Are there pro-life atheists here?
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
That's because I didn't make that claim.
I said, providing it wasn't being used as birth control then there is no problem for me (Again, this is just my opinion and one I keep to myself).
Condoms, the pill, the morning after pill are perfectly easily available.
Better sex education is required and protection should be made more readily accessible and affordable if that is also an issue.
It's hard to go into detail as it's quite personal to me, I'm 36 at 22 my ex partner got pregnant (we was trying for a child) at 2 months she said she wasn't ready and wanted an abortion.
As a potential father I was disappointed that I had no say in this but i kept my mouth shut and left it to her to make her decision.
Eventually we had our daughter and eventually split up where even as a father I had no say on custody and so fourth.
After that I have always practiced safe sex with no problems occurring, I then met my current fiancee and 8 years together later we have two wonderful sons.
My point would be people need to take responsibility for themselves and use protection.
It should be readily available and affordable these days, if not then this needs to be addressed.
What happens when one of the other methods of birth control fails?
Interesting point and I'd like to know the odds, obviously the pill alone is 99% effective.
However, let's say a condom splitting is anywhere between 15%-40% in a report I read quite some time ago.
This is where better education for males especially to recognise when it happens and to obviously use a new one.. personally I've experienced this and it is noticeable and correctable.
Perhaps a male version of the pill would greatly help.
Either way the morning after pill 95% effective.
Again... responsibility, education, effective measures for both sexes and so fourth are good measures.
Again I stress it's simply my opinion and I don't really care what people say or do... one person has no rights over another.
They actually did just release a male "pill" more like re-released, it never really caught on the first time. Supposed to be quite effective with little to no side effects.
But then the same is true for a vasectomy except of course it is hard to reverse.
Thanks Logic, i was sure id heard about a male pill but wasn't overly sure.
The vasectomy is certainly an excellent way forward for the older gent.
I myself will be getting one once my fiancee decides on if we are to have a 3rd child (she wants a girl lol) but the benefits and risks associated with me having that or her staying on the pill make more sense if I do so.
It's just responsible.
Good post. I've stressed from the start, all the research shows that sex education and free contraception are the most successful way for reducing unwanted pregnancies and the transfer of STD's.
For me this thread OP is deliberately missing the point. It doesn't matter what demographic someone belongs to, creating anti abortion laws has been shown to have disastrous effects. In countries where abortions are illegal the rate of abortions is shown to actually be higher than countries that allow women the choice.
What's more a developing fetus is at least is afforded some protection in countries that allow early terminations, unlike countries that give women no rights and no choices but to seek a termination where she can, when she can.
The difference here for me typifies the religious mindset, where they are trying to insist everyone adhere to their beliefs, even in contradiction of scientific evidence, but people who believe differently are vilified even though they're not trying to force their views on anyone.
No one ever has to have an abortion they don't want, I am pro life and pro choice, I should like to reduce abortions by helping people avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
The anti choice group though are insisting their way is the only way, and must be for everyone.
This is what religions have always taught.
Sheldon: "…I am pro life and pro choice…"
And my statement of being exactly the same really screwed JoC's head off his shoulders. He cannot figure out how I am pro life and pro choice.
Thanks for this. I personally have never seen 4D scans (they're not available in my country) but it does show that advances in science has actually shown us that the unborn are people. While I take the view that even incest or rape shouldn't be a reason for abortion, I do see where you're coming from. I used to hold to that view as well.
As to when the child or the mother's life is called into question, there are other ways to deal with those situations that don't need abortion so even in those cases, I'd be against abortion.
Well them at is the beauty of opinions, if I consider my view as in the middle, to one side I have people like Cyber with her perfectly valid view, and on the opposite yours too.
What is important is it is just a view and should not be enforced.
This is something to be debated rationally and logically by competent people, without pulling any trump cards I.e. God, to defend a position.
I've attached the 4D scan picture of my son just out of interest for all, this is at roughly 26 weeks.
Nothing wrong with the top of the head by the way lol, it is just where something was pressing around that can't be picked up... thinking the plancenta?! Not sure, been some time since...
Its my understanding that a developing foetus can't feel pain or store memories, and is insentient so can experience no emotions.
So when you say 'advances in science has actually shown us that the unborn are people." I'd say you're being biased and disingenuous. There's enough emotion attached to the debate without misleading or innaccurate claims.
Now the pregnant woman is a fully formed human being, and we ought to take every precaution to ensure we dont enact laws that take away a woman's rights based on an innaccurate emotional response driven by religious doctrine or dogma. No one is telling religious people THEY must have abortions, so it'd be nice if they could extend that courtesy to others who don't share their beliefs for once.
I'm not **in favour of** abortion, I'm not anti-life, (pro life is a ludicrous term IMHO). I am however of the opinion that we should respect the rights of women to determine how their bodies are used, and should take every effort to educate ALL children on how best to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and STD's. This should also include free contraception without placing conditions that might pressure someone into unprotected sex.
Our approach needs to be empathetic where necessary, but it must also be pragmatic.
Again the difference here between adherence to dogma and raw emotion, and a morality that tries to avoid uneccessary suffering as much as possible couldn't be clearer.
"Fetuses aged 24 weeks or less do not have the brain connections to feel pain, according to a working party report published this week by the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG)."
Not sure on that claim, I've read varying reports including by the American obstetrician and gynecological association that said they believe it is not until the 3rd trimester they can feel pain etc... so roughly 27-28 weeks.
But perhaps I've said too much anyway and have far too much emotionally invested in this.
I have two wonderful boys (8yrs and 2yrs) and having seen them at 3rd trimester in a 4d scan, i'd be hard pressed to agree they are not a valid life.
Surely it's why we would prosecute a person who kills an unborn child within a pregnant woman, via domestic violence, stabbing etc...
Furthermore, three months ago my fiancee miscarried at 12 weeks, do we say or react with the position of It's fine, it's not a life yet?! For the record, this incident completely broke my heart.
And why I have been scarcely on here of late.
This is such a horrible topic and I wish I hadn't commented.
But as a father I know I would happily give my life for my children.
Again, maybe I'm too invested emotionally.
Irregardless I'm for equality and for women to have the best quality of life as they can possibly have, so I hope it doesn't taint people's views of me.
Randomhero1982: "This is such a horrible topic…"
Ain't it? The main reason I try to stay away. I have my beliefs about abortion, life, and choice. Many agree along the same lines, maybe not completely, but mostly like mine, and their comments I handle reading. Some people, and I ain't listing no names (but there are some in this thread), are just so skull-fucked sick in the head
Haha, for someone who is so adamant about atheism, you sure spend a lot of your time in appeals to authority. Just an observation.
"Now the pregnant woman is a fully formed human being, and we ought to take every precaution to ensure we dont enact laws that take away a woman's rights based on an innaccurate emotional response driven by religious doctrine or dogma."
She HAD HER RIGHTS when she CHOSE to get pregnant( rape is another issue, before you start ), which WAS based on emotional responses. Now that she, is, pregnant she must live with the CONSEQUENCES. She does not have the right to KILL another soon to be born human being. Unless you are, denying, the process of reproduction? If you deny one part of this process you are being DISHONEST. We KNOW damn well that human beings are born this way, so did SHE when she CHOSE to get pregnant.
It is part of nature. You don't get to jump off a cliff and decide you changed your mind half way down.
" I am however of the opinion that we should respect the rights of women to determine how their bodies are used."
She had that right when she chose to get pregnant. She does not get the right to determine how the body of the soon to be born human being is USED. You make choices and deal with the consequences.
Why is it a different issue? You've told us you believe life begins when the mother learns of the pregnancy (odd to say the least, but for the sake of argument, lets go with that).
You told us unborn human being's rights supersede [the mother's rights]. Does an unborn human produced by rape have different "rights" than a regular unborn human?
"Why is it a different issue?
It's another issue in as far as someone has not brought it up yet, and it will have to be addressed as a separate issue, as it is now.
"You've told us you believe life begins when the mother learns of the pregnancy (odd to say the least, but for the sake of argument, lets go with that)."
Why should that be odd? The issue is about abortion. Why would a woman concern herself with abortion if she does not yet know she is pregnant? It is only when she knows she is pregnant that she may consider abortion.
"You told us unborn human being's rights supersede [the mother's rights]. Does an unborn human produced by rape have different "rights" than a regular unborn human?"
No it does not. I have addressed this already in another comment, but I don't mind repeating it. The unborn human being had no choice. It did not have anything to do with the rape. It can not be blamed for the rape.
In the same way we have to spend time to recover from a broken arm for instance, a woman should spend time to recover from pregnancy due to rape. We can not decide half way through the repair of a broken arm to not go through the full repair time.
She is within her rights to put the child up for adoption after birth if she does not want it.
Realize, it is your opinion of when it is a full human being with full rights to live that supersedes a woman's rights to her own body.
And trust me you do not want to live in a society where everyone can make and enforce laws on their opinion only.
It is an odd opinion that "life begins" when the mother learns about it. While somewhat rare, (about 1 in 2500 pregnancies,) you do realize some women do not realize they are pregnant until they go into labor right? You do realize pregnancy tests (over the counter done at home,) are NOT 100% accurate right?
So based on your opinion that a 40 week old baby is not a human until maybe an hour before it's born just due to lack of knowledge?
Could someone that suspects they are pregnant but not sure just do a "blind" abortion and it is all good because she did not know for sure?
Hence an odd opinion, but you are welcome to your opinion. I just draw the line when someone tries to enforce their opinion on to women's bodies.
I would never try to force my opinion on to a woman and tell them they must abort whether they want to or not. I think we could all agree that is abominable. The china 1 child policy was a complete disaster.
▮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.
Why do you people keep taking everything so literally? I was not saying life begins when the mother learns about it. I am saying until the mother knows about it the question of abortion does not even come up! It's like trying to communicate with aliens talking to some of you.
Why would she want an abortion if she does not even know she is fucking pregnant ?
Yes, of course this is my opinion, so were most laws before they came law.
"I just draw the line when someone tries to enforce their opinion on to women's bodies."
I am REALLY restraining my self with some of these comments. Most LAWS were opinions at some point! Christ! what is wrong with you?
Cannot speak for Logic, but myself, it is due to my brain and mind thinking like a computer. Just like a computer takes everything so literally, so do I. That is one reason I can get verbose. To prevent me from saying things literally, I try to cover all my thoughts in my best attempts to not be misinterpreted. Logic may be a lot like me since he does work in computer programming. From my experience, you have to have a highly logical mind to write good programs. Anything that is highly logical operates on the GIGO Principle: Garbage In = Garbage Out. This is also why I have to read fiction novels twice. First time is a literal reading. Once read, I can re-read it from a creative and imaginative perspective. Same thing goes for movies.
I asked you very simply when do you think when someone is a person and you stated when the mother knows about it, I stated that was a weird opinion and said why it was weird.
Now you are complaining I took your statement to literally? Do you want to change the moment it is a human life now to a different point? I am just trying to pin down at what point do you think a fertilized egg is a full human being that supersedes a woman's right to her own body,
Instead you attack my break down of your argument, why is that? I do not get offended when you state what your opinion is, I only just point out the flaws in it, which I did.
Yes many laws started off as opinions, usually not as nearly controversial opinions, but then they were accepted and adjusted based on real world evidence instead of opinion. Real markers that can be well explained. Stealing is wrong, then in court they can prove the theft took place.
However the argument of when a blastocysts rights exceeds the woman's rights is not a hard line, that can be well evidenced it is an opinion. One thing that is real? A woman losing the right to her own body as a potential for human life grows within her this becomes fact if laws are made that bar them from abortion.
Plus this only the rights of mother vs rights of potential human life argument. There are many other major major issues with forcing the opinion of human life onto mothers that has already been discussed in this thread, not least of which, the laws really only affect the poor, the rich can get as many as abortions they want when ever they want with little inconvenience to them,
Where many poor woman in this country right now are forced to have a child they do not want and cannot afford. An inequality issue that further birth control in this country only greatly exacerbates. Freedom of speech protects the rights of people with their opinions to harass women in the planned parenthood parking lots on quite possibly the worse day of a woman's life is already a lot of leeway given to these people. When people then force their unevidenced opinion via law on a vulnerable poor female population that quickly becomes abominable.
there just has to be a way to get 1000 agrees button here and an applause sfx button.
well said my man, well said.
"Haha, for someone who is so adamant about atheism, you sure spend a lot of your time in appeals to authority. Just an observation."
True to form both of your claims are incorrect. The rest seems to be your usual string of straw man fallacies, non-sequiturs, and petty ad hominem fallacies. I mean show me where I have remotely denied anything about human reproduction? I can only hope you're trolling again.
"It is part of nature. "
So is cannibalism, infanticide, and parasitic predation, so that is a particularly fatuous claim.
"She had that right when she chose to get pregnant."
Leaving aside the stupidity of this new mantra you've created, that suggests a woman's rights end once she is pregnant, how dumb does someone have to be to not realise that it's often not a woman's choice to get pregnant. ironic really after you accuse me of denying aspects of human reproduction. This latest rant seem to me, almost as if you have an axe to grind yourself.
"You make choices and deal with the consequences."
Correct, and for a woman one of those choices is to terminate the pregnancy, as it should be. Whether i like the idea or not has no bearing on that. Of course you seem to have a far higher opinion of your views than most, so that must be why everything you comment on appears so cut and dried to you. At least it saves you the time of bothering to give these issues some thoughtful objective scrutiny and struggling with the complex moral dichotomy, like theists dealing in absolutes you seem content to blame women for getting pregnant, and glibly insist they bear all the responsibility. This of course makes your lie about me denying aspects of human reproduction even more ironic, given you seem not have notice the responsibility is shared equally by the man, but only the women is left literally holding the baby.
The real irony is that abortion rates are far higher in countries where there are laws against seeking a termination, but again luckily you never seem to let facts trouble one of your disjointed rants.
Isn't it strange how you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is trolling? You're view is undeniable yes, so how dare anyone have a different view!
"I mean show me where I have remotely denied anything about human reproduction?"
It is implied by your position. Your position is that before the stage that can be considered viable, anything growing there has no value and therefore can be destroyed. Reproduction is a PROCESS. Each part is integral to the completion of that process. If you place no value on any one part of it, you place no value to the human being produced from it.
"So is cannibalism, infanticide, and parasitic predation, so that is a particularly fatuous claim."
I said it is part of nature as a means of expressing it can be proven to be true. We know from biological science that once a woman becomes pregnant she will ( generally ) have a child 9 months later. It is also very telling, that you chose to use the words, infanticide and parasitic predation. It shouts clearly your feelings on the matter. You understand that we are more developed that animals right?
You know, when a woman gets pregnant ( one who actually wants a baby ), one of the things she tells her mate is, "I'm going to have a baby!" She does not say, " I'm going to have a valueless lump of parasitical meat in my body for 6 months, then we are going to have a baby!"
"Leaving aside the stupidity of this new mantra you've created..."
You know Sheldon, you're a clever guy. No one is deputing that. Your great as deductive reasoning and very good at pointing to other "professionals" in certain fields to back up your claims of brilliance. But, you're kind of a dick as well.
Take this last comment you made. You love pointing out other peoples mistakes of reason and particularly ad hominems they use. Do you not think people notice your cleverly disguised ad hominems?
For starters this is NOT a mantra. I have mentioned it maybe one or twice because it was pertinent to the question asked of me. It has not been repeated over and over and over, which IS the definition of a mantra.
Neither is it stupid. Do you not think women have a choice to have sex or not? Surly you have had sex with a woman? Did you FORCE her to have sex with you?
"how dumb does someone have to be to not realise that it's often not a woman's choice to get pregnant."
AGAIN, you come at me with ad hominems. I have already expressed that fact that rape is another issue to be addressed.
"This latest rant seem to me, almost as if you have an axe to grind yourself."
AGAIN, you come at me with ad hominems. HEY! Sheldon you forgot to put an S after seem!
"you seem content to blame women for getting pregnant"
Believe it or not Sheldon, every single pregnancy is NOT RAPE. Which seems to be your main crutch for your extreme lack of empathy for yet to be born human beings.
You finish with a final flourish of ad hominems. Congrats.
Why must you make up lies all the time? I have made none of the claims you assigned to me, and my post contained no ad hominem at all. Unlike your I might add, an ad hominem fallacy is when you ignore what is said and instead directly attack or insult the person making them, as you have done here with your infantile "you're a dick" comment. Grow up, there's a good chap.
" You understand that we are more developed that animals right?"
No, I have no idea what you even mean by "more developed", but it is axiomatic that we are animals.
According to the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), a fetus aged 24 weeks or less does not have the brain connections to feel pain. So your histrionics, and dishonest misrepresentation that I am devaluing anything is nonsense, I simply linked a fact that was salient, in order to refute the inane claim that a human life starts at conception. So yes it is a process, and that's why making sweeping generalisations the way you do is asinine.
"this is NOT a mantra. I have mentioned it maybe one or twice"
You made the claim 4 times in just one paragraph, and here it is quoted below.
"(1) She HAD HER RIGHTS when she CHOSE to get pregnant( rape is another issue, before you start ), which WAS based on emotional responses. Now that she, is, pregnant (2) she must live with the CONSEQUENCES. (3)She does not have the right to KILL another soon to be born human being. Unless you are, denying, the process of reproduction? If you deny one part of this process you are being DISHONEST. We KNOW damn well that human beings are born this way, so did SHE when (4) she CHOSE to get pregnant."
"Neither is it stupid. Do you not think women have a choice to have sex or not? Surly you have had sex with a woman? Did you FORCE her to have sex with you?"
You've got some nerve accusing anyone have ad hominem. Does accusing someone of rape seem justified in a debate about abortion just because your verbiage has been exposed as fatuous. I never said a woman didn't have a choice to have sex, though clearly even that isn't always the case, I said getting pregnant was not always a choice. Again you really need to calm down and read more carefully.
""how dumb does someone have to be to not realise that it's often not a woman's choice to get pregnant."
AGAIN, you come at me with ad hominems. I have already expressed that fact that rape is another issue to be addressed."
That's not ad hominem, it is directly addressed at what was posted, and you clearly don't grasp it means as well, as rape is not the only reason a woman has an unwanted pregnancy. However as Nyarl has pointed out, rape is not a separate issue at all, it is directly salient.
""This latest rant seem to me, almost as if you have an axe to grind yourself."
AGAIN, you come at me with ad hominems. HEY! Sheldon you forgot to put an S after seem!"
Nope, still not ad hominem, it addresses what you have posted directly, the tone, and your misogynistic comments about women. Almost gleeful and gloating that THEY must live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
""you seem content to blame women for getting pregnant"
Believe it or not Sheldon, every single pregnancy is NOT RAPE. Which seems to be your main crutch for your extreme lack of empathy for yet to be born human beings."
Again rape is not necessary for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy, I'd be prepared to guess it represents a tiny amount of cases. It's bizarre you would not grasp such an obvious fact. Either way the fact remains you seem almost to enjoy gleefully insisting repeatedly that it is a woman who must solely bear the responsibility. That sounded like misogyny to me, and is certainly chauvinistic nonsense.
"You finish with a final flourish of ad hominems. Congrats."
Well below is my last paragraph, and again we can see it contains no ad hominem, and talks specifically about your post content. I suggest you look up ad hominem as it's clear you clearly don't know the difference between attacking an argument, and what is posted, and using insults that have nothing to do with the argument made, but is entirely personal like childishly calling me a dick in a moment of sheer petulance.
Sheldon "The real irony is that abortion rates are far higher in countries where there are laws against seeking a termination, but again luckily you never seem to let facts trouble one of your disjointed rants."
There are no ad hominem fallacies in there. You should also try and grasp that use of ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious.
"my post contained no ad hominem at all."
"I can only hope you're trolling again."
"Leaving aside the stupidity of this new mantra you've created"
"how dumb does someone have to be"
"This latest rant"
"Of course you seem to have a far higher opinion of your views than most"
"At least it saves you the time of bothering to give these issues some thoughtful objective scrutiny"
"This of course makes your lie about me"
"but again luckily you never seem to let facts trouble one of your disjointed rants."
That is called LYING Sheldon.
"No, I have no idea what you even mean by "more developed", but it is axiomatic that we are animals."
Really. A smart guy like you does not understand that humans have the ability to REASON and override instinct.
"You made the claim 4 times in just one paragraph, and here it is quoted below."
You are get more and more dishonest Sheldon. The comment I made that you referred to as a mantra was, "She had that right when she chose to get pregnant."
""(1) She HAD HER RIGHTS when she CHOSE to get pregnant( rape is another issue, before you start ), which WAS based on emotional responses. Now that she, is, pregnant "
"(2) she must live with the CONSEQUENCES."
Nope, can't see it there!
"(3)She does not have the right to KILL another soon to be born human being. Unless you are, denying, the process of reproduction? If you deny one part of this process you are being DISHONEST. We KNOW damn well that human beings are born this way, so did SHE when."
Nope, can't see it here!
"(4) she CHOSE to get pregnant."
Well, "chose" is there, but no mention of rights. So, ONCE.
That is called LYING Sheldon.
"You've got some nerve accusing anyone have ad hominem."
For starters, that statement is grammatically incorrect. What's wrong Sheldon, the pressure of lying getting to you?
"Does accusing someone of rape seem justified in a debate about abortion just because your verbiage has been exposed as fatuous."
You really should go on a debating course Sheldon, you know, to learn the basics! I did NOT accuse you, I asked you. Can't you tell the difference? "VERBIAGE" Ahh yet another ad hominem! Nothing has been "exposed" Sheldon except maybe your propensity to lie, when faced with superior arguments.
"I never said a woman didn't have a choice to have sex, though clearly even that isn't always the case, I said getting pregnant was not always a choice."
We know you did not say it, I ASKED you it. ( lying again ). You ALSO did NOT say "getting pregnant was not always a choice." You said, " how dumb does someone have to be to not realise that it's often not a woman's choice to get pregnant." REMEMBER the one with yet ANOTHER ad hominem?
Which is the reason I asked you. I had already discounted rape as a separate issue. Excluding that, a woman has two choices, have sex or not have sex. There is NO OTHER WAY of getting pregnant naturally Sheldon.
I had planned on going on with your replies but I got to the point where you start explaining the ad hominems YOU USE against others are not ad hominems, but when other people use them they are. There is no point me carrying on.
You are a dishonest person Sheldon. A complete waste of time.
It's clear you don't understand what ad hominem means, as those were all direct comments on what you had posted. So it's you who is being dishonest. The implication in your "question" about rape was clear, and beneath contempt, so spare me your protestations.
"The comment I made that you referred to as a mantra was,"
You're trying to tell me what comment I had in mind? Do take a moment, and see if you can see how absurdly silly that is.
"You ALSO did NOT say "getting pregnant was not always a choice." You said, " how dumb does someone have to be to not realise that it's often not a woman's choice to get pregnant."
Of course I said it, and someone would have to be pretty dumb not to grasp that it is true. Sex is a choice, getting pregnant is not always a choice, it;s not hard to grasp, and thus your rant that "woman who get pregnant have made their choice" is absurdly disingenuous.
" I had already discounted rape as a separate issue."
I don't care, it's not a separate issue, and several people have pointed out why it is salient. You don't get to tell others what they can include in a debate.
"Excluding that, a woman has two choices, have sex or not have sex. There is NO OTHER WAY of getting pregnant naturally Sheldon."
I'm not sure I can dumb this down any more, sex is a choice, but getting pregnant is not necessarily a choice. Just as crossing the road is a choice, but being hit by a speeding driver is not the result one is looking for. So your relentless mantra about "a woman having made her choice" is asinine, as firstly two people made the choice to have sex, so the man is as culpable for any unwanted pregnancy as the woman, and second a woman may choose to have sex, but does not necessarily choose to get pregnant, hence the term "unwanted pregnancy". Again your relentless repetition of this "mantra" in that post sounds slightly sinister to me, like you were enjoying repeating a chauvinistic, or even a misogynistic claim.
"You are a dishonest person Sheldon. A complete waste of time."
You seem to have a habit of sulking and throwing tantrums when people dare to hold views contrary to your own, are you sure a debate forum is where you want to spend your time? I'm happy for others to decide if my posts are generally dishonest, your opinion in the short time you have been posting here has not garnered much traction on anything, and with good reason.
Why not try tackling the issues people raise instead of constantly sulking, and playing the man not the ball? You keep getting pissy then cry that people are insulting you, it's too funny.
Abortion is a complex moral issue, and you have offered no insight into this moral dichotomy, you just want to deliver your intransigent opinions without anyone offering any thoughts contrary to them, as per usual to be honest, and that doesn't work for me sorry, but by all means feel free to never respond to any of my posts again if it bothers you this much that I have my own opinions and they may not agree with yours.
I am not in favour of abortion, indeed would prefer there were no abortions, but would never take away a woman's right to determine what happens with her own body, and especially not to protect religious sensibilities, or the fragile egos of chauvinists and misogynists who can't bear the thought of any woman having the right to control her own body and reproductive cycle.
I'm pro-choice for many reasons:
1. 18 years post Roe vs. Wade crime rate drops - fewer unwanted children reaching out-of-household age, less crime.
2. Overpopulation concerns
3. Women need a choice in particular situations - rape or life-threatening situations come to mind
4. A fetus, though involuntarily, acts without regard to the health of the mother - this alone raises questions of the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus. We can at least understand and contemplate the intentions of the mother, however the fetus has no intention beyond survival at whatever cost.
However, I will always hold that abortion is a mark of shame on humanity. The fact that the crime rate would drop because there would otherwise be so many unwanted children who weren't aborted (if it had remained illegal) is a mark of absolute disgrace for our species. We're not even decent enough to care for our young appropriately, apparently. That abortion has ever been used as pseudo-birth-control, another shameful circumstance. That rape even happens at all to warrant such a procedure need be made available... again shameful. That we are able to reason ourselves out of what should be a natural drive to want to care for our children rather than terminate them before having to even try... it's just not a thing you can point to and say it is "good." It is only a lesser of evils, honestly.
Thanks for this though I'm primarily concerning myself with the position of pro-life atheists. I still thank you for sharing your views.
"1. 18 years post Roe vs. Wade crime rate drops - fewer unwanted children reaching out-of-household age, less crime."
What's the causal relationship between legalizing abortion and a drop in crime rates? Coz correlation doesn't imply causation. Several things happen simultaneously or consecutively that don't have any causal relationship.
"2. Overpopulation concerns"
There are other ways to address overpopulation. One way is abortion. Another is killing all people above a certain age. Another is killing all people of a certain skin color. Why is one preferred while the other ways are considered unethical?
"3. Women need a choice in particular situations - rape or life-threatening situations come to mind"
I won't argue with this as I did used to hold this position and I get it but I still contend there are other ethical ways to deal with these.
"4. A fetus, though involuntarily, acts without regard to the health of the mother - this alone raises questions of the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus. We can at least understand and contemplate the intentions of the mother, however the fetus has no intention beyond survival at whatever cost."
A fetus had no choice in being made as well. In most cases, two people consensually agreed to performing an act that is known to create new life even when contraception is being used. So (again in most cases), the woman and the man did something to cause someone new to need the woman's uterus to live. And biology tells us that the uterus has one specific purpose - to care for a new human being.
1. Meh, you are right hard to properly link the two, but at same time it is pretty easy to link unwanted children = less chance at total positive life outcomes for those unwanted children. If anything from a purely economical standpoint.
2. I see a difference in a mother killing a typically far less than a billion cell human forming then a trillion + cell fully functioning human that is self sufficient. Highly over populated asian countries like china has 30-40 times the number of abortions then the US does and they do have a major population problem.
3. Other Ethical ways?? You want to tell a rape victim they have to carry this persons violation of them within them for 9 months through all the pain, medical risks, costs, sickness and care the baby will need growing up? All without the support of a partner? What are you insane? What if a couple was trying for their own child and the female got raped? They are supposed to put their own plans for their own child on hold for 1 year? You did say your views were pretty far out there. Glad you do not have the power to make these choices for others.
4. How do you feel about day after pill? Is it abortion?
1. Is Roe v Wade the only factor in lowering the crime rates? No other thing happened that caused crime rates to go down, I wonder?
2. It just seems to me that if overpopulation was a reason, why choose to put on the line the right to live of the most helpless members of the human race?
3. Other ethical ways as in preventing pregnancy before it occurs in cases of rape. However, if and when she is already pregnant, it doesn't make the child any less human so the baby should at least be given the right to life. Answer me this though, why should the child of the rapist be allowed to die because of what his/her father did to his/her mother? From the situation being described, the only one deserving of death is the father.
4. I'm not that familiar about the day after pill. I have heard that it's primary action is contraceptive meaning it prevents conception. But I've heard that some pills (I'm not sure if this is the one) while having a contraceptive effect, also has an abortifacient effect as a secondary action as it thins the lining of the uterus to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. This one I'm against as I draw the line at conception, as do most pro-life people.
Even the "regular" birth control pill works in many ways. One of the ways it works it preventing a fertilized egg from implanting; which happens after what religious people typically call conception. So I'm guessing your opposed to that as well. And we already know you think condoms cause AIDS. Don't leave a lot of options.