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: 1102

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was idd Jim, and your answer is more or less what I expected; let's say I was a bit confused by your "As a legal, technical, matter, I'm pro-choice. As a personal, moral, matter, I'm pro-life." which would sound great coming from Sarah Palin, whose (public) point of view we know; in your case I wondered, hence the rather blunt question; however, your answer seems a perfect example of pro-choice: you would make the laws permitting abortion (the legal level), and you would use them to have an abortion under circumstances that would be morally or ethically acceptable to you: isn't that being pro-choice (on the personal level)?
That was a very thoughtful response, Jim. Few people are able to separate their personal codes of ethics from societal needs. That you can says a lot about your ability to incorporate your knowledge of your particular perspective. One thing, though. The concept of "irresponsible" abortion is most definitely a product of the time and the place you live in. In many places, and at many times, abortion was unabashedly considered a legitimate form of birth control. In fact, infanticide was too. If we're going to examine and determine our society's moral stance on this issue - we need to define what "rights" our members have and when they acquire those rights. We'd need to decide whether the individual's or the society's needs take precedence. My point here is that, here, in this forum, we should be able to question EVERYTHING.
Funk Q wrote: If two people have sex and wan the results erased with curette that is a totally selfish act.

The problem with that stance is that it is the woman, not the guy, who gets to pay the price. Double standard here.
How do you mean? As in painless? I don't think fetuses can feel pain until the seventh month, when it's illegal anyway.

A further point which is not well known outside medical circles: Even after the brain develops enough to process pain messages it takes time before it stores that negative experience as a memory. The brain cells with allow memories to be stored are developed very late and are incomplete at birth - which has survival value because of the pain and trauma involved in the birthing process.
I'm pro-choice but I'm very conflicted about abortion especially after the first trimester. I would never presume to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term (which is what anti-abortionists want) though I'd try to talk them out of an abortion and have them consider putting the child up for adoption instead. Of course I'm only talking about abortion in cases of an unwanted child not in cases of medical complications, rape, or other situations where an abortion is clearly the right decision.

I'm also very strongly pro-birth control and sex education. The best way to reduce abortions in to make sure women know how to prevent becoming pregnant and have easy, cheap, access to birth control. However many in the "pro-life" camp oppose that as well which shows that their position is pure ideology based more on their faith than from a true concern for women or babies.
Exactly. It's so cute how many pro-lifers are also anti-sex ed. Typical religous phobias about sex mixed with repackaged misogyny. Educate people about their choices regarding sex and there will be less necessity for anyone to make a choice about abortion.
Does it not occur to you that things can go wrong after the first trimester? Things which can kill the mother?
No one gets one then unless that is a real medical need for one.
Pro-choice, big time. No conflictions. My mother (now over sixty) was an unwanted child and, having grown up watching her cry over that childhoold bereft of anyone who loved her, I consider it far more evil to give birth to a child you know you don't want, whether you keep it or put it up for adoption. I'd abort at any stage first, though I think it preferable that it happen as early as possible. Ideally first trimester.

The answers here have been strange. For me, the question of pro-choice or anti-choice is a matter of what you think other people (not just yourself) should legally be allowed to do in such a situation. Which is why I refuse to dignify the other side with the term "pro-life". So many of them (the religous ones) are simultaneously pro-torture, pro-war, pro-death penalty that it takes a lot of cajones for them to seriously call themselves pro-life. No one should be forced to have an abortion and no one should be forced to carry any child they don't want, regardless of how they got pregnant. Seriously, this BS of "well, actions have consequences" is, frankly....well, BS. See above about my mom. The deed is done, and there is an assumption that aborting the kid is somehow making the kid pay for mom's mistakes. I think that forcing a child to be raised as a unwanted child is making the kid pay for mom's mistakes. My mother has actually said she wishes her mother had aborted her rather than bring her into the world into such a devastating and scarring situation.

Personally, I'm twenty-nine and a virgin. Not through any religious conviction or residue of such. No feelings that sex is wrong or evil. No frigidity--I'm a horn dog like Daddy. No, I have plans for my life and they do not involve raising some kid I never wanted to have in the first place. If I had a kid, I would at the very best resent it's existence. Not fair to me or the kid. So I prioritize. But if I got pregnant today, I would abort tomorrow and not look back, except to learn from the mistake and avoid a similar screw-up in the future. And supposing I ever become sexually active, it's a possibility that I might become accidentally pregnant. I personally refuse to use birth control because I don't like the idea of messing with my chemistry and I hate going to doctors and being touched by strangers. He'll just have to get used to wearing a condom or get a vasectomy. I kind of hope that maybe the sheer quantity of sex he'd be getting would make up for it! ;)

And, seriously, don't you think the blastocyst or genes or fetus or unborn child or whatever that was the result of rape, incest, or will be malformed has just as much "desire" to live as an accidental and unwanted pregnancy? I don't see how the circumstances of the pregnancy make one abortion okay and another irresponsible. What needs to be done is not to make abortions, or even certain abortions, illegal but to raise awareness of birth control methods and promote good education about sex so people can make responsible choices. I see outlawing abortion as some kind of magic-bullet solution that won't really solve anything. You'd be treating the symptoms but not the problem. Scratch that. You wouldn't solve anything, you'd just be making more problems.

I don't usually admit my virginity, not because I'm embarassed but because I don't consider it to be some inherent virtue and I don't want to be seen as rubbing such alleged virtuousness in anyone's face. But it seemed more relevant here.
I heard years ago that women who constantly use abortion as a method of birth control instead of condoms or the pill stand a good chance of sterilizing themselves. Anyone know if this is true?
When you have an abortion there's an increased risk of secondary infertility, but there's also a risk of that if you have a miscarriage or give birth.
I'm glad that you brought up the child as a "consequence" BS. This is one of the things that has always bothered me. Along with the cold "just give it up for adoption" idea. I don't think that people realize that giving a baby up for adoption doesn't always guarantee a stable loving home for the child.

Take a look at the foster care system here in the US. There's always more kids than homes for the kids. The kids often times wind up floating from one house to another, one school to another unable to complete a solid school year. Not to mention some of the horror stories you hear about people fostering the kids in order to get extra money from the state, or in order to abuse them. Do we want to make this worse by adding more unwanted kids into the mix? Even if all the babies get adopted, it's only going to take away potential homes from the foster kids.



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