Why are so many atheists pro-abortion-rights?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tedster on December 22, 2008 at 3:54pm

In a word, no. I have yet to run across any arguements that atheist made just to simply disagree with Christians.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BADWOLF on December 22, 2008 at 4:16pm

i be anti abortion if 4/5ths of the human race gets wiped out but until then there are too many fuckers on this planet

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on December 22, 2008 at 4:54pm

From a cynics perspective this issue is -

a) nobodies business but the immediate party's involved

b) (from our main page) "All authority deserves contempt. Rules are dispensable, as are customs, conventions, public opinion, reputation, honour and dishonour"

Its not my conscience, its not your conscience, its the conscience of those immediately involved. They are already in a difficult situation without a bunch of do-goodnicks poking their noses into what is, and should always be, a private matter.

No, its not for the sake of just disagreeing with the religious. That kind of statement lowers the godless to the status of the class troublemaker in school.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Burk on February 28, 2010 at 9:53pm

But "Felch", is there a line, and if so, where? 1st trimester, 3rd trimester, neo-natal, infant, toddler? Where does it become "moral" to interfere with personal choice here?

GaryB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Creature on March 1, 2010 at 1:27am

Isn't that the doctor's job?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Burk on March 1, 2010 at 8:00am

Hi Creature,
Leaving it to the Doc to decide is certainly an easy way to deal with the question, but there's more to resolve then convenience. We hire docs as technical experts to give us their educated and experienced advice. Counter to common usage, docs can't give us Orders, they can only make suggestions.

I am personally "ProChoice", right up until the moment the fetus becomes a neonate (at its first unaided breath). However, I do understand that some consider independent life to begin earlier. On a scale of immoral actions, where rolling through a stop sign is near the bottom, killing someone is near the top. IF one really believes that, say 3rd trimester abortion is murder, should they react by choosing to let the doctor decide?

I do not have an answer that satisfies even me. I agree that having babies is not a rare or skilled action - there is no shortage of people. Abortion is certainly often the most expedient solution to a problem and it's always easy to make more people if needed. But expediency, although ultimately dominant, is not a satisfying philosophical answer. Where we have a reasonable choice, expediency seems more appropriate to dealing with running a stop sign then with killing a person.

GaryB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Garrick McElroy on March 1, 2010 at 9:32am

Agreeeeee...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chiropteran on December 22, 2008 at 7:12pm

Wording says a lot. It's Pro-Choice Rights. I've yet to meet any pro-choice advocate that is 'pro'-abortion. The word "Pro" means "in favor of" so Pro-choice is actually more accurate here. We are "in favor of" choice.

And to reduce this healthcare right down to "just for the sake of disagreeing with the religious" is well, trivializing and insulting. This right is much more complex and essential to a woman's control over her fertility and autonomy than that.

And no, I don't think there is any coincidence that more religious are anti-choice than atheists. The patriarchal mind-set in all religions encourage this mentality. Women are seen as inferior and chattel thus, they are subjugated to the rules of the males. And if they can control a woman's very body through legislation all the better. They seek to make a woman's biology her prison and they the wardens.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher Peter Robinson on December 23, 2008 at 2:35am

In [American] politics, "pro-" means "supporting the right to". I'm against gambing, but I still think people should have a right to gamble if they want to. I am pro-gambling. "Pro-choice" would mean "in favor of the right to choose" in general. However, this is overly broad, as "choose" is a transitive verb. Chose what? "Pro-choice" groups don't go around protesting every company merger (choice of product), traffic law (choice of how to drive), and rfusal of ballot access. "Pro-life" is a genuine ideology covering the right to live (an intransitive verb) in general. However, when speaking specifically of abortion, one is pro- or anti-.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chiropteran on December 23, 2008 at 8:31am

I disagree with your analogy here. You are not pro-gambling under your definition, you are pro-choice with regards to a person's right to gamble. You do not support the 'act' of gambling in and of itself, rather, you support leaving that decision up to the individual.

The phrase 'pro-choice' has entered the American lexicon and is generally assumed to refer to the abortion issue, thus, I do not find it a broad statement. If however, you get confused, merely asking for clarification can go along way. That is why there are thousands of words in the English language for specification on any topic.

Again, I will assert that 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice' are the most accurate in describing positions taken on this issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on September 23, 2009 at 2:52pm

I have no right to tell another what to do with their body. Not even a wife, lover, daughter, sister, mother. "Pro-choice" means that I don't want the will of the state imposed on any woman's reproductive power. I can be personally opposed to abortion from a philosophical standpoint and still vote to prevent state-mandated highjacking of female reproductive power.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mojo5501 on February 27, 2010 at 8:11pm

Pro-reproductive rights...supporting the right of a woman to choose whether to be pregnant or not. Motherhood as a choice, not an obligation.

Pro-choice is choosing to terminate a pregnancy without people meddling in a woman's private medical decision. Privacy is something religious folks don't often tolerate very well in my opinion. Women having independent autonomy threatens those on the conservative end of the spectrum.

If folks want to care about human life, they should care about the people that are already born...not potential humans. There's enough suffering people on this planet that are OUTSIDE the womb.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page