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

agreed. I am a democrat primarily for this reason... however I do also fail to see how money rotting in a CEO's bank account is supposed to "trickle down" to all the happy workers that are about to recieve a generous gift from their boss, who isn't selfish at all!

nothing short of faith could get me on the bullshit train LOL.
Bill_S, I think whether you can actually register as an Independent varies by state. Here in Washington State, we don't actually really register at all, but we have to choose a Democratic or Republican section of the ballot and not vote across party lines in the primaries. Unless they changed it again (there was a lawsuit or two about it). If you want to claim allegiance to a party, you basically have to join the party itself, not just tell the elections office. And I don't think there's actually a party called the Independent Party in the US, except in certain areas or perhaps built temporarily around certain candidates.

I think it's a better strategy to simply join the Democratic Party and influence it from the inside. That's what the evangelicals did to the GOP, and that worked for them until they overplayed their hand and destroyed the party. But why not take advantage of all the party machinery that's already in place, and just reform its platform? People don't like the big two parties in the US, but they have enormous organizational resources that are quite necessary just to get candidates on the ballot in all jurisdictions. Even if the Big Two weren't jealously guarding their turf, it would be exceedingly difficult to assemble the organization required for a successful third party in the US. H. Ross Perot couldn't do it, and he's a freakin' billionaire.

Anyhow, that's why I joined the Democratic Party. I don't always agree with them, but I almost always strenuously disagree with the Republicans since they went all radical theo-pluto-autocratic on us. I'm mostly fiscally conservative, but I do believe that capital investments can reasonably be financed with debt as long as the debt doesn't outlive the usefulness of the projects it pays for. And in emergencies, deficit spending to stimulate the economy is important. And Democrats actually seem to believe that what you do in your bedroom is your own business, unlike the Republicans.

Throwing yourself on the mercy of big business is a bad idea, though. Big business only cares about its bottom line. That needs to be balanced by government that's protecting the rights of the little guy. Libertarians and Ayn Randians seem to miss this point, along with having a really bizarre view of human nature and some pretty flawed assumptions about economics and enlightened self-interest.

The Democratic Party is a big ugly mess, but that mirrors humanity itself, so I'm kinda OK with that. At least it's something to build on.
"Pro-life" is political spin.

Show me someone who is "anti-life" and I'll show you a psychopath. The implication of the label is, just as with most moral issues, that side claims a monopoly on morality and they paint this up in black & white.

The arguments against abortion are the same for "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I think most people find the practice abhorrent and (hopefully but not necessarily) an avenue of last resort - and don't think that no "pro-lifer" has managed to rationalize an abortion for personal reasons.
I just think that halfwits like Glenn Beck and Ted Haggert should be the oracles of the nation. "Pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion" like the opposition likes to think. Frankly, in my opinion, it's just a more compassionate mindset. One that gives the individual enough respect to decide one of the most weighty dilemmas that one could face. I hope I never have to face it myself, but I sure don't want Bill O'Really breathing down my neck if I do. It's like the Schiavo - what a fiasco that family went through thanks to the media. Meanwhile Bill Frist put his father down with dignity and without fanfare. The rules just work for Bill & co - the rest of us can keep paying for long term healthcare and suck on it.

While I'd classify myself as "pro-choice," I would strongly counsel any friend or family member ()that asked for my nosy opinion) against an abortion. I would never be so arrogant as to say that my stance is absolute and unwavering and it should be put into law. If you have a difficult life altering decision, I'd hope you could make it privately and make it thoughtfully and I'd ask the same favor from you.

I suspect a lot of abortions are done in secret and out of the country by many a "pro-lifer" who had the financial means to get their little girl "out of trouble." So, like I say, the rules are not for everyone - just for everyone else.

You see that double edged sword raised in celebration when a family planning clinic is bombed or a doctor is killed - that's pretty "anti-life" but they interpret it - see - then it's not black & white.

"Pro-life" is black & white - "pro-choice" allows for a fuller spectrum. No one is "pro-abortion."
I'm pro-choice on abortion too, it's a womans body and since there is no god she has no real obligation to birth the unborn child. However, she better have it quick BEFORE the major limbs/organs start developing otherwise.... I tend to frown upon that as I do women who have numerous abortions.

Pro-Life is tough for me with my outlook on life itself... it depends on whats/whos life is at stake here. If it's somebody who is good to others and trys to not cause problems, they should live. Why kill someone who has done nothing wrong or is of use to humanity? If they are a danger to others, start drama for no reason other than to entertain themselves or are corrupt *like a Politician* then - WHATEVER. I don't care if they live or die but, I wouldn't call for their death IF they were cool to me or I didn't know them. If they wronged me, my loved ones or someone I know/like or respect then... as Rammstein said - FEUER FREI!
Hi Valles, I am literally 'pro-life', however (and this must be emphasised) I am not anti-abortion (except for myself), and I do not go along with traditional "pro-lifers" in their campaign to wipe out abortion legally.

I would never personally choose to abort, however that is very much my CHOICE, and I fully recognise it as such. I would never castize or critisize someone else faced with the same choice who made a different decision. I very much recognise that each person must face the consequences of their own choices in life, and that regardless how I might feel about someone elses choice for their own life, it is their life, their pregnancy, and their consequences, and they are the only one who can fully be responsible for that choice. Like The Nerd, above, I consider my being 'pro-life' to be an extension of my respect for life as a whole, not a stance against those who make certain choices I disagree with.
I found an interesting article related to this idea: Link > What happens when an Pro-Lifer actually has to face the fact that they need an abortion.

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur

Copyright September, 2000

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.
The thing about abortion is, many people on this site are rationalists who tend to go with evidence. Evidence supports that if you want less abortions to occur, you can't do that by denying people abortion, you have to educate them to use birth control and wait for an appropriate time to have a responsible amount of children. The term itself, pro-life, is manipulative, just like the cause and method to it.
Christian religious groups use topics like this to blanket villainise non-believers even though there are non-theists that are pro-life and pro-choice.
I think both extremes are unethical, I think abortion should be legal, however, I completely disagree that it should be considered a viable method of birth control.

I think that should be some sort of judicial review involved here, in which the couple involved presents there reasons for abortion ie, if the woman was raped, there are significant mental issues with the child, or that the prenancy endangers the woman. Cases such as these should not need any sort of judicial hearing, and it should be up to the woman to make that choice.


However, abortion should also be allowed if:
-The mother is underage, and has consent from her parents or a legal medical representative (a lawyer or gaurdian)
-An adult couple ONLY IF they can show that they were using any defined birth control at the time. This way, the couple can say that the preganancy was unintentional.
-There does seem to be a loophole here, after all, the couple could just show the court a reciept for a pack of condoms they never used. However, since they would have to still purchase condoms every time they had sex and got pregnant,each case needs to be represented with good faith that the couple is honest.
-Abortions should only be considered if the pregancy remains in the first trimester. However, there will be exceptions, but as a rule of thumb, the mother's life should be put first unless she says otherwise.

Since most hospitals already have a legal department, setting up an abortion court does not seem so farfetched.
Sorry, I'm new to this group.

I haven't read all the posts yet, but, I immediately felt the need to comment on yours.

Stephen: you think that a couple should have to first explain why they want the abortion and someone else (a judge perhaps?) will decide if their reason is good enough?

There are a number of things wrong with this.

1) Why in the world should the "couple" be the one to present the *evidence* instead of just the woman? This walks a line that should not be crossed: the line that allows men (the fathers) to stop women from having abortions. This should never be the case. It is the woman, and solely the woman who is affected by pregnancy. It is her body being used and it is her health being affected (even if the effect is minimal - ie, not life threatening). She should be the ONLY one consulted when asked about why an abortion is the right choice for her. This doesn't mean that the woman can't consult the would-be-father and that she shouldn't take his opinion into consideration when making a final decision. However, she should ALWAYS have the final say. Period. Her body...her decision.

2) Do we apply this same logic to other forms of unwanted use of a body? Use rape as an example. Would you think it was okay to first question the woman as to why she doesn't consent to the use of her body? Furthermore, do you think it is okay that a third party should have the veto power to stop her from defending herself?

What this comes down to is the right to defend against unwanted use of your body in ALL situations.

No person has the right to use another person's body without their explicit and ongoing consent. Why should a ZEF (Zygote/Embryo/Fetus) be treated any differently.

If we were to illegalize abortion, two things would occur:

1) Rights would be removed from the woman simply for owning a uterus. More specifically, the rights to 1) consent to the use of her body and 2) the right to end usage of her body should it be unwanted would be removed. This is discrimination and it is unconstitutional.

2) Extra rights would be granted to the ZEF. More specifically, the right to use another person's body against their ongoing and explicit consent. This is not a right that is recognized or granted for any born person, therefore we are granting them extra rights simply for being less than 0 minutes born. This is ageism, which is also unconstitutional. So, either we rid of the ageism by allowing ALL who require the use of another body for survival the right to that body, regardless of age or location (ie. we make organ donation compulsory) or we allow abortions.
I used to be pro-choice, but that was 50 years ago when there was no literature or information available to women. Are there women that don't know what it means to get pregnant? Are women that ill informed? Do we want to protect women that go out on a one-nighter, gets pregnant and want to abort a child? I think it's only being selfish. Today, women have that right. Ten years from now, I don't think they will. I guess I'm getting to be more pro-life. Sorry, but I want to protect the child if at all possible.
I consider myself pro-choice but anti-abortion. I absolutely do not think that abortion should be illegal. However, I think that ideally there would be no one choosing abortion.

But that brings me to what I am most "pro-" -- I am pro-responsible sexual behavior. Responsible sexual behavior means you use effective birth control, you protect yourself from STDs, you've thought about your own personal sexual ethics, and you've thought about how you would feel about and deal with an unintended pregnancy, before you f*%k. Contrary to what the abstinence folks would have us believe, birth control when used properly, is very, very, very effective. And, it ain't rocket science -- it is easy to avoid getting pregnant (I am talking only about consensual sex here). And these are the things kids should be taught about sex. So, really I am not pro-choice or anti-abortion -- I am pro-(responsible) sex!!

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service