Why are so many atheists pro-abortion-rights?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alexandra Callner on January 27, 2010 at 5:31pm

I agree with you on all points Ally.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on January 27, 2010 at 6:35pm

Hi Christopher,

Nobody WANTS abortions. It's not that simple. If you'll look around, I think you'll find that the value of human life is NOT absolute. As a whole, we willingly kill: enemy combatants, death-row prisoners, brain-dead patients, dangerous despots, and, yes, unwanted embryos.

We need to acknowledge that ideals of "should be" are, by definition, NOT realities of "what is". There should be no wars, vicious criminals, terminal disease, dangerous despots and unwanted embryos. But the reality is: there are.

When it comes to abortion, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has struck a reasonable balance between the opposing camps. The "dividing line" is fetal viability. Other criteria may be debatable but most of us can agree that intentional killing of a viable fetus is murder. Of course there are those who would disagree with ANY prohibition on abortion but how can a democracy acknowledge only them but not the rest of us?

It's an imperfect world. Until utopia arrives, we face an imperfect reality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ally on January 28, 2010 at 4:02pm

Indeed!
The value of human life is CLEARLY Not absolute.
A friend of mine was shot in the head for the contents of his wallet!
I meant "pro" = want / think it is good.
What counts as "Fetal Viability?"
I think what often gets lost in these discussions is the realities of the individual Woman.
I honestly think it should be her decision (& her partner if she has one) alone!
Most so-called Democracies have very limited access to this medical procedure - so whose veiws are really being supported?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brittany A. Cox on February 8, 2010 at 1:20pm

I completely agree with you Ally. However I believe that the question was mean to be read as one whole thought. Not so much "pro-abortion" But the "pro-abortions-RIGHTS"

But you are right, no one WANTS an abortion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on February 8, 2010 at 9:26pm

Hi Ally and Brittany,

We've stated our positions and disagree where fetal viability is concerned. There's no surmounting that one.

As a society, we could side with either extreme: full pro-life or full pro-choice. Fortunately, our democracy isn't so one-sided. The Supreme Court has struck a balance that allows plenty of time for couples to decide whether or not to abort. The pro-choice side has won.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rusty Gunn. on February 8, 2010 at 5:27pm

felch grogan wrote: "a) nobodies business but the immediate party's involved."

And just how is that unborn child supposed to express his/her feelings on the matter?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Renee Gura on February 26, 2010 at 1:25pm

Did you know that until about week 20 (before which about 99% of abortions are performed), a ZEF isn't sentient? This means that it doesn't have feelings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rusty Gunn. on February 8, 2010 at 5:29pm

GuanoLoca wrote: "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."

What choice is the unborn child given and how is that child supposed to express that choice?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Renee Gura on February 26, 2010 at 1:28pm

It is the ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) that is using the woman's body, not the other way around.

Even if the ZEF could say "I don't want to be removed", it still wouldn't have the right to use the woman's body against her explicit non-consent.

Lets use some logical substitution (logical because I am comparing the use of body and the consent that is required):

"What choice is the rapist given?"

The user doesn't get a choice in whether or not the woman removed the user from HER body.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rusty Gunn. on February 8, 2010 at 5:33pm

Marty Mueller wrote: "I agree, I personally pro-choice. Its all about freethinking and not imposing one's will or morals on others."

Who'se thinking for the unborn child? Is it OK to impose one's will on that child?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Renee Gura on February 26, 2010 at 1:31pm

Yes, it is okay to impose "one's will" in this circumstance.

We have to consider who creates the first violation. In the case of pregnancy, it is the ZEF that creates the first violation. It does this when it implants onto her body and begins using her body. The woman, therefore, has a right to defend against the usage should it be unwanted.

The scenario is the same in all self-defense examples. The person who creates the first violation forfeits some of their legal rights.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on February 26, 2010 at 1:45pm

The religious right would argue that the "self defense" action should be taken before pregnancy occurs by not having premarital sex. And perhaps the anti-choice atheists would argue the same.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Next ›
• Page