Are there pro-life atheists here?

297 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

Want to read something funny?

I am both "pro-life" and "pro-choice."

rmfr

JoC's picture
Those two are mutually

Those two are mutually exclusive positions. The names, pro-life an pro-choice, reflect the rights the seek to protect.

Pro-choice seeks to protect the rights of women to choose to have the choice to have an abortion to end her pregnancy.

Pro-life seeks to protect the rights of the unborn to life which means not allowing for abortion.

arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

You are allowing your Christianity to blind you.

I can be both pro-life and pro-choice.

Just Think Critically about it, if you can.

rmfr

JoC's picture
arakish,

arakish,

I haven't used any religious arguments in this thread. Please explain to me how you can be pro-life and pro-choice (as understood in today's political climate) at the same time.

One position literally means no to abortion while the other says abortion should be an option. Maybe if you take a stand somewhere in the middle where you'd be for allowing abortion in extreme cases (rape, incest, etc).

arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

You are still focused on the "Christian-only" definitions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice." I told you to Think Critically about it. However, you seem not able to do so. Remind me to never trust anything you design. If you cannot figure out how I can be "pro-life" and "pro-choice" at the same time, you are an engineer who should not be given any job in the engineering field. This also just continues to prove my hypothesis that you are not an engineer.

General Statement: No one could have earned an engineering degree of any kind and make a neutron star look as fluffy as a marshmellow.

rmfr

JoC's picture
lol. I have absolutely no

lol. I have absolutely no idea what my engineering background would have to do with philosophical questions or matters of opinion like these. Anyway, twas a nice conversation with you.

arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

Because you being an engineer should enable you to look at things without letting your religious beliefs interfere. Now try and use the critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought you should have learned becoming an engineer figure out how I can be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" simultaneously. If you cannot, then further proof you cannot keep your religious beliefs out of your profession. Thus, the reason I could never trust anything you design.

"Oh god. We're in the hands of engineers." — Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

rmfr

Bob L.'s picture
Stefan Molyneux has voiced

Stefan Molyneux has voiced the opinion that perhaps we should draw the line at abortions once the fetus develops a nervous system and can experience pain. I think there is something to be said for this view. At least it is worth discussing the merits of the idea. These recent bills to permit abortion right up to the day of birth have crossed a line that I am not willing to justify. I think reasonable limits need to be set, while at the same time recognizing and taking into account extenuating circumstances. I agree that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and in cases where the fetus has genetic damage such that would interfere with a fair chance in life. Demanding the continuation of a human life, just for the sake of life, without consideration for the potential quality of that life is thoughtless and inhumane. Purposely and callously ending a healthy human life may equally be considered thoughtless and inhumane; and we should absolutely take into consideration the the father. No woman gets pregnant by herself.

A bit about myself. I am an atheist and lean largely to the left, but about two years ago became aware of what I perceived as rampant bias in the mainstream media and developed concern over the radical views of Canada's Liberal Party, particularly their seeming blindness to the potential dangers of the Islamization of Canada (A note for you Americans: at the present rate of growth you could potentially have a majority Islamic country on your northern border within 50 years! This statistic comes from a Western University demographer in a CBC interview about two years ago.).

shiningone's picture
@ Bob L.

@ Bob L.

Hi there Bob, you actually listen to Stefan Molyneux in general? The man is a megalomaniac! He once stated his proof of forgiving his mother as the fact he has not killed her!

shiningone's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

I don't believe in god, and i'm pro-life. Is there some reason you think atheists don't care about things? Let me guess, you think they have no basis for morality?

JoC's picture
That's actually great!

That's actually great! Actually, I don't think that at all. The idea I'm trying to put forward here is that pro-life is NOT a religious idea as I see it being mentioned so many times. Pro-life is a human idea, an idea that can be held regardless of religious or non-religious beliefs.

LogicFTW's picture
@JOC

@JOC

If you base your pro life argument on "conception" that makes your opinion based on a religious view point.

Also, as I have explained before, an identical twin can form up to 4 days after the sperm penetrates the egg. Making the "conception window" as large as 4 days which is just ridiculous.

Fertilization is just a step along the cycle of life. A notable one to be sure, but not a scientific proven solid line of full human life with full rights or not. Another large conflicting fact also remains, for the first 20-23 weeks or so, this "human life with full rights" is wholly and completely dependent upon the mother's host body. (and that is only with an advanced and expensive NICU) At the very least one must consider the first 20-23 weeks of human life to be very unique to those 20-23 weeks.

Also most all religious communities that are so "pro-life" care more about money then they do babies lives. If all the religious pro life people got together they could probably fun medical advancement to the point where babies do not need the host human mother's body at all in a dozen years or less, sure it will cost many billions, and the raising of all these unwanted kids trillions, but hey human life is that important right? It may bankrupt all the religious institutions, but as an atheist I am more than fine with that. God can magic some money up for the bankrupt religious institutions if the god actually cared if they were financially solvent or not.

shiningone's picture
"If you base your pro life

"If you base your pro life argument on "conception" that makes your opinion based on a religious view point."
What a load of crap! You must be as cloistered as religious fanatics to believe only religious people have an opinion at conception.

Women have a CHOICE to get pregnant or not. ( I am not going to go into rape and such issues now ). Once they make that choice, the unborn human being's rights supersede hers. The unborn human being did not have a choice in being in that situation, so she has no right to kill it. I am talking about from conception, BECAUSE it is a process, that we ALL KNOW happens. Denying one stage of it as not REAL is to deny our selves as human beings.

LogicFTW's picture
Okay, what happens at

Okay, what happens at conception? When is conception? Define conception for me.

Fertilization of the egg by the sperm? A 2-4 hour process. What about identical twins? They can form as late as 4 days after sperm enters the egg.

A babies right's supersedes the mother? At the moment of "conception?"

What kind of madness is that? I am in my mid 30's do my rights still supercede my mothers? If I needed a new heart, can I take my mother's heart, killing her?

If a baby in the womb has a major issue and has a 5% chance to live, and 95% chance to die, and a 99% chance of killing the mother, where an abortion would save the life of the mother, does not matter? the tiny pin size clump of cells rights supersede the mother? What if the parents planned on having more kids too? Just because sperm has not reached egg yet none of those future babies has a right to live?

How about twins? What if one of the babies will kill both the mother and the other baby? How does that work?

The stance that a pin head sized clump of cells rights supercede the mothers is insanity, I could write a 1000 more major issues that come up. Why? Because that position is insane. Mothers do not even know if they are pregnant quite often until several weeks after conception. Heck plenty of times when the mother does not even realize she is pregnant until she give birth to a baby.

I do not see how you can possibly consider a fertilized egg = a human with rights greater then the mother without bringing religion into it, soul, god ordained etc, because to hold that position without religion lies is... at the very least, a deep misunderstanding of what life is, and what a fertilized egg is and what reality is.

JoC's picture
I think when he said, the

I think when he said, the baby's rights supercede the mother's, he meant that the baby's right to life supercede's his/her mother's right to choice. It's simply a poor way to say, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

shiningone's picture
Hi again. Let me say sorry

Hi again. Let me say sorry first of all the the "load of crap" bit. I do get carried away, and I'm used to talking with very vulgar people on LiveLeak.

"Okay, what happens at conception? When is conception? Define conception for me."
When I say conception I mean, when the woman knows or finds out she is pregnant.

"A babies right's supersedes the mother? At the moment of "conception?""
The unborn human being's rights to be born supersede the woman's right to kill it. Once she becomes aware of being pregnant.

"What kind of madness is that? I am in my mid 30's do my rights still supercede my mothers? If I needed a new heart, can I take my mother's heart, killing her?"
Once the unborn human being is born, it rights are equal to the mothers rights. Because it is generally considered able to survive without her.

Now, please bare in mind this position I'm describing is in a general sense where everything is normal and healthy. I am not saying it is true where health is a major factor. Each case would need to be examined on it's own merits.

"The stance that a pin head sized clump of cells rights supercede the mothers is insanity, I could write a 1000 more major issues that come up. Why? Because that position is insane. Mothers do not even know if they are pregnant quite often until several weeks after conception. Heck plenty of times when the mother does not even realize she is pregnant until she give birth to a baby."

As I said, it matters when the mother becomes aware that she is pregnant. If a mother does not know, then the idea of abortion would not even come up would it?

"I do not see how you can possibly consider a fertilized egg = a human with rights greater then the mother without bringing religion into it, soul, god ordained etc, because to hold that position without religion lies is... at the very least, a deep misunderstanding of what life is, and what a fertilized egg is and what reality is."

My position is not based on any religious concepts, or the idea of souls, etc. It is based on the knowledge that we all are aware of, that each stage of pregnancy is part of a PROCESS. A NATURAL process that we all know produces another human being, just like us. Treating that "clump of cells" as nothing more than a lump of meat is being dishonest. We KNOW exactly what is going to happen with it, left alone to finish the process it is going through.
If we deny any part of that process as meaningless, we deny what it means to be a human being. It also leads to situations like what has just happened in NewYork where they are now allowed legally to KILL/MURDER, VIABLE babies ( at 24 weeks ).

Nyarlathotep's picture
shiningone - It also leads to

shiningone - It also leads to situations like what has just happened in NewYork where they are now allowed legally to KILL/MURDER, VIABLE babies ( at 24 weeks ).

Kind of a tangent: it was legal to get an abortion up to 24 weeks in New York before (and after) the recent change in the law.

shiningone's picture
Maybe I'm not as familiar

Maybe I'm not as familiar with it as I thought. I do know that at 24 weeks it is considered viable. I also, believe the state of Virginia is hoping to make the situation even worse.

I apologise about the issue the other day. I assure you, it was not my intention to deceive anyone by claiming other people paragraphs as my own. I do feel however the issue of claiming rights to information these days has gone well over the top.

Nyarlathotep's picture
shiningone - Maybe I'm not as

shiningone - Maybe I'm not as familiar with it as I thought.

You are the second person in this thread to post some very inaccurate information about the recent changes to abortion law in New York.

Perhaps that puts you into a good position to answer the question in the back of my mind: where do you think this information is coming from?

shiningone's picture
"very inaccurate information"

"very inaccurate information" really!

What is wrong with you? You're acting like there is some sort of conspiracy going on.
I just googled it a few days ago and found a random news article. WHAT ? Just because I have not studied the situation in depth and are not familiar with every minute bit of detail about it, I am in some conspiracy to change everyone mind on the subject? It was a MINOR issue to my comment and your acting like it's a death sentence or something.

I notice you are also not saying anything about my apology. It is becoming obvious to me you don't like people.

Nyarlathotep's picture
shiningone - What is wrong

shiningone - What is wrong with you?

I was curious where that info is coming from and I figured you'd be a good person to ask; I guess I was wrong.

LogicFTW's picture
@shiningone

@shiningone

As I said, it matters when the mother becomes aware that she is pregnant. If a mother does not know, then the idea of abortion would not even come up would it?

What if the mother does not know for sure? "I may be pregnant, not sure, I am going to go down a whole bottle of plan B, or inject vast amounts of male testosterone just incase I am pregnant, but I am not sure I did not have an official doctor's test. Because I really do not want a baby right now. What happens when the inevitable technology comes around where there is an over the counter pill that creates an abortion for any fetus under 13 weeks? (85+ percent of all abortions currently happen in 13 weeks or less.) Arguably the tech already exists but has been blocked for mass distribution by powerful anti abortion groups.

that each stage of pregnancy is part of a PROCESS

Yay you understand this step, it is a process, a cycle of "life."

A NATURAL process that we all know produces another human being, just like us.

Just like "us?" Really you going to compare a tiny pinhead size group of cells to be just like us? (You and me typing here.) really? If I buy a pack of gum from you with a 5 dollar bill, can I say, well the 5 dollar bill is just like the 100 dollar bill, so give me 98 dollars in change instead of 3. And you are like sure, close enough, here is 98 bucks + your pack of gum. You misspoke, the correct way to describe it is: a fetus that has a potential to be a human. Why do we call them blastocyst, or zygotes or fetuses or babies? Why not just call them humans if they are "just like us" Because duh, a fertilized pinhead size clump of cells is NOT just like us. It is potential, that's it. Cool thing is, you are welcome to your opinion, just like I am to mine, but guess what I am not forcing my opinion on anyone, If a woman wants to be pregnant I would never tell her no, you can not.

reating that "clump of cells" as nothing more than a lump of meat is being dishonest.

I dont. I know it is potential for human life. I just also not going to force my opinion that is is full human life with full rights onto woman. In an ideal, dream fairy land world I would love to see a world where abortion never occurs, because it is never necessary and every woman that is pregnant did so by their choice. If all the anti abortion people (and there is A LOT OF YOU) want to get together and develop and pay for a machine that can incubate a growing life instead of a woman's body, and then pay for the raising of these unwanted children I would not stop them, I think that would be great. It will be incredibly (crippling) expensive though but it seems like all the pro life people would be hypocritical to not seek a solution like this no matter how expensive it is.

What is a human being with full rights to live over a mothers rights to her own body? How do you define what a human being is especially when we try to include a tiny pinhead size clump of cells without going into opinion?

It also leads to situations like what has just happened in NewYork where they are now allowed legally to KILL/MURDER, VIABLE babies ( at 24 weeks ).

You need to educate yourself on what the law is instead of reading sensational (and factually incorrect) headlines from the pro life folks.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sheldon's picture
"Women have a CHOICE to get

"Women have a CHOICE to get pregnant or not."

Choosing to have sex, does not mean choosing to become pregnant. They are called unwanted pregnancies for a reason.

"Once they make that choice, the unborn human being's rights supersede hers."

No it doesn't, and we wouldn't afford that right to child after it was born, to use the mothers body against her will, even to preserve the life of a child, so why would we afford that right to an insentient zygote?

"Denying one stage of it as not REAL is to deny our selves as human beings."

Who has denied the process of conception and gestation is real? Also how does this address the morality of abortion? For me the main argument against a termination is that the fetus may suffer it's own termination in any meaningful way. This necessitates we we demonstrate objective evidence about a fetus's development and when or whether it can suffer physical pain or emotional trauma, and whether a fetus is ever sentient.

If the mother's life is at risk and a termination would save her, there is no moral argument for denying her that termination as far as I can see, and this is because it is demonstrable that the woman can suffer emotional trauma and physical pain, is sentient, and the loss of her life would have the greater impact, as she is likely to have interacted with others who will suffer that loss. This is not to deny the point made that the loss of a developing fetus in a miscarriage can cause immeasurable emotional trauma, but that is not likely to be a concern if the mother is already seeking a termination as the pregnancy is unwanted.

CHK-C's picture
@JoC,

@JoC,

I agree with you.

I have no problem with other people's view on abortion that's different from mine, as long as they don't force their view on me, or try to make laws to ban or force abortions.

shiningone's picture
@ CHK-C

@ CHK-C

We live in a society that is based on laws. If you are not happy with those laws then you should live on a desert island somewhere.
The trouble is, if we don't have certain laws on the issue of abortions, it can lead very bad situations. Random murder, DIY abortions at home using coat hangers, things like that. That is not a good way to live.

CHK-C's picture
@shiningone

@shiningone

I'd rather live isolated than with people like you, who seek to impose their views on everyone else.

shiningone's picture
LMAO

LMAO

EVERYONE imposes their views. Laws are IMPOSED views!

LogicFTW's picture
@shiningone

@shiningone
Uhh....

"coat hanger abortions" is an argument of the pro choice crowd, not pro life crowd... If legal abortion methods go down, coat hanger abortions go up.

What does random murder have to do with the abortion debate? Are you trying to say young pregnant woman having the ability to choose increases the general murder of humans of all ages? How did you come to that conclusion?

Being pregnant against your will is also not a good way to live.

What if you and your female partner wanted your own biological kid, and a group of people kept impregnating your female partner year after year and were able to get away with it? Eliminating you and your partners chance of having your own kids? Still no abortion options?

How much reading have you done on this? The holes in your knowledge as you debate this are rather alarming.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

NeverHappened's picture
an interesting conspiracy

an interesting conspiracy theory in the making [I love chasing conspiracy theories....conspiracy theories are fun to follow, and sometimes have a grain of truth]

Abortion activism and the Northam KKK photos ???? Connected?

January 30: Northam is interviewed, strongly endorsing a modified abortion law in Virginia, and he specifically states it could, under some circumstances, involve euthanizing a live birth.

January 30: amidst the (predictably) controversial discussion, Tucker Carlson interviews Monica Klein, a choice advocate. I watched this interview before the big blow up, and my observation even at that time was that she was in absolute panic mode. He simply tried to get her to comment, pro or con, on the governor's statements, and she wouldn't touch it. Instead she repeated mindlessly (literally) 'Roe v Wade", 'immigration families', 'womens bodies' but would not answer the question. I even commented to my wife that I had never seen a professional spokesperson in such a panic on TV.

January 31: Northam reiterates his position. The bill fails to pass.

February 1: The KKK pictures come out, suddenly appearing. Interestingly at least one political author claims to have seen them last year, but had no way to verify them, and was not looking for a legal fight.

Februrary 2: demands for resignation increase, the abortion bill is forgotten.

Who exposed the picture? The pro-life groups? Possibly, though they were getting a lot of potentially positive publicity over his statements.... and the pictures overshadowed everything

What about the pro choice groups? --The abortion bill is out of the headlines. Was he the sacrificial lamb? Interestingly Planned Parenthood demanded he resign. If it were strictly a racial issue that would be a bit odd, that's outside of their area, and the demands were already coming for elsewhere. And he was radically pro choice... why were they so anxious to dump him?

There has got to be a bit more to all of this.

The Carlson interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=3AZ_wiOjmHc

NeverHappened's picture
Chelsea Clinton strongly

Chelsea Clinton strongly advocates for abortion. Interestingly, her mother reportedly had a number of abortions to avoid interfering with her political career. Those people, however, were unavailable for comment.

There is a movement now for more 'eugenic' abortions (yes, that IS the word that's used, incredible how quickly it became rehabilitated). People with Down's and advocates for the disabled are rightly horrified by this shift.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.