SLD
Contributor
I'm just curious if an atheist can be "pro life" and what the arguments for that position are. I only hear religious arguments.
SLD
SLD
-
Features
Any atheists against abortion rights?
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
I don't see anything which would prevent atheists from being against abortion. The pro-life argument basically boils down to the notion that fetuses are living human beings and killing them isn't essentially different from killing any other human being. That position doesn't inherently have a religious basis.
One generally hears a more religious point of view on that, especially with early term abortions, because the whole "that's just a hunk of meat before the brain stem develops" argument doesn't mesh with the concept of a soul being part of the thing. There's really nothing which prevents someone from coming up with a non-religious rationale to get to the same basic end point, though.
One generally hears a more religious point of view on that, especially with early term abortions, because the whole "that's just a hunk of meat before the brain stem develops" argument doesn't mesh with the concept of a soul being part of the thing. There's really nothing which prevents someone from coming up with a non-religious rationale to get to the same basic end point, though.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I'm very pro choice. However, I'm starting to wonder if it's a battle that is worthy to fight for. How many elections are we going to lose over this issue? Let's face it, a large majority of white women voted Trump. So, they don't give a damn about abortion rights. I'm starting to wonder why I should. It's another issue where the majority of people are prochoice, however, they aren't as committed for fighting for the right as the other side.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,514
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Sure. Abortion obstructs normal demographic growth; motherhood is the meaning of women's lives; child-rearing is a distinguished role and noble mission; the superwoman of the future will be active in the workforce, politically involved, raising many children, taking care of the household chores, and succeeding in doing all these at the same time; in short, the same reason as for banning contraception, fining childless people, and glorifying women who go above and beyond the call of duty and have more than the required number of children: it's going to take lots of people to build Romanian socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Romania
I lean this way as well. Either the unborn are our equals or they are not. If they are not then abortion is no big deal, there should be no consideration for the "child" if a pregnant women gets murdered along with the unborn, etc. If they are our equal, then killing killing them is homicide. The question then is if it is culpable homicide (murder) or if there is a defence to it. Rape is no such defence (being violated doesn't give you reason to kill an innocent). Other defences based on a woman being forced to provide her body so the unborn can survive are arguable.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Yea, and this is another great example why these decsions should be made by the families and their doctors not politicians who don't know the issue! The issue is far more complex that what you understand. I have a friend who was pregnant with triplets. One of the babies died at the 8.5 month period. The only way the other two healthy babies could be delivered was if the doctor performed a partial birth abortion on the dead fetus. If she had been forced to carry all three to term against her will, the other two babies could have died from infection. The mom was at risk as well.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/the-inconvenient-truths-f_b_210821.html
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Exactly my feeling, as well. Late term abortions are never decisions made lightly. They almost always involve life and death situations or extreme deformities in the fetus. The argument against them is primarily emotional--that women and doctors are somehow choosing to "murder" babies. Abortions are one of the most difficult decisions that pregnant women face, and the government should not be interfering because of some misguided perception that politicians have of how women are managing their pregnancies.
So we are talking about a corpse, not a living being. Why would abortion be an issue here?
Of corse infants is not near being our equals.
But there are a lot of ogher issues involved.
But i am ok with eutanasia at any age if it is well motivated.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 8,134
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
For me the question is, at what point is the state justified in essentially forcing a woman to give birth?
When does the fetus become something that must be brought to term despite the wishes/rights of the woman?
According to some religious folks, that moment is conception. Once sperm meets egg and the combination becomes a zygote, the woman whose womb is carrying that cluster of cells loses control over what happens. Some people would put "viability" as the marker. The moment when a developing fetus could survive outside the womb if delivered prematurely. But that is a moving target thanks to advancing medical science.
I tend to come down on the side of the woman's rights. I don't think there's a clearly defined moment where the "unborn" child's rights trump the right of the woman to decide whether or not she'll reproduce.
When does the fetus become something that must be brought to term despite the wishes/rights of the woman?
According to some religious folks, that moment is conception. Once sperm meets egg and the combination becomes a zygote, the woman whose womb is carrying that cluster of cells loses control over what happens. Some people would put "viability" as the marker. The moment when a developing fetus could survive outside the womb if delivered prematurely. But that is a moving target thanks to advancing medical science.
I tend to come down on the side of the woman's rights. I don't think there's a clearly defined moment where the "unborn" child's rights trump the right of the woman to decide whether or not she'll reproduce.
When we are talking about just after conception, I don't see any secular argument against abortion.
When we are talking seconds from birth, we are asking if homicide is justified by a woman's right to choose. That can be a good secular debate. She is controlling her own body yes. But she is also actively killing an innocent person. Both need to be paid attention to and weighed in the analysis.
When we are talking seconds from birth, we are asking if homicide is justified by a woman's right to choose. That can be a good secular debate. She is controlling her own body yes. But she is also actively killing an innocent person. Both need to be paid attention to and weighed in the analysis.
Imagine you and a stranger are knocked out and wake up in some crazy person's lab. He has cut out some organs from one of you and hooked you up together so one is providing the other with life support.
The police have rescued you and the doctors are preparing for an operation to separate you and put the one of you who needs it on other life support. It will take x amount of time to ready that operation.
The moment you realize who is supporting who, is moral and should it be legal for the one being used to stab to death the one who is using?
That's the best analogy I can think of.
The police have rescued you and the doctors are preparing for an operation to separate you and put the one of you who needs it on other life support. It will take x amount of time to ready that operation.
The moment you realize who is supporting who, is moral and should it be legal for the one being used to stab to death the one who is using?
That's the best analogy I can think of.
A newborn is not a person
Really? Grown up persons with a history, probably with families and others depending on them, and having been subject to a hideous crime... that is the best analogy you can think of?
So many wrongs in so little space..
But that's making an assumption that not everybody woukd necessarily make, namely that the sum total of one's life makes that life more valuable. If someone believes that human beings have an inherent worth simply as a result of being human, then there's nothing which necessarily stops our gaining that worth at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg other than a line which is arbitrary by definition.
There isn't anything religious about the notion that human lives have worth and that thou shall not kill. One does not need to have a religious basis to place the line at which one becomes "human" earlier than others do.
Maybe not religious but clearly dogmatic and a dogm that really isnt that useful as you think.
It is much better to actually think about why you shouldnt kill since there are situations where it is preferable.
Jyst saying ”never kill” is a easy way out that will result in a lot of psin and misery.
To be accurate, hooboy!!! thought that contraception should be banned because he felt childbearing was a necessary part of maturity and he felt that contraception was preventing kids from growing up and getting thrust into adulthood properly. In short, kids show graduate highschool get preganant as quickly as possible and take their place as adults (parents) so they could mature.
Pro-“Life” because it was an educational opportunity that was damaging to miss.
ronburgundy
Contributor
There is no rational basis for distinguishing between late-term and day 1 abortions. Both have the biology that if not prevented from completing its natural course will develop human self-awareness and thinking and become individual persons. I have far more respect for people who are against non-life-saving abortions at any stage than those who decide that some moment when an arbitrarily sufficient number of stem cells have formed into the rudiments of particular structures.
The rational argument for abortion is that, by definition, the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body. Rights belong only to person's. Nothing and no one has rights that impact another person's body. So it follows that a living thing cannot be granted full rights over itself, if it is within another's body. The mother was there first as an individual person, so she retain's her rights. The fetus acquires rights only the moment it is physically an individual person.
The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.
The rational argument for abortion is that, by definition, the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body. Rights belong only to person's. Nothing and no one has rights that impact another person's body. So it follows that a living thing cannot be granted full rights over itself, if it is within another's body. The mother was there first as an individual person, so she retain's her rights. The fetus acquires rights only the moment it is physically an individual person.
The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.