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

Yes and no. Yes concerning the abortion debate though my stance is quite nuanced, but I’m also for euthanasia in certain circumstances so by some accounts I cannot be Pro-life as framed by some religious conservatives.

BTW how here is up of the lit concerning this topic and on identity in particular?
PS sorry I don't have the time to read over all the posts.
I became pro-choice after becoming a single mother. Wait, that sounds bad. Uh.... being a single mom made me realize how freaking hard the task is, and what we're asking women AND their kids to endure. Until our social services are improved enough that a woman can afford to work, be educated, and properly provide for any kids she conceives, she shouldn't be forced to have kids she can't support. Not even getting into issues of rape and incest, genetic deformities, etc. That said, I love my son to pieces. I do however have a contraceptive implant and don't want any further kids. If I was to become pregnant again, I'd seriously consider an abortion.
The "Raving Atheist" (remember his blog?) was such a huge anti-abortionist he offered to pay people to work at one of those fake Christian drop-in centers. I did a show with him about atheist pro-lifers. We didn't exactly see eye-to-eye about things.
I am pro-choice, mainly because I believe that parents are high on the list for reasons that children become irresponsible and unmotivated adults. If a parent is not ready to have a child, I would rather the parent end the child's life before it has developed a system for higher thinking (non-instinctual), than have one more source of cruelty, deception, and violence in the world. Also, the idea that humans have some sort of 'right to live' is a part of the religious values that humans have had ingrained over the past 30,000 years (when there were signs of the first religion... and humor, ironically).

However, if I were to argue for pro-life, it would be based on the fact that there are no definable set of standards for any law that humans create; meaning 'what is stopping us from changing the abortion laws to allow an abortion during the first and second trimester?'... and this line is continually undefined. This could be pushed further until it is legal to kill your child before they are a legal adult. Though this is a stretch of the imagination, there is no predetermined limit keeping us from pushing the limit further, which I'm not saying is a bad choice, necessarily; simply something to consider. After all, if we continued on this imaginary path, we could end up killing all the physically and mentally handicapped, and then we might not stop until only the intelligent and physically fit people are alive. And what kind of existence would that be?
Laws generally include phrases which can be interpreted as following the path which ends in "the greater good" of all parties involved (from a realistic, not a religious, perspective). The development of a consciousness which can form an intent is generally given great weight. Non-sentient zygotes and fetuses do not have (have not developed) that quality.
There are some pretty decent arguments that refute this. I hear it alot from the pro-life crowd. Where would it end?

Well actually, human behaviour only ends, or changes when we choose to change it. Us creating a rule and saying "this is it" will not stop us from ever changing that rule to suit.

So, we will decide our limits as we move through life and human social progression.

In other words, creating a rule because we are afraid of where we end up isn't going to stop us from ending up there since we can change the rule whenever we want.

I think it's a bit of a strawman argument.
I don't find there are any particularly good arguments from the pro-life crowd with regards to making abortion illegal.

I do however, think there are some good arguments around changing the way in which we deal with abortion including being a lot more honest with people about what is actually occuring during abortion. I also think we probably could(in certain countries) rethinking the stage of development of a fetus in which we allow abortion to occur.
The Right to Fright people like to mess this up properly. Whenever there is realistic info they counter with gruesome blown up photos of late term abortions.

The problem is that no surgery is pretty. If religion believed that breast removal was evil, image the field day objectors would have with that operation!

I liked one speaker's response (Neil de Gasse, I think): present a set of photos of "unintelligent design" showing fetuses with gross deformities. Put these in perspective with photos of the varioius stages of the first trimester and the point is made to most people. Bigots, however, will see everything through dogma-distorted lenses.
Well, I'm pro-both. I think that a woman should have a right to choose up until a child has a central nervous system and is therefore a seperate being, at which point, the child's right to live should take over...
"Personally, I am pro-choice. I fully support every woman's right to choose."

Whoops, I read that wrong. My ditto (as if it matters) was meant to say:

Personally, I am pro-life. I fully support every woman's right to choose.



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