Debates: Participant pool

If you would like to throw your name in the hat for a discussion please do so here.

Please note that the only requirement for eligibility is that you can devote the time to the debate and you are willing to follow the rules, so feel free to put your name up.

If you are interested in a specific topic please put that topic by your name.

If you would like to volunteer to be a moderator, please put that by your name.

I will be working on compiling a list of participants here and I would also like to see a debate started soon so please don't be shy :D

Also, I'm going to be contacting other unions and people who I think might be interested in these discussions, so if you know anyone who might like to participate, please send them this way. Thanks!   

Current Pool.  I've made a table of participants, questions and positions.  If a space is blank, it means that there is not information for that field.

 Participant                        Question                                                     Position
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dracula_16             Should the (bible/Qur'an) be                                         No
                       interpreted differently as society changes?


mindstorm


RationalAtheist  


foxhound_fox   Can non-belief be variable?                                                Yes
                      Is Buddhism a religion?                                                     Yes
                      Is (Historic reigious event) an accuratedepection of history?          


Frattracide          Is morality objective?                                                      No  

                        Is Scientism a prevalent idea in the Atheistic community?    Yes  

GabuEx        Should a religion be judged based on the actions of its followers?     No
                   Is it always irrational to believe in God?                                         No

I'm certainly fine with arguing in favor any position that has the conclusion "Jesus is awesome." 

However, my only issue is how much time I'll be able to devote to the debate.  While I can certainly contribute and respond, I am not certain that I'll be able to do so in a timely manner in light of being a full-time student with a part-time job.

I'm certainly fine with arguing in favor any position that has the conclusion "Jesus is awesome." 

However, my only issue is how much time I'll be able to devote to the debate.  While I can certainly contribute and respond, I am not certain that I'll be able to do so in a timely manner in light of being a full-time student with a part-time job.

mindstorm

As it stands now participants have up to a week to respond to the most current post in their debate. I know people are busy, I figure a week is enough time to craft a response.  

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I'm certainly fine with arguing in favor any position that has the conclusion "Jesus is awesome." 

However, my only issue is how much time I'll be able to devote to the debate.  While I can certainly contribute and respond, I am not certain that I'll be able to do so in a timely manner in light of being a full-time student with a part-time job.

Frattracide

As it stands now participants have up to a week to respond to the most current post in their debate. I know people are busy, I figure a week is enough time to craft a response.  

That I should be able to do.  While I'd certainly try to respond sooner than that, there will be periods of several days at a time that responding will not be possible.

I'm game, of course.

 :D

I don't mind debating about something I don't condone/ believe.

But I'd like to respond specifically to Mindstorm, by countering "Atheism is Super-Awesomer!" 

Count me in!... I'd like to participate in any of those debates...12thArcane

Alright sir. Would you like for us to kick things off and get a debate started? You suggested the topic "does the omnipotence paradox imply God's non-existence". If you would like to argue in the affirmative then I would be happy to take the negative. I can probably make a good case for the affirmative as well but it's not my preferred position.

Let me know and we'll ask for a moderator.

I submit myself for debates.

I can devote (some) time to the topics of "Can non-belief be variable?" responding "yes", "Is Buddhism a religion or 'philosophy'?" responding "yes, very much so" and anything doing with the historicity of religion.foxhound_fox

Historicity of religion eh? Would you be interested in arguing the negative against "History supports the claim that Jesus was a miracle worker" with me?

First in first served ;)

[QUOTE="12thArcane"]Count me in!... I'd like to participate in any of those debates...domatron23

Alright sir. Would you like for us to kick things off and get a debate started? You suggested the topic "does the omnipotence paradox imply God's non-existence". If you would like to argue in the affirmative then I would be happy to take the negative. I can probably make a good case for the affirmative as well but it's not my preferred position.

Let me know and we'll ask for a moderator.

Very well, I accept the challenge =}... I'll be affirmative... Waiting the confirmation then...

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="12thArcane"]Count me in!... I'd like to participate in any of those debates...12thArcane

Alright sir. Would you like for us to kick things off and get a debate started? You suggested the topic "does the omnipotence paradox imply God's non-existence". If you would like to argue in the affirmative then I would be happy to take the negative. I can probably make a good case for the affirmative as well but it's not my preferred position.

Let me know and we'll ask for a moderator.

Very well, I accept the challenge =}... I'll be affirmative... Waiting the confirmation then...

Righto, lets do this. Two things that we need-

First, an agreement on the terms. Frattracide made an excellent first post in the topic "Debates: Format" outlining rules which I think we should follow. There was also a question over the word count and number of quotes allowed. I suggest that the moderator declare how many words and quotes we're allowed to use. Do you agree?

Second, a moderator. We need one. Any volunteers?

[QUOTE="12thArcane"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="12thArcane"]Count me in!... I'd like to participate in any of those debates...domatron23

Alright sir. Would you like for us to kick things off and get a debate started? You suggested the topic "does the omnipotence paradox imply God's non-existence". If you would like to argue in the affirmative then I would be happy to take the negative. I can probably make a good case for the affirmative as well but it's not my preferred position.

Let me know and we'll ask for a moderator.

Very well, I accept the challenge =}... I'll be affirmative... Waiting the confirmation then...

Righto, lets do this. Two things that we need-

First, an agreement on the terms. Frattracide made an excellent first post in the topic "Debates: Format" outlining rules which I think we should follow. There was also a question over the word count and number of quotes allowed. I suggest that the moderator declare how many words and quotes we're allowed to use. Do you agree?

Second, a moderator. We need one. Any volunteers?

I agree with the rules Frattacide exposed and agree with the moderator declaring about words and quotes... Now we wait for a moderator...

Okay then frattracide, I'll leave it to you to create the topic. You can make the introductory post and then, as 12thArcane has the burden of proof, he can make the affirmative argument.

Looking forward to it.

Oh wow, it seems I've missed some things in my absence.

I'll submit some debate topics:

1. Should a religion be judged based on the actions of its followers?  (My position: No)

2. Is it always irrational to believe in God? (My position: No)

I'm also interested in playing devil's advocate and taking the affirmative position on the question of whether morality is objective.  I might be interested in foxhound_fox's debate topic on non-belief too, although I'm not quite sure what is meant by the question - could you elaborate?

I'd like to add some more specific topics:

• Was the Buddha an atheist (i.e. rejects the ideas of God and the supernatural)? Yes
• Was the historical Buddha as he is depicted in texts and traditions? No.

Another two topics I have always wanted to tackle, but don't think would be appropriate for this kind of debate (more so a dissertation for a doctorate degree) is "Is Buddhism an innovation of Vedism, or a unique development?" and "Is Buddhism's influence on the West greater than anyone can really imagine (i.e. similar elements in Christianity, Gnosticism and other Greek-era philosophical developments and its spread through trade routes into Europe)?"

But then again, these aren't exactly well-researched topics to begin with, so a debate might actually be better... >_>

I'm also interested in playing devil's advocate and taking the affirmative position on the question of whether morality is objective.  I might be interested in foxhound_fox's debate topic on non-belief too, although I'm not quite sure what is meant by the question - could you elaborate?

GabuEx

Nothing? :P 

Nothing? :P GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Nothing? :P foxhound_fox

Hmm, OK, sure, I'll take you up on that. 

2. Is it always irrational to believe in God? (My position: No)

GabuEx

I'm interested in seeing GabuEx arguing in the affirmative for moral objectivity. I can argue the negative but I doubt anyone wants to see me in every debate.

If Gabu is still interested in this topic is there anyone who would like to take him on?

I'm interested in seeing GabuEx arguing in the affirmative for moral objectivity. I can argue the negative but I doubt anyone wants to see me in every debate.

If Gabu is still interested in this topic is there anyone who would like to take him on?

domatron23

I'm still interested and will do my best, although I can't promise I'll be on top form when arguing in favor of something that I definitely don't believe to be true. :P 

I've got an interesting one. In a non-religious moral framework can it be said that embryos, foetuses and unborn babies have human rights? I've always been pretty anti-foetus so I would argue no. I know there are some formidable opponents on here that would argue for a pro-life position so feel free to take me on here.domatron23

Interesting indeed... I would take that one if I weren't pro-choice...

About moral objectivity, I can eagerly say that you will have a hard time finding someone arguing affirmative to that matter...

Talking about moral precepts I came up with another subject... If we can call a morality benign or evil, can we do the same with religion?

[QUOTE="domatron23"]I've got an interesting one. In a non-religious moral framework can it be said that embryos, foetuses and unborn babies have human rights? I've always been pretty anti-foetus so I would argue no. I know there are some formidable opponents on here that would argue for a pro-life position so feel free to take me on here.12thArcane

Interesting indeed... I would take that one if I weren't pro-choice...

About moral objectivity, I can eagerly say that you will have a hard time finding someone arguing affirmative to that matter...

Talking about moral precepts I came up with another subject... If we can call a morality benign or evil, can we do the same with religion?

I think we have a pro-"Rand-ian" member around these parts, so it would be interesting to hear objectivism re-stated from them.

I think I'm phoetus-agnostic, so I could take the postition of being "pro-embyro-future-choice" (if needed*) for the human rights issue.

*I'd rather the discussion about the discussion threads weren't longer than the actual discussion threads.

I think we have a pro-"Rand-ian" member around these parts, so it would be interesting to hear objectivism re-stated from them.

I think I'm phoetus-agnostic, so I could take the postition of being "pro-embyro-future-choice" (if needed*) for the human rights issue.

 

*I'd rather the discussion about the discussion threads weren't longer than the actual discussion threads.RationalAtheist

I´m not sure calling myself an objectivist would be completely accurate...Perhaps you're right, I don't think that much when it comes to moral and ethics... Since they are all subjective to me...And as an agnostic I try to avoid adhering to exclusive philosophies...

I still would gladly discuss about it... Is always fun to philosophize... AND I have to redeem myself after forfeiting the debate to domatron23 D;...

I´m not sure calling myself an objectivist would be completely accurate...Perhaps you're right, I don't think that much when it comes to moral and ethics... Since they are all subjective to me...And as an agnostic I try to avoid adhering to exclusive philosophies...

I still would gladly discuss about it... Is always fun to philosophize... AND I have to redeem myself after forfeiting the debate to domatron23 D;...

12thArcane

I wasn't thinking of you - that'll serve me right for speaking in riddles! I thought Genetic_Code still looks in here now and then. Sorry for the confusion. From what I understand (not a lot), Ayn Rand taught "objectivism", so a subscriber like G_C might be able to argue that morals are certainly objective. 

I then went on to try and say ( the the mot baffling way possible) that I think it would be possible to argue a case for the rights of the un-born, from a rational perspective. The basis for my argument would be the easy avoidance of pregnancy and the perception of selfishness in opposing a natural biological process. It's not that I'm against abortion, but do see it as not being necessary or desirable.

I wasn't thinking of you - that'll serve me right for speaking in riddles! I thought Genetic_Code still looks in here now and then. Sorry for the confusion. From what I understand (not a lot), Ayn Rand taught "objectivism", so a subscriber like G_C might be able to argue that morals are certainly objective. 

I then went on to try and say ( the the mot baffling way possible) that I think it would be possible to argue a case for the rights of the un-born, from a rational perspective. The basis for my argument would be the easy avoidance of pregnancy and the perception of selfishness in opposing a natural biological process. It's not that I'm against abortion, but do see it as not being necessary or desirable.RationalAtheist

That makes more sense, yet you quoted my post so I could not figure out your riddle...

And about your rational perspective about the rights of the unborn... Excuse me if I find those arguments way too weak... A quick rebuttal would be that there is not such thing as an infallible way to avoid pregnancy except for abstinence, and then comes the contradiction your second argument brings, the very natural biological process of insemination been opposed and called selfishness... That without even talking about the very instinctive and individual way for humans to look for own survival, which brings the main natural biological process most humans oppose to the very end... Death...I could not perceive selfishness there...

Perhaps G_C can enlighten us about rational selfishness and objectivity in these ethical issues...I hope that G_C will appear soon... I would love to read about that... And I wont interfere anymore (Though it's clear I did not do it on purpose the first time n. nU)... Take care...

That makes more sense, yet you quoted my post so I could not figure out your riddle...

And about your rational perspective about the rights of the unborn... Excuse me if I find those arguments way too weak... A quick rebuttal would be that there is not such thing as an infallible way to avoid pregnancy except for abstinence, and then comes the contradiction your second argument brings, the very natural biological process of insemination been opposed and called selfishness... That without even talking about the very instinctive and individual way for humans to look for own survival, which brings the main natural biological process most humans oppose to the very end... Death...I could not perceive selfishness there...

Perhaps G_C can enlighten us about rational selfishness and objectivity in these ethical issues...I hope that G_C will appear soon... I would love to read about that... And I wont interfere anymore (Though it's clear I did not do it on purpose the first time n. nU)... Take care...

12thArcane

It is all my fault - I can't really justify why I responded as I did - call it over-enthusiasm!

I find your rebuttals interesting. I do agree that there is no infallible way (except abstinence) to avoid pregnancy. But I do see that many societies use abortion because the method exists, rather than take more diligent steps in avoiding pregnancy in the first place, or by placing children with childless couples.

Our ability to inseminate is like our instinctive urge to violence (as a means to ensure our survival). Pregnancy is also a very natural biological process. I think it is selfish to have unprotected sex with someone without considering the risk of having babies 9 months later. I understand from the society where I live that this is nowhere near the primary social consideration when choosing a sexual partner. Your reference to death could equally refer to the death of an unborn for the selfish wishes of the mother (and/or father) not to be tied down to child-rearing.

It would be great to hear from Genetic_Code here some more. I see they've been bothering the Christian Union with some questions recently, so still hold out hope. Please do carry on interfering though. Your input here is totally refreshing!

It is all my fault - I can't really justify why I responded as I did - call it over-enthusiasm!

I find your rebuttals interesting. I do agree that there is no infallible way (except abstinence) to avoid pregnancy. But I do see that many societies use abortion because the method exists, rather than take more diligent steps in avoiding pregnancy in the first place, or by placing children with childless couples.

Our ability to inseminate is like our instinctive urge to violence (as a means to ensure our survival). Pregnancy is also a very natural biological process. I think it is selfish to have unprotected sex with someone without considering the risk of having babies 9 months later. I understand from the society where I live that this is nowhere near the primary social consideration when choosing a sexual partner. Your reference to death could equally refer to the death of an unborn for the selfish wishes of the mother (and/or father) not to be tied down to child-rearing.

It would be great to hear from Genetic_Code here some more. I see they've been bothering the Christian Union with some questions recently, so still hold out hope. Please do carry on interfering though. Your input here is totally refreshing!RationalAtheist

I will carry on then... Just to say one more thing about this abortion issue...

I see now that you are not claiming a rational reason to declare abortion as an immoral act. You are rationally considering if the motives for abortion are either moral or immoral... I find that consideration even more delicate my friend... I personally think it is a dead end... Judging motives is mostly subjective, hardly objective... I also think laws are dreadful when judging motives of this kind. Abortion getting conditionally punishable according to motive will hardly stop abortions for the "wrong" motives from happening...

In any case, an objectivist point of view should be interesting to hear indeed...

I see now that you are not claiming a rational reason to declare abortion as an immoral act. You are rationally considering if the motives for abortion are either moral or immoral... I find that consideration even more delicate my friend... I personally think it is a dead end... Judging motives is mostly subjective, hardly objective... I also think laws are dreadful when judging motives of this kind. Abortion getting conditionally punishable according to motive will hardly stop abortions for the "wrong" motives from happening...

In any case, an objectivist point of view should be interesting to hear indeed...

12thArcane

You could be right, but I didn't think I was considering morality too much and was bigging-up the rational method instead. I think the rationality for protection (rather than abortion) comes from a purely mechanical and logistical perspective! I'm also not too sure why your own argument isn't a moral one - in opposition to the unborn and in favour of medically sanctioned termination interventions.

If you want to establish motives for abortion, you must first establish motives for love-making and pregnancy! I know that people can achieve sexual gratification without the need for intercourse and consequent risk of life. I can't also deny the knowledge of our sexual functions. I feel this makes people entirely accountable for their own sexual actions.

The motives I question are the feelings of irresponsibility around making babies. I do feel this is social paradigm exists  in many societies (including my own); based on the egos and self-important life-ideals of the people living under such conditions. 

I'd rather (for the sake of this discussion) say there would be no "punishment" for abortion, but that it would simply not be medically available for standard termination requests. Perhaps this would make people consider their own behaviour more deeply and/or put more new-born children in the hands of carers who want them. 

[QUOTE="12thArcane"]

I see now that you are not claiming a rational reason to declare abortion as an immoral act. You are rationally considering if the motives for abortion are either moral or immoral... I find that consideration even more delicate my friend... I personally think it is a dead end... Judging motives is mostly subjective, hardly objective... I also think laws are dreadful when judging motives of this kind. Abortion getting conditionally punishable according to motive will hardly stop abortions for the "wrong" motives from happening...

In any case, an objectivist point of view should be interesting to hear indeed...

RationalAtheist

You could be right, but I didn't think I was considering morality too much and was bigging-up the rational method instead. I think the rationality for protection (rather than abortion) comes from a purely mechanical and logistical perspective! I'm also not too sure why your own argument isn't a moral one - in opposition to the unborn and in favour of medically sanctioned termination interventions.

If you want to establish motives for abortion, you must first establish motives for love-making and pregnancy! I know that people can achieve sexual gratification without the need for intercourse and consequent risk of life. I can't also deny the knowledge of our sexual functions. I feel this makes people entirely accountable for their own sexual actions.

The motives I question are the feelings of irresponsibility around making babies. I do feel this is social paradigm exists  in many societies (including my own); based on the egos and self-important life-ideals of the people living under such conditions. 

I'd rather (for the sake of this discussion) say there would be no "punishment" for abortion, but that it would simply not be medically available for standard termination requests. Perhaps this would make people consider their own behaviour more deeply and/or put more new-born children in the hands of carers who want them. 

I conclude you have an interesting pro-life posture then...

You should take domatron23 on, he said he wanted a pro-life perspective to discuss with... He asked for it first, I would be disrespectful if I continue our out of place pseudo-debate... AND he probably will be a much better opponent... So make the debate thread already you two!

I conclude you have an interesting pro-life posture then...

You should take domatron23 on, he said he wanted a pro-life perspective to discuss with... He asked for it first, I would be disrespectful if I continue our out of place pseudo-debate... AND he probably will be a much better opponent... So make the debate thread already you two!

12thArcane

I'm always a bit confused at the "pro-life" label myself, since I'm never sure whose life is being referred to in it! I also think Domatron and I are somewhat half-hearted about our feelings towards our stances on abortion, so I'm not sure how productive our debate would be. I'd gladly accept though, if you think it might create some additional utility for this forum.

Please don't mind about disrespect, butting in, quality of opponents and the like. I'd personally prefer everyone being able to contribute. If there was one topic put forward in this thread that I react most strongly to, it is Gabu's notion that belief in God is not always irrational.

I would also like to suggest another topic for debate (perhaps a two on two? Or a four on one, even?):

Is Islamophobia a rational reaction to the religion of Islam? (I think it is.) 

I'm always a bit confused at the "pro-life" label myself, since I'm never sure whose life is being referred to in it! I also think Domatron and I are somewhat half-hearted about our feelings towards our stances on abortion, so I'm not sure how productive our debate would be. I'd gladly accept though, if you think it might create some additional utility for this forum.

Please don't mind about disrespect, butting in, quality of opponents and the like. I'd personally prefer everyone being able to contribute. If there was one topic put forward in this thread that I react most strongly to, it is Gabu's notion that belief in God is not always irrational.

I would also like to suggest another topic for debate (perhaps a two on two? Or a four on one, even?):

Is Islamophobia a rational reaction to the religion of Islam? (I think it is.) 

RationalAtheist

I always have interpreted the term "pro-life" as "against abortion"... I've never been too sure though...

If you say that a debate between you two wouln't be productive you must be right then... I don't think I can contribute much more to the discussion either... But let's try it...

You say you see societies use the method just because it exists... But this is just an observation, you are not considering other factors involved or backing up your claim with a scientific study... Perhaps you are right, but then again, you are making judgement without a background study, and doing just that my friend, is not very ethical... But it is almost impossible to make a study like that... Since measuring "levels of responsibility" seems unnatural to the ways of science... Your empirical knowledge can be trusted I'm sure, but it is not enough to make a case... Regretfully...

In the end I think your argument is very valid, although a little Utopian... You say making abortion unavailable will make people more responsible... It is just a possibility but not a fact... I think the very knowledge about the existence of the method will be enough for the method to be used even if it has to be in an illegal environment... It happens already...

I always have interpreted the term "pro-life" as "against abortion"... I've never been too sure though...

If you say that a debate between you two wouln't be productive you must be right then... I don't think I can contribute much more to the discussion either... But let's try it...

You say you see societies use the method just because it exists... But this is just an observation, you are not considering other factors involved or backing up your claim with a scientific study... Perhaps you are right, but then again, you are making judgement without a background study, and doing just that my friend, is not very ethical... But it is almost impossible to make a study like that... Since measuring "levels of responsibility" seems unnatural to the ways of science... Your empirical knowledge can be trusted I'm sure, but it is not enough to make a case... Regretfully...

In the end I think your argument is very valid, although a little Utopian... You say making abortion unavailable will make people more responsible... It is just a possibility but not a fact... I think the very knowledge about the existence of the method will be enough for the method to be used even if it has to be in an illegal environment... It happens already...

12thArcane

I think the term "pro-choice" is as confusing to me as "pro-life": They are both highly subjective and could refer to either circumstance. I'm quite happy to dig myself in deeper in this womb-like hole, if you are willing to continue use your forceps to abort my ideas...

I made a broad statement about society using abortion because it exists. I wonder how you think my observation differs with your own, or what other factors you are considering. I note some countries do not have legal abortion on demand, so abortions are carried out abroad (criminally in some cases) for those wishing them. Even so, per-capita birth rates are generally far higher in those countries. 

To me, rationalism is about making the "best" choices. I'm not sure you really need more studies to understand the use of abortion is mainly for unplanned, healthy pregnancies, where a viable life gets destroyed. This evidence is already dispersed (in my country) by government-sponsored family planning advice, free contraception and enforced sex education.

Perhaps you see responsibility in different terms than I, but I do think it is less responsible to involve many trained medical and social welfare third parties, then have dangerous and invasive surgery into your private parts to terminate a natural process that would have inexorably led to new a life, than to take simple, widely available, safe suitable precautions to prevent all this. I'm thinking about personal responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the state to support abortion requests financially and the responsibilities placed on those third parties for assistance.

I agree that my ideas are Utopian and potentially unrealistic to some. But I don't think that reason is enough to dismiss them, because we create our own realities. Our differentiating critical faculty (as a species) has been our ability to have ideas, then criticize and rationalise them. I would much rather abortion clinics were available, but people had the sense enough not to use them (by either not getting pregnant, or using a high quality adoption service instead.)

I have a "utility of life" issue here too - in that we potentially need children in western society, since our populations now show a trend to decline. I wonder what makes the decisions a mother makes about her own individual life more important in the scheme of things than her decision to abort her baby and shrink her society further. 

I think the term "pro-choice" is as confusing to me as "pro-life": They are both highly subjective and could refer to either circumstance. I'm quite happy to dig myself in deeper in this womb-like hole, if you are willing to continue use your forceps to abort my ideas...

I made a broad statement about society using abortion because it exists. I wonder how you think my observation differs with your own, or what other factors you are considering. I note some countries do not have legal abortion on demand, so abortions are carried out abroad (criminally in some cases) for those wishing them. Even so, per-capita birth rates are generally far higher in those countries. 

To me, rationalism is about making the "best" choices. I'm not sure you really need more studies to understand the use of abortion is mainly for unplanned, healthy pregnancies, where a viable life gets destroyed. This evidence is already dispersed (in my country) by government-sponsored family planning advice, free contraception and enforced sex education.

Perhaps you see responsibility in different terms than I, but I do think it is less responsible to involve many trained medical and social welfare third parties, then have dangerous and invasive surgery into your private parts to terminate a natural process that would have inexorably led to new a life, than to take simple, widely available, safe suitable precautions to prevent all this. I'm thinking about personal responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the state to support abortion requests financially and the responsibilities placed on those third parties for assistance.

I agree that my ideas are Utopian and potentially unrealistic to some. But I don't think that reason is enough to dismiss them, because we create our own realities. Our differentiating critical faculty (as a species) has been our ability to have ideas, then criticize and rationalise them. I would much rather abortion clinics were available, but people had the sense enough not to use them (by either not getting pregnant, or using a high quality adoption service instead.)

I have a "utility of life" issue here too - in that we potentially need children in western society, since our populations now show a trend to decline. I wonder what makes the decisions a mother makes about her own individual life more important in the scheme of things than her decision to abort her baby and shrink her society further.

RationalAtheist

We clearly have different idiosyncrasies, and that explains why we have very different ways for interpreting responsibility and abortion... I live in a country where 96% of population practices Catholicism (just by saying that is not hard to find me on the map) and abortion is legally punishable unless the woman's life is threatened... Education about abortion is very limited... In my society, abortion is indoctrinated as a sin, but it still happens clandestinely, causing many deaths and suffering... Just to cite an example, here abortion is not even considered in cases of rape or extreme poverty... Not to mention there is not such thing as a "quality adoption service"...

You also claim you see less responsible to involve social welfare third parties and have surgery to terminate a natural process than taking measures to prevent it... I see how anybody can rationally think the same, in fact, I agree with you... But following this line of thought anybody can also get to a different conclusion, like "it is less responsible to allow children to live in precarious conditions or involve social welfare third parties in order to maintain them and administrate adoption procedures without ever been able to guarantee their happiness than allowing the mother with proper education, consultancy and own sense of responsibility to choose the procedure"...

The conclusions we get when it comes to these moral matters will always be different even if use the same mental process, because it is all related to our own individual values... Dogmas and societies establish what's good and what's evil, we use this information in order to function as part of the world but all societies don't think equally and every mind wont use this information equally... These differences among individual values make it almost impossible to achieve a common agreement...

Surprisingly, despite of a different idiosyncrasy, we share very similar mentalities about abortion... The moment you claimed "I would much rather abortion clinics were available, but people had the sense enough not to use them" you almost made a reliable summary of my own thoughts...

In contrast with your society. In my society we have not reached a point where abortion is widely considered a tool like any contraceptive... It is just logical to think of an Utopian world where the widespread support and medical availability of the method don't lead to social immorality and a distorted sense of responsibility... Regretfully, according to your own testification, this Utopian idea is taking place but in the opposite way...

It is according to this "Utopian" idea that I think abortion must be a choice... We can't control what a woman thinks before making the choice, and certainly we can't impose additional values to the same woman just because we think those values are "good" for anybody... Since the method exists, and will exist even in criminal environments, what I rationally see as the "best" course of action is to make the method available and safe, allowing the liberty for individual values and trusting in that, with time and proper upbringing, the values and sense of responsibility wont be distorted just because of abortion's availability...

We clearly have different idiosyncrasies, and that explains why we have very different ways for interpreting responsibility and abortion... I live in a country where 96% of population practices Catholicism (just by saying that is not hard to find me on the map) and abortion is legally punishable unless the woman's life is threatened... Education about abortion is very limited... In my society, abortion is indoctrinated as a sin, but it still happens clandestinely, causing many deaths and suffering... Just to cite an example, here abortion is not even considered in cases of rape or extreme poverty... Not to mention there is not such thing as a "quality adoption service"...
12thArcane

I would suggest that methods of contraception are equally illegal where you live too. Your country's social practices are not based on rational consructs, but on irrational , yet self-serving doctrine. If you're suggesting that the ideals of your society offer a better solution than that of rationalising the nature of sex, pregnancy and birth along the paths of least guilt, pain, work and suffering - I disagree.

 You also claim you see less responsible to involve social welfare third parties and have surgery to terminate a natural process than taking measures to prevent it... I see how anybody can rationally think the same, in fact, I agree with you... But following this line of thought anybody can also get to a different conclusion, like "it is less responsible to allow children to live in precarious conditions or involve social welfare third parties in order to maintain them and administrate adoption procedures without ever been able to guarantee their happiness than allowing the mother with proper education, consultancy and own sense of responsibility to choose the procedure"...
12thArcane

There are never any guarantees of happiness in this life. Happiness has little to do with status. I wonder how you define "proper" education or "responsibility", if it leads people to be "happy" over undergoing an abortion procedure in preference to not protecting themselves properly  against pregnancy in the first place.

The psychology of people does naturally change in pregnancy with their physical characteristics. Reasoning as to preparedness for pregnancy (a primary reason for termination in the earlier linked survey) usually declines with the hromonal change and as bonding to the unborn phoetus begins.

Why would you promote a decision made in a relative state of ignorance and fear (early on in a pregnancy) over a later natural emotion to continue and protoect the unborn?

 The conclusions we get when it comes to these moral matters will always be different even if use the same mental process, because it is all related to our own individual values... Dogmas and societies establish what's good and what's evil, we use this information in order to function as part of the world but all societies don't think equally and every mind wont use this information equally... These differences among individual values make it almost impossible to achieve a common agreement...

Surprisingly, despite of a different idiosyncrasy, we share very similar mentalities about abortion... The moment you claimed "I would much rather abortion clinics were available, but people had the sense enough not to use them" you almost made a reliable summary of my own thoughts...
In contrast with your society. In my society we have not reached a point where abortion is widely considered a tool like any contraceptive... It is just logical to think of an Utopian world where the widespread support and medical availability of the method don't lead to social immorality and a distorted sense of responsibility... Regretfully, according to your own testification, this Utopian idea is taking place but in the opposite way...

It is according to this "Utopian" idea that I think abortion must be a choice... We can't control what a woman thinks before making the choice, and certainly we can't impose additional values to the same woman just because we think those values are "good" for anybody... Since the method exists, and will exist even in criminal environments, what I rationally see as the "best" course of action is to make the method available and safe, allowing the liberty for individual values and trusting in that, with time and proper upbringing, the values and sense of responsibility wont be distorted just because of abortion's availability...
12thArcane

You final argument rather denies the rights of the unborn or of the natural process of life. It does not answer the "utility of life" argument I made in my last post particulary well. My quest for utopian ideals has led me to rationalism and atheism, so I don't think it is my job to impose ideals on people. But if you can accept the rationalism of contraception over abortion, there should be nothing to compel you to abortion over contraception.

I would suggest that methods of contraception are equally illegal where you live too. Your country's social practices are not based on rational consructs, but on irrational , yet self-serving doctrine. If you're suggesting that the ideals of your society offer a better solution than that of rationalising the nature of sex, pregnancy and birth along the paths of least guilt, pain, work and suffering - I disagree.
RationalAtheist

Noo, please no... I never suggested such a thing, I was just explaining how my society works, I never said it was a "better way" or anything... If I must make this clear: I hate how my society works... I was just trying to make you consider the other side of the coin... While in your society abortion is a choice and relatively safe. Here it happens every day in clandestinity with a very high risk of mortality, regardless of the anti-abortion doctrine and its illegality...

There are never any guarantees of happiness in this life. Happiness has little to do with status. I wonder how you define "proper" education or "responsibility", if it leads people to be "happy" over undergoing an abortion procedure in preference to not protecting themselves properly  against pregnancy in the first place.

The psychology of people does naturally change in pregnancy with their physical characteristics. Reasoning as to preparedness for pregnancy (a primary reason for termination in the earlier linked survey) usually declines with the hromonal change and as bonding to the unborn phoetus begins.

Why would you promote a decision made in a relative state of ignorance and fear (early on in a pregnancy) over a later natural emotion to continue and protoect the unborn?RationalAtheist

When I said "happiness" I meant it in the romantic way of course, humans pursue happiness and this pursuit will always be very related to "love" and "own realization" (in a colder way of analysis, humans pursue functionality, but children will hardly get to that way of reasoning in their early years)... Perhaps I should have expressed myself differently, allow me to change "happiness" with "loving and healthy environment"... Interpreting "loving and healthy"as "propitious for reaching happiness"...Does it sound too romantic yet?... Excuse me if it still sounds irrational to you, I think it does not...

I said "proper education" because in your society, according to your own words, information and sexual education campaigns about abortion make it a common knowledge issue, in contrast with my society, where public information about abortion is limited almost to miscarriages only... You explain the psychological issue, but I had this one in mind when I said "consultancy", since according to the studies you kindly posted, in the majority of cases there is a parental or statal consent in order to do the procedure... Usually it does not only depend on the psychologically unstable woman. Both states (the unstable and the motherly protective) can be called "natural emotions", I don't see the point in labeling them, and I definitely can't call the first as "of relative ignorance and fear", just by saying "relative" you are conceding the inconsistency of this label...

You final argument rather denies the rights of the unborn or of the natural process of life. It does not answer the "utility of life" argument I made in my last post particulary well. My quest for utopian ideals has led me to rationalism and atheism, so I don't think it is my job to impose ideals on people. But if you can accept the rationalism of contraception over abortion, there should be nothing to compel you to abortion over contraception.

RationalAtheist

I've never been able to perceive how exactly rationalism and atheism come together, but since it appears established already, I wont go deep on that matter.. I'm just gonna say I've always thought a neutral stance is the most rational one... When there is not a defining proof in neither the yes or no stances...

I never said I was a defender of the rights of the unborn, I think programmed cells have no human rights, I thought my position was obvious... I also can't see how calling conception a "natural process of life" becomes an argument... It is nobody's job to impose ideals on people (in an absent of dogma way of speaking), but this is just exactly what I perceive you are doing in your arguments.

First, you generalize the reasons for abortion, you are not considering every circumstance...

Second, you are talking about a way of reasoning you call rationalist, but I can see how it is biased by your own values, establishing your morality as a superior or ideal one. You could be right, but your ideals will not always match the ideals of every other individual...

Third, and this is what astonishes me the most. You compare contraception with abortion like if they were used for the same reasons and in the same circumstances... I really can't imagine most of the adolescent population saying things like "it doesn't matter if we get contraceptives or not, there's always abortion"... Your rationalism of contraception over abortion works only if they are actually comparable as equal processes, and certainty they are not.. You claim they are used like equal processes most of the time, I concede this is a valid judgement, but you can't claim they are used like equal processes every time, and then your reasoning becomes conditional and loses certainty...

About the utility of life, it is just so relative that I don't see the point in arguing this one... Perhaps you perceive your society needs more children, but statistically speaking it seems your society just doesn't think the same... And unplanned children being born in order to enlarge the population size doesn't seem the "best" solution to me...