Debates: Participant pool

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...

12thArcane

I think I did consider "this side of the coin", in mentioning countries where abortion was illegal. Abortion always has a high risk of mortality - but less so for the mother! If your country has a right of travel from it, people wishing to have an abortion (much like the people wishing suicide fly out to Switzerland) can go have one elsewhere. I don't think discriminating between "back street" abortions and "safe" abortions is particularly helpful, since my stance is against both of them. I do wonder why you bring up your country, unless you want to boast about it's high birth rate.

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...

12thArcane

I'm not too sure why you bring up happiness, honestly. I don't see where you're going with this.

I take a serious issue with your interpretation of my stats regarding parental (or statal?) consent. I would not call a reluctance to proceed with a pregnancy an unnatural emotion either, as you seem to imply. It is natural to be fearful of change and of upsetting an established lifestyle. It's also natural to doubt abilities that one does not consider they have - before they start to evolve. My reference to relativity was specifically about the relative nature of knowledge and emotion between the start and end of most pregnancies.

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...

12thArcane

I've always been anble to relate rationalism and atheism quite well. But, then again, I don't think the most rational stance is always the most "neutral" one. I'm also not too sure I ever did accuse you of being a "defender of the rights of the unborn". I thought that was my job in this case.

First: I also don't think I am generalising the reasons for abortion. I have provided evidence for reasoning from surveys and citing a primary cause.

Second: Rationalism is a means to enquiry, so you could always try and rationalise your case if you like. I am not aiming to match the ideals of every individual (especially with so many terrorists running about) - simply to understand the relevance and importance of child-birth and abortion in society. 

Third: It is exactly young people not caring enough about contraception that casues abortion. Unless you can show me some statistics that bear you out on your bizarre concept, I DECLARE SHENANIGANS! I make no claims as to the equal "processes" of contraception and abortion (whatever they are - contraception is far easier), but I do know they have the same net result (only abortion has a more gross result!)

I'd argue that my society does not think the same as me because they have different (irrational) values in placing greater importance over their opinions and immediate welfare than on their potential childrens' lives. I can see why you seem so de-sensitised to abortion, if you can't grasp the "utility of life" argument.

I think I did consider "this side of the coin", in mentioning countries where abortion was illegal. Abortion always has a high risk of mortality - but less so for the mother! If your country has a right of travel from it, people wishing to have an abortion (much like the people wishing suicide fly out to Switzerland) can go have one elsewhere. I don't think discriminating between "back street" abortions and "safe" abortions is particularly helpful, since my stance is against both of them. I do wonder why you bring up your country, unless you want to boast about it's high birth rate. RationalAtheist

Oh dear... The main problem I have with your point of views is that you universalize a little too much... Since you are wondering, let me tell you that the birth rate in my country has had a negative tendency the last ten years. It is indeed higher than your country's but I really don't see the point in playing with demography here. Birth rates, death rates, population, life expectancy, etc... If you want "birth rates" to be of real importance to this matter, you must take a lot of complex considerations related to other demographic statistics... And if you are implying it doesn't matter how many deaths are there if the birth rate is higher, then you are contradicting your "utility of life" policy...

I'm not too sure why you bring up happiness, honestly. I don't see where you're going with this.

I take a serious issue with your interpretation of my stats regarding parental (or statal?) consent. I would not call a reluctance to proceed with a pregnancy an unnatural emotion either, as you seem to imply. It is natural to be fearful of change and of upsetting an established lifestyle. It's also natural to doubt abilities that one does not consider they have - before they start to evolve. My reference to relativity was specifically about the relative nature of knowledge and emotion between the start and end of most pregnancies.RationalAtheist

Perhaps "happiness" is a concept too ambiguous for a rationalist to value it as important in my argument...But I don't see how it is less ambiguous than the "relative fear" in which you base your argument about the incapacity for a pregnant woman to make adequate decisions according to her circumstances.

According to your stats, parental consent is enforced and an alternative to parental involvement is also a must before authorizing the procedure. I'm I mistaken?

I've always been anble to relate rationalism and atheism quite well. But, then again, I don't think the most rational stance is always the most "neutral" one. I'm also not too sure I ever did accuse you of being a "defender of the rights of the unborn". I thought that was my job in this case.

First: I also don't think I am generalising the reasons for abortion. I have provided evidence for reasoning from surveys and citing a primary cause.

Second: Rationalism is a means to enquiry, so you could always try and rationalise your case if you like. I am not aiming to match the ideals of every individual (especially with so many terrorists running about) - simply to understand the relevance and importance of child-birth and abortion in society. 

Third: It is exactly young people not caring enough about contraception that casues abortion. Unless you can show me some statistics that bear you out on your bizarre concept, I DECLARE SHENANIGANS! I make no claims as to the equal "processes" of contraception and abortion (whatever they are - contraception is far easier), but I do know they have the same net result (only abortion has a more gross result!)

I'd argue that my society does not think the same as me because they have different (irrational) values in placing greater importance over their opinions and immediate welfare than on their potential childrens' lives. I can see why you seem so de-sensitised to abortion, if you can't grasp the "utility of life" argument.RationalAtheist

I never said a neutral stance is "always" the most rational. I said it seemed the most rational to me whenever there is not an indisputable proof in either side. If you take a side in a situation like that, you are choosing to "believe" rather than to "think"... That's just my point of view, I don't want to argue about that...

First: You have provided evidence indeed, but your judgement citing your "primary cause" goes far beyond all you can get from those surveys.

Second: I never claimed you must match your ideals with everybody's, that's just impossible... But there are common ideals among individuals inside societies, those ideals define moral precepts and such things, if your "abortion stance" were one of those common ideals, perhaps your society wouldn't allow abortions at all and this discussion woudn't be happening. Don't you agree?.

Third: I don't need to look for more statistics, in your own it is clear that in more than half of the cases a contarceptive was being used, if you conclude from this that abortions are intentionally used instead of contraceptives, then I'm confused...

With all due respect, if you are actually affirming that your values are rational and the values of your society are not, suggesting a certain haughty air, I will recommend you to retract from those words. Perhaps you didn't meant it the way I interpreted it...

All values are irrational my friend, yours and my own... Just like you criticize your society's values, the same thing can be done to yours, and to my own. The proofs are crystal clear, you argue that in your society it is irrational to place "greater importance over their opinions and immediate welfare than on their potential childrens' lives.", but I don't see how you could back up this affirmation with evidence other than your very own and individual values and convictions, which are your truth, but not everybody's truth.

If I say "it is irrational to place greater importance over potential lives than over the welfare of current lives". Is it really that different from your affirmation?... It is not, some people will agree with me, some will agree with you, some people place greater importance in present, some place it in the future. It's not a matter of objectivity, we certainly will never get somewhere using values as arguments... I personally think a balance between these two is needed, a "neutral stance" if you like...

I'd love to see a debate on whether or not the Bible suggests a flat earth. I haven't properly researched this area so it would be nice to see two informed individuals discussing it.

I am open to debating, "Is morality objective?" with an affirmative position.

I would also like to suggest three topics:

"Is selfishness, as defined by Ayn Rand, a virtue?" My position on this topic is yes.

"Does an unborn embryo possess the right to life?" My position on this topic is also yes.

"Is prostitution a human right?" My position is once again yes.

I am open to debating, "Is morality objective?" with an affirmative position.

I would also like to suggest three topics:

"Is selfishness, as defined by Ayn Rand, a virtue?" My position on this topic is yes.

"Does an unborn embryo possess the right to life?" My position on this topic is also yes.

"Is prostitution a moral right?" My position is once again yes.

Genetic_Code

Could you take over my "right to life" debate with 12th Arcane then? 

Could you take over my "right to life" debate with 12th Arcane then? 

RationalAtheist

Actually RA, it's probably best for me to not get in a debate right now, because I would prefer to have some time away from the Internet. Maybe later.

Too bad... I'd have loved to see a convincing objectivist side of the embryonic story... RA needed to prove (or at least show good evidence) that says morality and values are objective in order to make a strong case with his "pro-life/against-abortion rational reasons", and the randian way seemed the way to go...12thArcane

In your dreams, 12th!

My argument does not require moral objectivity, but is rationally based on path of least resistance. It is tough arguing with someone who agrees with you so much!

Without knowing the extent of your own argument, or even the specific debate at hand, I'd like to concede and name you the champion - for your sheer pluck.

 I like to think I've made the case for the needlessness of abortion in the face of clearly superior alternatives and the requirement for more consideration to be given by people to the situation they are in, rather than for themselves alone when considering abortion.

@Genetic_Code

Glad to see you posting here! 

[QUOTE="12thArcane"]Too bad... I'd have loved to see a convincing objectivist side of the embryonic story... RA needed to prove (or at least show good evidence) that says morality and values are objective in order to make a strong case with his "pro-life/against-abortion rational reasons", and the randian way seemed the way to go...RationalAtheist

In your dreams, 12th!

My argument does not require moral objectivity, but is rationally based on path of least resistance. It is tough arguing with someone who agrees with you so much!

Without knowing the extent of your own argument, or even the specific debate at hand, I'd like to concede and name you the champion - for your sheer pluck.

 I like to think I've made the case for the needlessness of abortion in the face of clearly superior alternatives and the requirement for more consideration to be given by people to the situation they are in, rather than for themselves alone when considering abortion.

@Genetic_Code

Glad to see you posting here! 

No no... It was fun... No need to declare a champion... Your argument certainly does not require moral objectivity in order to be valid, I just implied moral objectivity could make a stronger case. I never had a defined case anyway, I just tried to use your own case against you and make my case out of that...

It is indeed hard to debate with someone that shares similar ideologies and with so many agreements... Perhaps we need more religious people willing to debate... Or, like frattacide suggested, we need more Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism themes...

 Is morality objective? 

Position: Yes 

 Is morality objective? 

Position: Yes 

ghoklebutter

I will will take you up on that one if you so desire. 

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

Is morality objective?

Position: Yes

Frattracide

I will will take you up on that one if you so desire.

I'll moderate that one if you'd both like.

I'd love to see a debate on whether or not the Bible suggests a flat earth. I haven't properly researched this area so it would be nice to see two informed individuals discussing it.

domatron23