Religion and abortion

[Cartoonist]

I was barred from another group for my comments on abortion. Since it was a group and not general discussion, my banishment was made easy. So I decided to air some comments here with my homies to enjoy the same protection.

First, I am an atheist. I do not believe in a spiritual soul or an afterlife. As to what defines our personality or humanity, my thoughts are unclear. In any case, I reject the idea of an omnipotent creator.

There's one aspect of the abortion issue that I feel exposes the pro-lifers as not what they pretend to be. Often I'll hear the statement from someone saying they're glad they weren't aborted. This makes sense only if one is an atheist. It makes no sense at all for someone who believes in the soul and afterlife. Let me explain, though this ain't gonna be easy.

So God, supposedly, has this big bag of souls he inserts into bodies. When does this insertion take place? Many religious people contend that He does so at the moment of inception. So what happens to the souls of the aborted? Since they were never born, they are sinless, so it would be wrong to send them to Hell. What crime did they commit? Surely no loving and just God would send an unborn child to Hell. Therefore, they must go to Heaven. They get to skip all of life's foibles and temptations and go straight to Paradise. That doesn't sound so bad. Who could have a problem with that?
Maybe He catches them during ascension and puts them back in the bag to be reinserted later in another fertilized egg. Therefore, no one really gets aborted, just reconfigured. If I was a soul, would I prefer to be inserted into a home that doesn't want me or one with a loving mother? I choose B. Who wouldn't? So who are anti-abortionists advocating? Not the souls, clearly.

Did any of that make sense?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. It made as much sense as anything anyone says about souls

which is "not very much, really". And that's the problem with 'souls' - the concepts tend to end up in logical impossibilities, or contradict what religious people would like to think about them.

There are other oddities about souls in the typical religious viewpoint - identical twins have separate ones, but at fertilisation there was only one cell. So was an extra soul added when the dividing cells split? If so, then how do they know that isn't how it happens at some later time with non-twins? Why should a soul be associated with the clump of undifferentiated cells you have shortly after human conception, but not, say, the highly complicated collection of cells that is a daisy?

[trotsky]

4. Yep, the concept of souls is just something you can't question too much.

Hadn't thought about the twins item. That's an interesting point.

[JNelson6563]

2. I get what you're saying.

Yes, I agree. It is another non-sensible idea from religion.

Julie

[AtheistCrusader]

3. People who oppose general access to abortion on religious grounds can fuck right off.

Happy to join you in getting booted from wherever the fuck you got banned ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND for that sort of sentiment.

I'm ok with people who, on religious grounds, choose not to HAVE an abortion, but those that lobby to restrict and ban it for others.... THIS MEANS WAR.

If they ever figure out how to trot out a soul for evaluation, I MIGHT change my position on that. But we all know they can't, any more than they can trot out their supposed god thingy.

[Cartoonist]

5. Clarification

I was booted for other reasons while addressing a different aspect of abortion. The problem wasn't really about what I said, but where I said it. Warning: Don't go to the History of Feminism group and disagree with anyone. You will be called a stalker, have false accusations hurled at you, and be called anti-choice even if you aren't.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. You're not in the blocked list.

I'm not really sure what's going on in that thread, but the 'admit its humanity' sort of argument tends to be a pro-lifer dog whistle. You may not have meant it that way, but that's how it sounds, to those of us who have run into it before as a stepping-stone to full blown anti-abortion argumentation.

Generally I think the people who employ it think we don't know it's not a puppy, or a tricycle, or some other non-human concept. We do. That is irrelevant to the issue.

Normally that tack is deployed to lead directly to some sort of 'it's murder' gambit. Just so you know. It wouldn't be well-received in that venue, whatever your intent.

Edit: I'm disappointed this wasn't a religious issue from a different group. I was preparing to mount a full frontal assault.

[alp227]

9. that user is on the blocked list of HoF

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1255

[beam me up scottie]

11. It was reported that he was blocked at 11:18 am.

Must have been right after AC posted.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Yeah, the GUID looking name at the bottom of the list was the last one visible at the time.

Perhaps it gets a vote or something, and visibility is delayed.

Cartoonist was unable to post in that thread at that time due to a jury verdict.

[Gelliebeans]

10. You rock.

[Curmudgeoness]

35. You couldn't be luckier

than to be banned from HOF. It will keep you out of that place, and no sane person wants to go there....you cannot win no matter how much you stand for female rights. And that includes me and I am a female.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Are you aware that some of our "homies" enjoy both groups?

Last edited Tue Sep 16, 2014, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Please do not use this group to complain about your treatment in that one, it benefits no one.

Your first three sentences make me wonder why you're here.



Edited to clarify: I welcome any addition to this group and I agree that the observations about religion in your op are worthy of discussion. I just think the comments about what happened in the feminist group are unnecessary.

ymmv

[AtheistCrusader]

15. +1

Meta can be amusing, but this thread smells like meta in an unfunny, AND counter-productive/hostile way.
If I found myself in such a situation, I would apologize and self-delete the thread.

[RussBLib]

20. pardon my ignorance

...but please explain what "meta" means in reference to postings, threads, etc. I see the term now and then and have never seen anyone explain in what sense it is being used.

I don't get around much anymore.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Basically it boils down to attacking the members of the discussion board, rather than the ideas

they have posted or discussed. Sometimes going outside the board itself to do it, or post things about that person's real identity, etc.

One of the more hilarious meta attacks over in the game EvE-Online got a lawyer disbarred. (Also a Super-Libertarian creep)


Meta is a greek prefix meaning 'beyond', so in this case, beyond the posted subject matter, to the people involved discussing it.


"Your idea is dumb" Not meta.
"You are dumb, therefore your idea is also dumb" meta.

Also going into another group, to complain about a different group from which said poster was banned, is meta.

[RussBLib]

27. gotcha. thanks mucho. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

19. +2

[Cartoonist]

22. Groups and Forums

I was barred from that group for my comments. If I had made them in General Discussion, I might not have been barred. There is a different standard between them which I just now learned first-hand. I realize that DU frowns on complaints about itself, but what can I do? When alerted upon, I am sent to a kangaroo court and am unable to defend myself while jurors are allowed to lie and insult me.

I came here to enjoy the same safe haven protections as that other group. Still, because I am a complainer, this post too may die.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Here's what I would do.

I'd take a couple days to relax, and or, just laugh it off entirely.

The negative aspersions you are casting at the jurors, and members, when your post was absolutely hide-able (and therefore also purview of host review) says you are maybe a little too upset to discuss this here, without impinging on SOP rules.

I'd just take a break, really. You got a strong reaction from those posts. I'd reflect on why. Attacking the place you got banned from does not help your case. For the reasons I already explained, I'm surprised more of your posts in that thread weren't hidden. And that's not me trying to be a dick to you, just honest observation.

That thread did not go well. Whatever your core point was, it was lost. It's not a conspiracy, or anything like that. At the least, this is delicate subject matter that was treated indelicately. Things get broken, feelings get hurt, people start building grudges...

I'd take a step back from that path before going any further.

[Cartoonist]

28. I am partially following your advice

What set me off was that after posting, I was immediately called a stalker. That's an ad homonym attack. I don't do alerts, but I had every right to.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This guy's anti-choice rhetoric (no matter how he tries to disguise it)
-
Since you read the thread, you know I stated many times my support for choice. So the whole alert is bogus, but I get nothing to say about it in my defense.

I was going to take it up with the group moderator, but like you say, it's not worth it. I only wanted to make the one post about it, but I seem to find myself dragging it on because other people reply to it. So can I ask a favor from everyone? Please don't reply to that aspect of my post so that I can kill it and move on. Deleting what's been said means I don't stand for anything.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. That's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

And specifically, why I tried to explain the dog-whistle nature of the phrase that I highlighted earlier.

It doesn't matter if you had good intentions, or if you are a living-under-the-bridge nefarious troll. I don't see any avenue by which one could pursue that line of questioning without getting called out for it. I can't even guess where it was meant to lead. But I genuinely give you benefit of the doubt.


If you had posted something along the lines of 'why did I get this reaction', here, it might have been more constructively discussed. By getting personal about the other group, the quest for understanding is doomed.

Not condemning you, just again, trying to explain the reaction.

[Cartoonist]

32. Thanks for being reasonable

Really. No sarcasm or games. I really don't want to continue this line, and your comment here is sound. People have automatic reactions to some things in writing that would not happen if tone and volume were present. Even in person I sometimes get complete misunderstanding to something I've said. I'll try to keep this in mind in the future.

[beam me up scottie]

26. No, you don't get to do that.

If this thread dies it's because you complained about your treatment in a group that is frequented by A/A participants.

I'm not going to indulge your persecution pity party by discussing what went on over there but your behaviour in this thread is on you.

I was being nice but now it's on, people I respect and like avoid this group because of shit like this.



Here's a hint, if you wouldn't say it about a minority on DU don't say it about women.

The right thing to do is edit your op or start fresh.

[Cartoonist]

31. OK, I get it now, really.

I am not to complain.
I am supposed to let people lie about me and insult me.
Others can Alert, but I am to STFU.

Here's a hint, if you wouldn't say it about a minority on DU don't say it about women.
-
I said nothing I wouldn't say elsewhere.

The right thing to do is edit your op or start fresh.
-
Jeez! Not only do I get alerted on and barred, I am told to do more than just STFU.

I see that I get to have 9 posts hidden before being banned completely from DU. Go ahead and make it two.

[beam me up scottie]

33. No, you don't.

Not only did I not alert on you, I was actually on one of the juries for posts in that thread and you would be surprised by my thoughts and vote.

You don't have to stfu about ANYTHING, stop feeling sorry for yourself for one goddamn minute and think about what you're saying.


Everyone comes into AA to complain about stuff but what you did was call out the people who participate in that group, either completely oblivious or not giving a shit that many of them also post here.

You can use this group to call out its members anytime you like, just don't cry about it when it comes back on you.




"I said nothing I wouldn't say elsewhere."

Really?

Try this on for size:

I was booted for other reasons while addressing a different aspect of LGBT rights/African American issues. The problem wasn't really about what I said, but where I said it. Warning: Don't go to the LGBT group/African American group and disagree with anyone. You will be called a stalker, have false accusations hurled at you, and be called homophobic/racist even if you aren't.

[Warpy]

8. The Vatican unwittingly kicked out the underpinnings of its antiabortion stance

when it did away with Limbo for unbaptized infants. All babies go to heaven now and since they say it's a baby as soon as a zygote is fertilized, that covers spontaneous as well as therapeutic abortion. Unfortunately, they're too dishonest to admit that since abortion would become a loving thing to do for a fetus whose life prospects were grim.

[Gelliebeans]

12. I don't think

They thought that one would come back to haunt them (Vatican that is)

[Warpy]

13. I don't think too many people either inside the Vatican

or going to one of the churches has fucking thought of it.

It takes evil atheists to make that connection.

[enki23]

18. It's not about the baby souls. It's about the anti-abortionists' souls.

A robot... er... anti-abortionist may not harm a fetus or through inaction allow a fetus to be harmed.

They feel they are committing a sin by allowing you to commit a sin. Ditto for all their other stupid fucking causes. Why not gay marriage? That's why. Why can't Hobby Lobby employees get contraception coverage? That's why.

All of their dumbest moral stances make much more sense once you understand that their ethics and morals are not intended to prevent actual harm in the world. They are intended to prevent imaginary harm to themselves.

[AlbertCat]

16. As to what defines our personality or humanity, my thoughts are unclear.

Science tell us that your unique DNA made up of genes and chromosomes you inherited from your parents is responsible for about 50% (maybe a little under) of your unique personality. The other 50% is your environment....or your experiences. These experiences of your life effect the gene environment, enhancing gene effects and cutting on and off genes. Also, your genes will incline you toward certain behaviors which of course effect your activities and experiences.


"Since they were never born, they are sinless, so it would be wrong to send them to Hell."

The souls of innocents like you describe according to Catholic go to Limbo....on the edges of hell. There is much ridiculous theology on the subject.

[Cartoonist]

23. I follow your science logic

It still seems like there is a certain something that makes each person unique. Since I can't name it, I guess that means it is a soul. I don't believe in souls, so I guess I will have to drop that notion and accept that there is really no spiritual difference among life-forms because I cannot accept spirituality.

[LiberalAndProud]

17. I don't think it ever was a question of soul, or hellfire, or damnation.

More Catholic babies > more Catholic adults > Greater political influence

And the Biblical basis is this:
King James Bible
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

It's simply an older form of Dominionism under the umbrella of a different denomination.

[Cartoonist]

25. I would make one change

More Catholic babies > more Catholic adults > Greater political influence
-
More Catholic babies > more Catholic adults > More revenue
That's the basis of all religions. To provide jobs for Priests, Rabbis, and Imams.

[LiberalAndProud]

29. Yes. Wealth-building is a factor.

But eventually, accumulation of wealth stops being an end unto itself. Wealth is important as much for the power that it wields as for the material it can purchase.

[Gore1FL]

34. Here is the argument I would use against that if I were religious:

The child inherited original sin. Straight to hell with them without baptism.

Their rules suck.

[TxDemChem]

36. I follow you.

I've never thought about recycling of souls. Gives me something to ponder today.

[Cartoonist]

37. Thanks for the discussion

I know that this is entirely speculative about the religious aspect, and since this group doesn't really recognize religious authority, sometimes you have to think differently and approach a subject from an outsider's view.
I went to a Catholic school for 7 years and I still haven't got a clue about Limbo or who the Hell is the Holy Ghost. Purgatory I kind of get, but it's just as ridiculous as the other manifestations of Catholicism. And what is up with the Pope foreclosing on Limbo? I thought only God could do that.
Back to the point of this whole exercise. (not exorcism)

I like to think that humans can come to some kind of understanding regarding things, even something as divisive as abortion. Clearly, the main opposition to abortion is from the religious camp. While it's puzzling to me how they can revere an unborn fetus and then turn their back on actual living and breathing children by cutting food stamps, I still think there is a kernel of intelligence that can be reasoned with. After all, many of them can read and write, though some not so good.
In order to reason with them, you have to speak their language and get them to actually ponder all the ramifications of their belief. I never hear any mention of souls and what happens to them in abortion discussions. I was trying to get to that in the other group but was immediately attacked from all sides before I could get past the humanity question. I see that as a problem for our side in trying to find common ground. Not a compromise, but an understanding. Not a surrendering of any rights, but an acknowledgement that certain ideas aren't as cut and dry as either side thinks.
I don't claim to be an enlightened original thinker, but I have never before heard the arguments I outlined in the OP. So my next question is, would it be worthwhile to introduce this concept into the discussion? Actually get the faithful to examine their faith.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

38. I'm locking this thread while the hosts discuss the situation - EDIT: unlocked

Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)

We had some preliminary discussions and the thread is on-topic, but please try to keep the meta from other groups out of A&A.