"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[Moonwood the Hare]

To be clear KTR are you saying no one could ever oppose stem cell research on any grounds other than religion?

[Keep The Reason]

What exactly is the point of such rhetoric?

To be clear, Moonwood, the people who DO oppose it are Christian (and some other religious) moralists. If, and when, other groups become an obstacle to human progress, we can have that discussion when we're on that bridge, be they religious or secular. Today, and in reality, we're faced with the obstacles thanks to religious values.

You know, maybe you should pull away from the history books a bit and recognize the actual in-the-trenches reality that effect people's lives today. You great on what happened in the distant past, and there's value in that for certain, but how people are left to deal with the living consequences of these beliefs is important too.

[Keep The Reason]

I asked you how theist dictates personally affect your life, and you said:

How was my question not appropriate when now, nine pages into this thread, you're saying that you are a direct victim of theist dictates?.

Because my victimization is a spit of piss in the ocean and it doesn't even matter. It's what I see others suffering from at a far more massive level that's important. Your question is just a waste of time because I don't have to have ANY direct victimization in order to be compelled to act if others are victimized. You made it an issue, there is an answer, so I offered it but this whole line of argument is idiotic because it does not matter if I have direct suffering or not.

[humanguy]

I asked you how theist dictates personally affect your life, and you said:

How was my question not appropriate when now, nine pages into this thread, you're saying that you are a direct victim of theist dictates?.

Because my victimization is a spit of piss in the ocean and it doesn't even matter. It's what I see others suffering from at a far more massive level that's important. Your question is just a waste of time because I don't have to have ANY direct victimization in order to be compelled to act if others are victimized. You made it an issue, there is an answer, so I offered it but this whole line of argument is idiotic because it does not matter if I have direct suffering or not.

I see.

[Rian]

Re the growing of teeth from stem cells - the stem cells were obtained from the molars of the mice - they were not embryonic stem cells. From the little I've read, there have been a lot of exciting advances from non-fetal stem cells, and I'm not aware of anyone that objects to their use.

[JustJim]

From the little I've read, there have been a lot of exciting advances from non-fetal stem cells, and I'm not aware of anyone that objects to their use.

Would those same people, who don't object to the use of non-fetal stem cells, object to the use of fetal stem cells? If so, upon what do they base their objections? Do they believe fetal stem cells come from viable embryos that eventually would have become human beings, and somehow equate their use/destruction with murder? Do you think their religious beliefs play any role in their objections to the use of fetal stem cells? Do you object to the use of fetal stem cells? Why, or why not?

Jim

[Moonwood the Hare]

What exactly is the point of such rhetoric?

To be clear, Moonwood, the people who DO oppose it are Christian (and some other religious) moralists. If, and when, other groups become an obstacle to human progress, we can have that discussion when we're on that bridge, be they religious or secular. Today, and in reality, we're faced with the obstacles thanks to religious values.

You know, maybe you should pull away from the history books a bit and recognize the actual in-the-trenches reality that effect people's lives today. You great on what happened in the distant past, and there's value in that for certain, but how people are left to deal with the living consequences of these beliefs is important too.

Because it looks to me like you are saying that if a person holds a particular view on the basis of a religious belief then that must be opposed. So I am asking what if the same view is held on a non-religious basis. In fact I can point you to papers on the ethics of stem cell research that make no mention of religion at all so this is not a purely historical question. My question is do you oppose these views because they are held on the basis of religious beliefs or because you think they cannot be rationally defended. And if opposition to stem cell research can be rationally defended does it matter whether those who oppose it hold particular religious views or not? In short this comes back to the matter of seeking a civil public square where on the basis of their diverse views people can enage in ethical debate without being dehumanized as 'obstacles to human progress'.

[Keep The Reason]

Because it looks to me like you are saying that if a person holds a particular view on the basis of a religious belief then that must be opposed. So I am asking what if the same view is held on a non-religious basis. In fact I can point you to papers on the ethics of stem cell research that make no mention of religion at all so this is not a purely historical question. My question is do you oppose these views because they are held on the basis of religious beliefs or because you think they cannot be rationally defended. And if opposition to stem cell research can be rationally defended does it matter whether those who oppose it hold particular religious views or not? In short this comes back to the matter of seeking a civil public square where on the basis of their diverse views people can enage in ethical debate without being dehumanized as 'obstacles to human progress'.

Of course you'll find a smattering of people who might hold similar views on a topic but not from a religious perspective. I know of self-loathing homosexuals who were virulently anti-homosexual like J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn. And it even turned out that they got powerful. This dosent mean that Fred Phelps' Westboro Church ( god hates fags) is right or justified.

But the exceptions to a rule do not destroy or relieve us of the consequences of the rule, despite how entertaining it might feel to pretend otherwise. Christians adamantly blocking stem cell research is a problem, despite a fraction of dissidents who might agree with them on secular grounds. If a secular atheist doesn't believe condoms deters AIDS, and that happens to jibe with the Catholic stance in Africa, this doesn't mean we through up our hands, state, "Oh we'll, this secular opinion agrees with the religious one, so I guess it's ok to let people continue to be ravaged by AIDS in Africa."

[gary_s]

Of course you'll find a smattering of people who might hold similar views on a topic but not from a religious perspective. I know of self-loathing homosexuals who were virulently anti-homosexual like J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn. And it even turned out that they got powerful. This dosent mean that Fred Phelps' Westboro Church ( god hates fags) is right or justified.

But the exceptions to a rule do not destroy or relieve us of the consequences of the rule, despite how entertaining it might feel to pretend otherwise. Christians adamantly blocking stem cell research is a problem, despite a fraction of dissidents who might agree with them on secular grounds. If a secular atheist doesn't believe condoms deters AIDS, and that happens to jibe with the Catholic stance in Africa, this doesn't mean we through up our hands, state, "Oh we'll, this secular opinion agrees with the religious one, so I guess it's ok to let people continue to be ravaged by AIDS in Africa."

KTR, your argument is missing something important, and that's a solid basis for it's conclusions. What Moon is pointing out is valid. There happens to be plenty of non-religious opposition to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells, which is merely abortion opposition by extension. There are quite a few atheists who are in opposition and can make a very compelling argument. So, what's missing here is the basis for your particular opinion. Is it scientific consensus? Medical consensus? At the moment, I'm not clear on that. It appears that it's merely your personal opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. But how is it informed? Is it just "KTR's view of how things should be"? If you are hoping to persuade others to your way of thinking, you have to provide some objective grounding. I happen to agree with you that religious meddling has stunted an otherwise powerful science and has done little to diminish theist's ultimate goal of reducing abortions. It's a matter of poor thinking on their part, and putting ideology ahead of practicality. Yet even in Conservative circles, you'll find supporters of embryonic stem cell research.

[Keep The Reason]

KTR, your argument is missing something important, and that's a solid basis for it's conclusions. What Moon is pointing out is valid. There happens to be plenty of non-religious opposition to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells, which is merely abortion opposition by extension. There are quite a few atheists who are in opposition and can make a very compelling argument. So, what's missing here is the basis for your particular opinion. Is it scientific consensus? Medical consensus? At the moment, I'm not clear on that. It appears that it's merely your personal opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. But how is it informed? Is it just "KTR's view of how things should be"? If you are hoping to persuade others to your way of thinking, you have to provide some objective grounding. I happen to agree with you that religious meddling has stunted an otherwise powerful science and has done little to diminish theist's ultimate goal of reducing abortions. It's a matter of poor thinking on their part, and putting ideology ahead of practicality. Yet even in Conservative circles, you'll find supporters of embryonic stem cell research.

The secular arguments against abortion seem not to be either scientific or medical in nature, but moral in nature-- and as such, is open to as much criticism as if it comes from a religious viewpoint. To crib from another post elsewhere:

The most influential secular argument against abortion comes from the Philosopher Don Marquis. It goes like this:

P1) It is prima facie seriously morally wrong to kill anything that has a future like ours.
P2) Typical fetuses have a future like ours.
C1) It is prima facie seriously morally wrong to kill a fetus.
P3) Abortion is the killing of a fetus.
C2) It is prima facie seriously morally wrong to have an abortion.

To accept this argument, you only need to accept that the wrong-making feature of killing is that it deprives what is killed of a future that is relevantly similar to the future of any normal adult (i.e., that experiences in it are or will be valued by the organism), because this wrong-making feature of killing is generalized to form (P1) above.

Notice, though, that this argument does not entail an across the board prohibitionary stance on abortion (what Judith Thomson has called the extreme view), but is rather more moderate. In fact, it is compatible with the abortion of fetuses that will not possess a future of value and experience (e.g., anencephalic fetuses), abortions when the mother's life is at stake were she not to abort and possibly more.

Source:

Marquis, Don. "Why Abortion is Immoral" The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1989), pp. 183-202

I do not believe this is a particularly compelling argument against abortion but that is a completely different discussion. (However, briefly, now all human cells can be said to "have a future just like us" and so it is now morally wrong to scratch one's nose or masturbate without slaughtering millions of potential humans).

So, we can have the philosophical discussion, or the political one. The political one is this: The forces for social change in present day USA offers a massive amount of leeway towards the religious and their morality. That morality shackles scientific progress whether or not there are also quislings amongst atheists. There is no scientific or medical reasons to thwart abortions across the board, like the religious want to do in large numbers, and there is NO reason to thwart stem cell research at all. It isn't even a moral issue as one can cull embryonic stem cells from miscarriages, which is AKA "abortion by god".

I hope this addresses any flaws you see in the argument.

[Moonwood the Hare]

The argument that the political system in the US is biased towards the religious (whoever they are) seems flawed in the case of abortion in particular since for example the Roman Catholic position which is shared by many evangelicals is that all abortion is wrong and therefore all abortion should be illegal. Given that all abortion is not illegal it would make more sense to say that the law in the US is biased against this religious position.

I am even more concerned when you describe those atheists who disagree with you as Quislings. As if no atheist can hold a moral position different to yours without somehow betraying the cause. I think this is the kind of thing that an atheist freethinker like humanguy objects to. It seems to me there can be religious arguments for and against stem cell research and secular arguments for and against. For example John Polkingorne who sat on the parliamentary committee here in the UK on the ethics of stem cell research in one of his books suggests that if zygotes are indeed people then heaven will mostly be populated with those who have never had an earthly life and he finds this implausible; that is a clearly religious argument that can be used in favour of stem cell research. However I am fairly sure Polkinghorne would reserve that kind of argument for those occasions when he is preaching to the choir as KTR would say. When on the committee he would have used much more secular arguments. In General then I would say that when arguing with people who do not share ones religious beliefs or commitments one should find common ground elsewhere. Hence to take an atheist example when KTR feels that a certain view is impeding the progress of mankind that is for want of a better term a religious view (in the sense that it is based on fundamental convictions about the nature and destiny of human beings which not all people will share) then that needs on the whole to kept out of public discourse and reserved for preaching to the choir.

[Keep The Reason]

The argument that the political system in the US is biased towards the religious (whoever they are) seems flawed in the case of abortion in particular since for example the Roman Catholic position which is shared by many evangelicals is that all abortion is wrong and therefore all abortion should be illegal. Given that all abortion is not illegal it would make more sense to say that the law in the US is biased against this religious position.

Wrong. Abortion is not legal per se. The right to privacy (Roe v Wade) is what is constitutionally protected, and the abortion choice itself is covered by the right to privacy:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] is a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the woman's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the woman's current trimester of pregnancy.

I am even more concerned when you describe those atheists who disagree with you as Quislings. As if no atheist can hold a moral position different to yours without somehow betraying the cause. I think this is the kind of thing that an atheist freethinker like humanguy objects to. It seems to me there can be religious arguments for and against stem cell research and secular arguments for and against. For example John Polkingorne who sat on the parliamentary committee here in the UK on the ethics of stem cell research in one of his books suggests that if zygotes are indeed people then heaven will mostly be populated with those who have never had an earthly life and he finds this implausible; that is a clearly religious argument that can be used in favour of stem cell research. However I am fairly sure Polkinghorne would reserve that kind of argument for those occasions when he is preaching to the choir as KTR would say. When on the committee he would have used much more secular arguments. In General then I would say that when arguing with people who do not share ones religious beliefs or commitments one should find common ground elsewhere. Hence to take an atheist example when KTR feels that a certain view is impeding the progress of mankind that is for want of a better term a religious view (in the sense that it is based on fundamental convictions about the nature and destiny of human beings which not all people will share) then that needs on the whole to kept out of public discourse and reserved for preaching to the choir.

They are free to have a dissenting opinion. I am free to reject it. This is a political battle. You probably are not as keenly aware of the cultural war that has been going on here against a conservative religious right that has co-opted one entire party (Republicans; we only effectively have 2 here), and compels the dissenting political party (Democrats) to try to placate them with sops from an otherwise socially progressive table. Tip one Supreme Court judghe from this conservative base, and we fall into the South American model of every misacarriage being considered a crime scene.

Yes, I consider atheists who object to things like stem cell research and freedom of choice to be quislings in this battle (yes, a battle). The good news is, there are scant few of them, and as I have argued 10 or 20 times already, they aren't the problem.

I don't see why I have to adhere to some party line of being a "freethinker athiest" who cannot incorporate the realities of the cultural battle that's taking place out there. By his own admissions, humanguy watches "Jeopardy". I'm somewhat more in the trenches than that. It's all well and good to have these erudite dissertations on the theories, but the fact is, there are forces out there that are striving to push us into a theocracy, and it's not like they don't have the ear of our political leaders. When school districts start in with creationism issues, I get out there and stand toe to toe with them. When anti-gay bills are attempted to be legislated, I fight against them. And when science is shackled by religious morality, I protest.

So far, none of these "atheist moralists" have shown up at these events. But plenty of Christians do.

[humanguy]

By his own admissions, humanguy watches "Jeopardy".

So?

[bebop88]

Let it be known that I also like jeopardy, but I prefer the Will Ferrell version of Alex Trebek.

Anywho, KTR i love the discussion Gary, Moon and you are having, but I'm also confused as to the HumanGuy Jeopardy comment. Sorry if this is an inside joke.

[gary_s]

The secular arguments against abortion seem not to be either scientific or medical in nature, but moral in nature-- and as such, is open to as much criticism as if it comes from a religious viewpoint.

This is easy rhetoric to hide behind, but put aside the philosophical bluster and examine what is occurring with an abortion. A proto-human is being extinguished (not a full-fledged human and not a legal person), agreed? Is it ever OK to do this?

If you say "yes", then it comes down to the question of when or why. Three more questions emerge; saving the life of the mother, gestation time the condition of the embryo. Is it OK to abort a 1 day old zygote? How about a blastocyst (5 days old)? An embryo? A 2 month old fetus? A 30 week old fetus? A one day old infant? What, exactly, is the difference? And what of the condition of the fetus? Is it physically healthy or is it malformed in some way (and there are a multitude of ways), which might result in a person with major physical or mental challenges. The question is whether it is ethically better to extinguish this fetus or allow it to live with its problems? And finally, does the mother's life trump any claim to life that the infant may have?

I say all this to point out that your argument is fallacious in it's polarization. People deal with this question in many different ways and even though I come down on the side of allowing early term abortions, I feel that it is because I have considered all the scientific, medical and ethical complexities and have formed a practical, yet compassionate conclusion. Hardly a Quisling. Or is it better to just buckle and go with whatever the group says?

And none of this matters nearly as much unless the proto-human you are talking about is yours. I think that all of this soap-box rhetoric is about as meaningless as it can be. When you are a parent and you are considering aborting the life of your unborn child, none of this is easy.

I do not believe this is a particularly compelling argument against abortion but that is a completely different discussion. (However, briefly, now all human cells can be said to "have a future just like us" and so it is now morally wrong to scratch one's nose or masturbate without slaughtering millions of potential humans).

No, this is not the same question at all. Even with the most powerful human technology, a cell from your nose stands next to zero chance of ever becoming a human. Nearly the same can be said of a sperm cell. This line of thinking is a non-sequitur unless you are a Catholic Bishop.

The forces for social change in present day USA offers a massive amount of leeway towards the religious and their morality. That morality shackles scientific progress whether or not there are also quislings amongst atheists. There is no scientific or medical reasons to thwart abortions across the board, like the religious want to do in large numbers, and there is NO reason to thwart stem cell research at all. It isn't even a moral issue as one can cull embryonic stem cells from miscarriages, which is AKA "abortion by god".

I'll agree that there's no scientific basis for a whole-sale ban on abortion and that is precisely the goal of Evangelical theists. And of course there is no justification for thwarting stem cell research, but of course you have to specify embryonic stem cell research to get at the controversial topic. Is it OK to create an embryo with the sole objective of destroying it and using it for research? And even with this being banned, it still makes little sense to me to ban such research on existing stem cell lines or embryos that have already been created and frozen and have no parents that want them. I see little difference between keeping a proto-human deep frozen indefinitely and using it to further research that may one day result in millions of people being cured of horrible diseases.

Now, after offering a counter-balance to your group-think mentality, I will offer one bit of support. One area of religious political activism I find particularly repulsive is the tendency of some pharmacists to refuse to dispense the Plan-B pill due to their own religious beliefs. I think this is a very dangerous and messy amalgamation of one's religious views and their duty as a professional, not to mention a person's right to purchase perfectly legal products. By extension, people of this mindset could effectively annihilate abortion in this country. Let's see, if a gas station clerk hears that you are driving to an abortion clinic, should be allowed to refuse to sell you gas? Should a parking lot attendant be allowed to refuse access to a parking garage to anyone patronizing an abortion clinic on that street? Should a factory worker refuse to come to work on the day they are manufacturing or packaging Plan-B? Should a pilot refuse to fly a plane load of the stuff? You can go on forever with this.