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: 549

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have always felt that even though I didn't believe in abortion for myself, I could not make that decision for someone else. A woman is the be-all-end-all decision maker about her own body. For me it is simple, and I can see how other people can get all twisted about it, but for me it came down to everyone thinks differently.

I could also see how horrible it would be to carry a rapists baby, and now they are giving parental rights to these men, would be a psychological nightmare. That is the main reason I am an advocate.
I would like to think that it has nothing to do with anti-religious kind of thinking, as one of the members before me already put it in words, we try to defend the freedom of choice.

Because God most certainly won't help you and it didn't make you preagnant at the first place.

I think of it as an employers' point of view; If I give you a job, I can take it away from you. Same here, that is the power one should have over her body, without revenge from uneducated people and/or any sort of activists.
I mean, I will graduate this december and what I really hope is to pack my bags and go back. People here are so orthodox. They look at you on a strange way. Not that I lost any friends because of it or anything. I don't know. Feels odd to come clean, even though I am proud to be an atheist.

Europe is a paradise (not heaven=)
Yeah, pretty much everyone gets fired up.
People have accidents. I know a lot of kids who are birth control babies!

And have you ever known a teenage girl who accidentally became pregnant and it ruined her life? I have known a few. One of them is my super religious friends daughter. I really think she would have used her credentials as valedictorian and gone on to school last year if she had not been strong armed into having the child. Now? Married to the way-too-old for her guy who got her pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

And of course there are the typically discussed circumstances such as rape and incest. According to your reasoning babies born of such things have to be brought to term regardless of the mothers feelings.

Anyway, my point is that we can't just say that abortion is wrong, even if all of the points you made above were valid. Different circumstances require different actions.
It is a myth that "pregnancy from rape hardly ever happens". It's about 10,000 cases per year. Also, I think it's a myth that there are tons of women out there who are just too lazy to use birth control and protection, so instead they go to the abortion clinic and "use abortion as birth control". That's a much more expensive and painful way to avoid being a parent. The women I've known who got pregnant by neglecting birth control have kept theirs.
First - it is about who makes the choice - the woman or the state. Second - it does not follow that making abortion illegal will prevent abortions from occurring. It does follow that making abortions illegal will make them, in general, more dangerous.
When the 'child' can live on its own - then remove it and let it take its chances.
There are actually people who would have preferred not to be born. When talking about abortion, people have told me "your mother chose life". Well, if she didn't want to have me, then I wouldn't have wanted her to--and I wouldn't know the difference if I wasn't conscious.
When considering pro-choice and pro-life, I attempt to answer questions. It isn't about going against the religious.

At what point does the female stop being important and the developing cells become important? Why? If a woman is told she must carry to term, will she care for it? What determines fetal neglect (not eating enough vegetables)? If a woman is addicted to drugs, should she be locked up until she delivers the baby? If a woman does not care for herself should she be punished? What if the woman has full blown AIDS or some other terminal disease? If the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, what of the female's mental health, how should she be cared for? What if the woman and pregnancy are in mortal danger, what if only the woman is? What if the growing being is severely mutated so that life beyond the womb is not possible?

What is fair? Who gets to decide?

I have determined that women and their doctors, the ones most intimate with all the circumstances, get to decide. To me, this is what I would want, this would be fair. It isn't about religion at all.
There's no means for me to speak for others, so this will only be applicable to myself.

In the first, of what concern is religion's perspective of [...insert ideology here...] to me, as there are no ties between religion and my person, my person's brain, my person's existence.

As a Machiavellian and misanthrope, fitting in is of no interest, let alone concern; so that too, misses the mark quite widely.

As a father, there has been a "re-education" in my existence, concerning offspring/progeny. Presumptions and presuppositions that were, no longer exist. From the first birth, to the last, there was a recalibration of my perspective regarding what "human" is, and what "potentiality" means in the scope of being human. It comes to be that their importance; continuance, progression, curiosity, genuine"ness", as well as their utter lack of agendas predicated on absurdity/irrationality, brought me to a perspective of willing sacrifice to any level on their behalf. It was inordinately strange for a duration; but discomfort can be reasoned and understood. Often times, a child/children, become representative of or actually achieve, all that which the progenitor(s) can never be; potentiality exemplified.

For my own person, abortion is not acceptable. As a Machiavellian, it becomes what is most socially correct; so abortion and its inane arguments are of little importance. Society can do as the sheeple see fit, they will be greeted with enmity, regardless.
I don't follow this at all F of A - How does being a misanthrope lead you to a belief that abortion is not acceptable? I don't think you are a misanthrope... perhaps you are just grouchy... :^)

? lol, interesting.

Did you read the OP? It inquired as to whether or not atheists are pro-life, for the purpose of "fitting in" ... my misanthrope response was to that part of the OP; meaning "fitting in" socially has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, for my person.

Perhaps you should look at the definition of misanthrope again; it is a generalist definition. To hate "humankind", outside of generality, one would necessarily have to know each and every entity that makes up the sum of "humankind"; it can also mean "sweeping distrust". Which is also part of the Machiavellian bent; it isn't prudent to put forth trust to others. It encourages unprovoked conflict.

You also sound very sentimental when it comes to children. How is this Machiavellian? Sorry - I just don't follow this at all.

Sentimental to "children", or inherently linked to mine? I'm not surprised that you don't link the Machiavellian to parenting; because the man himself was Italian, Niccolo Machiavelli, there are some differences with what one from English speaking countries assume of him, and what an Italian, or in my case, Sicilian, know of particulars. Regardless the Machiavellian aspect, for those of my kind sprezzatura is always in play; what is pragmatic must also meet equally with aesthetics. Odd, yes. Genuine, yes; understandable, possibly not.

It's also good to note that a Machiavellian also tolerates discomfort when it is simply a personal reaction to a situation that is known to be correct in the larger scope.
Do you feel that abortion is not right for you and your family, but is useful to others?

Now we understand one another, well done.

I like to think that our compassion is formed in larger and larger circles. That the strongest and most compassionate circle is my direct family, the next circle of compassion includes my friends and extended family etc. until I have a very large circle for all humans that has some small amount of compassion as well.

We'll differ here. As I stated elsewhere, it's been stated that I have a very, very low Dunbar number. So while I agree that social connections move outward in concentric circles; my ability to express compassion is highly limited.

I read "The Prince" many years ago and really liked it. Perhaps I need to read it again. So many books, so little time. He is given a bad rap here in the US (and unfairly in my opinion).

The Prince is an apologetic work to the Medici aristocracy; after he was tortured and imprisoned. The best work, that sets the framework for the mindset is "The discourses of the first decade of Titus Livy", or it's official name "Dei discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio". He is a much maligned individual because his discourses are, and were, highly antithetical to the "teachings" of the Roman Catholic Church ~ which hasn't traditionally ended well for anyone who has opposed them.

Does a Machiavellian and misanthrope have just one small tight circle of compassion?

The particular is "what is correct for the situation" ... compassion is often times the worst answer, in the larger scope of societal correctness; unfortunately, being pragmatic means removing emotion from the situation, totally. Most humans aren't comfortable with that behavior.

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