I'll comprimise. I don't like the term entirely, but it'll do. Just like there are pro-gun-rights and pro-gambling-rights (and there used to be pro-slavery-rights).

Is it just for the sake of disagreeing with the religious? Is it because they see being anti-abortion-rights as being a strictly religious viewpoint? Are anti-abortion-rights atheists worried about fitting in? Is it just a coincidence?

Views: 617

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Ally and Brittany,

We've stated our positions and disagree where fetal viability is concerned. There's no surmounting that one.

As a society, we could side with either extreme: full pro-life or full pro-choice. Fortunately, our democracy isn't so one-sided. The Supreme Court has struck a balance that allows plenty of time for couples to decide whether or not to abort. The pro-choice side has won.
felch grogan wrote: "a) nobodies business but the immediate party's involved."

And just how is that unborn child supposed to express his/her feelings on the matter?
Did you know that until about week 20 (before which about 99% of abortions are performed), a ZEF isn't sentient? This means that it doesn't have feelings.
GuanoLoca wrote: "Wording says a lot. It's Pro-Choice Rights. I've yet to meet any pro-choice advocate that is 'pro'-abortion. The word "Pro" means "in favor of" so Pro-choice is actually more accurate here. We are "in favor of" choice."

What choice is the unborn child given and how is that child supposed to express that choice?
It is the ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) that is using the woman's body, not the other way around.

Even if the ZEF could say "I don't want to be removed", it still wouldn't have the right to use the woman's body against her explicit non-consent.

Lets use some logical substitution (logical because I am comparing the use of body and the consent that is required):

"What choice is the rapist given?"

The user doesn't get a choice in whether or not the woman removed the user from HER body.
Marty Mueller wrote: "I agree, I personally pro-choice. Its all about freethinking and not imposing one's will or morals on others."

Who'se thinking for the unborn child? Is it OK to impose one's will on that child?
Yes, it is okay to impose "one's will" in this circumstance.

We have to consider who creates the first violation. In the case of pregnancy, it is the ZEF that creates the first violation. It does this when it implants onto her body and begins using her body. The woman, therefore, has a right to defend against the usage should it be unwanted.

The scenario is the same in all self-defense examples. The person who creates the first violation forfeits some of their legal rights.
The religious right would argue that the "self defense" action should be taken before pregnancy occurs by not having premarital sex. And perhaps the anti-choice atheists would argue the same.
I'm sorry, but this simply does not make sense. Self-defense is defense of your body - against the use of that body by another person/thing. The only self-defense that can occur at the time of sex is defense against a person using your body for sex when it is unwanted.

The use of your body during sex is NOT the same thing as the use of your body during pregnancy. Both uses require their OWN consent. Consent to use of organ A by person A is never implied consent for use of organ B by person B. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Furthermore: you mention "Pre-marital" sex. You do realize that many people who have abortions are married, right?
funk Q wrote: "As I have written before on AN, I think it's a medical matter. If people would just realise and accept that it would cease to be a topic of debate."

How do you explain to an unborn child that as a "medical matter" his/her life will soon be terminated? Does it matter?
And just how is that unborn child supposed to express his/her feelings on the matter?

Can you come up with a way for a fetus to communicate his/her feelings? Or are you just assuming that they would want to be alive? Not everyone is so happy to be alive. "Your mom chose life," people tell me. Yes, and if she didn't want to have me, I wouldn't have wanted her to give birth to me.

What choice is the unborn child given and how is that child supposed to express that choice?

The fetus doesn't have any more of a choice if you carry it to term than it does if you abort it.

Who's thinking for the unborn child? Is it OK to impose one's will on that child?

Giving birth is also imposing your will. So is giving the kid shots, taking it to the doctor, giving it a bath, feeding and dressing the child the way you choose to do that. Parents heavily impose their will on children for many years--the alternative is to leave the infant alone to fend for itself.

Also, the fetus is imposing on me if it makes itself at home in my uterus, and then expects me to destroy my body and spend mass quantities of money and time taking care of it for the next 20 years.

I'd also have a lot more respect for people who are against abortion if they'd adopt some of these precious babies. Then maybe people would stop thinking that pro-lifers only care about babies until they're born.
No, it doesn't matter, for the same reasons that an potential organ donator does not have to explain why they decide not to donate the organ.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service