A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
I just had a discussion with an Atheist on abortion. He claims to oppose it BUT if the mother's life is in danger then the fetus must be aborted to save the mother's life.
I admit, it is a serious conundrum for me. What would you say in such an instance?
I say that those hypothetical situations likely are False Dichotomies and do not exist in real life. Every effort would be made to save both lives.
I would ask for a situation in real life where that triage decision had to be made, where the existence of a live embryo threatens the life of the mother and abortion is the only solution which will save the mother.
I do think that triage situation decisions which cause the life of one human to be lost while saving another human do, in fact, exist and are impossible to second guess or morally judge. Such a situation is not the same as a voluntary, wanton destruction of human life.
Yes, I realize now that if we were to apply this false dichotomy equally to other situations it would fail. For example: We could turn the tables on the Atheist and ask him if he was stranded out in sea with his two children (boy and girl) and he could only save one of their lives, which one would he save, the boy or girl? Which ever one he chooses to save, would imply that it is acceptable to kill the other gender he did not save in situations when that child becomes an inconvenience.
So that is the implication Atheist reasoning when deciding who gets to live: mother or fetus? Killing the fetus to save the mother implies it is okay to kill all fetuses even when no life is in danger, which is mostly the case anyway. Most aborted fetuses are actually healthy and pose zero health risk to the mother.
5 comments:
Stan,
I just had a discussion with an Atheist on abortion. He claims to oppose it BUT if the mother's life is in danger then the fetus must be aborted to save the mother's life.
I admit, it is a serious conundrum for me. What would you say in such an instance?
I say that those hypothetical situations likely are False Dichotomies and do not exist in real life. Every effort would be made to save both lives.
I would ask for a situation in real life where that triage decision had to be made, where the existence of a live embryo threatens the life of the mother and abortion is the only solution which will save the mother.
I do think that triage situation decisions which cause the life of one human to be lost while saving another human do, in fact, exist and are impossible to second guess or morally judge. Such a situation is not the same as a voluntary, wanton destruction of human life.
Hey, give the guy a break. That roof makes for a tough lie.
An entirely new meaning to "playing through hell and high water."
Yes, I realize now that if we were to apply this false dichotomy equally to other situations it would fail. For example: We could turn the tables on the Atheist and ask him if he was stranded out in sea with his two children (boy and girl) and he could only save one of their lives, which one would he save, the boy or girl? Which ever one he chooses to save, would imply that it is acceptable to kill the other gender he did not save in situations when that child becomes an inconvenience.
So that is the implication Atheist reasoning when deciding who gets to live: mother or fetus? Killing the fetus to save the mother implies it is okay to kill all fetuses even when no life is in danger, which is mostly the case anyway. Most aborted fetuses are actually healthy and pose zero health risk to the mother.
Post a Comment