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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@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.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
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
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.
NH, you wrote, “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.”
Do you actually think these sentence are reasonable and logical additions to a debate?
"People with Down's and advocates for the disabled are rightly horrified by this shift."
They know it's not going to affect them right?
I read an article a while ago where research showed sperm banks in most developed countries were destroying sperm donated by men with ginger hair as there was effectively no demand for it. I suppose this amounts to ethnic cleansing?
I do wonder sometimes if people aren't looking for things to be outraged about.
I am horrified by rap music, it offends my musical sensibilities, who should I send my objections to? Suffering like this should not go unchallenged.
That seems a bit callous. I can totally see the point of view that there is a problem with parents finding out that their fetus has Down's syndrome and then aborting for that reason. This encourages the view that Down's syndrome is undesirable, which is pretty insulting to anyone with Downs. Similarly, if there was a way to test a fetus to see whether it was gay, I'd get pretty pissed if it suddenly became the norm to abort all gay babies. The reasoning behind these abortions would be different, but they would both encourage the idea that these particular afflictions need to be erased from the human race.
It's the right of a woman to decide this, I'm sorry if people are offended but finding something offensive doesn't grant you any rights. For the record I don't read this as a comment on the worth of any living person, rather it is a decisions a woman makes about whether she brings someone into the world, and whether they might suffer unnecessarily. . I don't think people who are born handicapped or down syndrome are undesirable, but it would be naive to imagine anyone desires their child to be born with a disability. What if the condition were a degenerative illness that involved a very shortened life and intense suffering?
I realise these are sensitive issues, but to arrive at an almost impossible decision is the right of the woman, and for me cannot be otherwise. The caveat would be to prevent as far as is possible any unnecessary suffering. For the record there are many categories of abortion that i would find objectionable. However what one person finds objectionable is not necessarily a good benchmark for what is moral.
"The reasoning behind these abortions would be different, but they would both encourage the idea that these particular afflictions need to be erased from the human race."
I can see where this is heading, and realise the idea of eugenics is distasteful to put it mildly, but are you saying that it is a bad thing if all babies were born healthy, and there be less suffering?
Most atheists here accept that there are no moral absolutes, so it should follow that difficult moral dichotomies are never going to have an answer that everyone will agree on, or even find palatable. FWIW I find the idea as distasteful as you, I'm just not sure that taking away a woman's right to determine what happens to her body is a reasonable answer, and while I am not blind to the sensibilities of the disabled, it's not going to cause them suffering if a pregnancy is terminated. We could all claim emotional trauma when we are offended, I'm not sure where that gets us.
Anyway I'll happily apologise if anything I have said has caused offence to anyone, it was only my intention to properly and critically examine the arguments around abortion. I think such an important issue deserves that we give it at least a thorough and honest debate, even if we find some of the ideas objectionable.
Sheldon: "However what one person finds objectionable is not necessarily a good benchmark for what is moral."
Another one added to my favorite AR quotes HTML page.
rmfr
My apologies for resurrecting a sort-of-dead thread. I just saw this response.
For the record, I think women should be able to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. My response was not an objection to abortion, but to what seemed a lack of compassion from you.
You seem to think that people are just whining and "looking for things to be outraged about." You also said "while I am not blind to the sensibilities of the disabled, it's not going to cause them suffering if a pregnancy is terminated". This is absurd. The way that society as a whole views a group of people, whether they're disabled, queer, immigrants or black, absolutely affects the whole and the individuals. You could never say that sterilizing some black women won't affect the other black women. Imagine the way that would affect all black women's sense of being valued by society. Creating a culture where it is accepted as desirable to terminate fetuses that could potentially be disabled creates a culture where people with disabilities could be viewed as less important for society, less human, not worth caring for, or simply a nuisance. There are absolutely arguments for why terminating these pregnancies could be an act of mercy or give some other benefit, but it seems cruel to suggest that people with disabilities would be overly sensitive in finding that an insulting or painful prospect.
I'm not making a moral statement about abortion. I'm just asking that you reconsider your degree of compassion.
"Creating a culture where it is accepted as desirable to terminate fetuses that could potentially be disabled creates a culture where people with disabilities could be viewed as less important for society, less human, not worth caring for, or simply a nuisance."
I disagree, and you need to evidence this claim with something more than bare assertion. I have suffered from chronic back pain all my adult life, and wouldn't be the least offended or feel devalued in any way if it were possible to detect the potential for suffering of this sort and people used this as a factor in deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. I also don't see what possible relevance skin colour, or being gay has to this point, as neither represents a disability that might cause suffering, the comparison seems more than a little disingenuous to me.
"My response was not an objection to abortion, but to what seemed a lack of compassion from you."
Well that's very disingenuous, you seem to be implying I lack compassion for the disabled just because I don't share a particular viewpoint on abortion, and again I disagree, as I don't see that considering terminating a pregnancy because the foetus indicates it may be born with a disability that might cause suffering is a statement about how I value those who are already alive and happen to be disabled. This is an argument religious people use inn abortion debates all the time, and it simply isn't true.
"You also said "while I am not blind to the sensibilities of the disabled, it's not going to cause them suffering if a pregnancy is terminated". This is absurd."
I don't agree, but you don't explain why you think this will cause suffering? As I said, the fact someone is offended by something tells us nothing about it's morality.
"Creating a culture where it is accepted as desirable to terminate fetuses that could potentially be disabled creates a culture where people with disabilities could be viewed as less important for society, less human, not worth caring for, or simply a nuisance. "
Firstly that is extremely dishonest as I never remotely claimed this was "desirable", your arguments are resorting increasingly to hyperbole. Secondly, and as I said above, I should like to see you evidence this claim? You are rattling opinions off as if they are fact without bothering to offer any evidence for them.
"There are absolutely arguments for why terminating these pregnancies could be an act of mercy or give some other benefit, but it seems cruel to **suggest that people with disabilities would be overly sensitive in finding that an insulting or painful prospect."**
I never claimed this, it was you who asserted they would be "rightly offended", not me. I have not generalised about disabled people at all, and I registered surprise at this notion as I don't see the decision to terminate a pregnancy to avoid suffering through a disease or disability as a comment on those who happen to have been born disabled. I have suffered my entire adult life from chronic back pain,if it were possible to diagnose such a potential condition in the womb and this was a factor in seeking termination I wouldn't be the least offended, not would I think this decision was a comment on my "value" as a person.
"I'm not making a moral statement about abortion. I'm just asking that you reconsider your degree of compassion."
Fine, if anyone is offended, as they have every right to be, then I sympathise, but the fact remains I see nothing wrong with someone basing their decision to terminate a pregnancy on avoiding potential suffering, though I am not as you rather dishonestly suggested claiming this is desirable action, as in every other case this is a personal choice a woman may make, and my own view fwiw is that a woman must have the right to determine what happens to her own body, and as is always the case my morals are shaped by the desire to reduce or avoid where possible any unnecessary suffering.
Edited for clarity and typographical errors.
We are in agreement that a woman absolutely has choice over her body. I was in no way intending to accuse you of having no compassion for people with disabilities, but rather trying to point out a perspective that you may not be seeing. I don't have research to point to, but have read many articles, blogs and videos made my people who are disabled who speak about the difficulty of living in a world where their disabilities are viewed as things that need to be eradicated from the world.
"I also don't see what possible relevance skin colour, or being gay has to this point, as neither represents a disability that might cause suffering, the comparison seems more than a little disingenuous to me."
I am a queer person who has experienced the impact of people believing that others like me should be eradicated, that I bring suffering to the world, and that the world would be better off without me. This is the exact type of suffering that I'm pointing to in the disabled community. Though the idea of terminating a pregnancy to prevent the suffering of a potential baby can come from a place of compassion, it can, and has, had the same type of impact on some in the disabled community.
"I don't agree, but you don't explain why you think this will cause suffering?"
I explained it in the next sentence that you quote, but I guess I overlooked the need to explain how being viewed that way by the rest of society can be emotionally damaging.
"Firstly that is extremely dishonest as I never remotely claimed this was "desirable", your arguments are resorting increasingly to hyperbole."
Woah, dude. I never said you claimed that. I wasn't trying to be inflammatory. I honestly am not sure of a better way to say it. Maybe I could have said "Creating a culture where it is accepted as preferable to terminate fetuses that could potentially be disabled instead of keeping them"? Or even, "Creating a culture where it is viewed as more compassionate to terminate fetuses..."?
"I have suffered my entire adult life from chronic back pain,if it were possible to diagnose such a potential condition in the womb and this was a factor in seeking termination I wouldn't be the least offended, not would I think this decision was a comment on my "value" as a person."
I'm sorry to hear about your pain, and that's great that you wouldn't be offended. I have heard opinions from many disabled people who feel otherwise. Both views are totally valid. I was just wanting to point out the validity of the fear/pain/anger/whatever that is experienced by some people with disabilities and their advocates.
Please let me know if you'd like me to put together a list of blogs, articles and videos that show people with disabilities talking about these issues. I wasn't meaning to attack you. I know that you care about the suffering of people with disabilities and thought you might actually be interested in seeing another perspective.
@Stone Jade
To me you bring up a good point. While not fully related to abortion, selective breeding is an interesting issue. While to me the abortion debate is simple, the selective breeding issue is one I am not sure how I feel, I cannot easily pick a side, a solid irrefutable logical answer.
I think it is pretty easy to agree on one extreme side, to have people aborting their kid because it had brunette hair instead of blonde, (if they could even detect that without a full genetic workup.) Would be abominable and should never be the sole reason for a late 3rd term abortion.
But on the other extreme side a fetus that is detected with something like a major heart defect that is not within the realm of medical to fix and the baby will have a short painful life when the heart inevitably fails within a few months of birth falls on the other side.
Some genetic selective breeding has almost always occurred and we have normalized it so that is generally considered okay, and others we all almost fully agree as not okay. But unlike the abortion issue where is the middle line? I am open to other peoples thoughts on this obviously, and I have not thought on it as much as the abortion debate.
I stated earlier in this thread I do not plan of having kids, but if I changed my mind, I would do a full genetic panel on myself, and would encourage my wife to do the same, and may even consider in vitro to dodge a few highly undesirable traits if the genetic panel suggests higher then normal possibility. Is that wrong? I don't think it is, but I do understand some of the real issues of selective breeding, especially the kind that is only available to those that can afford it. Again inequality rears its ugly head here.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮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.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Not all atheists are liberals.
https://theatheistconservative.com/2019/01/28/blood-lust-of-the-democrats/
"Not all atheists are liberals."
Not all stamp collector like cheese.
In other news, neither Stalin nor Pol Pot were liberals. I'm not sure what this tells us?
Did you hear about the 27 year-old dummy in New Delhi, India, who wants to sue his parents for having him without his consent? He claims that since they never asked his permission to be born that they kidnapped him and forced him into a life of slavery because he has to work for a living.
"27-year-old man plans to sue his parents for having him without his consent: ‘They had me for their joy and their pleasure’"
https://www.theblaze.com/news/man-plans-to-sue-parents-for-having-him-wi...
Did you hear about the woman who had 15 abortions in 17 years? She was 'addicted' to them.
https://www.independent.ie/woman/i-had-15-abortions-it-was-my-terrible-a...
In the past countless women in our ancestral lines were raped and had children as a result of that, which is why we exist today.
So the hypothetical question is:
Based on you own particular life and the family that you have if you could go back in time as far as you wanted to (say 200 years or 9,500 years) would you abort the rape baby that led to your very own existence today? And as you regress in time you get to see how each of your direct ancestors' lives turned out from the rape baby that you want to abort.
That’s just disgusting.
@Diotrephes
We can't go back in time, so that hypothetical is not really a valid hypothetical.
Also I would like to think as we humans continue to evolve and strive to be better and greater, we can strive to improve from how we were 200-9500 years ago. We humans have accomplished a lot in the last 200 years or so, including the reduction of rape % to population, something to celebrate.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮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.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
LogicFTW,
While we can't go back in time we all owe our existence to multiple rape victims and rapists in our own individual ancestral lines. When women today have an abortion, for whatever reason, some of them are preventing the existence of a person in the future who may be just like you or them. So the actions that they take today is just like us going back in time and ending our own lives and everyone else's in a direct line between them and us.
I think that would make a good movie. The point is that what we consider to be good or bad depends on where we are on the timeline. We could suffer now but a direct decendant could have a fantastic great life 500 years from now. That is beyond our knowing but should it be beyond our concern? It doesn't affect me because I am the end of my line. It's like someone from the future came back in time and aborted me, thereby ending everyone in a direct line between me and him/her in the future.
"We could suffer now but a direct decendant could have a fantastic great life 500 years from now. That is beyond our knowing but should it be beyond our concern?"
They might just as easily have a short life filled with suffering, would we be equally culpable for that? Not knowing is not knowing, you seem to be using not knowing to make an assertion that favours a particular viewpoint. Come to that, to paraphrase the late author and polemicist Christopher Hitchens, I try to live an ethical life of course, but it surely isn't wasted on me that every cent spent on anything but absolute necessity has to a certain extent got blood on it. Who could disagree with that? I don't know about you, and I have given both time and money to charitable causes in my life, but I spend on things all the time for me and those I love that are not absolute necessity, and I am not by any means a frivolous or profligate person, quite the opposite, and how many lives are lost for want of that money?
It's a dangerous game to create ethical scenarios and assume they are valid, and descendant has an s in it.
Sheldon,
"It's a dangerous game to create ethical scenarios and assume they are valid, and descendant has an s in it."
Thanks for being such a diligent reader of my every word.
https://www.names.org/name-poster/Decendant-t54f663977828ad64090b54bb710...
This topic got me to thinking about the scene in the book of Job, chapter 3, where Job goes on a 26 verse rant cursing the day he was born ~~ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+3&version=ERV. It is a beautifully written piece that asks all of the hard questions that people have sought answers to for thousands of years. It is well worth the read. Take a couple of minutes.
So when you read such a piece you can let your imagination flow and imagine one of your descendants on another timeline experiencing pain and anguish like Job and going back in time to prevent you from having a child that will lead to his birth. And how that is done is what makes the movie interesting. Maybe you have a fatal car accident or get shot to death by a robber or just have an abortion. But the person has gained his wish and is never born on another timeline.
@Diotrephes
I agree, I think every single one of us if we could accurately trace back far enough will have some some multiple of "x" generations back grandparent that was born as a result of rape. Only have to go back 32 generations to be in the billions of "parents."
Worrying about the future existence of a particular person that does not yet exist is a waste of time. (what if this sperm reached the egg instead of this one?) What if my next kid grows up to be the next hitler? What if the next kid I have grows up to cure cancer? Dealing in what if's is no way to operate way way to many factors involved to make any sort of accurate prediction.
I do not plan to have kids. I have untold 1000's of grandparents that led to me, (and billions of other people!) but it all stops here for me, because I choose not to have kids. But the human race will likely live on, whether I personally have kids or not. Logically to me it is better to not have kids then to have kids.
Lots of movies made about time traveling, it is a rather fun fictional idea that opens up lots of interesting story telling options. But like most any fictional movie, gotta turn the brain off and just ignore the logic flaws, the inconsistencies etc.
I love the back to the future movie series, but at the same time the damage that movie series has done to everyone's understanding of "time." Is a bit of a problem, fortunately, most of us do not really need to have a full understanding of what "time" is, but when we start talking hypotheticals, the hypothetical should have some shot of being reality for it to be worth talking about.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮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.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I don't believe I have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, so no I would not insist any woman have an abortion, and of course I would not insist a woman who was raped right now had an abortion, that would be her choice. Do you think a woman who has suffered the physical and emotional trauma of rape should be *FORCED to carry the foetus to term and go through childbirth?
Last thing I shall say about this topic.
I am both pro-life and pro-choice. I still cannot figure out how an educated engineer cannot figure out how a person can be both. I know why, I just cannot figure how this educated engineer cannot put aside his religious bigotry and actually figure it out.
As far as I am concerned, anyone of a religious bent are the going to their own invented Hell because of their obsolete, immoral, savage, barbaric, offensive, repugnant beliefs system.
I do not agree with abortion being used as a form of birth control. There are too many ways for a woman to get FREE birth control pills, at least in America. Beyond that, it is the woman's choice.
Don't like my beliefs. Well I can tell you where to stick your head in an explicit manner if you wish.
rmfr
I respect the right of women to have full autonomy of their bodies and i agree for most cases like rapes or complications for both the woman and the foetus.
I think that current laws are a good compromise, if not perfect. That said, gut feelings being what they are, it sometimes strikes as wrong, but there are no religious views being attached to.
Thanks Talyyn. I forgot to add about rape. I believe it is actually the irrefutable right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy occurring due to rape. Thanks for pointing out that I missed that one.
rmfr
Rape is a can of worms for both the woman and the would-be child, it is likely that the mother will have difficulties to love her offspring and how can you tell a child that he is the result of such a despicable act?
I add one thing unrelated... Remember the poster who said that we were a community of narrow-minded bogots who all think the same things?
@Talyyn
Yep if that person actually read the boards for a bit, that person would quickly realize we have all kinds of different views on all manner of subjects. Again back to the only definition of atheist is: not theist. That is the only thing that truly unites us. The literal definition of the word atheist.
To answer the OP's question, I am not a pro-life atheist.
To ramble on a bit if I may...
On a personal level, I say that it's only the business of the pregnant woman, the man who impregnated her, and their doctor). It isn't my place or the government's place to say what that couple may or may not do.
I also believe that the final decision should rest with the woman. She is the one whose body is being used to house and sustain this fetus/unborn child, whichever terminology you prefer, and therefore she has the most at stake in a pregnancy.
On a political level, I believe that abortions up to conception should be allowed. Why? Because if someone needs a blood transfusion or an organ donation or a bone marrow transplant, what have you, and I am a viable donor, I get to say no. And pre-born children, fetuses, what have you, don't get special rights. If you think it's a human life, treat it like a human life and tell it that it cannot use someone else's body to sustain its life without their consent.
As I'm a man, feel free to take all of the above with a grain of salt. It's ridiculous for men to decide issues of women's reproductive rights. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences, let them decide.
Pages