I see most of fellow atheists/liberals always in favor of pro-choice because its her body, her choice. Anyone in favor of pro-life is given shut up call with an argument that why does he care? Abortion doesn't affect him in anyways so he should remain silent. But killing your infant child also doesn't affect him in anyways so should he remain silent there too? How is killing premature and infant is not equal? Or am I missing something here?
PS: Sorry for my english but I hope you understand my question
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
That is more or less the question right there. If you think it is the same thing; that would typically make your pro-life. If you don't; that would typically make you pro-choice. Of course it gets more complicated, but that is a pretty good summary of the subject.
How is it not the same thing? Yeah more accurately, that should be the actual question.
Desi Mulhid
There is pro-choice and Anti-choice. Anti-choice is called pro-life by the religious right in the US.
I personally draw the line on when a fetus is wholly dependent on the mother to survive, and when the fetus/baby actually stands a chance to survive outside the mother. (a line which can change based on the access of intensive care for babies NICU or ICN.) In a modern expensive hospital I believe it is around 29-30 weeks for the baby to have a decent shot at a normal life. In rural Sub-Sahara Africa it is more like 36 weeks.
Of course in first world countries that give lots of access to parent planning and abortion if needed, it is extremely rare that any abortion happens at 29 weeks or later unless their was some major abnormal situation. (29+ week abortions are much more frequent in countries that greatly restrict or ban all abortions.)
In strictly clinical terms, a fetus is a parasite for the mother, that carries many uncomfortable side effects and can even be fatal in rare cases. But yes, this fetus has the chance to develop into a human that will, and should, have full rights of a human.
In countries that ban abortion for any reason, the baby ends up having more rights to life then the mother, which is beyond insane.
You wont find any liberal or atheist that will argue killing a 18 month old baby is "okay."
Thanks for your comment. So instead of taking any side (pro-life or pro-choice) we can say that abortion is fine if health of mother or baby is at risk or if that was unwanted pregnancy (knowing that you were having protected sex). I don't think most of theists or right wingers should have issue with that too.
Unfortunately I grew up in a culture where people love having unprotected sex then abort their child. Specially when sex before marriage is considered taboo and sometimes instead of aborting earlier, they end up throwing baby in garbage cans or gutters. I also know people who aborted their child after knowing it was daughter. These types of shits are totally normal here. Our religious and right wingers use to blame us (liberals) for that because they believe sex before marriage is our concept. Yeah like sex is not natural and not the need of every human? The only good thing here is that abortion is not restricted but I hate misuse of it. So grown up in that culture, I will always go for pro-life.
You don't think right wing theist nutsacks would disagree with a reasonable, realistic approach to the issue of abortion? I think you are completely wrong
At least where I live abortions that late are illegal. I think here a healthy fetus can be aborted on week 20 and a badly deformed up to week 24, but I could be wrong. In my opinion this is a reasonable compromise that allows abortion as long as the woman is following the situation and acts on time.
I agree that the reason for allowing abortions legally is not some logical moral calculus, but instead an honest review of the effects banning abortion has on society.
What you've said makes sense to me; but it doesn't seem to be how it works, at least not in the US (I'm saying many do have issues with that).
Nyarlathotep, This doesn’t make sense to me. What would be the point of asking a woman if she had used contraception? A woman that wants an abortion would just say that the contraception had failed.
Desi, I think atheism and abortion is an interesting topic to bring up. I’m a reluctant pro-choice atheist. I think abortion needs to be legal for rape, insect, and the woman’s (intersting, I just changed “mother’s” to “woman’s”) health. I think until science can come up with better ways of controlling reproduction, abortions should be legal up to viability.
My impression, and it's just a hunch, is that many, and maybe most, atheists are unequivocally pro-choice. I’m bothered by absolutist pro-choicers that only have disdain for pro-lifers and malign all pro-lifers as being exclusively motivated by misogyny. I think that’s unfair. I think there are many compassionate pro-lifers that are sincerely distressed by abortion and consider it an obscene human rights violation. By my lights, this is a valid point that’s worthy of respect if not agreement. Anyone that’s experienced a miscarriage, whether directly or indirectly, mourns the loss and they never describe it as a loss of a parasite or fetus but rather as a loss of a baby.
Even though I’m pro-choice, I realize that future generations may regard my stance as barbaric akin to the way we now look at slavery and human sacrifice.
I think abortion needs to be legal for rape, insect, and the woman’s (intersting, I just changed “mother’s” to “woman’s”) health.
Up to there I am also with pro-choice else I am pro-lifer :)
Do you think your opinion about this choice should be used to determine someone else's choice?
No, I think that pro choice should be our default position, but if evidence comes about showing that life begins earlier, the law should change accordingly.
Religion brings a whole bunch more issues, for the pro life/pro choice debate. Instead of accepting the repeatable study based facts carried out in test, they just declare that their god is real, and in many cases their god says life begins at the moment of successful fertilization, (even though 30-60 percent of all fertilized eggs do not make it all the way to healthy birth, making their god the ultimate killer of babies I guess their god changes it's mind a lot.)
As a pro choicer, the people that make me the most upset are those carrying ridiculously untrue signs camping out at abortion clinics all day harassing women going through quite often the most difficult decision in their life. And then those politicians that take advantage of this blind voter base to carry on their usual distract while robbing blind business.
I think it is more likely in the far future (provided we continue to advance as a society,) that meat eaters, and meat food waste will be considered a highly barbaric activity, then those that had an abortion.
I also think as medical advances continue, a mother having a baby unassisted, untested may be considered barbaric. With those living in first world countries, having full workups and assisted insemination rather than the old, "have sex, and maybe a baby pop's out." We are rapidly getting to the point medically that it will be possible for a man to procure a genetically tested "perfect" egg, provide his own dna material, and have the baby grown in a machine, cutting out the woman's role almost completely.
As I am a man, the only interest I have is that I make sure other MEN don't get involved!
So if a woman banned abortion you would be for that? Half of women are pro life, I don't think gender has much to do with this.
Depends how you define it, but actually a strong majority of women believe Roe vs Wade should not be over turned, (As of 2016, it was 69 percent, going up 6 percent in a few years.) At current rates of change, by 2018 or so it will be 75 percent of all women support roe vs wade. That is 3 to 1 of all women, (and all people incidentally). A powerful majority.
https://thinkprogress.org/pro-choice-america-majority-d8963029ae45
I'm not pro choice or pro life, and my opinions have changed a lot recently, and are likely to continue changing as more information or arguments come to my attention. The way I see it first term abortions are not murder, but second and third term are murder.
As an atheist, my views on abortion have changed drastically in the year I have been one. I used to be advantly "pro-life". I think Matt Dillahunty said it best. You wouldn't force a mother to be attached to her child after birth because of some disease that required her blood to be transferred, but we are suposed to expect the same if the child is in the womb? I think abortion is an unfortunate fact of life, but many circumstances are at play. The wellbeing of the mother, a child that will cause birth complications, a child with an expected challenge (be it mental or physical), the mother's financial status, and many other things. I wish it didn't happen, but it does, and it is not as black and white as the religious would like it to seem.
I like that Matt Dillahunty argument. Just another powerful reason it should be all about the woman's choice.
Nice straw man arguments here. Congratulations.
Heh you sort of straw-man'ed pointing out people are using straw man fallacy.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
You were vague on who you were talking about? (everyone?) you in a way, refute who ever it is you disagree with by: saying it is straw man. And then you add sarcasm. And you fail to back it up, which you cant because you avoided being specific. Now everyone gets to wonder who does MCD consider to have created a straw man argument.
Maybe I have no morals for saying this, but I don't have problem with abortion. I have mixed feeling about it after the 3rd trimester, but that's the way I feel.
My mother has had a long work history in medical facilities and did not shelter me from this subject as a child. I thank her for that. Both of us have seen fetuses and ect in person. We're both pro chioce. Having said that, we are both un-easy with 3rd trimester abortions.
Sure you got morals, you just do not have those fake "god created morals."
You have morals that it is a woman's choice. A good moral really.
There are few things more abusive, wicked and disgusting -for the woman but also for the unwanted baby- than making a woman carry on with an undesirable pregnancy and make her have birth against her will... I agree that she should do it before the fetus could live on its own (about 25 weeks, or until the end of the pregnancy in case of life risk), but the possibilty of doing it in a reasonable period should be guaranteed. For me, that's the moral thing to do.
Anyways, curiously I'm used to listening to some people call themselves pro-life (in the matter of abortion of a bunch of cells), but at the same time they're in favor of death penalty of already born human beings. I think this is what should really be called barbarism.
You mentioned unwanted babies. This is an important point. Pro-Lifers usually go on and on about there is long waiting lists for adoption.
While this is partially true, it is very misleading. Yes, there is a long, expensive, wait list to adopt a healthy, white baby girl. In fact, fortunately nearly any healthy young baby regardless of skin color, gender, and biological parent lineage has great chances to be adopted when they are only a few moths old. However, at any given time, there is over 400,000 children looking to be adopted at any given time. This does not count the many older children that for various reasons are living without parents, or being raised by older siblings, or otherwise being raised by people that ultimately do not wish to parent the kid.
This is incredibly damaging to a child, and almost universally leads to negative outcomes for the kid's entire life, from happiness, education, and likely hood to commit crime. If every parent had the option to more easily abort unwanted fetuses, these awful numbers, like 400,000 children at any given time looking to be adopted will go down, and the adoption homes will get better. The best adoptive parents, understandably go for having a young baby that they can more truly call their own, and raise them from the beginning. But, when there is less unwanted from the beginning babies being born going up for adoption, due to more choice, those potential adoptive parents, will need to broaden their adoption search to include older children. The black 11 year old boy that has been in and out of state care, bouncing from foster home to foster home and already has a history of (almost understandably,) unruly behavior, may actually have a chance to get adopted by great parents to give them a good stable home and properly love care and provide for the child, instead of the kid being doomed to state care or lousy foster conditions until adulthood, that will all to often lead quickly to imprisonment.
Given a shut up call? What does that mean?
To understand the ultimate consequences of anti-abortion, anti-contraception policies, just Google "Romanian orphans." Like the Catholic church, Ceaucescu proclaimed that contraception and abortion were wrong. Like today's pro-lifers, he didn't much care about what happened to the products of that policy.
In my country (Spain), abortion was illegal until 1985 (and up to 2010, it was very restricted) and the only difference was that before only rich women got abortions (they travelled to other European countries where it was legal -and really expensive-to get it, usually UK) and only poor women had to put up with the unwanted pregnancy. For me, that's profoundly hypocritical and I guess the same situation is happening now in other countries (or States within USA) where it's still illegal. Rich girls will always be able to choose.
Fortunately, I've never had to deal with that, but I want to know that other women are free to choose, regardless of their income.
1st term abortions (90%+ of all abortions) are not illegal in any US state by federal law. Just some states make it impossible for clinics to offer abortion procedures through state laws that block the formation or operation of such clinics by making impossible requirements.
So again, poor mothers working two jobs cannot travel many hours across state lines, where the rich do it n/p.
Pages