is human life sacred?  Why?  Is it always sacred?  Why?

The fact is, the only arguments that can be made are emotional ones, and trust me... I've seen both sides of the abortion emotions.  For everyone who feels really strongly that babies have a right to be born, there's someone else who feels just as strongly that women have a right not to have babies they don't want.  The strength of your feeling is NOT an argument.

I'm confused somewhat.  Are we to determine personhood based on size, or based on progression and ability, or what?  If we base rights on size, then what gives females, who are generally smaller than males, the same rights as males.  If we base it on progression and ability, then what makes euthanasia wrong, and what is the need for retirement homes?  These people should fend for themselves like the rest of us, right?  Please comment on this, this is my thought on it, though.

Ok, so how far do we take that one?  I mean, my 2 year old son can't think in terms of a grown adult, he can't really even think past what he's doing right now.  So, does that make him less of a person than I or any other adult?  Do we grow into personhood?  That would also rule out the mentally challenged for personhood as well, wouldn't it?  They shouldn't have the same rights I do, I do more for this world than they do. Also, just something to think about: the government is not an infallible organization itself.  It has made bad judgmental decisions before, so what is to say that this is not another one?

You would not have the right if you put the intruder there.  The baby didn't just show up or break in.  If the mother did not want an "intruder" she did not have to have sex.

 Matt's position on every issue is radically towards the left. In fact, I think he's falling over. So, though I respect his opinion, please don't assume that every atheist wants to kill your babies. 

Previously, I believed that the best course to take would be to make abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, birth might endanger the mother, etc. However, after reading Hamby's response, I'm unsure again since I realized that part of my position still stemmed from pathos. I suppose some kind of middle ground would be most rational course to take. Certainly, first or second trimester, or birth is a convenient place to draw the line, but I'm not sure about that either. The best bet is to find some balance between the moral position of society, the rights of the mother, and the rights of the child.

I think there's too many implications and consequences involved with being able to kill after birth. Plus, most humans can't bear the thought of killing babies.  

It is clearly murder.

Hey, MattShizzle, are you going to respond to my previous post?  I want to hear your thought...

That's funny...except that most eggs were not chicken fetuses. Chickens lay eggs regardless of being pregnant or not.

Shizzle, so what your saying is that persons worth or the moral value of a persons life is derived from their contribution to the socioeconomic structure of society?

If this is the case then that opens up a whole host of others who could be killed without consequence no?

Here's how I see it. First, I wanted to point out that I find your language interesting. You call child birth a 'punishment' for sex.  That is an interesting take on a very natural process.  One very natural consequence of sexual intercourse is in fact child birth. Would you argue that any natural consequence to any action that is undesirable by the actor is a 'punishment'. If so who is or what is punishing these people?

I eat too much fast food and I have been punished by becoming a fattie.

Now here's where I stand and feel free to disagree.

When I was a child my mother always said to me..."Matt you need to take responsibility for you actions."  There is a moral value in this.  We are accountable for the choices that we make regardless of the consequences.  When a person enters into a relationship, responsibilities follow.  I would argue that the upright thing to do is to accept those responsibilities and consequences.  Regardless of whether you are an Atheist or a Thiest scientifically a fetus or unborn child does have some moral value.  This could be established in regards to its potential future like ours, sentience, ability to think or a combination of all the above. For that reason to terminate a fetus or unborn child must be something that is taken seriously...not like swatting a fly.  As you may have notice the relationships and responsibilities argument does not include rape because a choice was never made.

I'm not concerend with politics and legislation. Something being a legal right does not make it moraly right. From that perspective abortion, except maybe in extreme circumstances, is not morally permissible although it may remain legally available.

Then again if your position is that moral codes are social constructs with no intrinsic value except to benefit the selfish desires of human beings and allow for the species to continue surviving...then maybe weeding out the undesirables is philosophically more consistent with your Atheist worldview???

Peace and Love

I don't think sex is a bad thing either...whether you think it should come with cosequences or not, the reality is that it does. Just because a consequence can be dealt with by termiating another living being does not mean choosing to do so is a moral act.

In your example of weight loss surgery no living being is denied its potential future.

In your example of rape no choice has been made on the behalf of the victim therefore it would not apply to the relationships and responsibilites idea I put forth.

On your idea of abortion as birth control I would have to disagree.  I think that is just down right irresponsible and as an Athiest I would expect you to have more concern for the strain that this would put on the social and economic structures of society...seeing as you are incredibely concerned with human beings contributing to society, as implied earlier about the moral permissabilty of infanticide and the killing of mentally disabled persons, you should make a note that this sort of irresponsible behaviour would be a huge drain on the healthcare system should these services be provided with government financial support.  If you are arguing against government assistance then perhaps you should go back and read some more feminist theory. Also if that's the case you would recognize that you are saying that wealthy white married women (whose children statistically would be more likley to contribute to society) are the only persons who would actually have access to abortions, neglecting poor whites and minorities.

Just some thoughts....

So your concern is about the potential for enjoying life? How then can you rationalize killing an infant or a mentally disabled individual? Are you asserting that a person of lower mental capabilities is unable to enjoy life? In that case you would be wrong. By what standard are you measuring enjoyment?  Also, a fetus has the potential for enjoying life...so your logic is confusing.  When its convenient you imply that contributing to society is the standard...now you say that potential to enjoy life is the standard?

Next, it probably would be cheaper if your assumptions about the result of keeping a child were correct. In reality the majority of abortions are done for women who are more than financially capable of raising a child and many of which are actually even in committed relationships.  These pregnancies are just considered inconvenient.

Is there anything that might convince you that you may need to adjust your position? I mean your argument is much more solid if you stray from making radical remarks about mentally disabled persons and justifying infanticide.  This would mean prescribing a little more moral value to the fetus but it would allow you more room to move when forming your position.  It may mean addressing abortion as birth control as at least possibly immoral as well, while still maintaining the need for womens legal rights. Maybe not...just a thought.

Please note my views are never to be associated with those of any group but are solely my own.

A few things ..

 No human being has any "Rights" whatsoever.. The entire "I have ,you have, Rights" speal is nothing more then people deluding themselves into thinking they are important and are entitled to something. Rights are man made delusions just like the majority of everything else people bitch cry and whine about.

There is no such thing as anyone having a "Right" to do anything.. Except maybe Die.. But that is forced onto everyone regardless of who you are. Mehh and if you try to kill yourself you DON'T have the "Right" to fail because they will punish you for trying. Lol.. How stupid is that.

Mehhh i usually don't talk in abortion threads , stupidity abounds in them... Frankly it comes down to this, We have 1 life.. How we chose to lead our lives is up to us. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby fine that is her choice. Not some jackass who is protesting her choice to not have a baby.

I really do not see any reason why anyone in this world would want to have kids, Cancer rates are skyrocketing, our governments are doing stupid stuff, religious extremists (Both Muslim and Christian--Etc) are making life on this world a bit unbearable. And the ignorant fools outnumber us 1000/1 ..