Pro-Life Atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2010, 01:04 AM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(21-09-2010 09:01 AM)SecularStudent Wrote:  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.
You misread my analogy. The point , as I am sure you will see if you read it more carefully, was that just because a decision affects you it does not necessarily mean you are the best person to make the decision. thus the argument that "the woman is the one carrying the child" does not hold because as much as it gives her some extra insight it also makes it harder for her to think objectively.


(21-09-2010 09:01 AM)SecularStudent Wrote:  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.
Not bringing up death was where your argument failed. Your argument only holds if you are denying the fact that you are actually ending a life. Next to that the womans inconvenience does seem trivial would you not agree? I am in no way implying that women remain celibate until they want children. They are of course free to have as much sex as they´d like. Just as people are free to do whatever else they want to do with their spare time, as long as it does not harm or inconvenience anyone else. Most of the decisions we make during life have consequences. Just because the potential consequences of sex are more severe than what we are used to, that is no excuse to shy away from our responsibility to them. As for the men, I grant us the same freedoms and responsibilities as I do women.

(21-09-2010 09:01 AM)SecularStudent Wrote:  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.

I have already explained why reserving the right to make this decision for the mother is unfounded, so I´ll move on. The man should not have the option of walking away. I do not feel that we should allow a double standard on this and therefore the man needs to be held accountable as much as the woman. child support is really the least we should expect! If either the man or the woman is unwilling to take part in raising the child, and the other is unable to do it alone, adoption is a perfectly good option.

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
22-09-2010, 04:57 AM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
My position is the same one John Kerry stated during the debates with Bush. I believe in the legal right to abortion because it is not the right of the state to force a woman to incubate an unwanted pregnancy; however, I would never council any woman that abortion should be her first and only option. A blastocyst is not a human life. A zygote is not a human life. An embryo which is incapable of sustaining life outside the womb is where it gets gray, and my opinion should not be the law, but I consider an embryo to be alive and human.

Use and encourage birth control!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2010, 05:19 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(22-09-2010 01:04 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  You misread my analogy. The point , as I am sure you will see if you read it more carefully, was that just because a decision affects you it does not necessarily mean you are the best person to make the decision. thus the argument that "the woman is the one carrying the child" does not hold because as much as it gives her some extra insight it also makes it harder for her to think objectively.
So the question then becomes, who is the best person to make the decision? Obviously the parents. I have already conceded that a couple should ideally make the decision together. However, we do not live in an ideal, perfect world, and some couples are going to disagree on what should be done. I am simply saying that if the woman does not want to have the child, she should be able to make that decision; nobody, including her partner, should be able to force her to go through with having the child. That includes the government, which is why I am against making it illegal.

(22-09-2010 01:04 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  Not bringing up death was where your argument failed. Your argument only holds if you are denying the fact that you are actually ending a life. Next to that the womans inconvenience does seem trivial would you not agree?
I am not denying the ending of a life, I did say that I realise the fetus dies. My argument was initially about the severity of pain or suffering that may be the result. However, if you want me to make my argument about death, I can do that.
In reality, there is no reason to place human life above that of any other sentient life. Granted, as I stated initially, the best option is to have the baby if it will cause no suffering to the potential mother. However, if the mother is going to suffer as a result of having a child, then she should be allowed to abort. Ranchers are allowed to slaughter cattle, and farmers are allowed to slaughter pigs, and only crazy animal-rights people get worked up about this. Yet many, many more people get worked up about the idea of women having abortions. Again, I really don't see why a human life is to be put above that of animals.

(22-09-2010 01:04 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  I am in no way implying that women remain celibate until they want children. They are of course free to have as much sex as they´d like. Just as people are free to do whatever else they want to do with their spare time, as long as it does not harm or inconvenience anyone else. Most of the decisions we make during life have consequences. Just because the potential consequences of sex are more severe than what we are used to, that is no excuse to shy away from our responsibility to them. As for the men, I grant us the same freedoms and responsibilities as I do women.

We are in agreement on something Tongue I do agree that there are consequences, and that the very best thing is to be fully educated about the consequences so that proper preventative measures are to be taken. If sex education was more widespread (and taught at an early age), and if contraception was more widely available, we could, for the most part, rid ourselves of the abortion problem altogether. Because, in reality, when a couple is using contraception properly, they rarely ever get pregnant.

(22-09-2010 01:04 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  I have already explained why reserving the right to make this decision for the mother is unfounded, so I´ll move on. The man should not have the option of walking away. I do not feel that we should allow a double standard on this and therefore the man needs to be held accountable as much as the woman. child support is really the least we should expect! If either the man or the woman is unwilling to take part in raising the child, and the other is unable to do it alone, adoption is a perfectly good option.
I don't think that we should hold to a double-standard either, but currently, a double-standard exists. I also agree with you that adoption is a perfectly good option if neither parent wants to raise the child. I also agree that if the woman is willing to have the baby, but doesn't want to raise it, but the father would like to raise it, then he should have that option. My only objection occurs when the woman is not willing to have the child; then nobody should be able to force her.

I hope that my stance is a little clearer now. I am sorry if I came off as being a bit of an asshole to men; that definitely wasn't my intention.

"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
10-12-2010, 11:16 AM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
I'm pro life as well, I'm sure we all are, very few are pro-death i'd guess.....
live and let live.... however I'm not about telling others how they should live their life. furthermore it should not be called "pro life", it should be "anti-abortion", call it like it is , don't stand behind shiny happy words when what your really about is dark and nasty, as is anything that tries to force its will upon others.
Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2010, 01:31 PM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
Considering the number of 'pro-life' people here, I decided to (most likely regretably) post the counter argument of pro-choice.

My main reason is probably because I hate anybody thinking they have the authority to interviene with a womans ovaries.

I also take the opinion that the zygote is alive but it is not a LIFE until it has a brain and self awareness, therefore a foetus before around 22 weeks is only life potential. After 22 weeks or so, then I would have an issue with abortion but otherwise, it is acceptable.

On another note, I also find that when somebody knows very early on that their child will be severly handicapped then it is only loving to prevent the child from being born and suffering like this.
Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2010, 04:05 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
A sperm cell is alive , an egg is alive and a fetus is alive - BUT - that doesn't make them a human being.I am pro-choice , a woman has a right to her own body.Still I would like to see people reduce abortions and increase education.
I don't think it's fair to bring a child into the world so that they can suffer or be unloved just because the procedure is controversial.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2010, 04:15 PM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
just want to make this clear if my post did not... I'm pro-choice and was mocking the anti-abortionists use of the term "pro-life" to describe their anti views. its very sugar coated for what they really mean... control and dominance over a woman's body.
Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2010, 06:42 PM
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
I am pro-choice. I agree with Violentpixi that abortions should be done before a certain time because after that time, the fetus will be gaining awareness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2010, 10:33 PM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(10-12-2010 04:15 PM)freethinker1 Wrote:  just want to make this clear if my post did not... I'm pro-choice and was mocking the anti-abortionists use of the term "pro-life" to describe their anti views. its very sugar coated for what they really mean... control and dominance over a woman's body.

Okay, I'll play. I'm anti-abortion ... mostly. And I know lots and lots of us who have no interest in dominating or controlling a woman's body, only in empowering and educating women (and men) to make responsible reproductive choices.
Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2010, 09:06 AM
 
RE: Pro-Life Atheists?
(11-12-2010 10:33 PM)athnostic Wrote:  
(10-12-2010 04:15 PM)freethinker1 Wrote:  just want to make this clear if my post did not... I'm pro-choice and was mocking the anti-abortionists use of the term "pro-life" to describe their anti views. its very sugar coated for what they really mean... control and dominance over a woman's body.

Okay, I'll play. I'm anti-abortion ... mostly. And I know lots and lots of us who have no interest in dominating or controlling a woman's body, only in empowering and educating women (and men) to make responsible reproductive choices.

sadly there are lots and lots of anti-abortion folks that do want to dictate what a woman can and can't do with her body. i'm glad your not one of them.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: