The cases:
Immanent death of mother (Mother and/or Fetus will die if decisions not made)
Ectopic Pregnancy
Apparent/Inevitable Disability
Incest (If mother is young, reduces to Immanent Death of Mother Case)
Rape (ditto)
Choice for choices sake

Where do you stand and why? Explain in detail "all" considerations and rebuttals to your arguments.

Views: 180

Replies to This Discussion

Where I stand:
1. Immanent death of mother:
a. Pregnancy Complications
- Select mother
- If mother took drugs which induced situation, select child if still viable
(not usually possible I assume, due to shared blood stream).
b. Ectopic Pregnancy
- select mother (you must)

2. Apparent/Inevitable Disability
-How much do we know at the time we need to make a decision?
-If child will survive and live without physical pain, let the child live.
(It is also beneficial for the health of the mother to give birth to the child)
-If unsure, let child live.
-If excruciating, unbearable, irreversible pain ensues,
this then falls under category of euthanasia.

3. Incest (give birth and give child up for adoption)

4. Rape (give birth and give child up for adoption)

5. Other choices (there are none, personal choice my butt)

Now most of you will agree with all that I have outlined here.

So really any further discussion boils down to government involvement.
I am adding an exerpt of posts on the topic from one of the Conservative Atheist groups on Facebook.

Here it is (incorrect spellings and all):


Without the dogma of religion hindering your thought processes, what do you think of abortion and the case of Roe v wade?

As an athiest, I am still pro life because a women making the decision to open her legs, get pregnant, and then to decide to kill the baby so she can live as she wishes is just wrong, inhumane, and heartless. If girls dont want children, then they need to keep there legs CLOSED!

I think that because there is such a divide on the issue and because some people, whether it is legal or not, are going to do it, it should be legal. I'm all in favor of making a cut off for getting one. But really, I dont see the need in making it illegal, forcing a woman to get a "back alley" abortion and risking her life. Id rather know that it is being done in a medically sterile environment, with good equipment and a knowlegeable doctor. Those who think it is wrong need not participate.

I consider myself pro-responsibility-for-one's-actions. I don't think it's right to force a victim of rape to carry and birth a child whom she did nothing to bring into the world. If you have sex, you consent to the possibility of bringing a human into the world. I think we'd be better off learning that there are consequences for our actions.

I agree with you [Anonymous 2]. I'm willing to ceed that the scenario you have given is, by far, the predominant motive for what actually takes place.

If a girl is raped by her step-father, then, she should be forced to have the child? I'm a little unsettled by that. Pregnancy is not an easy thing to go through and leaves permanent issues with one's body. In addition to the emotional scarring, I don't think it's a good idea to stick a girl with pregnancy when she's 14 and did nothing to participate in a baby's creation aside from being the unwilling receptacle for sperm.

If the girl is capable of delivering the child, then yes, she should carry through the pregnancy. If she cannot, then this reduces to the case of imminent death of the mother, see above. An abortion also has harmful affects on a womans body. Giving the child up for adoption is mentally preferrable to a woman than killing the fetus. Killing the fetus will not reduce the emotional scarring of the rape. The rape happened, the memories are its own. While the pregnancy was not chosen, it does not follow that it is reasonable to kill the fetus.

You have definitely never gone through pregnancy! LOL!

I just disagree because I think suffering through 40 weeks of pregnancy is not going to reduce the emotional scarring of the rape, either. In fact, it's going to prolong it. I also don't believe the fetus is alive until it's born; sure, it's moving and kicking (I'm feeling it as we speak), but it's not a separate life in my opinion.

While the rape happened, that doesn't mean she deserved it and her "punishment" should be extended beyond the traumatic event. Besides, I think that rapist's genes should probably be thrown out of the gene pool.

No I have not gone through a pregnancy and I don't know of the pain that is endured through giving birth to a child. But just because pregnancy involves a certain amount of pain, this does not justify killing a fetus in leu of delivering a child.

Of course, pregnancy is not going to reduce the emotional scarring of the rape that is not the intention of carrying out the pregnancy term. The intention is to save the life of the fetus.

Also, you have repeated your statement, and have in addition asserted it to be fact, that the 40 week pregnancy will prolong the emotional scarring of the rape. How is the supposed additional emotional scarring due to the 40 week pregnancy close to the emotional scarring due to knowing for the rest of your life that you decided to take the life of a fetus.

I agree that the additional burden of the pregnancy is not a deserved punishment. It is a fact of life that women and men are raped. This is an abhorent part of life, but it is a fact of life that to some this will occur. But killing a fetus, is not anywhere close to a solution, it's not the fault of the fetus. Also, I know of no evidence which supports the notion of a rape gene. Neither do I know, that if one of these genes were to exist, that the fetus would necessarily carry an active copy of this gene, or be able to propigate this gene to where it would one day be active.

Lastly, a fetus may not be a separate life, but it is a life never the less. A fetus is alive in the same sense that the mother is alive.

I'm going to back out of this. Unless you've personally gone through childbirth, incest, rape, I should not have feasibly expected you to understand them.
"Abortion" of life in the womb is one of the most horrible and disgusting creations of humanity. It is by my estimation outright murder, but the taking of life is as natural a process as the creation of it. Every species of life on this planet now as well as long before we emerged has conducted "murder" on a vast scale, only in different forms than abortion.

The question is whether or not our laws and legislation have the right to forbid or allow a female to terminate her pregnancy, and my opinion is that it is none of the government's business either way. As much as abortion for whatever reason disgusts me, it simply is not my place or anyone else's place to force a woman to carry a child to term if she has reason to terminate it, whether I think the reason is "moral" or not.

Compare a woman's right to abort her pregnancy to a man's right to sterilize himself, be it by the "snip and sew" or just being castrated. Has the issue of a man's right to get a vasectomy ever been questioned in a court of law? Surgically destroying a man's capacity to create life is absolutely no different than aborting a woman's pregnancy, yet only the woman's reproductive capacity and process is questioned by law...Seems a strictly patriarchal double standard to me.

Take a man's right to masturbate for example. When a man ejaculates into something other than a woman's vagina has he not "aborted" a life? By the scientific definition of what an abortion is, there is absolutely no difference. As much as I hate to say it and as much as I detest surgical abortion of a woman's pregnancy, making abortion illegal is no different than making it illegal for a man to maturbate, and there is only one text that forbids a man to masturbate...The bible, and separation of church and state is not only required by the US constitution but it is necessary to ensure the most basic of personal freedom, liberty, and soveriegnty. A sperm cell is just as much "alive" as a child in a woman's belly. In the end niether is the government's responsibliity to "regulate".
I'm just curious about the libertarian perspective on this point: "Unborn babies don't have rights...rights are acquired at birth."
I am under the impression that governments do not grant rights, they recognize them. For instance free speech is not something a government can grant. As a human being with working vocal cords (or other means of expression) you have the ability. Since the free exercise of that ability does not hinder others, and this ability can only be affected if someone actively interferes, it is a 'right' granted by existence, and recognized by government.
Where do rights come from? What is your view on this?

My feelings on this are strong,but quite simple: this is a medical issue, not a legal one, and as such, the only people who should have any say in it at all are the parents and the physicians.


Government has no place dictating medical decisions. The same is true for end-of-life issues like assisted suicide, pain relief and maintenance of artificial life-sustaining treatments. The decision in each case is up to medical professionals and, ultimately, the individual(s) involved.  Government should stay the hell out of it. 


Ron, it's a pleasure to meet you.  I couldn't agree with you more on all that you've said.  I might phrase the choice for choice's sake a bit differently, but we are essentially in 100% agreement.  I've recently come across two of the best links I have ever found on this issue.  Both are great.  One is by a doctor who cites a study among others which is said to be the only one of its kind, from sexual assault victims themselves.  This one answers "The Rape Debate."  The other one is a website full of statistics.  Oddly enough, these statistics come directly from Planned Parenthood's stat group itself.  PP being the biggest abortion clinic in the US, if anyone had motive to doctor these stats, it would be them.  They are devastating to the prochoice movement.


Here are the two links:

Answering "The Rape Debate":


Why I am Prolife:


It's funny how we are meeting more and more people like us.  Prolife Conservative Atheists

These truths are swinging back.  Let's continue to keep our door open to the others!!! 


Again, just as a reminder, I have created a group for prolife conservative atheists, separate from this one, on FB,

Prolife Conservative Nontheists (members: Just me):!/group.php?gid=137506376271128


Also, there are two other FB groups, you might enjoy:

Conservative Atheists (members: 211):!/group.php?gid=48625003215 (members: 413):!/group.php?gid=54623206855


Just as caution, there are many people of faith on the FB group, but the main purpose of the group is obviously to promote secular prolife arguments.

That's completely reasonable.  I'm not there, but I get it.  Also, thanks for the words.


I have another friend who has created an extra Facebook account for herself to avoid being castigated for her atheism.  She lives in a small town, and she is surrounded by people of faith.  She just opened up an extra facebook page under a family nick name.  She uses the nick name account often to see what others are up to and what they are saying.  Meanwhile she uses the original account where she's much much more reserved about her lack of faith.  She's been doing this for a long long time now, and nobody from her town is the wiser.


That's just something you can do if your internal nature kicks your butt and you want a breath of fresh air.  It's great to hear from people that share parts of ourself!  You become whole again and recognize who you are and where you've been the whole time since you last identified all of your parts and where you were headed.  I myself can't stand the thought of truth dying with me and not propagating and living on with anyone else.

The Case Against Abortion: Prenatal Development

Great video!!! Pro-life and science-based reasoning.

My opinion: It doesn't matter. Abortion is a medical issue, not a public or legal one, and should be entirely up to the person(s) involved, no one else.  Government and the general public should have no hand in medical decisions, any more than they can tell someone whether or not they are allowed to have an appendectomy. 


This is a matter of personal freedom and responsibility.  What medical procedures anyone chooses to undergo are no one else's business.  On the flip side, it's also true that no one else should be asked to pay for anything.






Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service