I keep hearing a lot about how all atheists are pro-abortion. I am an atheist. I have been since age 14. I personally believe in a woman’s right to choose but this is my personal belief. I do not believe that atheism dictates pro-abortion. Are there any atheists out there who are anti-abortion and how do you feel about President Obama’s position on abortion?

Views: 228

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hmm, I can honestly say that I believed in the woman's right to make her own choice years before I considered myself an atheist. I think--though I know this will never, ever happen--we should keep the issue of abortion simple: if you don't think abortion is right, don't have one. If someone else needs or wants to have an abortion, whatever her reasons may be, she should be left to her choice without outside pressure. It's a very personal and very difficult decision to make, and it's nobody's business but the mother's, her partner's, and their physician's. Period.
"As for abortion, NO one is FOR abortion, no one WANTS to have an abortion."

So true. I think I've already mentioned here how much I hate that the mainstream has been conditioned to name the two groups 'pro choice' and 'pro life.'

As if that first group is somehow anti-life.
A while back I put my thought about the abortion issue on a reply to a Yahoo group I’m a member of. A person was leaving the group because they felt it has become all “Liberal.” In other words, there are people out there who don’t think like I do, so that makes them a “liberal.”
Well my response was this:

It has never been any of YOUR business.
It isn't any PREACHERS business.
It's not any man's business.
It is an issue between a women and her doctor.
You have no right to stick your nose in my personal business.
You have no right to stick your nose in anyone’s personal business.
My business in none of your concern.
A women's business is none of your concern.
It has never ever been any concern of yours.
A women's personal business has never every been any concern of yours and never has been.
You don't have any right or rights or interest to stick your nose in my business.
You don't have any right or rights or interest to stick your nose in any women's business.
You don’t have any right or rights or interest to stick your nose in anyone’s business.
No preacher as any right to stick their nose in my personal and private business, nor my family's business.
No preacher has any right or rights to stick their nose in anyone's personal and private business.
Where do these individuals get off thinking it’s their business?
Where do these individuals get the idea it’s their “right” to stick their nose in another persons business?
You have no right to spy on me.
You have no right to spy on any women.
You have no right to spy on your neighbors.
No preacher has any right to spy on me.
No preacher has any right to spy on any women.
No preacher has any right to spy on any man.
No preacher has any right to spy on any child.
No preacher has any right to spy on anyone.
You need to mind your own damn business.
These preachers and bible pounders need to mind their own damn business.
If you got problems with that, then here is what you need to do: PACK YOUR BAGS AND MOVE TO IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA, COMMUNIST NORTH KOREA, COMMUNIST CHINA, OR COMMUNIST CUBA!

In those countries they do not have FREEDOMS, CIVIL LIBERTIES OR RIGHTS!

In IRAN and SAUDI ARABIA you have "MORALITY POLICE" who beat people, treat women as cattle, AND WORSE. And in IRAN they've gone as far as murdering college students by chopping them up into pieces because they had "STRAYED" from the "Good Book" vis-à-vis the Koran.

Well, needless to say, the guy really didn't want to hear this. So, he took his "toys" and left. But this is how I feel about this issue. It's been crammed down the American People's throats since the mid 1980's and has pretty much divided the country.

We've seen doctors killed. Clinics blown up and set on fire. People and their families threatened. Pretty much by one side. And the really scary thing is, they have "GOD" on their side.

And we've seen from history what that can lead too.
Very interesting, my friend. I will have to check that out.
I'm pro-choice for sure. Of course one could also say that I am pro-abortion, I suppose. At this point in my life I would probably beg any carrier of my accidental off-spring to hop on down to the abortion clinic, on me. That being said I believe in personal responsibility and using anti-pregnancy measures. I certainly don't plan to ever have to have someone abort a potential (note: POTENTIAL) child of mine, because I am not typically irresponsible.
The abortion issue is one of the most loaded issues of our time, especially in America. There are two questions that generally come up when it comes to this issue. 1.) Where exactly does life begin at conception or at birth? 2.) Does a woman solely own the right to choose what is not 100% hers in creation but is 100% in her body?

Personally, I think both sides are completely untenable and illogical. If we state that a woman has no dominion over her body then no one has a right of dominion over their own body...which in turn affects what drugs some of us put in our bodies (or would like too :), which then affects do people have the right to self terminate? Euthanasia. Then on the other hand as far as what science tells us takes two peoples to make a fetus in the first place. Question then becomes can she terminate something that is not fully hers? Which while unpopular is a fair question. I mean if I destroy something that she also has a claim to I then have to give her restitution for my decision. But there's also another side that no side likes to mention for fear of reprisal. Which is the issue of men.

It is not fair that a woman can decide for a man if he wants to be a father or not. Simply put. It would be just as unfair if a man were to decide if a woman has to be a mother. If you can agree on this point your following so far. I firmly believe no side man or woman should be deciding something so life altering for another person. And before people come at me with the mantra that he should've used a condom or kept it in his pants, let me kindly remind you she as well could've kept her legs closed! (Now the issue of rape I will address in a separate matter because for purposes of this conversation it is.) When you have two people that want to have a child all is good, when you have two peolpe that don't want children all is good. It's when you have a 1 wants and 1 doesn't that we encounter problems legally and ethically. Is it ethical to make a man a father when he does not wish to be?? Keep in mind if you substitute "make a woman a mother when she does not wish to be"...most would emphatically say NO IT'S NOT RIGHT. And thats my point exactly. The simple fact is women so far as we know have this genetic ability to carry offspring. I don't recall during evolution women choosing this feat, nor men declining it to being with. Your simply born with the ability, no more no less.

A woman can decide if a man is to be a father or not, based on frankly no legal precedents but with how she feels about the situation. If she is happy with him and wants a child...then it's a go. But he might think it's a complete and utter mistake. But what he desires his rights simlpy legally do not matter. If you were to put this question in terms of race or even gender as one group trampling or deciding for another you would be in the smallest of minorities thinking this is correct. In fact we've had a war and massive social movements protesting these kinds of things. And of course the reverse is also horrible...a man wanting a child making a woman have his child against her will is completely out of step with humanity, reason, fairness, justice..and just about every other adjective you can use to describe it. Pro-choice and pro-life persons do a horrible job of leaving men out of the discussion on abortion which I think is sacrificing what is right to what is politically correct and as long as you have this kind of thinking going on this issue will never be able to settle.

A fairer, more ethical, solution would be giving the people the right to "opt-out" within a certain legal time frame from being presented with evidence of a pregnancy from a doctor or hospital in writing. That way both can have some sort of better ability to make a sound decision for themselves AS INDIVIDUALS. If a man is notified his girlfriend or wife is pregnant he should get 45 days to state officially with some state agency that he wishes to "opt-out" of parental responsibility. And if the woman in this case wishes to keep the pregnancy she is 100% liable for all costs associated with such, but if she does choose to have the abortion as well he is the liable for 50% of the costs and this is non-negotiable. On the other hand if a woman is pregnant and she does not wish to keep the pregnancy she should have to as well notify the man in question in 45 days through the state agency of her intentions to terminate. His recourse being he has 45 days to try and convice her in writing only of either taking it to term, or adoption. If at the end of that 45 days she still insists on termination he is given something for the destruction of his genetic material...say $200 bucks. And he is then responsible for 50% of the costs of the procedure. Granted this solution is not perfect but I think it to be far more fair and ethical then the current situation of letting one decide for another.

Now in the case of rape, very simply, if a woman is claiming rape a man has no say. Period. Since the sex itself was not consentual, and as a result neither should the decision to terminate or not as well require the notification of the other party. Granted now you can have a potential problem with women claiming rape in order to maintain the status quo we have now in regards to men having no say on abortion...however, to make this claim at this time is going to require inordinate amounts of evidence of actual rape and be much harder to prosecute. You've been dating 2 years and now you want to claim rape and you just happen to be pregnant...is going to look highly suspicious. Which is why there would have to be some kind of statue of limitations to claim this particular situational rape...say 30 days in order to combat against false claims or rape just to circumvent the law.

Before I get flooded with angry emails in my box understand me when I say I firmly am saying this out of my belief that no one party should decide something for another individual. That is my sole concern with this particular issue. I don't wish to see women deciding for men, nor do I wish to see men deciding for women. I would like both sides to be able to decide for themselves and know the consequences fully of their actions. And yes granted safer sex, or no sex would've been the wiser choice...but we have to deal with effects of the situations after this has happened.

People that want to be families should be, people that don't shouldn't be. Simply.
Interesting take. I’ve been arguing something similar though I’m a secular anti general abortionist who is for active consented euthanasia.

In principle if things are to stay the same with general abortions available I agree 100% with the opt out clause. If a man’s interest is abrogated so goes his responsibility. Equality, fairness and justice demands as such, but I only ever had a very few Pro-Choicer’s admit this.

Where I would depart from you is that you seem to ignore the interest of the offspring. You sound like you think that no one should be forced to bare an unwanted child-say the father opts out- but then you would have to justify overriding the general moral precepts that we are morally responsible for actions that affect another moral party, that we owe compensation for harming or making dependent other moral parties, or that we are morally responsible for the welfare of our offspring until they or someone else can care for them.

We seem quite cluey so you would realise that babies aren’t persons, nor does viability or sentience grant a right to life. So you cannot use any of these to justify caring for born offspring.
My Take is similar to the argument if adult humans give moral rights to persons and born non persons that at the very least to be consistent they should for prenatals as well, on the concept of treating like things alike.

Back to the harm or dependency argument, say a mother decided to store some toxic waste at home for some extra cash for a holiday and that caused her child to need an organ transplant.Yet she was the only donor available. Now I think even if there is no legal precedent to force her to go through a painful and risky operation but I think many would think a moral requirement regardless.
"It is not fair that a woman can decide for a man if he wants to be a father or not."

Ethically, as a broad general statement, this is true.

Realistically however, until men can be the ones to carry the baby to term I don't see any way to give a man legal right to stop an abortion. I can almost see doing something in a case where the couple plans and revolves their lives around having a child, then the woman gets cold feet. But even then, something in the category of financial support - maybe. I can't see any way that someone other than the woman herself gets the final say over her body.

As I've said so often, it's a sticky issue that sucks no matter which way one looks at it and no matter which decision is made. In nature it really does come down to practicality and logistics. If food is scarce, parents will abandon their young in the interest of survival. Here in the realm of higher reasoning, there are so many more factors that don't come into play out in the wild.
What a contentious issue! I wish you had to take a pill to get pregnant, instead of the other way around=)
It could well happen in the future that all males will be required to get a tube plug -which are being tested now- and for a couple or single women to have a child they will need to pass the same sort of requirements that adopting parents ao.

I for one would welcome it!
If men could become pregnant abortion would be a god given right. As a man, I would like to be involved in the decision. If no harm would come to the woman carrying the baby and I want to keep it then I would be responsible for the health care of the mother and child as well as post-partum care for both. I would then accept full responsibility for the child. I would also have sole custody. That being said, I would also let the mother have unlimited access and she would also have input. The decision to abort should not be taken in a cavalier fashion (e.g. birth control). This is serious stuff. The ability to care for the child should be a priority. In a perfect world there would be very few abortions. Birth control, sex education, parental responsibility would not be subject to religious dogma/fanaticism. BTW I am pro-choice.
I re-read my post and I want to be perfectly clear that this was what the man would have to accept as his responsibility. Ultimately, these conditions would only come into play if the woman was willing to go to term. It's her choice. Sorry, if I sounded like a xtian bully. It was pretty heavy handed.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service