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: 1078

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have almost the exact same feelings.

I think: Abortion is vile. But then of course I go through how the fetus has no consciousness, and sometimes the baby has problems, or the mother has problems, or both. But then it will eventually be a child. But can they take care of a child? Should they? On the other side again, 100 years ago this would have been unheard of and completely shocking. What will we be like in another 100 years? We keep making exceptions for everything and it may take us somewhere dark.

But do I want a horrible woman to be a mother? And should irresponsible women know that abortion is always an option for pregnancies they caused?

I do think that if you're having sex and don't want a child, you have to do everything in your power not to get pregnant. That's your responsibility, isn't it?
I was just wondering what Roe V Wade had to do with less crime? Just wondering your thought process. I am guessing it's like this. Less unwanted children (fast forward 15 years) less teenage and up criminals?

Try looking at the banning of lead in paint and toys (1974). I bet something like that had a much bigger impact on crime than roe v wade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

The legalized abortion and crime effect is the controversial theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory generally argue that "unwanted children" are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. In particular, it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in recent years. Opponents generally dispute these statistics, and point to negative effects of abortion on society.
How robust is this correlation across nations? How are the confounding effects of poverty partialled out? Or is poverty not a confounding effect because it is one of the results of the non-availability of abortion?

What about the availability of contraception? Does this also reduce crime rates? It seems that it should, for similar reasons. That is, it reduces the family size, allows for better educated parents and children with a higher standard of living.
The Wikipedia article notes that the correlation between legalized abortion and crime reduction has been confirmed in studies in Canada and Australia. I believe it has also been confirmed in Romania. The US studies show that the states that legalized abortion prior to Roe experienced an earlier drop in crime rate.

For an in-depth analysis of the results you will have to go to the studies themselves. I suggest starting with http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID174508_code01050111...
Being pro-abortion rights, and I am, I guess any stat that shows a benefit to legal abortion is not one to argue about.
I am pro-freely available abortion, also. BUT I believe that I am an atheist because I question everything.
Bet your ass that being an unwanted child has profound effects on the psyche. Yeah, yeah, we all want to believe that every kid can grow up to be happy and well-adjusted, but if your parents don't want you, it leaves a hole that may never be filled. Sometimes LIVING just isn't enough, and the belief that every woman automatically loves her baby once it's born, however she felt beforehand, is by no means always true. I have no problem seeing a statistical connection between large numbers of children being born unwanted, or being born into extreme squalor, and the overall rate of crime.

Sure the idea is controversial. It's one of those things conservatives and pro-lifers don't want to face, so they scream bloody murder anytime it comes up. Paradoxically, the MORE likely it is to be true, the MORE they'd protest any attempt to discover evidence for it.

The real problem they have is that what they want is basically irrational. They want people not to have sex, but if they do have sex, they want them to be forced to have the baby. If they were more rational, and admitted that people WILL have sex, and then considered providing options to prevent pregnancy, they could have both fewer abortions and (if the connection is true), a lower crime rate.
Parallax, actually you sound pro-choice to me, being that you personally are against abortion but don't want to tell others what to do, and also you have a strong understanding of both sides.

I'm not sure if there is a clear definition of pro-life, but I always thought that meant people who want to make abortion illegal.
Abortion is the last resort. But we do have way to many children in the world, and unless somebody is going to take responsibility for the child, especially if it is still on the early stages of pregnancy, than I don't think people should expect the mother to carry the child all the way to birth.
I'd add that if abortion is the last resort, we need to bend every effort to make sure the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth resorts are freely available to every woman (and man).
Interestng Question. I have asked the same question of athiests and it has never gotten very far. It doesn't look like your question got off the ground either. There are some pro-life atheists out there. I know Robert Price has called abortion 2nd degree murder.

I was thinking that an atheist argument against abortion would center around the the genes. Given Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, could we say that our genes want to live? Ultimately, aren't we just vehicles for our genes? And we pass on our parent's genes to our kids. Our kids' kids get our genes. So maybe grandparents should have some say in whether on not an abortion gets carried out.

I have often wondered if we were to do some analysis comparing abortion rates per year to genuises and award winners per year...if we were to find that we may be slowing down progress by having abortions. So if we were to count up the number of Nobel prize winners, Pulitzer prize winners, science winners, etc., not to mention 2nd place runner ups for one year and compare that to the number of abortions that happen per year...I wonder if we would find statistically that we may be aborting a few geniuses, award winners.

Some may counter that an unwanted child may not materialize to much, so we may want to do some analysis on genuises that came out of humble means, poverty, ophanges, etc.

Arguments can be made that we are also sustaining life by having abortions, but this seems like a temporary measure as evolution happens through having offspring.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

Latest Activity

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service