Recently, while browsing through the groups, I came across a Pro-life group. It has only one member-it's founder, and that got me to thinking...Are there any pro-life atheists out there? And being that most, if not all arguments I've heard against abortions are usually religious in nature, what would be the atheists argument(s) against abortion?

Personally, I am pro-choice. I fully support every womans right to choose.

Views: 1122

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why are you so fundamentally opposed to child support? And, why do you continually link it as in issue with abortion? Being a single parent is incredibly expensive. I used to spend 140% of my rent each month on childcare, just so I could afford to go to work. My ex is ordered to pay, but of course he doesn't. So I want to know: What on earth is wrong with the idea of my ex helping to provide for the physical needs of a child he chose to have (or chose for me to have, depending on how you look at it)
Angie as I keep saying I just want the same principles applied each way.

Again if you want to say it a woman's body and her choice-ignoring other relevant moral issues-fine, but the consequence of such is that because you have disregarded the interests of the other casually responsible individual, you then cannot place any moral responsibility for any result due to the body of the woman.

Crucially it isn’t his body and by your own justification people are soley responsible for things concerning their own body.

This happens in situations outside of pregnancy, where if you have two parties with equal interests but then disregard or cancel one parties interests you can no longer hold that party responsible for things pertaining to that situation.

But on the flip side if men in general retain their interest in the event -as an equal causal parent– the that ensures the principle of interests and responsibility being maintained, and whether any individual man wants to contribute or not is irrelevant, all must pay child support due to causal responsibility.
Again I stress the only fair way to ensure causal and moral responsibility for an action that took 2 parties is to ensure BOTH are made responsible regardless of any individual differences as to the impact.

If you think it through, this is applied in instances outside of pregnancy, so if you want argue otherwise you are arguing against a foundational moral precept of moral equality.

I’m sure someone will object that it’s the woman who has to bare the child and that this can be a real burden and that a man ONLY has to be financially responsible. But given for some men who try to do the right thing, but find the financial burden overwhelming, driving some to suicide, then the burden to men can be as destructive to a man as a woman.

If you the say well too bad for him he should have kept his dick in his pants, logical equality entails that if she didn’t want the health burden of pregnancy she should have kept her legs closed.

BTW since in the current situation the state and society have abrogated a man’s interests instead of the woman going without, the state necessarily should pick up the bill, as compensation to the man for overriding his interests. So I'n not saying no child support, just no child support from the man, he is given no interest therefore no responsibility in the matter.
But your type then want to say regarding child support, that he should watch where he puts his dick.

Isn't that controlling his sexuality?

Plus since it isn't his body and he has no interest or say in it why should he care?

When you think of it abortion rights actually undermines the rationale for men paying child support, you cannot have it both ways.
& i can stop and not type so fast. :)Sessions
I didn't find out I was high-risk pregnant with my son till I was 19 weeks into pregnancy. Sometimes it's not irresponsibility around the decision to abort, but in my case it wasn't legally/practically an option since I live several states away from the nearest late-term abortion doctor. I also wanted my son - an unexpected blessing, but I carry defective genes and don't want to pass disease onto a child, born dying of cystic fibrosis. If we had learned he had CF while I was pregnant, I would have probably had an abortion, or at least seriously tried to get one.
I wonder Angie in general if you inflict a health burden on yourself would you expect that reason enough justify killing another human to escape the consequences of that action?

Or interestingly David Boonin raises this in his toxic waste analogy. Say Greg your flate mate decides to make some money by storing toxic waste in your basment while you are both away. You come back from your holidays early and get leukaemia and need a blood marrow donor. Now as luck or bad luck has it, Greg is the only match for your type.

Now because your case sets a precedent and with popular support the governemnt is prepared to change the law to entail that those that put another in bodily dependency through harms caused by them, must give whatever support is needed to keep the other person alive. Even if in this case it means he has to donate bone marrow.

They ask your opinion do you want to live and ask the person who made you dependent be forced to give his marrow or do you just die and send him to jail?

& before you blow if off as an artificial analogy the principles underlying it as just the same.

The reason I don't understand why this analogy is relevant to your case is that it appears to be an excellent case for men paying child support, something you argue against.

Or didn't you see that?

Here it is spelled out:

Flatmate puts sperm (toxic waste) in woman's womb (house) without any protection provided for the woman. He then leaves the house. (Goes on holiday). One sperm (toxic waste) turns into a fetus which puts an intolerable strain on the woman's kidneys which fail (leukaemia). She needs an abortion (get rid of the toxic waste in her house) and at least one new kidney (bone marrow) if she is to live. Her kidney failure (leukemia) causes her to lose her job so that she loses her health insurance. She cannot pay for the life-saving abortion, nor can she pay for the surgery required for the almost equally life-saving new kidney. Either way she will die or be so ill that the developing life form will die, too. Unfortunately the only matching kidney belongs to the flatmate who still holds a job and continuing medical insurance.

The flatmate has clearly caused harm to the woman and to her unwanted but developing life-form. The flatmate decides that he will donate one of his kidneys on condition that the woman allow the developing life form to continue to term whereupon she is invited to sign it over to him to take care of (child support). Either it does not concern him that he will have to give up his job and live on welfare in order to do this or he intends to continue with his career and pay someone else to look after this child.

The woman's doctors argue that a kidney is insufficient to prevent this woman from dying or from possibly surviving only to live a significantly shortened life with a seriously impairing disability. Besides, the woman can no longer work and therefore has no health insurance to pay for the necessary artificial kidney machine. (This is the case in the USA. Live with it.)

The woman is forced to accept the kidney and the cost of the surgery required to replace it in spite of the risks to her life. As medically predicted, the developing fetus causes this, too, to fail. The medical profession is unable to save her and she dies. The fetus is close to viable but insufficiently developed. It is poisoned by the host's kidney failure and also dies.

The flatmate is left with one kidney and feels smug that he used the other one to try to save two lives. His self-esteem will not allow him to admit that he tortured and killed one person and allowed a developing life form to develop to the point where it could feel and suffer when it, too, died. The flatmate's behavior was appallingly unethical because he only took his emotional needs into account.

The flatmate's position appears to equate with yours, Simon. I have no moral respect for that position.
Sorry no, the only way to spin this would be to say this equates to a rape situation and in itself raises an interesting point.

Does a rapist -if the woman has the baby-even if he goes to goal have to in some way pay child support or be made to pay the money owed when he gets out?

Personally I think he should.

Back to the anaology.
In normal pregnancy the anaology would be she was in on it, but turned out to be the only one who got the cancer.

Thanks that illustrates my case even more.

Should she now not go to goal or be fined because of the negative consequences associated with the crime?
AAron as a secular anti-abortionist I find the US religious Pro-Lifers quite hypocritical on the manner and have been attacked by them for doing so.

Not only should they be providing support for single mothers, poor families and universal healthcare but instead of spending trillions on weapons the US alone could alleviate all poverty and stop deaths from all preventable causesaround the world and have money left over.

I ask why should a ethical person care for a non person infant in Africa if you are willing to allow the killing of prenatal non persons?

You cannot appeal to over population as one could use the same rationale to say it would probably be cheaper to euthanasie this infants in an overpopulated world than support them.
Aaron, good non-religious counseling prior to, and after, an abortion is advisable and sometimes a condition which abortion providers require.

The situation is not as simple as you imply, however.

While it might seem a fair deal to you to ask a woman to continue a pregancy so that you can look after the result, you would have the less dangerous deal there.

As many women and anyone who has worked in the health field knows, pregnancy is not a benign condition. Unless you are a healthy female and in your twenties, it is just not something that has no deleterious physical consequences for the mother or the resultant child, even with good medical supervision.

I do not think you have any idea what these medical risks and consequences are.

If you want a full list of these, then search for the horrifying list posted by an early contributor to this forum. This is what the pro-forced pregancy groups don't tell you. In fact, this society virtually ignores it. We practice an insidious game of "let's pretend" when it comes to pregnancy and birth. The media is quick to talk about the good things and the joys of parenthood but extremely reluctant to publish anything which punctures this unrealisitic bubble. Even pre-parenthood classes don't give out all the facts and most parents are very poorly equipped to deal with any deviation from the societal myth of uneventful and blissful pregancy, birth and child caring. One of the results is that parents of premature babies are ill-prepared, and usually horrified, at how their child looks at birth. Society demands that expectant and new parents to be blissfully happy about the experiences. This is often so far from reality that it sets up a denial process in those whose experience does not match this mythology. The usual hospital benediction to "Go home and enjoy your child" can be extremely cruel in many circumstances.

At the very least (and quite a minor problem among the rest), the woman will experience permanent changes in her weight and her ability to keep herself fit and trim. Other common problem, which are not so benign, are permanent back problems caused by late term weight, bladder prolapse, uterine prolapse, severe piles, temporary or permanent kidney damage and a significant increase in the risk of developing Diabetes Type 2 later in life. If the woman really wants a child she will willingly put up with such risks, sometimes even if they are likely to kill her within a few years.

You, on the other hand, are not at risk of developing any of these conditions. Why, then, do you consider it reasonable to expect the bearer of your potential child to be required to put up with these things, simply for your convenience or to make you feel emotionally better? This is not an equally sided deal, is it?

The only fair deal, in such circumstances, is if medical science were able to transplant the growing fetus from your impregnated partner into your body. Then you could take all the medical risks and indignities, and experience all the pain and discomfit yourself. As a guy, you would undoubtedly run a far greater risk of organ failure and death but, if you really wanted the child, I am sure that you would be prepared to bear these risks and their consequences. Yes? Or would you find excuses to decline the "gift" of incubating a growing life form at the expense or your life and health? I challenge you to think about it for the next ten minutes. Imagine yourself in the pregnant woman's body and try to imagine how she would think, given these implications.
Yet Rosemary women are prepared to go through it for a wanted child, some saying it is the most enriching thing they have ever done and if I'm not mistaken in the western world death from pregnancy is quite low. It seems when a child is wanted one is quite prepared to go through risks.

Also as in my other post since we do in fact have men in depression and committing suicide over child support, saying only the woman can suffer is fallacious.

BTW Rosemary do you think it justifiable that a woman preference her children to the extent she can lavish love and resources on one but neglect another for some arbitrary preference?




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service