[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]Did it all come from nothing? How does that make sense? I can't figure this out. Any logical answers or references to books would greatly be appreciated.Frattracide

Cool vid... In the end it just stands the obvious though... And the final message is to just enjoy the ride...

When the equations break down we call it "singularity"... It's the way it is until we find the way to explain it...

Another question that just sprung to mind: does the expanding universe gain matter by subtracting energy? Genetic_Code

As domatron quoted, Einstein's equation says energy and matter are two forms of the same thing, you have to be more clear about what you mean with "subtracting energy". energy can't be destroyed, only transformed...

Did it all come from nothing? How does that make sense? I can't figure this out. Any logical answers or references to books would greatly be appreciated.Genetic_Code

The Big Bang theory satisfies most scientific studies about the "early universe", however there is not a single theory that explains how the universe may had behaved in earlier times (much closer to its origin)...

There are several hypothetical and highly speculative theories that try to explain "how it was like at the very beginning", I don't like the crazy math scientists use in these theories, and they certainly are not very promising yet, although it can be said that they are already more reliable in terms of study than the creationist model...

You can read about it in some published articles by Harvard, etc, just google it...

I doubt someone with logic enough would think that "everything comes from nothing", it just has not been studied enough to give a proper rational conclusion... Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm just giving you my agnostic point of view...

[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...

I wanted to do this a long time ago but I didn't

 

Moderator's notes:

This was our first formalized debate and I am really glad I got to moderate because I wanted to get a feel for the flow of discussion.

Firstly I will note that I was not very strict in rule enforcement. Both participants broke word count limits and both discussed the debate while it was still ongoing. However, I dont feel that these infringements impeded the debate in any way. I think our format is a good standard but, ultimately the strictness of rule enforcement should be left up to the moderator.

I will also note that, in one area, my laxness (If that is a word) resulted in the potential for unfair treatment towards one of the participants. Towards the end of the debate Dom exceeded the one week rule, but we elected to continue. After a few posts, Arcane exceed the limit as well. However I didn't extend the same courtesy to him, instead of asking if he wanted to continue, I just ended the debate. The discussion had run its course by this point but, in the interest of fair play, I should have asked. Lesson learned on my part.Frattracide

I suggest a higher word limit for the next time. Perhaps 800 words for opening and 600 afterwards...

About the closure of the debate, I didn't feel treated unfairly. It was all according to the moderator's rules, the first time the three of us agreed to continue, the debate seemed far from concluding at that point. I think the second decision was valid and that it's up to the moderator to decide according to what he/she thinks is right depending on the debate situation... 

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 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...

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...

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...