It’s pro-life month and I know there are pro-life atheists. So I’m wondering, what are your reasons for being pro-life? Do you draw a line somewhere where you’d say abortion is fine?
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.
It depends. I am against abortion used as birth control and believe it should be limited and regulated. At no time is abortion to be considered "health care." It is not a trip to the dentist. With that said.... Every
woman certainly has a right to make a mistake and to choose what is best for her own life. Abortions should be legal and available by qualified doctors. When person/woman does not learn from her mistakes, there is something wrong and the government should then step in and investigate the problem. Why would any woman have more than one, possibly two abortions? Frankly and honestly speaking, I would think such a woman has a mental problem or a significant social problem and should consider at minimum a Norplant or IUD. If she can not be responsible for her own life, the government should be responsible for her.
Having more than one abortion doesn't mean a woman has mental problems.
Birth control fails all the time. Men are equally responsible for unwanted pregnancies. The women is the only one who is judged, though, because it's her body that has to undergo the abortion.
One of my friends has had 3 abortions. She never wants children. At age 21 she asked to have her tubes tied, and every doctor she saw refused to do it because apparently a woman isn't capable of making such a decision.
She can't use chemical birth control, because she gets violently ill. Many women get sick on chemical birth controls like the pill, and norplant. And copper IUDs have plenty of risks, including puncturing the uterus. So she uses condoms.
At 22 her partner's condom broke and she became pregnant, so she got an abortion.
After her abortion, she asked her doctor AGAIN for her tubes to be tied and he said not until you're 30.
At 25 she had a second abortion. She assumes the condom broke or her partner didn't put it on correctly, because she uses condoms every time, which are not 100% effective.
After her second abortion, she again asked to have her tubes tied, but she isn't allowed until she is 30.
She had her 3rd abortion at 28 after she was sexually assaulted walking home from work.
She is the most loving, responsible woman I know. The number of abortions she had does not define her character or her mental health status.
"Do you draw a line somewhere where you’d say abortion is fine?"
I don't care how many abortions women have. It is not my business.
Wisdom 3:16 (CEB) = The children of adulterers, however, will come to nothing. The seed of people who have sex with others in violation of the Law will dry up.
Wisdom 4:3 (CEB) = "Even though the ungodly have many children, none of them will amount to anything. Those bastard saplings will never put their roots down deep or be firmly established."
Wisdom 4:6 (CEB) = "Children born of sex outside the bounds of the Law will be called as witnesses against their parents’ illicit sex when the time for judgment comes."
Sirach 16:1-3(CEB) = "1 Don’t wish for a multitude of worthless children, and don’t be glad about sons and daughters if they are ungodly.
2 If they have children, don’t rejoice over them unless they respect the Lord.
3 Don’t be confident that they will live, and don’t rely on their great number. One is better than a thousand, and it’s better to die childless than to have ungodly children."
Sirach 41:5-6 (CEB) = "5 The children of sinners are detestable, and they live together in the neighborhoods of the ungodly.
6 The inheritance of sinners’ children will be destroyed, and their offspring will always live in disgrace."
@ the OP
Sorry JoC unlike all the Catholic and Baptist misogynists I will not utter an opinion. Unlike you bastards I think a woman's body is entirely her own business. A bunch of celibate child molesters should have no fucking say in what SHE does with her own body. Neither should anyone influenced by religion.
It's not male business to offer an opinion on such a matter.
(Edited for clarity)
Is the fetus just a part of the woman’s body?
Until it is viable, absolutely.
But that it is not my point. a collection of religious old men, or a collection of celibate child molesters should have no say in a woman's education, career, or most importantly her body or appearance.
Yes. Just like her eggs are part of her body, her uterus is part of her body, the fetus attached to and growing inside of her is also part of her body.
And that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to look for atheists who are pro-life (I know there are) and I'd want to know their reasons. You said you won't utter an opinion but you just have. Your view is what's typically called, pro-choice.
I said I would not OFFER an opinion on the subject of abortion as I do not think I, or any male, is qualified to impose such on a female. Naturally you would misconstrue that JoC, as your ingrained (and I hope involuntary) misogyny would automatically adopt a prejudicial conclusion.
You say one thing in one breath then say another thing right after. And ingrained misogyny? You do realize that 50% of those aborted are female - 100% of them are human. I’d say this is more a human issue than a female one.
I'd say you have some nerve trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, but that's religion for you.
Actually, that's the law for you. The law basically tells us what we can or cannot do with our bodies. If you don't want any of that, you should probably live in a place without any laws.
Religiousarguments for abortion are not about the welfare of the mother or the foetus, they're based on archaic taboos and superstition.
Such laws also necessarily would single out women. Other laws enacted to prohibit what We may do with our bodies are either for our own general welfare, or are to protect others from pernicious acts like rape.
You're comparing apples to oranges here.
Why are you against all abortions? Start with that.
Simple. Because I believe that we should never try to kill innocent human life for whatever reason.
JoC "Because I believe that we should never try to kill innocent human life for whatever reason."
Why do you believe this is wrong? All you have done is gone from asserting something is wrong, to telling me you believe it is wrong. You've told me nothing.
Do I really need to prove my previous statement? That's basically the thing that keeps civil societies civil. And, I'm just curious, do you somehow, disagree with that position?
I asked for you to show your reasons for holding that belief, proof is not required I will take your word for it that what you say are your reasons are just that.
"That's basically the thing that keeps civil societies civil. "
Civil? I'm not sure that's the word you're looking for. Besides, the conception of civility as well as being subjective has no obvious influence I can see on whether a society is prepared to take human life or not.
I'm also curious if you want to attach the same rights to a zygote or blastocyst, that is insentient, incapable of thought, or experiencing any emotion or physical pain as you do fully formed humans? You must see the distinction is an important one in a debate about where the law should assign the greater rights?
If a child needed a kidney and only the mother were a suitable donor, but refused to donate that kidney thus ensuring the child would die, leaving aside all other moral judgements for a moment, would you want the law to force here to use her body to save that child?
If not then one wonders why you would be prepared to force a mother to use her body to carry a pregnancy to full term against her wishes? Can you really think we should assign more rights to an insentient balstocyst than to a fully formed child or it's mother? This seems oddly inconsistent to me.
Would you put a child who had raped through the additional trauma of childbirth, or would you allow say an 11 year girl a termination under such circumstances? What of the girl had been raped by her father and became pregnant after years of abuse? What if the mother were dead, and the father on release from prison would have to have access to the child / grandchild?
How far would you take your personal aversion to the termination of an insentient clump of cells?
"If a child needed a kidney and only the mother were a suitable donor, but refused to donate that kidney thus ensuring the child would die, leaving aside all other moral judgements for a moment, would you want the law to force here to use her body to save that child?"
- What is the purpose of the kidney? A kidney's purpose is to clean your blood. What's the purpose of the uterus? As part of the reproductive system, it's purpose is to take care of a baby. The child in the womb, has the right to use his/her mother's womb to survive.
"Would you put a child who had raped through the additional trauma of childbirth, or would you allow say an 11 year girl a termination under such circumstances? What of the girl had been raped by her father and became pregnant after years of abuse? What if the mother were dead, and the father on release from prison would have to have access to the child / grandchild?"
- for me it's the trauma of childbirth VS the trauma of knowing the child murdered her child. In cases where children are involved, I say we should always go for the least violent solutions.
- Really, all your arguments, whatever the case may be, boils down to what is a zygote, or a blastocyst. I say they are a human being at the very earliest point of their development and science shows this time and time again. Me saying, "I was, at one point in my life, a single cell," is not a statement that is controversial in scientific circles.
"- for me it's the trauma of childbirth VS the trauma of knowing the child murdered her child. In cases where children are involved, I say we should always go for the least violent solutions."
The Bible has some good stories about why it is a good idea to have babies. You can eat them when you get hungry. Maybe that is why some people are against abortion. They want to have some fresh meat on hand to eat when things get bad.
Good to know. I, however, haven't brought up any religious arguments against abortion. I'm not pro-life because I'm religious. I'm pro-life because it's the right thing to do.
"I'm pro-life because it's the right thing to do."
Isn't that like saying that you think every sex act should result in a pregnancy?
Not really. And I haven't said that.
A statement we were all once 1 cell indeed is not a controversial subject.
To say we were all fully human with full human rights as one cell is a very controversial subject.
Lets put it another way:
Define what a full human being is, without using unproven things like "soul" or god etc.
Every single definition you try to give, I could give you a way to break your definition of what a human is, especially when we are talking blastocyst and zygotes.
The only fact of the matter is, it is very blurry, which makes when "a human is a full human" with all the rights of a full human a matter of opinion. Which means people against abortion are pushing their unsubstantiated opinion onto mothers and their right to their own body.
Sheldon Q. "If a child needed a kidney and only the mother were a suitable donor, but refused to donate that kidney thus ensuring the child would die, leaving aside all other moral judgements for a moment, would you want the law to force her to use her body against her wishes to save that child?"
I'll ask this again as you ignored my question completely, and blathered on about the purpose of bodily organs.
Sheldon Q ""Would you put a child who had raped through the additional trauma of childbirth, or would you allow say an 11 year girl a termination under such circumstances? What of the girl had been raped by her father and became pregnant after years of abuse? What if the mother were dead, and the father on release from prison would have to have access to the child / grandchild?"
Joc "- for me it's the trauma of childbirth VS the trauma of knowing the child murdered her child. In cases where children are involved, I say we should always go for the least violent solutions."
So firstly you're branding an 11 year old rape victim a murderer, a bad enough start. However to be clear you are saying that you would use the law to FORCE an 11 year old child who had been the victim of an incestual rape through childbirth, probably MURDERING both the child and foetus? If that is your answers, then I could ask of no better example of the sickening corrosive effect of religious beliefs on morality. I would ask you desist from using hyperbolic rhetoric by labelling an 11 year old rape victim a murderer, but sadly I am all too familiar with the sickening tactics that anti abortionist employ.
Joc "Really, all your arguments, whatever the case may be, boils down to what is a zygote, or a blastocyst."
No they absolutely do not, this is just another attempt to oversimplify a complex moral issue, probably because you know an objective examinations of all the facts won't support an absolute and intransigent position like yours.
"what is a zygote, or a blastocyst. I say they are a human being at the very earliest point of their development and science shows this time and time again."
That is quite simply a shameful lie JoC, as science does no such thing. You are using the term human being in a subjective and dishonest way here, as it ignores scientific facts, such as the fact that a developing foetus is insentient, and so cannot suffer emotional trauma, and lacks the cognitive capacity to feel physical pain, just as two enormously significant facts that should influence any decisions on whether, and when, to allow the termination of a pregnancy.
I have never ever experienced one of these debates, and not encountered such lies, dishonest rhetoric, and hyperbole from those who blindly oppose all abortion. It's as if they are arguing on raw emotion, and thus are incapable of any objectivity at all.
"Me saying, "I was, at one point in my life, a single cell," is not a statement that is controversial in scientific circles."
What a particularly pointless and stupid claim. You shed billions of those when you scratch your arse, cut your nails, or have a shave or a haircut man. Can you really believe that sticking the word scientific in that sentence lends it some gravitas, as if you've said something profound, rather than made the most inane and pointless comparison? For an example of the sheer stupidity of the comparison, you can get the same cells you claim were "once you" off any turd you've excreted daily, do watch where you're walking, we wouldn't want you to commit murder< but then flushing it down the sewer would mean that by your rationale you're already a mass murderer.
Bravo! Sheldon, Bravo!
The question is when it becomes murder/infanticide. Moral judgements on the limits of infanticide are NOT the exclusive domain of females. This 'men have no voice in this' is a bunch of hand waving.
Ending a life (especially in the fetus stage) to advance a career is an obscenity as I see it.
BTW there is at least one secular pro-life group.
It is the exclusive domain of the pregnant mother to be.
Why? Because it is all unsubstantiated opinion. So the only person that gets a say in the matter is the mother of whom her body is at stake. Just like a woman has a right to use birth control methods. No one else other than a woman can decide if she does or does not want to use birth control methods.
As a male, my only view on this is that the price of an abortion should be one testicle from the father. Two strikes and you're out.
I think the term ‘pro-life’ to describe being against abortion is a misnomer and is stated that way purely in an attempt to proffer subtle scorn and judgement.
Regardless, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are used colloquially and I don't want to get into semantics as it does nothing to further the discussion.
Basically, pro-life would be someone who is against abortion in all or almost all cases. Pro-choice would be someone who is for abortion being an option for women.