>A fetus in the undeveloped state that you described is not a vegetable or a human being. It is a potential human being.<
You may believe this, but you merely prove how religion can sneak up on even an atheist/libertarian. You see, you claim out of thin air that the foetus is neither vegetable nor human, and yet do not nor cannot factually define either. All this faith of yours will have to be shoved down the throats of a lot of people if you want it to stick. The best you can do here is to say that a human organism's expendability is in direct correlation to its development. And, of course, you will be saying nothing that is anything better than what you have already said.
>Using terms such as "vegetable" or "bag of cells" is as disingenuous as pro lifers calling a fertilized egg a "baby".<
More religion, as certainly your definition has no more factual authority than those who differ with you. So then by what logical means can you define developing human offspring as neither human nor vegetable? On the basis of how it looks to the human eye, or how loud it screams, or whether it can "think" or is "self-aware?" You have then sanctioned the murder of millions now protected by law.
>I don't post much and hesitate to wade in on this issue, but I have to throw in my 2 cents. I am a libertarian and an atheist and view this issue as a matter of ones personal beliefs.<
This is one view, and only one view, and a religious one at that. In a nutshell you say "this is all a matter of faith." Others view it as a matter of self-preservation (and they have the philosophical edge over you), a matter of life and death. Some of them think those who think as you do are serious threats that perhaps should one day be eliminated. So you see, it may not do to shrug off the thing as simply "a matter of one's personal beliefs."
>With such a large number of people who view abortion as murder, I don't think that tax dollars should be used to fund the procedure. At the same time, I believe that abortion should be legal for those women who wish to undergo it, as long as the fetus is not viable or conscious or aware as you stated above.<
Here you basically destroyed clear thinking by inserting nitwittery. I am with you that tax dollars should not be used to fund abortion. And even believing as I do about abortion, I am with you that women should be allowed to abort. But I cannot logically follow you into the following silliness--
...as long as the fetus is not viable or conscious or aware....
What is this? And who decides when an unborn child is any of these? And when they decide, by what compelling principle of reason can they be expected not to apply these definitions to anyone not now protected by law? When you put this exception clause in your "atheist/libertarian" solution, you merely act like a religious/non-libertarian. And when one thinks of the implications of your exclusions, one may think it comes from a serious religious fundie. If you will allow abortion, then do be man enough to allow it.
>PBA is a red herring thrown out by pro lifers. It is a rarely used procedure and usually done under dire life threatening circumstances.
More faith, and irrelevant faith to boot. You see, it is important to discuss PBA because it flows from the principle that now allows general abortion. We speak on principles here, James-- not herrings. PBA is logical if one accepts abortion philosophy. And if PBA is logical, then why not Full Birth Abortion (FBA)? That is the point.
>What really gets me is the religious fundies antipathy towards birth control and sex education. With adequate instruction in and access to both, the number of unwanted births and abortions would decrease dramatically.<
What gets me is how rabid atheist/libertarian religious fundies seek to force their indoctrination programs of birth control, "sex education" and, if need be, abortion, on the children of others. |
