Abortion From A Secular Perspective | Nick - WI | Talk Heathen 03.10

Talk Heathen 03.10 for March 10, 2019 with Eric Murphy & Jim Helton.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Atheist Day Austin information: www.atheistday...
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
Sign up for the ACA monthly newsletter: aca.activehost...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Jamie Boone: Jamietheheathen
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Jamie Boone: @reason_evidence
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
TalkHeathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@vickicaravella6087]

Yay for Jim, "Listen to women". You have restored my faith in men as it was becoming just a little bit jaded. Thank you Jim H.

[@andyrihn1]

You wouldn’t force someone to donate blood to keep someone else alive, right? Same reasoning why carrying to term should not be forced

[@Vivi2372]

Not only that but if you choose not to be an organ donor and state explicitly you don't want to donate your organs you get to take them to the grave. We don't force dead people to sacrifice part of their corpse to save a life. Banning abortion would literally be saying that living women have less control over their body if a fetus is involved than we otherwise have over our corpses.

[@jimmyhayden5292]

What if you signed a contract agreeing you would donate blood, then you decided you didn't want to. And then finally you go to the dying person in need of blood, and you rip of their arms and legs and throw them in the garbage. If you consent to sex, you consent to bearing a child. Yall seem to think every women ever, gets pregnant from rape.

[@andyrihn1]

jimmy hayden Have you ever had sex? I can tell you from experience babies aren’t guaranteed. In fact most sex involves the active avoidance of pregnancy. And even then. Even if you signed a contract to donate blood, you can back out at any time. Bodily consent is freely revocable.

[@fireball_55]

would you consent to bearing a child if men could get pregnant? Are you willing to gain 30+ pounds, have your genitals cut open, have a needle inserted into your spine, and give painful birth? If men could get pregnant, would you be willing to go through that?

[@kevin18887]

By refusing to donate blood you are simply doing nothing, Dismembering a fetus is not “simply doing nothing”.

[@hakureikura9052]

anti abortionist: don't do abortion it kills the unborn **after the baby is born and the family can't raise it properly** also anti abortionist: fuck that baby, that's none of our business

[@TheMoggiemum]

Great response guys

[@rayxav]

I don’t understand this “debate” at all. This is really simple: if YOU don’t want to have an abortion, DONT HAVE ONE. Seems pretty easy…

[@matthewchang5701]

Yeah why

[@BSunE]

Having tested people for brain death, you could not do the same for a fetus.

[@therealnickstevens8280]

Do atheism and liberalism often go hand in hand?

[@ianh2950]

No. Liberalism is inherently connected to religion. Liberalism is a mode of production and ideology based on filling the roles of monarchists under feudal and semi feudal empires and kingdoms with a small number of capitalists. In order to grow a capitalist economy, two major things are necessary. That is a reserve pool of labor and imperialism. Religion is used in order to justify the subjugation of and the extraction of wealth from third world countries (specifically in the global south). They do this by using the excuse of "civilizing" these countries, which is an extremely racist excuse used by churches and major nations. The reserve pool of labor is a method used to reduce how much companies have to pay workers and send as much money to the owners and shareholders of the companies. This is how liberalism uses religion in terms of abortion. Liberalism needs as many workers as possible and therefore work with churches to outlaw abortion which also works to oppress women.

[@ianh2950]

@David Anewman Everything I have said is supported by history. Do you live in an alternate history? Also how the fuck can you claim that fascists, who killed, raped, stole from, and terrorized millions of people around the world, are more moral than communists? While fascists were going around the world being evil, communists uplifted, freed, housed, and fed people in the most impoverished countries in the world. People on the right including liberals dont get to claim the moral high ground because of the abortion issue when they endorse killing and stealing from the third world among other heinous acts.

[@ianh2950]

@David Anewman Ok first of all, communist societies are secular not atheist. Search liberation theology. Secondly, fascism and imperialism were responsible for countless genocides (including many led by the US in the global south) and deaths throughout the 20th century. I believe the 70 million deaths figure is from the black book of communism. The author of that book publicly admitted that the book was bullshit and paid for by the CIA. Apart from that the 70 million figure if easily debunked by simply searching Chinese population by year and average lifespan on google. Lifespan skyrocketed in every Marxist Leninist country and their economies grew far faster than western economies. The people of many former communist states refer to the years under communism as "the good days" and state that they have never been as relaxed or fulfilled. In short source from people other than the CIA.

[@ianh2950]

@David Anewman If you're going to spout state department propaganda and other bullshit with no evidence then this is pointless. I don't have time to educate people who have no interest in reality.

[@brothersanguinary9072]

Only answer you need when someone asks how you can support abortion? There are way too many of us on this planet already! Lets make less of us and try and take better care of those of us who are already here. In fact, how about every straight couple out there only have one kid for a couple of generations?

[@PhazterMaze]

I think a mushroom told me this once...

[@PhazterMaze]

@@redeemedone8553 To be fair... it would benefit the well being of everyone, not just themselves. Well, not the aborted babies.

[@PhazterMaze]

@@redeemedone8553 I also like babies, but I dislike overpopulation.

[@PhazterMaze]

@@redeemedone8553 Nope

[@brothersanguinary9072]

@@redeemedone8553 Not comfort. We need to do something about how bad we are treating this planet. We are on an unsustainable course as a species. We MUST reign in how we are spreading and using up all the resources that we have. If we don't do something then we wont last as a species. I am guessing that you are just going to appeal to peoples emotions with your response, and I just don't care how you feel. The Bible is TOTALLY fine with abortions in several situations, so your "holy book" does not even say that no abortions are allowed.

[@LouisGedo]

This is the most inane response to a caller's concerns that I've ever seen on this program. *F* for *Failure*

[@Vivi2372]

How did they fail? Because they didn't feel they are experts on the subject and weren't really comfortable not having a woman to weigh in with their very relevant perspective? By at least taking the time to discuss and respond to some of the things the guy said while also pointing him towards people who are actual experts so he can get more informed opinions than they feel theirs are? In what way is being honest, talking to the guy, and recommending what they feel are better sources of info than themselves failure? Would you rather they pretended to be experts and have all of the answers?

[@LouisGedo]

@@Vivi2372 Hi, The hosts failed in at least three ways: 1) Because instead of deferring the caller to someone who may have been informed about the topic, at one point they deferred the caller to women as if magically, only women can have informed positions or opinions on the issue....that's inane. But the fact that they deferred to "experts" is part of the problem....more on that below. 2) Because that imbecile Jim, falsely accused the caller (more than once) for basing the caller's concerns about whether a priority ought to be given to the life of the fetus rather than bodily autonomy of the woman, on the caller's former religious upbringing. That would be akin to claiming that anyone whom is making any argument whom happens to have been raised religious would necessarily be guilty of basing their argument on religious preconceptions or presuppositions. Even the caller calls out Jim for Jim's absurd false condemnation. 3) The hosts didn't respond to the caller's concern about his main point (whether life should take priority over bodily autonomy). Instead they danced around the question. Even Jaime (at about 7:30) stated that he doesn't have the time to flesh out the important point about life.....yet he and Jim take this call for nearly another 9 more minutes! That the hosts apparently feel inadequate about talking about the issue but then talk about it without addressing the caller's main concern is just poor conduct. The caller was not asking them to present an expert's position, the fact that Jim framed it as such shows deflection at the very least. The caller simply wanted their opinion on this specific point he raised....it really is that simple. The hosts both failed and it was a most disappointing discussion. Have a nice day.

[@Vivi2372]

@@LouisGedo "Because instead of deferring the caller to someone who may have been informed about the topic, at one point they deferred the caller to women as if magically, only women can have informed positions or opinions on the issue....that's inane." It's inane to suggest that women have a different perspective and ultimately the only one that really matters because they're the ones directly affected? Sure. Way to gloss over the fact that they also directed him to planned parenthood. You know, actual experts. "But the fact that they deferred to "experts" is part of the problem....more on that below." Deferring to people who have spent more time researching the issue and who can explain the full consequences of the callers position better than they can is never a "problem." It's ludicrous that you even suggest that frankly.

[@LouisGedo]

​@@Vivi2372 Hi, 1) Just because a person identifies as female or actually has XX chromosomes doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that they are necessarily more qualified to opine on an issue such as 'abortion'. Your argument is akin to claiming that just because someone identifies as male or has XY chromosomes that they are more qualified to opine on vasectomies than someone whom isn't. 2) When I stated "But the fact that they deferred to "experts" is part of the problem....more on that below." in my previous comment, I meant to (but forgot as I was operating on about 2 hours sleep over the previous 24 hours) mention about Planned Parenthood. There certainly may be experts in Planned Parenthood but in no way does that mean that others not affiliated with Planned Parenthood can't have expertise on the issue of abortion. The fact that the hosts even opined at all shows that them deferring to so-called experts comes across as a deflection. 3) It's ludicrous that you suggest that I hold a position that I don't hold.....nice strawmanning there, Vivi.....do you feel victorious for thrashing the caricature of me you erected? My position isn't that the hosts shouldn't defer the caller to so-called experts but they are wrong to opine without focusing on the caller's specific concern while simultaneously claiming that the caller should be speaking to the so-called experts. If the hosts felt they weren't qualified to opine, they shouldn't have opined at all and instead should have just directed the caller to someone else whom the hosts thought was qualified. But that didn't happen, obviously. 4) I just love how you glossed over my point "2)" in my previous comment.....nice, Vivi. Does that mean you agree with that point or something else? Have a nice day.

[@Vivi2372]

@@LouisGedo I didn't claim being women makes them more qualified to talk about abortion. But any position formed without taking their perspective into account is worthless. Deferring to experts isn't a deflection. And it's hilarious that on the one hand you criticize them for deferring to experts and on the other hand also criticize them for at least addressing the man's points to the extent they felt comfortable doing so. You're basically criticizing them for doing the thing you wanted them to do and for not going as far as you wanted them to simultaneously. I'd also love to know how you think that I strawmanned you when I quoted you directly and responded to those quotes directly. And finally I didn't gloss over your point 2 before. I simply found it baseless and not worth even acknowledging with a response. I'm also generally not that interested in responding point by point to every wall of text that someone I don't know and don't care that much about decides to direct my way.

[@ElliottParkinson]

An unexpectedly poor response from you guys on this occasion. "don't go to debate, listen to the preacher and you'll understand". Replace "preacher" with "women" in this sentence and it's word for word what you guys said. Then you went down the highly sexist and or argument from authority fallacy route of saying you can't have this discussion because you're not women or experts. The argument that someone who is male cannot understand bodily autonomy simple does not logically follow, and I've no idea where you get it. I live in the UK, we've had this discussion already, abortion is something I personally agree with. Unfortunately I have no idea if I agree with this persons argument, because you railroaded the conversation and shut it down so rapidly he never completed his argument. I think this particular conversation hit an emotional nerve with you guys and you closed off way too quickly. Please follow your own advice in future, and be aware of your own biases. You asked him if he was willing to change his position on the matter or if he was closed off, and he was willing. It seems like you are closed off and unwilling to even entertain a new position because of a deep emotional connection you have with it. Usually you'd have gone through point by point and broke each part down as to why a persons logic does not follow. In this episode you simply dropped the conversation because you were not comfortable with it. When he asks whether bodily autonomy trumps the right to be alive, you jump to an ad-hominem attack and accuse him of just holding previous religious beliefs. You never address his position, so he will never change his mind from this discussion. In fact, you jump straight from there to 'harming women' and 'what else do you need'. It's almost like a script you're reeling off, life a religious person might do when questioned on the street about their religion. You can do, and have done better than this. Also if you happen to read this, just want to say that I absolutely love the show, way more than TAE. I hope you take this in the spirit of what it's intended to be (constructive criticism), and can't wait to see more from you guys.

[@Vivi2372]

I feel like we watched totally different videos. "Then you went down the highly sexist and or argument from authority fallacy route of saying you can't have this discussion because you're not women or experts. The argument that someone who is male cannot understand bodily autonomy simple does not logically follow, and I've no idea where you get it." This for example really isn't true. They didn't say they can't have opinions they said they weren't really comfortable just being three dudes talking about abortion without those perspectives to weigh in. Which is totally fair. They don't have to be comfortable talking about every single subject, especially when they admit they aren't experts and it's something that will never actually impact them directly and they also don't have the first hand experience of the people actually affected by abortion and abortion laws. I mean that's simply true so if they don't feel comfortable without that experience weighing in then that's just how they feel. It is not a poor response to admit "I don't know this issue as well as others, I can't debate it as well as others, but I'll say what I can and try to point you to people who do know about this stuff who can probably answer it better." It'd be a poor response if they'd tried to just pretend to be authorities on the subject when they aren't comfortable representing themselves as such because they don't think they are.

[@dubsydubs5234]

Eric stop touching the mic. You got real high tech mics that you didn't need and Eric can't stop moving it, I wouldn't mind if it helped but he moves it nowhere, go back to normal mics, it's the callers we can't hear not the hosts.

[@apachechief8815]

White knight lets woman make decision regarding his child.

[@AnnaP-uh3mc]

You don't get to 'let' women do anything cupcake. Women can do what they damn well want.

[@apachechief8815]

@@AnnaP-uh3mc Lies....Tell me could your woman love another man in front of you?

[@AnnaP-uh3mc]

Apache Chief What Jerry Falwell Jnr style?

[@facundotorres175]

@@apachechief8815 No, as soon as she says she loves her dad I throw her out of the house

[@Baun92]

You guys are unbelievably condescending. Also, "listen to women, they can explain to you why they want to kill babies" isn't an argument for killing babies.

[@TheMoggiemum]

Yes listen to women. They are the people who experience pregnancy, women are the ones whose bodies can be permanently damaged by pregnancy, women are the people who experience childbirth. Do you want to take away bodily autonomy? You can give an argument for why you think abortion is bad but to actually stop abortion you have to take away women's rights. If you actually want to lower abortion rates support comprehensive sex ed, and access to contraception.

[@Vivi2372]

You don't even recognize a joke when you hear one?

[@TheMoggiemum]

@@Vivi2372 not when I've heard pro lifers say the same seriously

[@afriendofafriend5766]

Knowing people that would have been aborted if it was legal at the time, it's a hard conversation. Do they not deserve to live? Why do you get to live and they don't?

[@AnnaP-uh3mc]

They wouldn't know about it so it doesn't matter. As a woman who has had 3 children, I'd rather have been aborted than my mother have been made to carry me and give birth to me against her will.

[@facundotorres175]

Abortions have taken place whether or not it is legal. Making it legal just makes it safer... In concept, many abortion clinics have been under attack by anti-choice groups, some even bombed