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: 578

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A blastocyst only meets all biological requirements for life if it stays in the mother. Technically, the blastocyst is nothing more than a parasite. If you can take the fetus from the mother and it is able to live on its own (obviously somebody is going to make mention of the fact it needs to be fed and taken care of, but don't get all nit picky, you know what I mean!), then yes...aborting the fetus at that stage of its life would be murder. Until that point, though, you're just getting rid of an, obviously, undesirable parasite.
All of humanity is just a virus; with a self-important perception of it's socialisation constructs.
I can only answer for myself, but since I don't believe in a supernatural soul, I don't believe that if an abortion if preformed early on, it is murder.
For me it is because I believe it is a woman's right to chose. I do not take into account the religious aspect (or lack thereof) in anything that I agree or disagree with. Liberty and Freedom, to me, means that a woman can do with her body what she wants.
There's no soul. There's just here--just this. There's no reason but the inherent opportunity cost issues and the "icky" factor to oppose abortion rights. There are benefits to instances of abortion that cannot be secured without abortion rights. By these premises combined, I am Captain Planet. ...no, that's not right... The result of these conditions is the observed alignment among atheists on abortion rights.
The fetus is, at least capable of self awareness at 3rd trimester, possibly 2nd trimester, and who knows what stage in the first. Scientifically, there is little to distinguish a "born" baby from a fetus outside of the title.

People are generally totally unqualified to make choices about anything, least of all the choice of bringing a person into the world.

In my opinion, everyone should be sterilized at puberty, immediately after having some eggs and sperm removed and frozen, then be put through rigorous training and testing before being allowed to reproduce. Barring that, all children should be raised by trained professionals. The ability to have sex is hardly a qualification to make any choice regarding the life of another person.
I understand how you can feel like this, but some of the most amazing people have come from the worst circumstances. There is no one right way to do things, what works on one child fails on another.

I am not an angry athiest, I have seen many wonderful, loving family and in one myself. I have also seen situations that never should be, but that is life and it is a growing and learning process, we all just have to do the best we can with what we have.
Sorry if these points have been covered already but "Pro-abortion"???
I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is a really great idea or WANTS to have one.
I agree with Tarquin:
"I do not recognise a foetus as a human being until it is viable ex utero."
I also believe that No-one has the right to tell ME what to do with MY Body.
That to me is a very basic notion of freedom.
How can you be free if the State controls such a basic freedom?
I agree with you on all points Ally.
Hi Christopher,

Nobody WANTS abortions. It's not that simple. If you'll look around, I think you'll find that the value of human life is NOT absolute. As a whole, we willingly kill: enemy combatants, death-row prisoners, brain-dead patients, dangerous despots, and, yes, unwanted embryos.

We need to acknowledge that ideals of "should be" are, by definition, NOT realities of "what is". There should be no wars, vicious criminals, terminal disease, dangerous despots and unwanted embryos. But the reality is: there are.

When it comes to abortion, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has struck a reasonable balance between the opposing camps. The "dividing line" is fetal viability. Other criteria may be debatable but most of us can agree that intentional killing of a viable fetus is murder. Of course there are those who would disagree with ANY prohibition on abortion but how can a democracy acknowledge only them but not the rest of us?

It's an imperfect world. Until utopia arrives, we face an imperfect reality.
The value of human life is CLEARLY Not absolute.
A friend of mine was shot in the head for the contents of his wallet!
I meant "pro" = want / think it is good.
What counts as "Fetal Viability?"
I think what often gets lost in these discussions is the realities of the individual Woman.
I honestly think it should be her decision (& her partner if she has one) alone!
Most so-called Democracies have very limited access to this medical procedure - so whose veiws are really being supported?
I completely agree with you Ally. However I believe that the question was mean to be read as one whole thought. Not so much "pro-abortion" But the "pro-abortions-RIGHTS"

But you are right, no one WANTS an abortion.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service