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: 664

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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!!
My daughter's best friend had a baby. Before the baby was born we saw pictures of it at the doctor's office. He showed us a picture and said what a beautiful BABY. The picture said BABY on it. The mother called it a BABY. Every person that looked at the picture called it a baby. No one said what a beautiful little fetus you have.

When the baby came out of the mother it looked exactly like the baby in the picture we saw. It was a BABY. It wasn't a fetus an hour before it came out, it was a BABY.

I think more people are becoming pro-life because that little thing in the mother's stomach is now called a BABY.
that little thing in the mother's stomach is now called a BABY.

Nah, something in the mother's stomach would be called a tumour.
Mmmm... tacos!
Every sperm is sacred, John!

Funding for abortion should be an incidental part of funding for comprehensive birth control programs. I think we need to stop talking as much about abortion and talk more about empowering women to take control of their bodies before they find themselves faced with an unwanted or unintended pregnancy. My personal belief is that abortion should not be viewed as just another form of birth control. And, it really is not a pragmatic approach to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

I would much rather have the government fund tubal ligations for women who do not want any more kids, have the government fund education programs that teach women how to use birth control, and provide funds for birth control. Birth control when used properly is very, very, very effective. Access to and funding for effective birth control (including tubal ligation and vasectomy) seems to be the much more effective, comprehensive way to address population growth. The need for abortion will still arise, of course (e.g., cases of rape or incest) but our goal should be to prevent as many pregnancies as we can -- that will empower women.

Abortion is a micro issue and when you focus on that as the primary answer to unwanted pregnancy it becomes an ad hoc, ineffective strategy. Providing access to birth control and birth control education is a macro strategy that will have much more of an impact on the overall rate of population growth.

The reality is that the "pro-life" people are not really pro-life they are, fundamentally, anti-sex. And they are anti-birth control. But with their focus on abortion they seek to obscure their anti-sex/anti-birth control beliefs. We need to stop letting them do that by being sex-positive and emphasizing birth control over abortion as an approach to unintended pregnancy. The anti-sex/anti-birth control is very much a minority view. Many people would not come out to a pro-choice march but, if the right to birth control were ever threatened you'd see millions marching! Because there are many people like me who are pro-choice but have issues with abortion. But we are firmly pro-birth control. The "pro-life" crowd would never dare reveal their anti-sex/anti-birth control beliefs because they know that they would lose, big time.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service