Pro-Life Atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2010, 07:57 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(18-09-2010 07:49 PM)athnostic Wrote:  It's also not absolutely horrific. I should know; I'm a mother of twins.

Society would not be forcing her to have a baby. She chose to have sex (unless she didn't, in which case abortion is definitely an option) and therefore she chooses the possible consequences of sex.

So, assuming she chose to have sex, uses birth control, her partner wears a condom, she has probably a 2% chance of getting pregnant, and somehow it still happens. It is plainly clear that she doesn't want a child.

So, what you're saying is, disregard any precautionary measures, if you weren't raped you will have that baby. When abortion is illegal, that is society forcing the woman to have a baby.

I don't believe that anyone has the right to do that to someone. How would you feel if you didn't want to give birth but you had to? That's what we call repressing people.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2010, 08:07 PM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
Quote:I don't believe that anyone has the right to do that to someone. How would you feel if you didn't want to give birth but you had to? That's what we call repressing people.

I'm not sure I believe in making abortion completely illegal, but I do find it mostly morally reprehensible.

Nature tells us that sex leads to babies. No one is forcing a woman to have sex, with or without protection in most cases, but she still knows that she can become pregnant. She chooses to take the risk (even a risk lessened by contraceptives) and the natural consequences of sex occur. Who is responsible for that choice if it isn't her?

I do believe in providing every possible form of birth control and sex education. In some cases, abortion may be the best solution. I'm sure unwanted pregnancies are very, very difficult, and I wouldn't say that there's one solution for everyone. I would tend to lean toward personal responsibility however, especially considering she's not the only one affected by her decision.

Let's not forget that abortion has very real emotional and physical consequences.
Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2010, 08:21 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(18-09-2010 08:07 PM)athnostic Wrote:  I'm not sure I believe in making abortion completely illegal, but I do find it mostly morally reprehensible.

That's fine, I wouldn't ask anyone to change their opinions, it's just that I believe we cannot let our personal opinions keep other people repressed.

(18-09-2010 08:07 PM)athnostic Wrote:  Nature tells us that sex leads to babies. No one is forcing a woman to have sex, with or without protection in most cases, but she still knows that she can become pregnant. She chooses to take the risk (even a risk lessened by contraceptives) and the natural consequences of sex occur. Who is responsible for that choice if it isn't her?

True, but would you deny sex to women then? Personally I believe that so long as contraception is used a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. Sex is great, in today's day and age it isn't just "nature tells us it leads to babies" anymore, whether that's how you treat it or not that isn't the way it is in today's society. It's none of my business if you enjoy sex or not, but I think it's everyone's right to enjoy it if they want so long as they are taking the precautions to avoid pregnancy why not let them have fun?

(18-09-2010 08:07 PM)athnostic Wrote:  I do believe in providing every possible form of birth control and sex education. In some cases, abortion may be the best solution. I'm sure unwanted pregnancies are very, very difficult, and I wouldn't say that there's one solution for everyone. I would tend to lean toward personal responsibility however, especially considering she's not the only one affected by her decision.

Exactly, I wasn't trying to say that it was an easy decision, but if it is one she was going to make then it is, ultimately, her body. Also, on that note, she may not be the only one affected but a father can just run away, I feel it is ultimately the woman's decision, she's the one who has to give birth. If the father wants the baby fine, but if she wants to get rid of it he has no right to stop her, he can grow the baby in his body or find a woman that actually wants a baby with him.

(18-09-2010 08:07 PM)athnostic Wrote:  Let's not forget that abortion has very real emotional and physical consequences.

I don't think anybody is implying the opposite, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option to a woman in distress.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2010, 08:50 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
Quote:I don't believe that anyone has the right to do that to someone. How would you feel if you didn't want to give birth but you had to? That's what we call repressing people.

No, it's not. Requiring people, fathers included, to own up to the consequences of their actions is not repression. Accountability is lagging trait in our society. Politicians don't have it, business people don't have it, so perhaps it's unfair to force accountability on promiscuous teens and twenty-somethings.

I've not a strong enough feeling on the abortion issue to say what is right or wrong beyond what is right or wrong for me. I believe that abortions are necessary in some situations but really can't articulate what those situations are in any meaningful way. However, one thing I do feel strongly about is a mentality that believes accountability is a form of repression is an extremely misguided perspective.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2010, 09:02 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(18-09-2010 08:50 PM)BnW Wrote:  No, it's not. Requiring people, fathers included, to own up to the consequences of their actions is not repression.

Preventing anyone, through the use of the law, from living their lives the way they desire is repression. If abortion is not an option, regardless of circumstances, it is repression. Perhaps accountability is waning these days, but that doesn't make forcing something upon someone justified.

(18-09-2010 08:50 PM)BnW Wrote:  I've not a strong enough feeling on the abortion issue to say what is right or wrong beyond what is right or wrong for me.

That's what I wish everyone would say concerning most issues. Who cares if your neighbour is getting an abortion, does it affect you in any way shape or form? Who cares what your morals are, nobody but you, right? So, if you don't like abortion, don't get one, but at least be compassionate enough to accept that some people are going to do what you don't want.

Sorry if that came across as aggressive, not supposed to look like an attack or anything but I can't be arsed to rewrite it.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 01:30 AM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
[
Quote:I don't believe that anyone has the right to do that to someone. How would you feel if you didn't want to give birth but you had to? That's what we call repressing people.

We have every right! The majority forcing their opinion of what is right on the minority is simply called democracy.
And also, holding somebody responsible for their actions is not the same as repressing them. Having sex is one of the things we do that have potential for more severe consequences than we are used to. That is no valid reason for us to dodge that responsibility.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 08:07 AM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
Quote:Preventing anyone, through the use of the law, from living their lives the way they desire is repression.

No, it's not. Repression is using law or force to prevent people from living their lives on equal terms as everyone else. Using your definition, not letting recidivist drunk drivers keep their license would be oppression. Societies have laws and as long as those laws do not exceed the government mandate given by the people or are enforced or applied unequally, enforcing them is not "oppression".

The argument is generally going to be on the mandate question, obviously, and in the instance of abortion the question is does the government have a legitimate interest in protection the lives of the unborn. The answer goes back to Truth Addicts comments about when a fetus turns into a "life", as I don't think there is any question that government has a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of its born citizens. I'm fairly certain you're not going to argue that jailing people who commit murder is "oppression".

Quote:That's what I wish everyone would say concerning most issues. Who cares if your neighbour is getting an abortion, does it affect you in any way shape or form? Who cares what your morals are, nobody but you, right? So, if you don't like abortion, don't get one, but at least be compassionate enough to accept that some people are going to do what you don't want.

What if my neighbor is beating his kids? That doesn't affect me in any way shape or form either so should I mind my own business or call the cops? What if he's selling drugs out of his house and I see it. That also does not affect me, so should I just mind my own business? What if my neighbor is blowing the leaves off his roof and falls off. He doesn't pay my bills or feed my family so his 2 story fall has no impact on my life. Do I call an ambulance or do I just wait for his wife to come home from work and find him?

I'm with John Donne here and disagree with your notion that we are all completely individual and separate from each other. Societies have the right to set up certain reasonable restrictions on behavior and obligations to protect those who are in the least position to protect themselves. I agree it gets skewed when we start dealing with questions of morality as people will have different views on the topic. Some people feel homosexuality is immoral whereas others feel (including me) the the relationship between two consulting adults is the business of no one but those two consenting adults and its no one's business.

However, homosexual relationships are not having a life and death impact. Abortion is. Is it right to force a 16 year old girl who made a mistake to carry a baby to term, even if she intends to give it away for adoption? I honestly don't know and, if it was my daughter, I'd most likely want her to have an abortion. Is it right to force a family who is already having trouble making ends meet to have another kid they did not expect and deal with all the associated costs that go along with having that child? Again, I don't know.

I said in my very first post on this topic that I think there are legitimate reasons to have an abortion. I'm just not sure what they are, though, or how to articulate them. What I think I do know is that an overly casual attitude about life and abortion in general is detrimental to our society as a whole. Western civilization has turned into a society that focuses on "Me! Me! Me!" with a mantra of "every man for himself"". I see the casual attitude of "I can do whatever I want with my sex life and my body" as just another extension of that attitude.

Oh, the other thing I'm sure of is I'm am thrilled I have sons and not daughters. Whew!

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 09:42 AM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(19-09-2010 01:30 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  We have every right! The majority forcing their opinion of what is right on the minority is simply called democracy.

And here we see the tyranny of the majority at work. Are you arguing that if more people think it is right then it is just? Because then I have the whole history of the Catholic church's monstrosities I'd like to point you towards, perhaps you'll reconsider then.

Just because a large group of people think something doesn't mean it is right, or wrong, there is nothing objectively good or bad about anything, it all depends on your philosophy. I don't think the law, or any majority, has the right to decide what is best for a pregnant woman, it's her body, her fetus, and her decision, not yours or mine.

(19-09-2010 01:30 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  And also, holding somebody responsible for their actions is not the same as repressing them. Having sex is one of the things we do that have potential for more severe consequences than we are used to. That is no valid reason for us to dodge that responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that abortion be used as a means to "dodge that responsibility" as I stated in my post I feel the health care system should only cover the woman if she can demonstrate that she took steps in avoiding pregnancy. I don't agree with sexual repression, people are going to have sex whether you like it or not, but forcing them to carry children they don't want is just barbaric, like I said above, it is for the mother to decide, it's her life, not ours.

(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  No, it's not. Repression is using law or force to prevent people from living their lives on equal terms as everyone else. Using your definition, not letting recidivist drunk drivers keep their license would be oppression. Societies have laws and as long as those laws do not exceed the government mandate given by the people or are enforced or applied unequally, enforcing them is not "oppression".

Touche, perhaps I am using the wrong word.

(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  The argument is generally going to be on the mandate question, obviously, and in the instance of abortion the question is does the government have a legitimate interest in protection the lives of the unborn. The answer goes back to Truth Addicts comments about when a fetus turns into a "life", as I don't think there is any question that government has a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of its born citizens. I'm fairly certain you're not going to argue that jailing people who commit murder is "oppression".

But why is it the government's business? As far as I'm concerned the government has no business in the personal lives of the citizens beyond taxes and the standard issue busy work. What happens in a family's home is their business and a government has no right prying and prodding and telling them what they can and can't do. If a woman needs an abortion and it is deemed the smartest solution to her problem the government should fund it (Canada, socialized medicare here) and that should be all they need to know. It's not the government's job to protect unborn lives, they should focus on the economy and the work force, those are the things that currently matter and likely continue to matter.

(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  What if my neighbor is beating his kids? That doesn't affect me in any way shape or form either so should I mind my own business or call the cops? What if he's selling drugs out of his house and I see it. That also does not affect me, so should I just mind my own business? What if my neighbor is blowing the leaves off his roof and falls off. He doesn't pay my bills or feed my family so his 2 story fall has no impact on my life. Do I call an ambulance or do I just wait for his wife to come home from work and find him?

Technically speaking, to all those questions, it isn't your business. But, generally, in our society those are relatively black and white issues that I don't feel compare to abortion. You have no obligation to do anything in those situations whatsoever, you can feel free to be a good samaritan, but you have no obligation.

Abortion, on the other hand, is treated as an issue where "we are deciding what is right for everyone regardless of individual beliefs and scenarios". That's just wrong. If you don't believe in abortions, fine, don't get one, but for someone who does leave them be, one choice is not going to be good for everyone and it is foolish to even believe so.

(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  I'm with John Donne here and disagree with your notion that we are all completely individual and separate from each other. Societies have the right to set up certain reasonable restrictions on behavior and obligations to protect those who are in the least position to protect themselves. I agree it gets skewed when we start dealing with questions of morality as people will have different views on the topic. Some people feel homosexuality is immoral whereas others feel (including me) the the relationship between two consulting adults is the business of no one but those two consenting adults and its no one's business.

I certainly agree with this, I'm not saying we're all separate, I'm saying that no matter how cohesive we are as a society one ruling will not suit everyone living within it. It's the duty of a society to set aside beliefs and convictions and consider the plight of their fellow man, you may not like abortion but you can at least be grown up enough to accept that other people do and they will want them. I don't like the church but you don't see me running around spewing hate, using shock images, and trying to pass legislation to make churches illegal (I've seen all this at an anti-abortion rally). The people around us live different life styles, who are we to force our way onto another just because we feel we are right? They feel they are right too, this gets us nowhere, just accept it an move on.

(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  However, homosexual relationships are not having a life and death impact. Abortion is. Is it right to force a 16 year old girl who made a mistake to carry a baby to term, even if she intends to give it away for adoption? I honestly don't know and, if it was my daughter, I'd most likely want her to have an abortion. Is it right to force a family who is already having trouble making ends meet to have another kid they did not expect and deal with all the associated costs that go along with having that child? Again, I don't know.

Well, it sounds to me like you're more on the pro-choice side then Tongue

(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  I said in my very first post on this topic that I think there are legitimate reasons to have an abortion. I'm just not sure what they are, though, or how to articulate them. What I think I do know is that an overly casual attitude about life and abortion in general is detrimental to our society as a whole. Western civilization has turned into a society that focuses on "Me! Me! Me!" with a mantra of "every man for himself"". I see the casual attitude of "I can do whatever I want with my sex life and my body" as just another extension of that attitude.

While you may not like it, what is the problem? It's just a different life style from yours, who are you to judge? I'm sure your parents thought the same thing of your generation growing up, and their parents of theirs. Societies and their values change, we may not like the direction it's going in but I think it's important to not let out gripes decide whether or not we will effectively decide whether or not a woman has power over her own body, or if the government does.

(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  Oh, the other thing I'm sure of is I'm am thrilled I have sons and not daughters. Whew!

Amen brother Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 03:56 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(19-09-2010 08:07 AM)BnW Wrote:  Oh, the other thing I'm sure of is I'm am thrilled I have sons and not daughters. Whew!

You lucky bugger you. All you have to worry about is the little pricks running around your house. I have to worry about all of them!!!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 06:10 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
Quote:If a woman needs an abortion and it is deemed the smartest solution to her problem the government should fund it (Canada, socialized medicare here) and that should be all they need to know.

You may not be aware of this but the government does not have a job. The government does not get up early every morning and slave away trying to earn money so it can pay for abortions. It takes that money from citizens in the form of taxes. So, basically (and tell me if I'm wrong), it's none of my business if someone has an abortion as long as I keep paying the bills for it? Really? Call me crazy but I think once the money to fund it comes out of my pocket, I'm an interested party who's opinion on the topic should count.

Quote:It's not the government's job to protect unborn lives, they should focus on the economy and the work force, those are the things that currently matter and likely continue to matter.

Why isn't the government's job to protect unborn lives? is it the government's job to protect born lives? If they allowed murder, wouldn't that help reduce unemployment? Are you able to explain the governments interest in protecting the born and distinguish that interest from the unborn? If you want to go the way the US Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade and talk about viability, what happens when medical science pushes viability back further and further? We can grow babies in test tubes now, so, in theory, isn't viability at conception?

You make a statement there as if it is fact, but it is nothing more than your opinion. Granted, your opinion is no more or less valid than mine or any other opinion. However, when you get a majority of opinions, you get social policy and law. If this is the basis of your argument, that the government has no interest in protecting the unborn, then I think you are fighting a losing battle and are going to find yourself in some of the same logical conundrums the pro choice movement has found itself on in the US.

Quote:I certainly agree with this, I'm not saying we're all separate, I'm saying that no matter how cohesive we are as a society one ruling will not suit everyone living within it. It's the duty of a society to set aside beliefs and convictions and consider the plight of their fellow man, you may not like abortion but you can at least be grown up enough to accept that other people do and they will want them.

I generally agree with this statement, and more on it in a minute.

Quote:I don't like the church but you don't see me running around spewing hate, using shock images, and trying to pass legislation to make churches illegal (I've seen all this at an anti-abortion rally).

You have my blessing to go do so. Seriously. I'll even chip in on the posters.

Quote:The people around us live different life styles, who are we to force our way onto another just because we feel we are right? They feel they are right too, this gets us nowhere, just accept it an move on.

Ok, combining this with the other statement, we're not talking about a "life style" here. What we are talking about is whether or not you can terminate a viable pregnancy. I'm not demanding women be nuns, be abstinent, etc. I'm not even demanding they see their babies to term necessarily. My point is that this is not nearly as black and white as you seem to be making it out to be. Their are consequences to actions and it seems that a lot of the pro choice arguments wish to pretend there are not, that we all get do-overs in life. We don't, and there are consequences to this mentality as well.

On the "I sound like I'm pro-choice" comment, I said from the first that I think this is complicated. If anything, I feel you seriously over simplify it, but that could just be my perception, and my problem.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: