Pro-Life Atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2010, 08:30 PM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(19-09-2010 03:56 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  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!!!

No kidding!! This is why I own a gun.
(19-09-2010 09:42 AM)Green Wrote:  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 a little bothered by this statement. Have you ever seen an abortion procedure performed? (Not by a pro-life propaganda video but just informationally?) It's absolutely horrifying to witness.

Fetuses actually look like babies from a very early stage of development. There's plenty of debate about whether or not a fetus can feel pain (I tend to think it can't), but the procedure involves suctioning the fetus out through a tube with a razor blade on the end. (In other words, the fetus is completely dismembered.)

Again, I don't believe in outlawing abortion, but I certainly believe there is some larger principle at stake. I judge because a fetus has no voice and cannot advocate for itself.
Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 09:24 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(19-09-2010 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  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.

Point taken, however my retort to that will be a reference to my last post where I said, "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." Which isn't to say anyone's opinion is any less valid than anyone else but that we need to consider the feelings of the people who want abortions.

(19-09-2010 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  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?

I don't think the government should have any interest in the unborn, the people alive certainly are in their charge but so are their interests and if the living mother, who the government is already responsible for, needs/wants an abortion then they should be able to get it.

As far as viability goes, if it isn't independent of it's mother (that is to say, not still inside her, literally cannot survive without her, an eight year old can live without it's mother.) then it's not alive. The mother is, and this is going to sound demeaning I suppose but I mean no offense, a biological life support system. Children are allowed to pull the plug on elderly parents on life support machines, why not work vice versa?

(19-09-2010 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  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.

Perhaps, but it doesn't hurt to try, who knows my arguments might develop and become more pertinent. Progress isn't made when you don't put ideas to the test Tongue

(19-09-2010 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  You have my blessing to go do so. Seriously. I'll even chip in on the posters.

Let's get this organized then Tongue

(19-09-2010 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  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.

Oh, certainly there are consequences, anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world, but I'm saying if a woman can make that decision and live with the consequences then why shouldn't she be able to? Granted, there will be those who take advantage of the system, there always are, but I don't think this is something that would become sunshine and rainbows if it were universally allowed. Girls can be lighthearted about issues and say "oh, I would, like, totally get an abortion" (that is supposed to sound like a bimbo, I'm not saying all women are, just using an example here Tongue ) but I'd be willing to bet that most, when faced with the actual situation, would have to deal with the situation properly given the gravity of the problem.

(19-09-2010 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  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.

I'm probably putting across over-simplification because I'm convicted, but I certainly understand where you're coming from. I understand that it is a complicated issue, but I've made my decision and it generally lines up with my general philosophy (I think humanist, but I'm not a pro with philosophical terms). I also hope I didn't come across as aggressive, I do respect your position and understand, I'm just debating it with my own, I just know that a lot of the times I debate on the internet people think I'm mad at them or something.

(19-09-2010 08:30 PM)athnostic Wrote:  I'm a little bothered by this statement. Have you ever seen an abortion procedure performed? (Not by a pro-life propaganda video but just informationally?) It's absolutely horrifying to witness.

Fetuses actually look like babies from a very early stage of development. There's plenty of debate about whether or not a fetus can feel pain (I tend to think it can't), but the procedure involves suctioning the fetus out through a tube with a razor blade on the end. (In other words, the fetus is completely dismembered.)

Yes, I'm aware of the procedure and how it works, I've never seen it myself but I've seen a fetus before. I don't see how the gruesomeness of the procedure, however, should weigh on it's legality. I'm not trying to make it sound like it is a pleasant happy day filled with sunshine and rainbows, I understand that is isn't an easy decision to make or even carry out but that doesn't mean the option shouldn't be available.


(19-09-2010 08:30 PM)athnostic Wrote:  Again, I don't believe in outlawing abortion, but I certainly believe there is some larger principle at stake. I judge because a fetus has no voice and cannot advocate for itself.

I understand that, and I'd like to reiterate that I'm not attempting to be aggressive, merely debating my position Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 10:36 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(19-09-2010 09:24 PM)Green Wrote:  As far as viability goes, if it isn't independent of it's mother (that is to say, not still inside her, literally cannot survive without her, an eight year old can live without it's mother.) then it's not alive. The mother is, and this is going to sound demeaning I suppose but I mean no offense, a biological life support system. Children are allowed to pull the plug on elderly parents on life support machines, why not work vice versa?

I am NOT going to join this debate (and I think you guys are brave for doing so, it's a tough one), but I do have to thow this in. When a child is "alive" is still a debate. I just want to clarify that because you are coming across as though you are stating a fact when you say a child must be able to survive without it's mother to be alive. That is most definitely an opinion, just like saying that as soon as an egg and sperm join to form the 46 chromosomes required to make a human, life is created. Both are common opinions.

Also, just for the record: a child cannot make the decision to pull the plug on a parent when the parent has stated they wish otherwise. I have been through this nighmare, and watched my grandmother waste away for four months, without being able to do anything. Her wishes had been made clear before she was on life support, and the hospital and doctors were required by law to keep her on life support. Even if someone indicates that a person on life support wouldn't have wanted to have the "plug pulled" the decision is immediately put in the hands of the patients doctor, not the family. The point is, the decision is ones own, and only when someone has not made their decision clear, can family step in and decide for that person whether they live or die.

Just wanted to offer some clarity.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 02:52 AM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
Naturally, there's no monolithic block of atheist opinions on this topic. We think for ourselves, as should be clear on this and other threads.

For myself, I believe that outlawing abortions is going way overboard - there clearly are circumstances where abortion is justifiable, for various reasons. I would not advocate abortion as a routine method of birth control, however. So my position is between both extremes.

As for the topic of allowing the option of "pulling the plug" in terminal cases - if the person's intentions are made known via a living will and the family is supportive, it can be done. The physicians who refuse to abide by living wills are protecting their arses (and collecting a big chunk of $$) with all this pointless prolonging of people in terminal situations.

It's absurd to say that 'life is priceless' - we as societies put a price on life all the time - we wouldn't bankrupt the nation to save a single life! I definitely would not want to be responsible for bankrupting my family to preserve my life, when the best I could expect is to spend the rest of my days eating through a tube and breathing only because of respirator.
Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 12:26 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(19-09-2010 10:36 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I am NOT going to join this debate (and I think you guys are brave for doing so, it's a tough one), but I do have to thow this in. When a child is "alive" is still a debate. I just want to clarify that because you are coming across as though you are stating a fact when you say a child must be able to survive without it's mother to be alive. That is most definitely an opinion, just like saying that as soon as an egg and sperm join to form the 46 chromosomes required to make a human, life is created. Both are common opinions.

Point taken, should have said "in my opinion", I didn't mean to come across as matter-of-factly as I did, sorry for that.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 04:34 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
Ironically, females seem to be under-represented in this particular thread Tongue I'm sorry to the males, but your opinions on pregnancy and abortion, while valid, do not have the same weight as those of females Wink We are the ones being most affected by this debate.

Anyways, my opinion on the matter is pretty much my code for everything. Do what will result in the minimum amount of suffering. Thus, if having a baby will not cause any suffering in the mother (whether physically, mentally, economically, etc.) then the best option is for the mother to have the baby, and either keep it or give it up. However, if an under-aged girl, for developmental and cognitive reasons, gets pregnant, I would include her giving birth as causing her suffering.

Some of my biggest pet peeves about abortion issues are arguments about when "life" begins for an unborn child. Technically, ova and sperm are living, so should those too be protected and unharmed? There is no point in which a new life "begins". There is, however, a point in which the nervous system develops, and so pain can be felt by the unborn fetus once past a certain stage in its development. But to use this pain as an excuse against abortion is ridiculous; every single mother feels pain for hours upon end while she is giving birth, but this is not an argument against giving birth.

This is probably always going to be a tricky issue, but I do believe that abortion should never be illegal, and that ultimately it is up to the pregnant woman to decide what will be best for her and the baby. Furthermore, the very best thing that we can do is try to minimize the issue with thorough, comprehensive sex education, availability of contraceptives (which should be covered by healthcare!), and proper communication between sex partners.

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 08:31 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
I am pro-choice. I was 11 years old when Roe vs Wade case happened and the supreme court upheld the right to chose. My mother was so so happy about this decision. She was going to UCLA during the 1950's and had a friend (a sorority sister) become pregnant unintentionally. As you all know, the Pill had not been invented yet in the 1950's. The friend went to Mexico to get an abortion at some backstreet place, developed a serious infection and died. Mom said that happened more than was publicized at the time. If abortion is outlawed, this type of thing will happen again, a lot, and worse right here in the states (keep your clothes hangers and crochet hooks locked up!)
Nowadays, we have all sorts of birth control options that should keep unintended pregnancies at bay. Unfortunately, the theists, and Big Pharma, have decided that reliable birth control should be difficult to procure. I do not think that one should have to have an Rx to get the Pill. I travel outside the country a lot and see that birth control pills are available OTC at pharmacies in Mexico (a very Catholic country!) and Central America. If it was that way in the US, there would be a lot less abortions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 09:08 PM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(20-09-2010 08:31 PM)catdance62 Wrote:  I am pro-choice. I was 11 years old when Roe vs Wade case happened and the supreme court upheld the right to chose. My mother was so so happy about this decision. She was going to UCLA during the 1950's and had a friend (a sorority sister) become pregnant unintentionally. As you all know, the Pill had not been invented yet in the 1950's. The friend went to Mexico to get an abortion at some backstreet place, developed a serious infection and died. Mom said that happened more than was publicized at the time. If abortion is outlawed, this type of thing will happen again, a lot, and worse right here in the states (keep your clothes hangers and crochet hooks locked up!)
Nowadays, we have all sorts of birth control options that should keep unintended pregnancies at bay. Unfortunately, the theists, and Big Pharma, have decided that reliable birth control should be difficult to procure. I do not think that one should have to have an Rx to get the Pill. I travel outside the country a lot and see that birth control pills are available OTC at pharmacies in Mexico (a very Catholic country!) and Central America. If it was that way in the US, there would be a lot less abortions.

Absolutely! Preventing pregnancy prevents abortion. I find it absolutely non-sensical that those most opposed to abortion under any circumstances are also the most likely to reject free availability of contraception and sex education.
Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2010, 03:26 AM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(20-09-2010 04:34 PM)SecularStudent Wrote:  Ironically, females seem to be under-represented in this particular thread Tongue I'm sorry to the males, but your opinions on pregnancy and abortion, while valid, do not have the same weight as those of females Wink We are the ones being most affected by this debate.

That is far from true. I have seen a man denied the opportunity to become a father because his partner decided she wanted an abortion. To say that he was the one who appeared to be th most affected by that decision is a huge understatement.
Also the "we are the once who have to carry the baby" argument simply does not hold. If you are the sort of person who would use such an argument, you are also a person who is unable to consider the question objectively.
It would be like letting a developing country dictate how much aid it is to receive, regardless of the inconvenience to those who are giving the aid, just because they are the ones who best know their own plight.

(20-09-2010 04:34 PM)SecularStudent Wrote:  There is, however, a point in which the nervous system develops, and so pain can be felt by the unborn fetus once past a certain stage in its development. But to use this pain as an excuse against abortion is ridiculous; every single mother feels pain for hours upon end while she is giving birth, but this is not an argument against giving birth.

It most certainly is not ridiculous. There are to major differences. During an abortion, the fetus dies! A mother giving birth usually does not. Also the pregnant woman has brought this upon herself! she knows what caused the pregnancy and to abort the consequences is irresponsible to a degree I have no words for. The exception of course is when the pregnancy is the result of rape. In that case, even I would condone the abortion.

(20-09-2010 04:34 PM)SecularStudent Wrote:  This is probably always going to be a tricky issue, but I do believe that abortion should never be illegal, and that ultimately it is up to the pregnant woman to decide what will be best for her and the baby.

Again you forget that a pregnancy always causes great consequences for the lives of at least three people! Why should the woman be the only one of the three who has anything to say?

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
21-09-2010, 09:01 AM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(21-09-2010 03:26 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  It would be like letting a developing country dictate how much aid it is to receive, regardless of the inconvenience to those who are giving the aid, just because they are the ones who best know their own plight.

I fail to see how this relates to pregnancy. Are you saying that males are giving females aid in getting them unwantedly pregnant? I'm sorry if it is an "inconvenience" for a man to expel his sperm, but that doesn't mean that he gets to dictate whether or not the woman makes the decision.

(21-09-2010 03:26 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  It most certainly is not ridiculous. There are to major differences. During an abortion, the fetus dies! A mother giving birth usually does not. Also the pregnant woman has brought this upon herself! she knows what caused the pregnancy and to abort the consequences is irresponsible to a degree I have no words for. The exception of course is when the pregnancy is the result of rape. In that case, even I would condone the abortion.

I am aware that the fetus dies. That is why I stated that the best option is to cause the least amount of suffering. However, this is not a black and white issue, and the mother's well-being needs to be taken into account as well. I simply stated that the argument against abortion because a fetus feels pain is a ridiculous argument. I don't believe that I brought up death anywhere in my argument.
Also, the argument that a woman brings it upon herself is not fair. If a woman takes every precaution necessary (short of tying her fallopian tubes, which is a long and complicated procedure that more often than not results in infections and further complications; not to mention that it is very costly and takes a while to recover from) there should be no reason why she should be denied the completely natural process of having sex. Is a woman supposed to be a virgin until she wants to have children? That's worse than the "wait until marriage" policy of religious fundamentalists. I don't see anybody here asking men to remain virgins until they want to be fathers.

(21-09-2010 03:26 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  Again you forget that a pregnancy always causes great consequences for the lives of at least three people! Why should the woman be the only one of the three who has anything to say?

It really depends upon the situation. Like I said, it's tricky. If a couple is in a long-term, monogamous relationship, then they are obviously going to discuss the consequences together. However, I believe the final decision really should rest with the pregnant woman, and the man can either support her decision (whichever way she chooses) or he can walk away. A woman does not have the option to walk away from the pregnancy (I do realise that men have to pay for child support in some cases, but I think you would agree that he "brought it on himself"). This is why it is ultimately the pregnant woman's decision. And as for a man who wants to be a father, he can always find a woman who actually wants children; there are plenty out there that are looking for men who want to be fathers. If the couple is disagreeing about parenthood, then they are obviously not right for each other.

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: