all of our heated discussions of abortion led me to reexamining my own beliefs on the subject.

Arguments here tend to descend into statemens about God, Nazi's, Communists, etc.. rather quickly (depending on how long it takes Belloc to join the conversation  /poke  )

I started researching on secular arguments against abortion.

I came across this site www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

it has a lot of links to good information (very useful when someone posts BS here on arfcom)
and presents a logical argument for affirming the right of a fetus to live.

I also found this debate between 2 well known secularists.

www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml

It is a LONG read, but well worth it for the information they link to.  Its fascinating to see the difference in the debates.  Not once do they bring a religious position into play, they don't call each other monster, communist, or nazi,  they don't attack each other.  They simply state their positions and rebutt sections of the other person's opinion they don't agree with.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have discussions like that?

mainly posting it for a secular view on abortion (both pro and con)

I would like to hear any feedback from anyone, but especially other atheists/agnostics and how they view the reasoning.

after spending quite a few hours, I find myself in roughly the same place I was before.  I have shifted a bit more to the pro-life side in that I feel even more strongly that 3rd trimester abortions are wrong except to save the health of the mother.

The problem is the pro-life side isn't happy with a compromise, so I'm left with a decision to support people who will take things to far imo, or let the zealots on both sides fight it out and wait for my chance to vote on the issue (should it ever come)

I'm sticking with the position that its better for the extremist pro-lifers to be worrying about partial birth abortions (which only include about 1.5% of all abortions performed) than to make those illegal and let them start pushing to have something else made illegal.

Until a moderate position in the pro-life camp develops, I can't do anything else

Pro-lifers tend to not be happy with compromise because it means compromising one's personal principles.  If I view abortion as an abominable act against God and the unborn child, how can I compromise on that?

Would you compromise on rape?  Is it ok to rape someone as long as they're a certain age?  Where would you draw the line?

How about unprovoked assault.  Is unprovoked assault on another person justifiable in some instances and and unjustified in others?

I know that these are strong examples, but for most pro-lifers, this is how strongly we feel about abortion.

Quoted:
all of our heated discussions of abortion led me to reexamining my own beliefs on the subject.

Arguments here tend to descend into statemens about God, Nazi's, Communists, etc.. rather quickly (depending on how long it takes Belloc to join the conversation
So answer a question that no one yet has even attempted.
Why is the fact that the Communists were the first to make abortion legal in Russia for the first time in that nations history, and the Nazis were the first to make abortion legal in Geman history, not relevant?

I came across this site www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

it has a lot of links to good information (very useful when someone posts BS here on arfcom)
and presents a logical argument for affirming the right of a fetus to live.

I also found this debate between 2 well known secularists.

www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml


Interesting links.

Quoted: after spending quite a few hours, I find myself in roughly the same place I was before.  I have shifted a bit more to the pro-life side in that I feel even more strongly that 3rd trimester abortions are wrong except to save the health of the mother. The problem is the pro-life side isn't happy with a compromise,

Because of the two arguments this one makes more sense to us.

"Defining the person

All of Mr. Carrier's critiques of my arguments so far have hinged upon the idea that the prenate prior to 20 weeks or so is only a potential person. That idea, in turn, depends upon his assumption that he has correctly defined the traits which define personhood. But that assumption is precisely what I challenge! Thus, we are going around in circles.

Mr. Carrier claims that a individual human person begins to exist, not when the biological individual begins to exist, but only when his/her brain is sufficiently developed to manifest a personality. He defends this claim by asserting that the personality is what we (by which I assume he means society as a whole) value. I have a number of objections to that claim, the most obvious and trivial of which is that many people do value the prenatal human from the beginning of his/her biological life, regardless of developmental stage. The size and strength of the pro-life movement attest to that.

Second, societies have been wrong before when choosing which human beings had valuable traits, and therefore deserved human rights. History does not look kindly upon those societies which denied certain human individuals rights based upon their race, gender, religion, or disability. I believe that future generations will view the denial of rights based on stage of development in a similar light.

My third point is that the personality is not a separate entity, existing independently of the human organism. To say, as Mr. Carrier has, that an individual does not exist prior to the 20th week is to say that the personality is the individual. (Ironically, the idea that the personality is an entity unto itself is one I would expect to hear from a believer in the supernatural. I am currently unaware of any atheistic philosophers who embrace mind/body dualism.) It is, instead, a property of the individual. The human organism itself builds the brain structures necessary for the formation of the personality, and thus can hardly be said to come into existence only after those brain structures have been built. Therefore, it is not a potential human individual, but an actual individual in whom the process of forming the personality is underway. Indeed, this is a process which is never fully completed.

My opponent speculates about regenerating brains and making death illegal, then muses, "These and many similar questions plague my mind and make me very curious just what someone like Ms. Roth really means to advocate." Let me put his mind somewhat at ease by assuring him that I advocate exactly what I say I advocate. There is no hidden agenda here. I believe that all human individuals should have human rights, from the beginning to the end of their lives."

P.S. It does you much credit that you are willing to at least investigate the issure further. I retract 2/3rds, half of the things I said about you.

Quoted: P.S. It does you much credit that you are willing to at least investigate the issure further. I retract 2/3rds, half of the things I said about you.

hehe

never mind. I thought better of it . . .

You might want to check out The Unaborted Socrates by Peter Kreeft.  Kreeft is a huge fan of the Socratic method and he imagines a figure like Socrates investigating the abortion question on a college campus.  He uses some humor and it might be a little light for you, but if you can find it, give it a shot.

Quoted: You might want to check out The Unaborted Socrates by Peter Kreeft.  Kreeft is a huge fan of the Socratic method and he imagines a figure like Socrates investigating the abortion question on a college campus.  He uses some humor and it might be a little light for you, but if you can find it, give it a shot.

sounds interesting, I'll check it out.  Thanks!

question.. would you want someone who has never owned a gun to make laws on what you can do with yours?

thats why i think, this is a womans issue.

Quoted: question.. would you want someone who has never owned a gun to make laws on what you can do with yours? thats why i think, this is a womans issue.

Horse hockey!

It is a HUMAN issue.

So, if you're NOT human, you are not entitled to a view, an opinion, or a vote.

Thanks for playing!

Eric The(AllTooHuman)Hun