Are there any pro-life atheists out there?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angie Jackson on July 14, 2009 at 3:37pm

Mommy jumping in here. It actually IS a parent's right and responsibility to provide proper medical care for their kids. Example, if I had a child with cancer, it would absolutely be my right to have my child undergo surgery to have the tumor removed. I think what we're really talking about is whether or not parents have a right to elective, cosmetic surgery, rather than life-saving medical intervention. (And no, I didn't get a circumcision for my son.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Haynes on July 13, 2009 at 11:23pm

I'm pro-choice, but I have heard an Atheist argument for pro-life. This individual saw the embryo (or the first few cells that would soon become an embryo) as a potential life. This potential life could become the next great scientist, doctor, etc.

A noble idea I think, but not practical, and in any case, I still see it as the woman's choice.

Good topic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 2:09am

So LCC you have read at least some of the lit or arguments, instead of building a secular anti-abortionist strawman from arguments that are from strawman Catholic arguments?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 1:20am

Yes some still use it or the more formal work of Don Marquis "A Future Like Ours" but I don't.
Peter Singer and another philsopher came up with the Potential Person fallacy arguing you wouldn't give a Kings rights and duties to a prince so why give person rights to a non person?

But the double edge to this sword is that this also should mean those that don't have a current personhood capacity like babies, those knocked unconscious or recovering coma patients shouldn’t have personhood rights either as they aren’t technically persons.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on July 14, 2009 at 5:47pm

Simon,

There is a difference between a clump of cells which would grow into a conscious human being if allowed to do so and an unconscious fully developed human who has already achieved both consciousness and a sense of person-hood. The second is in a temporary state of suspended consciousness, the other has never achieved it. They are not equal and do not have the same rights. Those in a temporary state of unconsciousness were and continue to be "persons", while sperm, eggs, blastocytes and embryos have never been, and may never be, persons. Unless your religion has taught you otherwise, that's a huge difference.

The bottom line is that it is purely a religious belief to equate a temporarily unconscious human with those in vegetative states (brain, and therefore personality, dead) and those who have yet to develop into thinking, feeling, experiencing beings. If you have not had this kind of belief inculcated by a religion or a society which supports it, then you do not develop it at all. It is not a "natural" or self-evident belief: it is an unreasonable and/or emotional one.

Once developed it, like every other emotionally inculcated system, can be hard to eradicate. This is especially true if the belief provides the believer with some advantages, such as a sense of power or superiority. It is easy to hold if the practice of the belief does not threaten the life, well-being, security, self-esteem or self-actualization of the believer. It is easier to hold if its practice is not likely to permanently mutilate the believer physically, socially or emotionally.

That is why this position, unlike religion in general, is held by far more men than women. For men, there are few serious personal consequences. These are all born by someone else (pun intended).

Have you asked yourself what you gain by this belief? Have considered how you would react if your life or permanent state of health were threatened? If you knew that carrying a blastoma/embryo/fetus to term would result in permanent intractable pain and that the life-from was probably going to die either before or just after its birth, would you make the same decision that you would recommend for others? Think very carefully about this.

On the other hand, women who are passionately in favor of allowing women to make decisions about parasitic life forms being hosted in their bodies have usually first or second hand experience of the devastation which forced pregnancies and birth can bring to a whole range of people, not excluding the life-form which later becomes a human. Sometimes they ARE that non-aborted life-form.

Contrary to the beliefs of those who are medically ignorant (who usually lobby to have all abortions banned), it is not true that all such "saved" fetuses are happy that they were allowed to develop. Some are so unhappy that they choose to end their painful lives prematurely by suicide. Some die gruesome and excruciatingly painful deaths within minutes or weeks of their birth because they are born with horrific birth defects or untreatable medical problems. It is not well known that the administration of aneasthetic can be a death sentence to such infants. Others live long miserable lives or suffer lifelong feelings of inferiority or neglect. It is not a joy to bring every conception into the world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 9:52pm

First thank you for the considered reply, at lest now I have something substantive to work with.

There is a difference between a clump of cells which would grow into a conscious human being if allowed to do so and an unconscious fully developed human who has already achieved both consciousness and a sense of person-hood. The second is in a temporary state of suspended consciousness, the other has never achieved it. … The bottom line is that it is purely a religious belief to equate a temporarily unconscious human with those in vegetative states ……

Yes there is a difference, but it isn’t relevant and going by the philosophical lit bare consciousness isn’t animals have this after all. & no it isn’t a religious view the Pro-Choice work of Michael Tooley and Warren see this as quite apparent.


The bottom line is that it is purely a religious belief to equate a temporarily unconscious human with those in vegetative states (brain, and therefore personality, dead) and those who have yet to develop into thinking, feeling, experiencing beings. If you have not had this kind of belief inculcated by a religion or a society which supports it, then you do not develop it at all. It is not a "natural" or self-evident belief: it is an unreasonable and/or emotional one.


From my point of view it is you and others like you that have been socialised in to rationalising your position. It has become a identity issue both philosophically and culturally. The overwhelming people on both sides have their view through socialisation rather than reasoning. There are more with these view because more see themselves as Modern or Liberal progressives. & like conservatives they will take these stances with little thought to the underlying justifications.
People who think past their societal norms have always been the smallest minority any society.

Why do I say this is a socialised issue for Pro-choicers ? Because of the inconsistency on applying the personhood criteria, and the misapplication of moral equality in causing men to pay child support as well as ignoring the justifications for abortion in the 1st place.

If you held to your justifications late term abortions and infanticide up until personhood would be legal plus men wouldn't be paying child support. Plus since we have support for stem cells late terms and unwanted non person babies should be able to be used for body banks. I don't want this but relying on personhood entails it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 10:14pm

On the other hand, women who are passionately in favor of allowing women to make decisions about parasitic life forms being hosted in their bodies …… Sometimes they ARE that non-aborted life-form.

& some non-aborted humans are Pro-Life does that by itself mean anything? Or that there are Pro-Life supporters with ovaries? If you then say well there are more Pro-Choice, numbers by themselves mean nothing, slavery and sexism were majority view at one stage after all.

Have you asked yourself what you gain by this belief? Have considered how you would react if your life or permanent state of health were threatened? If you knew that carrying a blastoma/embryo/fetus to term would result in permanent intractable pain and that the life-from was probably going to die either before or just after its birth, would you make the same decision that you would recommend for others? Think very carefully about this.

In general if caused that to myself personally I don’t take that as justification for ending another ethical beings life. Now if you want to raise the minute minority where the foetus would die anyway we have a whole new grounds for argument which I’m open to review and it would be a large debate in itself.

But since the overwhelming majority aren’t these cases I’d prefer to discuss-at this time– that with someone who understand the basics. If I cannot get sense from that, why should I go down this minority route?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 10:23pm

Contrary to the beliefs of those who are medically ignorant (who usually lobby to have all abortions banned), it is not true that all such "saved" fetuses are happy that they were allowed to develop.

I don’t look to have all abortions banned. I’m open to rape if the woman has no plans ever to have children, already dead foetuses and I’m open to looking at the evidence and incidence of abortions where the neonate would die soon after birth with the additional complication of long term problems to the health of the mother. I’m more than open to look at exceptional health related cases.

Some are so unhappy that they choose to end their painful lives prematurely by suicide. Some die gruesome and excruciatingly painful deaths within minutes or weeks of their birth because they are born with horrific birth defects or untreatable medical problems. It is not well known that the administration of aneasthetic can be a death sentence to such infants. Others live long miserable lives or suffer lifelong feelings of inferiority or neglect. It is not a joy to bring every conception into the world.

& yet some severely disabled are quite passionately against yours stance and those of people like Peter Singer in that some even with this adversity still want to live.

Now unlike pro-lifers I’m not against euthanasia so if once born they wish to end their lives I’ve no trouble with this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 1:15am

Jacqueline Sarah Homan
"So take your assinine "logic" and peddle your misogynist bullshit in fundie circles where I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms. You've been called on your crap."

So logic and reasoning are assinine and even if I am saying exactly what some mainstream Pro-Choice philosophers -have published in academic journals and books-or other non Liberal/moderate feminists are saying, I'm a misogynist fundie to Jacqueline.

This is exactly the sort of socialised knee jerk reactionary non-rationality that kept women oppressed for so long.

Its ironic that in a forum that should about reasoning and justifying your stance that a woman who identifies herself with a historically oppressed group, has to resort to sexist ad hom attacks and uncritical thinking rants, when she hasn’t the interest or ability to justify her case.

Maybe a case of a few ssessins of critical thinking 101 and anger management is in order.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 2:20am

Look I'm tired of your sexist ad hom rants.

Maybe you can give your spin why the Extreme Feminist account supporters and Pro-Life feminists oppose your view. Is it penis envy?

Or they secretly could be alpha males in drag :)

Or maybe they are consistent and understand the underlying rationale for the abortion debate rather than angry moderate fems who have to rail not only at the religious but non conforming feminists as well. Gee, that must make you angry, the betrayal and all someone with ovaries that disagree with you?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 5:25am

I suppose just saying I'm pissed off is a step up in this debate. :)

But I can assure you no anger here only a wish for consistency.

While I wish change I can live with things as they are if no increase for funding for single mums etc as indicated in an earlier post. The only current change would be to stop the injustice of child support.

& I'm sure your fellow fems would laugh at your face for such a characterization esp since I bet you have no evidence to back it up. No better than real misogynist saying all feminists are just frustrated man haters.

It's not about babies. It's not about life. Because if it were, you would not seek to eliminate or diminish the women's lives in question. It's all about controlling women's sexuality, punishing women, legitimized abuse, and misogyny

I really wonder if you think about what you post or is it out of a little back book.
How am I controlling sexuallity when a woman still gets to have sexual pleasure just not unprotected vaginal sex?

How is making a woman treat all her offspring the same punishment, when she is often quite prepaired to go through the nightmare which is pregnancy for an arbitrary preference? & how strange when they want it, it can become one of the most enriching and wonderful moments of their lives. Go figure.

& as far a misogyny well that is just inflammatory rhetoric which I expect from individuals who lack the capacity to justify their stance with reason.

I can understand these are your sincere beliefs, but getting angry and name calling won't help you to reason and get to the underlying issues of the debate. It certainly won't help you to understand your opponents POV and then see where they may have gone wrong. Rather than just demonizing and dismissing them you could be trying to help them see where they went wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on July 14, 2009 at 8:51pm

But women are willing to go through this for wanted children. Which also entails you think a parent can arbitrarily preference giving or withholding love and resources to her children.

& unless you are willing to advocate a woman’s choice for late term abortions what you have just posted MEANS NOTHING!

You are also forcing women to do the above!

If you we a Extreme Feminist account supporter of all, even late abortions, you would have a leg to stand on.

But saying what you do just shows you don't even understand what you are trying to justify.

You just don't get it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• …
• 36
• Next ›
• Page