Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jenny on December 21, 2008 at 1:32pm

I think its more to do with atheists believing that religion-free beings should have the choice of how to manage their own bodies. Even if they would or wouldn't abort themselves, we should have the freedom to decide that for ourselves.

Religious groups want to remove even the choice of abortion, make it into a crime which could send you to prison. How fair is that to the woman, who was maybe raped, or for whom abortion may be a life saving procedure? I think this is what atheists think about.

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 21, 2008 at 1:53pm

Yes, but your child is not your body.
http://l4l.org/library/rightbeg.html

And just because someone raped you, that does not give you the right to kill an innocent third party.
http://l4l.org/library/aborrape.html

Finally, I never said abortion to save the mother's life was not justified.
http://l4l.org/library/dni-intr.html

There are many entirely secular pro-life arguments.
http://l4l.org/library

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 21, 2008 at 1:53pm

Yes, but your child is not your body.
http://l4l.org/library/rightbeg.html

And just because someone raped you, that does not give you the right to kill an innocent third party.
http://l4l.org/library/aborrape.html

Finally, I never said abortion to save the mother's life was not justified.
http://l4l.org/library/dni-intr.html

There are many entirely secular pro-life arguments.
http://l4l.org/library

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 21, 2008 at 1:54pm

Sorry. My browser is wonky.

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 21, 2008 at 2:15pm

Just so you know, I am aware of the arguments for the pro-abortion side. I'm just wondering why the disproportionite number of pro-abortion atheists?

Permalink Reply by Dawn K on December 21, 2008 at 2:41pm

I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. Just wanted to clarify that for you.

Why are atheists pro-choice? I believe because generally atheists aren't interesting in interfering in what is a very private and sometimes painful decision. I find that atheists tend to believe in personal liberties and the less the state is involved in our personal decisions the better.

Permalink Reply by William Young on December 21, 2008 at 2:57pm

Ditto, I feel the same way.

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 21, 2008 at 3:32pm

"Pro-choice" is a meaningless euphamism. "Pro-abortion" does not mean you think abortion is good; it just means you think people should have a right to have an abortion. Just like pro-gun and pro-gambling. A pro-gambling person could think that gambling is stupid and a waste of money, but they still support the rights of others to waste their money however they want.

And a man about to kill his daughter to collect on insurance may be making the hardest decision in his life, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop him.

And nothing that involves a victim is a private decision. A man who rapes and/or beats his daughter and/or wife cannot claim privacy rights.

Personal liberty is not unlimited.
http://www.l4l.org/

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 21, 2008 at 3:59pm

http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1219281537.shtml

Permalink Reply by Dan Gilbert on December 21, 2008 at 8:02pm

I disagree emphatically that "pro-choice" is a meanlingless expression. In contrast, I find "pro-abortion" to be somewhat offensive and entirely misleading, as I would with the examples of "pro-gun" and "pro-gambling."

Pro-anything generally implies that you are in favor of the "anything" in question. I don't know anyone who is "pro-choice" that thinks abortions are a great thing. What they do think is that someone who gets pregnant should have the choice of whether or not to maintain the pregnancy or terminate the pregnancy. Note that I said "pregnancy," not "child." I'm not of the mindset that "life begins at conception."

That said, for those who DO believe that life begins at conception, continuing the pregnancy would probably be their choice. For those who do NOT believe that, continuing the pregnancy could also be their choice, but it need not be. The concept of "life begins at conception" is, I think, the sticking point. When "life begins" is more philosophy (or dogma) than fact, especially when you're talking about human conciousness.

I don't want the government enforcing non-factual philosophies, especially those born of religious dogma, on its citizens. In matters such as these, the choice of philosophy and actions should be left up to the individual.

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 22, 2008 at 6:28am

"Pro-choice" is meaningless because it does not say what is being chosen. By your very logic, "pro-choice" should mean you think choice in general is good, and you don't see pro-abortion groups protesting every company merger and traffic law.

Also, life begining at fertilization is a scientific question; I think what you're thinking of is personhood.

And the immorality of murder is a non-factual philosophy. Almost nobody would argue the KKK should be allowed to lynch people because their philosophy says blacks are not morally equal.

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 22, 2008 at 6:31am

I would also like to add that "pro-life" does not have this problem, as it encompasses the right to live in general, not just abortion.

However, when it comes to abortion, you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page