I'll comprimise. I don't like the term entirely, but it'll do. Just like there are pro-gun-rights and pro-gambling-rights (and there used to be pro-slavery-rights).

Is it just for the sake of disagreeing with the religious? Is it because they see being anti-abortion-rights as being a strictly religious viewpoint? Are anti-abortion-rights atheists worried about fitting in? Is it just a coincidence?

Tags: abortion

Views: 178

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I just happen to be pro-choice simply because I think that is a personal issue and not one open to public debate. I don't think it is anyone's business. Where the bible pounders got off thinking that it was is beyond me. In fact I posted how I felt about it on a yahoo group I was a member of. And let me tell you I held nothing back.
Well then end result was that the group moderator crated another group for politics. My standing up for my beliefs upset another person and they quit the group. Their answer for everything always started with "liberal". The liberal media, the liberal left and so on.
I know others who are religious believers who are pro-choice or pro-abortion. What I've seen in the US is that the so called Religious Right uses it as a rallying cry and call. Sadly, they have the view that it is their way or no way at all.
Personally, I feel that it is a personal matter and of no interest to anyone save the women and maybe her doctor.
Rick wrote on December 24, 2008 I just happen to be pro-choice simply because I think that is a personal issue and not one open to public debate.

I think that this is right for the great majority of people who argue about abortion. They cannot make a case for their position embracing a universal value, so they argue about their personal ethical preference. The arises when some people organize politically to criminalize the moral decisions of other people.
"I know life starts early and I am aware abortion kills a baby, however, I am still prochoice because if I am no longer allowed to make my OWN decision on this matter, who IS deemed fit to make this decision? A stranger? A judge? A POLITICIAN?"

So if you're defending the right of the woman to make her own decision on the matter, I suppose no abortion is too late to you from a legal perspective. What do you say about a woman who wants an abortion when she's on the eight month of pregnancy? And if you're more qualified than politicians to make such decisions, then what kind of decisions which limit individual rights are the politicians more qualified than you to make?
If you're against late term abortion, then I suppose you have an exact border between late-term and early-term. But how is such a border decided upon?
If I wanted someone else making all of my difficult decisions for me I would have stuck with christianity. I am pro-choice because not only do I want the right to choose for myself, I also don't presume to know what's best for anyone else. Whether or not someone else has an abortion is none of my business, it's not any of your business and it's definitely not the government's business.

To those of you worried about the suffering of the fetus you may want to take a look at this previously posted article about fetal pain. Dawn K also left an interesting post (third one down) about ID&E procedures. Take a look it may put some concerns to rest.
Due to posts I keep running into I felt that the partial birth abortion(ID&E) thing needed to be cleared up again.The information I was sending everyone towards explained, "nearly all ID&E procedures are done on fetus' that are NOT viable. IIRC the procedure was actually developed to deliver a dead fetus without having to perform a cesarean section. Most ID&E procedures are performed because the fetus has hydrocephalus in which there is an enlargement of fetal head (sometimes up to 20 inches!). ID&E procedures are not performed as elective abortions."

I also saw another post in this thread that seemed to think that the cut off was at the end of the first trimester. This is something that I've heard time and time again.I felt that the article on fetal pain would be relevant to anyone who may be reading this thread that may not have come across the information before.
Abortion? I think that most miss the real issue. Abortion is the product of poor education. Religion prevents proper education. Provide proper education and abortion is not an issue. The irony is that the people who are against abortion are actually providing the need for abortion.
The need for secrecy, to keep one's sexual activity unknown to parents or to others who would be judgmental deters some people from getting the contraception and information they need. And, of course, hormones and the moment of weakness are a factor, too.
It's kind of sad that the issue is so black and white that there's almost no discussion about the "in the middle"

I'd say abortion should be ok until certain age, let's say, 6 weeks of concived. Before 6 weeks, a woman can abort anything she wants, but after that, she has to have it. If she doesn't want it, give it on adoption.
This is a very common opinion, and in fact the basis for Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision controlling abortion law in the United States. Roe established that the government interest in protecting the life of the conceptus increases with fetal development. It is frequently argued that once a fetus becomes a person, that aborting it is murder, so that we must examine the medical facts f fetal development to decide when personhood is reached.

I consider this to be a fundamental misconception, however, which misconstrues ‘personhood’ as a medical state when it is in fact a valuation. I have previously stated more than once on these boards that personhood occurs at the point when society decides to recognize the fetus as possessing the human rights that we recognize in one another. It is a fundamental principle of ethics that we cannot derive an ‘ought’ statement from an ‘is’ statement; that is, we cannot determine moral right or obligation from factual conditions without first introducing value statements. We should be examining, not the facts of fetal development, but the source of our values.

I have been discussing this on several of these Atheist Nexus folders with the identical topic. No one has offered an argument for assigning universal value to the fetus at any point. Rather, every argument shows that fetal value is a subjective, personal moral taste.

You seem content (in the manner of Roe) to offer an arbitrary moment, 6 weeks, at which to terminate the woman’s right to reproductive self-determination. What sort of a basis is your personal and subjective or else arbitrary determination for terminating anyone’s legal rights?
Those 6 weeks I said were an example, I'm not saying that it *should* be 6 weeks. If any specific time is going to be given, it should be by doctors. If they say 3 weeks, then let it be 3 weeks. If they say 3 months, let it be 3 months. What I'm saying is that the medical community is the one who shoudl decide when a fetus starts feeling the way a person does nad is more than just a bunch of cells. And if a woman's right to reproductive self-determination is to be terminated, it should be only because there starts someone else's right, this is the unborn baby. But again, the specific time is to be decided by the medical community.
My point is that this is a naturalistic fallacy, that confuses medical facts for an act of valuation. A medical exam can no more tell you that a fetus at any given stage has or deserves human rights than it can tell you if Beethoven or Puccini is better. They are both personal tastes, one moral and the other musical.

The question that you have to answer is what is the source of value, specifically, fetal value. The Christian claim is that moral value is god-decreed, and that the offspring has the same value as you and I at the point of conception, when god breathes a soul into him. Atheists whom I’ve discussed this with have no recourse but to argue that the value of the fetus, at whatever moment they choose, is self-evident, and should be agreed by everyone. But this claim is obviously false, as opinion on this question is sharply divided. When people claim that the intrinsic value of the fetus should control the abortion decision at the time of fetal viability or brain waves or responsiveness or some calendar date, they are merely stating their personal moral preference. The question to you, once again, is why a personal, subjective preference held by some people should justify terminating the legal rights of other people.

I think that the source of value is found in the consequences that result. The abortion decision should be based upon the consequence in the lives of everyone affected – the woman, her mate, family and support group, society as a whole and most particularly the offspring. The woman should consider the question “will my child be better off if I carry this pregnancy to term, or if I defer parenthood until a later time?” In the United States at this point of the 21st Century, I think that the mother is in a better position to correctly decide the abortion question than the government.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service