Good luck. I agree that demystifying abortion is a good idea. All the best.

;I’m an atheist, children’s rights activist, '

An atheist yes, a children;s rights activist - u r joking of course?

Journey.

Journey. Well, oh I cant get past Journey.

I feel the world has left me behind. I have no desire to talk about myself in the third person and splash my Journey on facebook and twitter.

'What makes this even more interesting '
Sorry, nope. I had to stop there.

Angie

All the best for you and your family.

"Abortion doesn’t have to be justified and it doesn’t have to fit your neighbour’s or co-worker’s opinions of a “good enough reason”.

Right-on sister.

Good for you, Angie.
There is nothing in the world as privately owned as one's body, its functions, illnesses and what one does with it. However, it is only since we allowed the intrusion of governments into the picture that it all became somewhat complicated and as the years have passed, even more so as the insidious church controlled more and more timid politicians who, cognisant of the threat to their comfortable living if they dared to offend a group of people whose ability to have a rational thought was lost years ago, the moment they were brainwashed at Sunday school or in the case of the Romans, fell for the theory of the promise of heaven and the threat of hell.

So abortion, like euthanasia became the domain of the churches, therefore the weak and compliant politicians.
What a total liberty that was.

I think that the main consolation out of all our better education and rational thinking is the diminished numbers in church attendances and the rise of atheism in leaps and bounds which means that one day again, perhaps, when people see both priests and politicians for what they are, the need for honest and enlightening articles like Angie's, will have gone forever.

Until then, George Orwell's 1984 is alive and well.

You are right Angie – abortion doesn’t have to be justified, at least if atheism is correct.

In fact, for atheists, nothing has to be justified. Indeed, nothing can be justified if atheism is correct.

Appealing to atheism may have some initial appeal, but it is not hard to see that it leaves us in a very awkward position.

In a materialist/atheistic universe, the person who has an abortion does not have to justify their behaviour but neither does the rapist, the paedophile, the torturer, or anybody else.

If atheism is true, we are all free to do whatever we like. That may sound good until we are on the receiving end of some of these behaviours.

Great letter rexw

JP......"nothing can be justified if atheism is correct."

Could you please explain that for me. Are you saying that because I don't believe in some supernatural being that I have no ethical boundaries ?

JP how then do you explain the continuing horror story of christian his-story prior to the the 20th century.

Or even the fact that CHRISTIAN Europe gave the entire world, World Wars I & II---Yes Europe was STILL very much "christian" then.

What about the protestant versus "catholic" religious wars in post-"reformation" Europe--millions were slaughtered and much of Europe was ruined

All of the never-ending slaughters and imperial conquests done in the name of "god".

The African slave trade conducted by European "christians"--the institutional churches were key players--A "papal bull" even "authorized" it.

How many Africans were thus enslaved and/or murdered?

The estimates vary from 25 to 50 million!

Onwards "christian" soldiers forever marching into war.

This reference gives the unvarnished truth re christian his-story

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

And why not Google The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby--a well researched book.

So much for "holy" apostolic succession and the "vicar of christ".

Oh, that old canard, JP.

>>In a materialist/atheistic universe, the person who has an abortion does not have to justify their behaviour but neither does the rapist, the paedophile, the torturer, or anybody else.<<

It is highly significant that the only people you will ever here saying such tripe as this, turn out to be "people of faith".

On the other hand, people who are able to live their lives without having to imagine an authority figure that tells them what to do, can easily distinguish between rape, paedophilia, torture etc., and the right to make carefully considered choices that can cause harm to no-one but themselves.

It is important to clearly understand that last part, JP.

Everyone has to be able to justify their actions to themselves. It is the basis of morality. Failing this simple test is why paedophile priests are indistinguishable from paedophile non-priests. They both fell at the same moral hurdle. No deity was involved, in either case.

The author here is explaining to you why she acted as she did, and having done so, does not need to justify it to anyone else.

Why should this concern you?

Why should this concern you?

I think that's pretty obvious pericles. He sees the embrio as a person, who has been murdered. He's sticking up for the rights of what he sees as a person.

I don't happen to agree, but the stance is understandable.

For sure Snake, as an atheist you can set whatever ethical boundaries you like – but justifying those boundaries is the hard part.

For example, as an atheist you can state that rape is wrong. But the rapist can ask: “Why is rape wrong: just because you say so? Who are you to tell me what is right and wrong?”

And there lies the issue: if atheism is true, then morally it is every person for themself. We are all free, because there is no one – no creator - to give account to, but equally we are also totally vulnerable.

Of course you can try to fall back on using laws to try and protect yourself, but what ultimate justification can laws have in an atheistic universe? Some would argue that if the laws represent what most people want that justifies them. But who has the authority to be able to say that a simple majority makes something “right”?

Indeed, if most people agreed that slavery was legitimate would you go along with that? Or if most people said that abortion was wrong would that make it wrong?

Logically, if atheism is correct, the only rational functional moral basis is that of, might makes right.

Pericles, you state, “people who are able to live their lives without having to imagine an authority figure that tells them what to do, can easily distinguish between rape, paedophilia, torture etc., and the right to make carefully considered choices that can cause harm to no-one but themselves”.

But why should the rapist, etc listen to what you have to say? You might not like harming other people , but who are you to say what other people should do

JP - it appears to have escaped your attention that 'the rapist' isn't listening to you or to god either. Your argument actually reinforces the idea that morals come from individuals and not that they are absolutes or given to us by god.

"...if atheism is correct."

I don't understand this statement either. It is not about whether atheism is 'correct'. Atheists are not providing an alternative dogma they merely dismiss the supernatural without further evidence as snake alluded above. Why is the burden of proof on the non-believer.

Abortion is not an atheist issue - many Christian and Islamic women have had abortions, particularly when the alternative is to be stoned or shunned in extreme communities.

I am an atheist and have never had an abortion and probably never would but I am not going to dictate to other women what they should decide. There are many different reasons why women might choose an abortion.

While there is no shame, many women find they do have mixed feelings and great sorrow after abortion, some regretting the decision later. It would be, I imagine a highly personal and intimate decision. Perhaps because of this, I do have some uneasiness about the blogging and twittering aspect, even though I get the intention is to shake off the 'shame' stigma and the author has the right to share her view.

It does seem a bit of a contradiction to call oneself a children's activist though while speaking about abortion, when there are many people who consider the embryo the start of life even if "it" is not a person yet. It would be a bit like the management of Gunn's Pulp Mill calling themselves environmentalists.

Good on you Angie.

You do what ever is the right thing for you, now. There is no need for justification to any body.

Then forget it. Dont try to second guess yourself at a later date. The different person you will be then can have no bearing on who you are today.

excellent article, brilliant public action, thank you very much.

Pelican

Not a good analogy:

<<< It does seem a bit of a contradiction to call oneself a children's activist though while speaking about abortion, when there are many people who consider the embryo the start of life even if "it" is not a person yet. It would be a bit like the management of Gunn's Pulp Mill calling themselves environmentalists. >>>

An abortion is a personal decision - one can be a children's activist without having children. Whereas Gunns are straight out dishonest and their decisions effect us all - devastating the ecosystem.

Also the people who would ban women from determining their lives, never worry too much about the welfare of children once they have been born. I can see how Angie can very easily be a children's activist.

That's just being obtuse, Houellebecq.

>>He sees the embrio as a person, who has been murdered. He's sticking up for the rights of what he sees as a person. I don't happen to agree, but the stance is understandable.<<

That stance is indeed the traditional one for Christians. However, JP did not make that point, instead decided to give us a sermon on abortion's parallels with rape, paedophilia and torture.

That's not sticking up for rights. That's sanctimony.

Isn't that right, JP?

>>But why should the rapist, etc listen to what you have to say? You might not like harming other people , but who are you to say what other people should do<<

Where did I claim to "say what other people should do"?

That is the task you have given yourself.

I prefer to rely upon innate good sense, responsible upbringing and societal influence to inform people's behaviours.

Any one of these three is sufficient to show that rape is bad. Put all three together, and you have an impregnable moral position.

The glaring omission in your catalogue of atheistic horrors, is that in our society, the only group that appears to forgive paedophile priests, and go on from there to absolve them from taking responsibility for their crimes, are other priests.

If only they had a properly working moral code to sustain them.

Good point Severin
I can see that may not have been the best analogy. I did not mean to imply that the author, Angie was being dishonest in the same way that Gunn's has proven.

I was wresting with myself to understand my own personal unease at that statement, and of course you are right - it does not mean that someone who has an abortion cannot advocate for rights of children who are "born".

I think it was just in the context that many people do believe that an embryo is the beginning of life (not necessarily of childhood) it seemed incongruous on first reading. I probably need to some inner searching on why it had that first impression.

This is peripherally about nihilism or moral relativism; but squarely about sacrifice, justice and responsibility.

I thought that atheists can at least recognise nature - in many sitations they even worship it. But apparently not when it's too close to home.

And then to stick it In Ya Face on the net.

No base. How tragic.

Pelican

Thank you for putting words to your reflections. I apologise if I came on a bit strong it is because I find Gunns utterly reprehensible. Besides, I don't have children, I have had both abortions (with no regrets) and miscarriages - with total regret - balanced in part by my niece and nephew, and I abhor children being victimised by anyone. Guess you hit a nerve there.

Seems to me Angie is a courageous woman, having survived the brutality of sexual abuse, a very difficult pregnancy resulting in her much loved son and her clarity of mind in knowing her strengths and limits.

hugoagogo
I have not heard of the Atheist earth worshipping movement - please do explain.

There are great numbers of Christian environmentalists around the world. And why should't there be. Why would a Christian not love the earth that their God created and why wouldn't they look after it for the sake of mankind?

As for moral relativism - morality is a human construct that has at it's core (or a reflection of) a strong instinct for survival, natural born altruism and the strength of the collective. Morality as reflected in religious dogma is also a human construct and varies between religous groups and cultures.

Abortion raises many conflicting rights - the rights of the child, the rights of a woman who may not want to be "forced" into having a child for whatever reason personal to herself.

no doubt some of the 9/11 murderers were also child activist.

Poor old Runner

Your would like the world to be black and white, but the reality is there are simply an endless number of shades of grey.

I know you want certainty of right and wrong (who isn't searching for that?). However, to equate a child activist with terrorists is rather unfair and unjustified.

You do yourself no favours with such a random and baseless accusation.

JP "For example, as an atheist you can state that rape is wrong. But the rapist can ask: “Why is rape wrong: just because you say so? Who are you to tell me what is right and wrong?”"
And you would say "No, it's my invisible friend that says you can't"
That should fix him, right? Right?

Honestly Pericles, I'm amazed that you actually decided to give JP a thorough answer in response to his Hume-style "use the 'rape' analogy to whatever situation I don't like" tactic - even my simplistic joke was too good a response for him, IMO.

Anyway, I feel Angie is perfectly right.
If a lady decides she cannot or doesn't want to handle the pregnancy, birth or raising a child, either physically OR emotionally then abortion is the right thing to do.

And holding an unwanted pregnancy should DEFINITELY not be done just to please some bigoted strangers or their deities. It's plain unhealthy for her, and just puts another impediment on what to actually do with the child once its born (something most of these pro-life people can't seem to think about).

Us poor unbelievers certainly do it so much tougher than believers when it comes to issues such as abortion. We have to think for ourselves whereas the christain gods views on the value of the unborn are clearly spelt out as are her views on abortion.

There can be no debate on the meaning of the key verses for believers, there is no ambiguity, no risk of intepreation based on cultural values or tradition. For a good summary of the issues from a biblical perspective those who care might like to read http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

R0bert

'no doubt some of the 9/11 murderers were also child activist.'

runner that's gold. It really cracked me up.

Pericles,

I read it as implied. If you make parallels between rape and other heinous crimes to abortion, you must therefore consider abortion murder. I don't think it's a massive jump. Although the next post confirmed you sanctimony allegations.

pelican,

Congrats. Your analogy has diverted a post about abortion to environmentalism. I thought only I had such talent with analogies. Rip rip wood chip turn it into paper....

On topic (now) I often wonder where all these enviro-extremists expect to get the toilet paper to wipe their arses once there are no more cutting down trees, as nowhere is it 'environmentally friendly' to have a pulp mill. I'm sure there is an endangered tree frog or something where ever a mill is proposed.

BTW: Morals are absolute. Sure you would like them to be relative so you can justify your actions to yourself. But really, that twang of guilt you feel every time you wipe your arse is the lord telling you you're an enviro-vandal.

Houellebecq,

Moral frameworks are constructed by the individual. People are quite capable of having different sets morals and standards. They are certainly not absolute.

The morals you talk about were probably constructed by people because they believed that they would work for themselves and their particular group of people. In fact, they probably imposed them on others who had differing views on morals. That in itself is surely not a moral thing to do...is it? Taking away choice and imposing an inflexible framework on people - that is surely a form of slavery.

This nonsense about atheists having no moral code is so tired. The concept of treating others as you would have them treat you is the basis of rational morality, and was around for at least 5 centuries before Jesus allegedly stepped into his own drama.
Are we to understand the only thing stopping you from being a rapist is your fear of your God, JP?
If the God of the Christian Bible was (and remains) the basis of morality, Angie would not have had to worry about an abortion.
Runner and JP would have stoned her to death as an adulteress, long ago.

I'm a Christian and I still think there's a place for abortion. Personally - seeing as we're all sharing - I don't believe in so called lifestyle abortions. I think if you're actively having intercourse and fall pregnant then here's your bed, make it comfy. Of course there's always the argument that an unwanted kid is destined for a life they probably are better off not having - seeing as we're being selfish with lifestyle choices. Not suggesting the author was, just talking in general.

My partner has Cystic Fibrosis and neither of us would wish even that risk on anyone. We can't have kids naturally so if we do there WILL be embryonic screening going on that's fo sho.

I think the author is slightly mentally deficient by coming across miffed about negative comments from the 'religious right' - I'm sure not every comment had their theological affiliation at the end - when you update the world of your abortion real time via tweets. I mean, c'mon, not only the religious right are offended by this sort of thing. What's your next special, tweeting while slitting the throats of animals or the sake of a decent BBQ with #PETA at the end of each tweet?. Uh yeah, stupid, you're cop some negativity.

An ex of mine had an abortion and I consider that a loss. No one from her to the docs at the abortion clinic asked me what I thought and I had to pay for it. I would've, and could've, cared for it if I had the chance, she could've pissed off and done whatever she wanted to do with her life and left me to it.

There's a place for it, but tweeting it blow by blow is, well, F%^$#D up IMHO.

One other thing. Both parents need to carriers of 'the' CF gene for the child to get CF. You don't risk it if only one is a carrier. So unless your partner has the gene that's a null and void comment. Glad it wasn't your only one.

Severin
Thanks for your follow-up. I can understand why my analogy hit a nerve and I did not mean to offend. As you know I advocate for choice.

I re-read the article to try and analyse why I had a problem with it.

StG hit on it when he said it is the blogging and tweeting aspect of it that did not sit well with me. I did not find the article demystifying, only uncomfortable in the way such a personal subject was handled.

A close friend had an abortion and it was a painful decision for her and she has always regretted the decision. She was pressured by her parents (typical of the 70s). However her experience is not everyone's I am not offering it as a template.

The seemingly casualness of the blog ignores this aspect of abortion and not everyone finds the process as straightforward as the author which is her right.

It is a difficult topic because there are so many influencing factors - such as late terminations, lifestyle choices, medical reasons, rape, etc.

Houlley
Was that you staying on topic? What makes you think I use toilet paper!

Thanks pelican,

This probably disturbed me the most though...

>>>"I think “I don’t want to be pregnant” is one of the best reasons there is for having an abortion (along with “I don’t want to be a parent” and “I’ll probably die”)"<<<

Yeah, so get your tubes tied?.

Having an abortion is a private and personal decision, seemingly like when to have any medical procedure, like no more than having a decaying tooth removed?

The world doesn't want to know about your tooth removal. It is a private and personal thing. Right?

So is abortion is such a private decision why are you shouting it out so publically? If it is no big deal then when do you want us to hear about it?

Have your abortion, personally and privately like your own personal and private decision. Otherwise you are just looking like an attention seeker. Well, maybe you are.

The only other thing I get from the article is that if you really didn't want another pregnancy you should have considered tubal ligation. But you should have kept that private and personal as well.

Doug like some others I've found this thread somewhat confronting but at the same time I get why the author choose to be public about it. She points out in the article that for the most part the only discussion of the experiences of having an abortion most of us hear are from that very small number who have later become anti-choice/pro-life (pick your preferred term).

I've known women who have said that they have had abortions but I've never heard much about their experience. There is value in broadening the understanding of what women experience and that will only happen as more women choose to relate their own experience. I don't want to see that grow to be an annual abortion pride march but I do think that women choosing to relate their experiences (both good and bad) will help others make more informed choices.

It is a private issue but it's a private issue which is often the subject of public debate. It's an issue where all too often most of the available information comes from vested interest groups.

Twitter the experience does seem to trivialize it but maybe that's part of what it takes to start to shift it from being a secretive thing.

I had a vasectomy a couple of years ago, I knew other men who had had one but it's not something I'd ever really heard much about and a vasectomy carries a lot less social baggage than an abortion. There are some really good reasons for people to be able to talk about their experience.

R0bert

RObert, I would agree with you, except that one argument used by those who favour 'freedom of choice' is that abortion is a private issue between a woman and her doctor. That was the basis for the Roe vs Wade 'pro-abortion' victory in the US Supreme Court. (This decison has also been called into question anyway).

But in the issue of abortion, if not the legal ramifications, has been argued as a privacy matter, in which the state, (the state comprising its citizens, the governments and other instruments of power such as law enforcement and the courts) have no place in a woman's reproductive (or non-reproductive) organs, then that privacy should be respected as a two way street.

As for those who say that what a person does with their own body is completely up to them, and no-one else: well, fair enough, so long as the person is capable of making informed decisions and providing informed consent, then they should be able to do what they want.

So, continuing that argument: no-one over the age of maturity should be forcibly made to undergo medical treatment to attempt to stop them from committing suicide. Suicide is a choice about what to do with their own body.

Also there should be no laws against the use of any substances of addiction.

Lets keep all these issues private.

Who said that atheists don’t/can’t have a moral code? Not me. (See my previous posts.)

Certainly every atheist is free to make up any moral code they like. The problem though is, if everyone is free to do that and if people make up different moral codes, as they do, who then gets to decide which moral values are “right” and which are “wrong”.

One person says abortion is quite alright, another says it is wrong. One person says paedophilia is quite alright, another says it is wrong. One person says slavery is quite alright, another says . . ., etc.

Who is to say who is correct?

Remember, if atheism is correct, then we can all make up our own moral values.

So, could any of the atheists out there please tell me what basis there is for moral values beyond one’s own personal preferences and opinions.

And please don’t simply attack me, please answer my question.

JP that is an excellent question.

We live in a society with conflicting moral codes. That is nothing new. For instance in the past there was much conflict between Catholics and Protestants.

We all prefer to adhere to different moral codes. I don't think anyone can say that any particular moral code is correct.

The only way to make a democracy work is compromise and tolerance.

Fundamentalism just polarises society to the point where it disintegrates and nothing gets done. It would seem that the US is heading in that direction.

Angie, good luck to you and your family.

All you need to know is that this was your's and your boyfriend's decision, and that it is totally legal.

You are doing what is right for your body, and no one else has the right to force you to carry on with an unwanted pregnancy.

You are certainly very brave to put your thoughts on this subject on twitter though.

Be very careful of all the angry people out there who do not want to accept that abortion is legal.

All the best.

Jp, I did give you a rational basis for a moral code; one which has existed for at least 5 centuries before Jesus adopted it.
I would suggest one of the main reasons God needed to be invented was that people -consciously or unconsciously- realised that if everyone is basically equal, no one had the right to impose their moral code on anyone else; except by majority vote, of course.
Only a God can allow small minorities to impose their moral code on the majority, regardless of the majority's wishes.
Now we are at least on the road to true democracy, and the concept of equality of rights and opportunities for all people is not seen as completely unreasonable, we no longer need a superior arbiter.
We can do it ourselves.
Yes people can make up their own moral code, but when that code impinges on the rights of others, then it must be deemed invalid.
No one has the right to tell Angie what she can or cannot do with her own body, and that includes her unborn baby, as it could not survive without 'forcing' Angie to support it.

pelican,

I bet you have a bidet. A true chardonay socialist.

Frim,

'The concept of treating others as you would have them treat you '
That's a fallacy. I used to live by that, but now I'm older and wiser, I treat others how they would like to be treated where possible. Just because you don't mind when someone does something to you doesn't mean they wont mind if you were to do it to them.

Phil Matimein,

You obviously don't know me well enough. I'm a moral relativist, probably even a nihilist at heart. I believe everyone lives in their own reality.

StG,

'There's a place for it, but tweeting it blow by blow is, well, F%^$#D up IMHO.'

My sentiments exactly. Is there any end to peoples need for attention?

Dougthebear,

'Having an abortion is a private and personal decision'

Apparently not. Times have changed. Now it's entertainment and a ruse for a media career.

JP,

There’s a few points you need to remember.

Firstly, anyone who does good and is kind to others because they fear punishment in the afterlife, deserves no credit for any good they do.

Secondly, an Atheist’s ability to know right from wrong comes from the same place you know how to cherry pick the nice bits of the Bible. Going by your logic; given how authoritative Christians like yourself think the Bible is, I could just as easily argue that the Christians are a danger because they have no way of knowing which parts are good and which are bad.

Thirdly, if Humankind needs a belief in an invisible magic man to prevent us from raping and pillaging, then why didn’t we wipe ourselves out in the hundreds of thousands of years before we tried to explain the unknown with superstition?

Fourthly, the only reason Christians aren’t still burning heretics at the stake and behaving pack of savages is because values such as the separation of church and state have enabled secularism to drag religion kicking and screaming out of the dark ages and into modernity.

Fifthly, with or without religion, you will have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things that takes religion.

Christians are all smiles and sunshine now, but give them total control and then see how nice they are. We’d be back in the dark ages, burning heretics within a few generations.

This must have been a very hard decision to make, and I offer my sympathies.

It was a very brave decision to go public with your choice and expose yourself to the fundementalists who are ever eager to cast the first stone.

Bravo AJ Phillips and Grim. Well said.
Religion is an excuse for selfish, arrogant thoughts and actions.
Despite your own propaganda, it is clear that secular atheists are more moral. Look at how Bush used the Religious Right to drum up support for a dubious war. Also the "war on drugs" and the activities against abortion.
BTW. God is the biggest "child killer" of all! Up to 60% of fertilised embryos are discarded by nature due to the shockingly inefficient "design" of our reproductive mechanisms. Seems you like to make God responsible for truth, beauty and moral behaviour, but ask us all to ignore the outright evil that "God" commits every second.
Humans invented Good. Nature/God is clearly indifferent.

No not quite Houlley. I drink from the bidet and use the chardonnay for bathroom activities.

Whoo pelican, I feel all flushed. All tingly down there. I need a cold shower now I think.

*please tell me what basis there is for moral values beyond one’s own personal preferences and opinions.*

JP, if you read up a bit about primatology, you will find the
basics of morals and ethics grounded in the biology of various
primate species. Empathy, food sharing, altruism, etc.

In social species, it is in the interests of the members, to get
on with one another, for a harmonious co existence. If killing
one another was acceptable, the tribe would soon go extinct.

So it is in your and my interest, to agree not to steal each others
belongings, not to rape each others wives etc. Bingo, you have
the fundamentals of a moral society.

OTOH, if we listen to the religious, each with their imaginary
friend, claiming to be in touch with the Almighty him-herself,
we have literally thousands of so called moral codes based on
nothing but claimed contact between each of them and their friend.

No evidence for their claims, no checking to see if schyzophrenia
might be the problem, just a complete transfer of power regarding
what their imaginary friend might have told them, which we should
accept as gospel.

I read recently that old JP2 used to whip himself on occasion.
Give me a good reason, why I should trust the word of such a kinky
individual more, then my own ability to reason

Morality is basically an agreed set of principles between members of a society, no matter where it comes from and is subject to constant review.

What was considered "moral" a hundred or a thousand years ago may be as different from today as it will be years from now.

For example, a King may have had the direct power of life and death over all his subjects and in an overpopulated world the notion of Soylent Green may yet become an accepted reality.

State sanctioned murder has always existed in one form or another and religion just adds an extra layer of guilt.

In this case, the outcome of the author's decision has absolutely no impact on my own life and I'm not qualified to make personal judgements on her behalf.

Grim – I’m not disputing that moral codes can be made up, as you have illustrated, what I am wanting to know is why anyone has to listen to anyone else’s moral code.

You categorically state that when a person’s moral code “impinges on the rights of others, then it must be deemed invalid”. Who are you to say that? You have just made that moral claim up and any other person can make up just the opposite claim. Why should anyone listen to your moral claim over the other one?

AJ Phillips – please note, I have made no reference to God or religion.

I am simply asking what is the basis for an atheistic morality beyond one’s personal preferences. Why don’t you try to answer that question instead of attacking me on points that I have not made?

Yabby – you cite certain biological behaviours of animals which have been interpreted to indicate the practice of empathy, altruism, etc, by such animals. But noting the behaviours of animals tells us nothing about what I or you or anyone else ought to do. You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.

Apparently the moral code you have adopted or made up for yourself involves seeking harmonious co-existence. That may be very nice for you, but why should anyone else care what your moral code is?

Indeed, someone may give the appearance of going along with you, while all the time ripping you off. And if they can get away with it, why shouldn’t they? Why should they have to agree with you or anyone else? You ask: “Give me a good reason, why I should trust the word of such a kinky individual more, then my own ability to reason”. My point precisely; can’t everybody say that about yours and everyone else’s moral claims too?

Once again, please note that I have not said one word advocating a belief in a god. I simply want to know how atheists justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual’s personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral, if anything.

JP,

The issue is that you live by your own moral code. If you believe abortions are immoral, then you don't need to have one. If you believe being gay is a sin, no one is forcing you to be gay etc.

However, if someone believes abortion is the right choice for them, then it is exactly that, and your belief cannot influence theirs.

Shadow Minister

Well said.

Houellie

"I feel all flushed. All tingly down there."

Do not touch your face after using the toilet or you'll wind up with those symptoms on your face as well, besides there is medicine for that.

JP - "please note that I have not said one word advocating a belief in a god. I simply want to know how atheists justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual’s personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral, if anything".

JP - You advocating a belief in a god is strongly implied because you are focussing on atheists exclusively. If your question isn't trying to point your readers towards god as the only source of morality, then why mention atheism at all?

Without advocating a belief in a god, how does someone who isn't atheist justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual's personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral?

*Morality is basically an agreed set of principles between members of a society, no matter where it comes from and is subject to constant review.*

Wobbles - exactly!

For instance, a case could be made for the age of consent to be
anywhere from 12-18. We drew our line in the sand at 16 and throw
people in jail, who disagree with the majority.

*That may be very nice for you, but why should anyone else care what your moral code is?*

JP, given that others too seek to live in harmonious coexistence,
given that others too, are born with a sense of empathy, justice and
are altruistic, its in all our self interest to cooperate and get
along, given that we are a social species.

*Indeed, someone may give the appearance of going along with you, while all the time ripping you off. And if they can get away with it, why shouldn’t they?*

JP, indeed they might. That is why as a society, we ostracize them
and throw them in jail, for breaking our moral/legal rules, which
we as a majority decided.

Given that life is short and years in jail are not in their self
interest, the risk is there that they might not get away with it
after all and pay the price. Jails are full of such people.

Oh, silly me, JP. I didn’t realise you were so neutral...

<<...I have made no reference to God or religion.>>

You didn’t have to.

That your comments come from a religious viewpoint is all that matters. I mean, who else but a religious person would be silly enough to ask...

<<... what is the basis for an atheistic morality beyond one’s personal preferences.>>

You really seem to think you have a trump card here, don’t you.

Actually, I did more or less answer you in a not-so-direct fashion when I said: “an Atheist’s ability to know right from wrong comes from the same place you know how to cherry pick the nice bits of the Bible.”

That being said, where do YOU think we get this ability that all of us - Theist or Atheist - share? Why are you specifically asking Atheists as if they get their sense of right and wrong from somewhere different? Where do you think those who live hundreds or thousands of years before the Bible was written? Do you think it was any different to now?

And why does it have to be something more than, “do unto others”, or a desire to live harmoniously?

We have a conscience that has been hard-wired into us over hundreds of thousands of years as a survival mechanism. Those who have those wires crossed - for whatever reason - are called “psychopaths”.

Even without the laws of the land, humans are a communal species and so if we do something that will hurt or upset another, then we know there will be repercussions one way or the other - whether that be guilt or banishment. We show concern for others who have been wronged because we wouldn’t want that “wrong” to happen to us.

<<Why don’t you try to answer that question instead of attacking me on points that I have not made?>>

Attacking? No need to get so precious.

Considering you're arguing from a religious worldview, all of my points were entirely appropriate.

Whether or not you referred to Gods or religion is a red herring.

Shadow Minister – you don’t seem to be getting my point.

You say that “you live by your own moral code” but the problem is if each person lives by their own code there will be times that our moral codes come into conflict. For example, one person believes it is acceptable to steal while another believes stealing is wrong.

The question is, why should the thief care that the person he is stealing from believes that stealing is wrong? Each of them has their own moral code and if the thief thinks he can get away with it, why shouldn’t he live by his own code and steal from others?

Orange Donkey – you are the one suggesting that the lack of a basis for an atheistic communal moral code infers that a god is therefore needed, not me. I have only been enquiring what the basis for such an atheistic code is. Why don’t you just answer that question?

Wobbles – you define morality as “an agreed set of principles between members of a society, no matter where it comes from and is subject to constant review”.

So are you saying that if most people in a society agree that slavery is acceptable then slavery becomes morally “right”? You say moral principles are under constant review, but at least until/if slavery is reviewed and rejected it remains morally “right” and then becomes morally “wrong” and in places where it remains acceptable it remains morally “right”?

Yabby – it is curious that you speak favourably of altruism and self-interest in the same sentence as by definition they are contradictory behaviours.

You also conflate morality and legality: do you really believe that legality defines morality? If so then those who broke German law in defiance of Hitler were immoral people. German jails were full of such people and presumably you think they deserved to be there.

Of course I don’t believe you think that, but if you are going to say that whatever the majority of people accept defines what is moral that is where you end up.

JP you write

'Shadow Minister – you don’t seem to be getting my point. '

They don't want to get your point because that would not allow them to play God anymore. They know moral relativity is completely flawed and leads to justification for baby killing, sexual abuse and every other perversion you can think of. They know it is the only logical conclusion for their baseless amorality.

*Yabby – it is curious that you speak favourably of altruism and self-interest in the same sentence as by definition they are contradictory behaviours.*

Not so JP, they are closely related. We could wander into the field
of reciprocal altruism, but lets address your point right now.

If you JP, help the little old lady across the road, did you do
it to help the little old lady, or because your brain's feelgood
chemistry gave you a warm inner glow, for being such a nice chap?

*You also conflate morality and legality: do you really believe that legality defines morality?*

JP, in our modern democracies, the two are clearly closely connected.
I've spoken to a few old Germans and they told me that fear was
what kept them in line, not because they agreed with Hitler.

Nobody was really game to say what they thought, they would not have
been around for too long.

Yes, runner

That is why your (fortunately fictional) but cowardly god used a hireling to kill the first born.

Dumb *and* a coward.

Stuff you, runner.

Looked up any real references yet?

Rusty

JP and others questioning the basis for morals/values from those who don't try to base them on the authority of a deity.

Earlier in the thread I posted a link to a christian article which argues that the bible does not forbid abortion. You may not agree but at the end of it you use your own brain (or your pastors) to decide if the interpretation you have chosen is the correct one or not. Others are quite capable of choosing a different interpretation based on the same bible. Where is the authority in that?

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

We all end up making it up as we go along, christian teaching on a whole bunch of issues which relate to how we should live has changed quite a lot in my lifetime so to claim that you have a solid base whilst non-believers don't is a false claim.

On the particular issue of abortion can you point to clear commands from the bible which either place the same value on the life of a fetus as that of adults or which specifically forbid terminating a fetus? Can you show where your authority as theists on this issue is any greater than that of other theists who support the right to choose other than having the louder voice or perhaps the greater numbers (although I don't know that that is a given).

R0bert

Runner, am I to understand you don't agree with Matthew 22:39?
What about Luke 7, 27 through to 36?
Jp, we can only give you the words, we cannot give you the wit to understand them.
BTW, the sentiments quoted above were mentioned in Confucius and Zoroaster, many centuries before Jesus, as I have already mentioned.
"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart." Luke 7:45.
"You can lead a hypocrite to water, but you can't make him think." Paraphrased from David f.

JP

Firstly it appears to me that most of the other people who have been contributing to this forum can understand and agree that they don't have a plausible explanation to your following request. Some of them just don't want to admit it.

'I simply want to know how atheists justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual’s personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral, if anything.'

I think it is plainly obvious that the majority of people in todays world don't and couldn't use their own personal preferences as moral boundaries. For the idea that morals are decided by the majority, I agree with your reasons for that not being a good idea. The Nazis, slavery, etc..

That leaves only only one other explanation. Morals based on a theistic belief. And yes this may seem just as useless to some people but i would prefer it to living a totally meaningless life.

So JP gets frustrated at arguing this without mentioning God or religion so then her creates ‘Jeff1’ (probably not realising that the daily posting limit has been lifted to four per thread) and accuses those who disagree with him of having meaningless lives as if we all need an imaginary friend for some sort of sense of worth.

That’s my theory anyway, and I’m sticking to it.

Okay, JP. It’s clear you’re not going to listen. So I’ll play your game and give you the answer you’re wanting.

<<The question is, why should the thief care that the person he is stealing from believes that stealing is wrong? Each of them has their own moral code and if the thief thinks he can get away with it, why shouldn't he live by his own code and steal from others?>>

No, the thief wouldn’t care that the person he is stealing from believes that stealing is wrong (but should care because he wouldn't want someone to steal from him), and if the thief thinks he can get away with it and believes that stealing is moral, then personally, he’ll see no reason not to steal (but wouldn't have the right to complain if it happened to him).

So what? What’s your point? Where are you taking everyone with this? What are you trying to prove?

Do you think this must mean that there is a God?

And what if there isn’t a God, do you think we should all kid ourselves to pretend that there is for the sake of maintaining morality? That wouldn’t say much for the human race if they needed to invent a make-believe authority just to keep in line.

By the way, the 9/11 hijackers certainly didn’t fear an afterlife.

In fact, they were looking forward to it.

Fourthly, the only reason Christians aren’t still burning heretics at the stake and behaving pack of savages is because values such as the separation of church and state have enabled secularism to drag religion kicking and screaming out of the dark ages and into modernity. [A.J.Philips]

Christians you refer to in this paragraph condemning [me as one] yet in another posting raving on about the same garbage [history] you condemn people belonging to religions [the religious] A.J.Philips.

Please be a little more clear and strategic in your attacks. Christians are not necessarily religious nor are some religious necessarily Christians.

If you are not either what gives you the right to condemn OR feel the NEED to condemn either A.J.Philips. What do you fear in life to attack either Christians or the Religious so scornfully and hatefully? Why btw would you generalise regarding people of christian faith and/or the Religious?

I am a Christian and do not attack Atheists or Atheism. I have nothing to fear though.

Mr/Ms Unique,

I was taking about an alternate reality, not the reality we know today.

Had history played-out so differently that religion wasn’t dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, then I seriously doubt any one of us would have been born. So I don’t know what you’re getting so hot under the collar about.

I unapologetically stand by what I said 100%.

I fear we are never going to win this one, AJ.
Anyone who cannot grasp a principle as simple or basic as pro active reciprocity probably needs the fear of a deity to keep them honest.
Without that fear, who knows what they'd become.
Congratulations on your efforts to decipher W.A.U's post (I think). I certainly couldn't. Cheers, grim.

JP and orange donkey,

I'm afraid that the whole issue appears to have gone over your head.

The legal system is based on a couple of key principles:
- The rights of the individual need to be protected
- The legal system needs to act to protect the "common good"

Banning abortion has been shown to violate both of these principles. Theft, rape etc violate both the victim and the common good, and no society condons it.

However, no legal system would ever consider enforcing abortion.

Any legal system that condons violating the rights of the woman involved, can just as easily insist on her wearing a Burqa, having female circumcision etc, because they are deemed to be morally correct. If anyone were to impose these on your family, you would be outraged.

JP -

Your question has been answered to the best of anyone's ability already, in numerous other posts. Briefly, that morals are decided by everyone in the context of society and community and there is no way to force everyone to conform which is why we have criminals and a justice system with jails etc. to deal with them. You obviously don't accept these answers so now I'm wondering if you can explain why this is an insufficient explanation and to demonstrate how this differs if you're not atheist and take your morals from 'elsewhere'. My first post was supposed to suggest that refusal to conform to society's agreed moral code is an issue everywhere and has always been, whether the society was predominantly religious or secular. For what it's worth, I'm genuinely interested in the answer and not trying to bait you into some other argument.

Shadow Minister -

I don't believe I've missed the issue - I'm fully aware we are on a side topic here - but I am interested in where this question of morals that JP's asking is supposed to lead. It seems to be suggesting that atheism somehow opens society to complete chaos so I'm merely asking for the alternative which does not do this. While a side issue, it is rather significant when discussing whether or not something deemed to be immoral by a large portion of the community should be legal. Yes, the legal system is intended to protect individual's rights, but the usual argument is that the foetus is an individual whose rights should prevent its mother from aborting. Not necessarily my view of things (I am for individual choice and support Angie in her decision BTW) but (clearly) not something that is reconciled by simply saying that no one but the mother is impacted by the decision.

The Psalmist was spot on when he said that a fool says to himself that there is no god. The complete failure of those on these posts defending moral relativism is clear evidence of that. If only they could hear their own stupidity.

Hey runner (love your work BTW),

I was wondering whether there is hatred or anger in your soul. Your posts seem angry, where I would have thought god would want forgiveness for the unbelievers.

I would also think one like you, who has found god, would be more at peace. And I see a lot of anger in a lot of your posts.

Maybe you're not, but you come across bitter and angry at the 'stupidity' of the posters. Now if they are actually stupid, wouldn't god show them compassion?

I'm finding interesting that none of those who claim divine authority for an anti-abortion stance have detailed the basis for that authority. There is a fairly strong biblical case for saying that god has never placed any particular value on the fetus, no specific verses which forbid abortion (or protect the life of the mother on the basis of innocent lives in her womb etc). There is some evidence that god actually endorsed abortion in some circumstances.

So where is the clear authority for bible based opposition to abortion?

R0bert

So far the failure is to draw out any reasons for or evidence supporting the counter argument from those who disagree.

Orange Donkey – you are arguing that what is moral is determined by what the majority of people hold to be moral. I believe there are serious problems with this:

Why should it be accepted that just because a majority of people say something is morally wrong that it becomes morally wrong?

For example, if a majority of people in Australia were to say that abortion is wrong and a law was passed to that effect, would you immediately say, ‘Oh yes, abortion must be wrong because most people say so’? If however you continued to believe that abortion was wrong, you would, according to your own terms, be an immoral person. Would you accept that?

A majority of Germans pre-WWII supported Hitler so does that mean that the Nazis were morally right? Hitler sent many people who disagreed with nazism to jail, so do you regard those people as being immoral criminals who deserved to be in jail? If not why not, because there were after all in the minority in that society?

You will probably say that the Nazis were obviously “wrong” while our present society, for example, is “right”. But on what basis can you judge one society against another? If the majority in one society believes one thing and a majority in another believes the opposite, who is to say which society is correct?

You are essentially arguing that what is legal (i.e. what is accepted by the majority) is what is moral. Have you never thought that a law has been wrong and should be changed? But on your terms any law reformers are immoral people because they disagree with the existing laws. So you would have to say that people like Nelson Mandella and Martin Luther King were immoral criminals who should have gone to jail.

Also, your position does not allow for moral improvement. “Improvement” implies the movement toward some external moral standard, but there is no such standard on your terms so therefore there can be no such thing as moral improvement. Moral values can only be different, not better or worse.

JP,

Nope, you mentioned Hitler.

By any definition, you lose the debate.

'your position does not allow for moral improvement.'

I thought the bible's morals never changed either.

Also, you have to believe in the majority interpretation of the bible. So, you just have a different majority setting your morals.

JP - I'm not sure I agree with Nazi Germany as an example of society agreeing on what is right or wrong. It was a minority using force to discourage disagreement. Not quite the same thing. Germans supported Hitler as their leader prior to WWII, but it's a big step from there to say they all agreed with the Holocaust - it wasn't exactly an election promise. In hindsight it may seem like it was predictable, but at the time?

Still this doesn't seem to answer your original question which is how do we pull into line those who disagree (the rapist or paedophile) with whatever moral code is employed by society, even if a set of absolute morals were available to us? And how does 'the majority says these are the absolute morals we should all follow so that's what we have to follow' differ from 'what is moral is determined by what the majority of people hold to be moral'? Unless we get 100% agreement on the source of the absolute morals of course - not likely to happen I'm afraid when not even the major world religions agree completely.

Just a couple of biblical quotes;

Psalm 139:13
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

Ecclesiastes 11:5

5 As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed in a mother's womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things.

Job 31:15

15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

Psalm 22:10

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.

It is clear that the Bible attributes a measure of humanity and value to a foetus. There is no specific reference to induced abortion for the same reason that there are no injunctures against driving against teh speed limit, the misuse of amphetamines (ah, so that means the bible thinks that 'speed' is okay? I think not), or against internet pornography.

That is, when the Bible was being written those technologies did not exist, but there are references to forms of behavior that are parrallel to all the above.

One last quote: Exodus 21:22

22 If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.

Doug did you read the article from the link I posted?

You could start with the follow on to Exodus 21:22 which put's the 22 in a very different light.

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The loss of the fetus is not counted as serious injury.

Have a read through the article for the link I posted, given your previously stated acceptance of choice I don't think that you will find it offensive (or overly confronting). As far as I can tell it is written by a christian who takes the bible seriously.

I know from my time in the church the issue was put in very clear terms against abortion leaving no question on the topic. I suspect that a lot of christian's never hear from their teachers the other side of the issue.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

R0bert

This International Womens Day, a Queensland woman is still awaiting trial from charges in Dec.2008 for having an illegal abortion, and her boyfriend, assisting her. They weren't ready yet.
Well done, for showing a woman can make a personal rational decision about an unplanned pregnancy and sharing it, because with abortions still criminal in this country, women need to be courageous like you, and say this is my body, my life.

Abortion: An intensely personal decision made by a politician and his colleagues(Qld 2010)

I had an abortion after deeply knowing two children were just right, and it too, was the best decision I made. Cheers!

Juliepm

Thanks for getting this topic back on track after the sanctimonious claptrap from people who will never ever face a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted.

What you say about the Qld case is true - a woman decides to use legal abortifacient is arrested, along with her partner. One step forward two steps back it seems.

juliepm, "Abortion: An intensely personal decision made by a politician and her colleagues (Qld 2010)"

Corrected that for you, Anna Bligh is still Premier of Queensland.

You're a brave woman Angie. It's nobody's business what decision you made - you did what you thought was right for your health and the well being of all family members. I admire your courage! Take care of yourself. Only the best wishes for you all, especially your dear little boy! Stay well!

I am also an atheist (or something very closing resembling an atheist) but I find the blase tone of this post a bit distasteful. I wholeheartedly agree that a woman should be able to access abortion facilities legally and without fear of shame or persecution, but I also think we need to appreciate some of the tricky ethical and definitional questions surrounding abortion.

What is a human foetus? Is it just a collection of cells or does it have some inherent and meaningful value? Are there ethical differences between aborting, say, a 5-week old foetus and a 25-week old foetus? If so, what are those differences and why are they significant? What should the cut-off criteria include? Level of consciousness? Capacity for pain? What exactly?

Of course I'm not advocating any particular view with regard to the human foetus - I'm simply making the point that this is not an entirely black and white issue from an ethical standpoint. I still agree with the bottom line view that a woman should be able to access abortion legally and without religious counsel. However it is wrong and misleading to imply that only crazed religious extremists feel any moral ambivalence towards abortion.

Ok Mandy, I'll bite and give you my 5c worth.

At some point we have to accept the realities of nature. Most
women have around 400 chances in their lifetime, to have yet
another baby. They cannot keep, feed, clothe them all, cute as
they all may have been. Darwin was correct. Far more of
any species will be created, then can ever survive. That is reality.

So we flush ova and sperms down our toilets, by their hundreds of
billions, without a second thought.

So where do we draw our line in the sand? What constitutes a person?
To me a person is somebody with a human brain. Once that brain stops,
its a corpse. A couple of cojoined cells, have the potential to
become a person, but they are not a person. Just like an acorn is
not yet an oak tree.

Most abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. What you have, is little
more then a group of dividing cells. What can be called a human
brain, first starts to come together at around week 25 or so.
Without a human brain, there is no person and if there is no
person, I don't see a problem.

My other point is that if babies born were actually wanted and loved,
there would be a whole lot less suffering in this world, which I
think would be a good thing.

I bet the author's son is glad he had a wedded dad to help get him over the line!