I know a handful of atheists who are vehemently pro-life, who say there are plenty of non-religious arguments to be made against abortion.
Is that a contradiction?
(picture courtesy of cbrinfo)
[tags]atheist, atheism, abortion[/tags]
Can You Be a Pro-Life Atheist?
Posted by Hemant Mehta in General on June 24th, 2008 | 
Yes, it is perfectly normal for Atheists to have morons among them, although I like to think we have fewer morons by percentage than rival groups. This person just reinforces the statement that you can be an Atheist and still be a moron.
There’s no mention of abortion in the Bible and indeed there have been varying positions on it over time. It wasn’t until recently that it was fervently taken up by the religious.
Of course you can be anti-abortion rights and also anti-abortion without religion. As an atheist, I used to be both anti-abortion and anti-abortion rights, with what seemed like good reasons. Just recently, though, (as in within a month) I have become both pro-abortion rights AND pro-abortion.
In my former stance and current stance, both were not rooted in any way in religion. I think a non-religious stance for anti-abortion rights is merely rooted in flawed logic and misinformation.
Philosopher Don Marquis provides interesting secular arguments that attempt to show that abortion is wrong (see “Why Abortion is Immoral,” The Journal of Philosophy, 1989).
I don’t happen to buy his arguments, and I don’t know whether he is an atheist or not, but it is certainly possible for an atheist to be pro-life. Why wouldn’t it?
Atheists can be sexist. Atheists can also place the welfare of an unborn child before the welfare of its mother while being fully aware of the damage that does to individual women and to women as a whole, and wishing it were otherwise but life just sucks that way. Just like religious people can be feminist, and religious people can place the welfare of a pregnant woman before the welfare of her fetus while being fully aware of the damage that does to individual future people, and wishing it were otherwise but life just sucks that way.
The one example I find not many people try to argue against is the scenario where a woman is raped and finds that she is pregnant with the offender’s child. Are we really supposed to turn to a woman who has just been through an extremely traumatic experience and tell her “buck up, for the next 9 months you’ll be carrying his child”. 9 months of a constant reminder, then birth, and assuming she doesn’t give it away she will have to answer questions about the child’s father at a later date.
If she does give it away of course, there is no reason years later it might look for it’s real parents, and the memories come flooding back.
Sometimes abortion can be inhumane, and sometimes it can be the most humane thing you can do. At the end of the day, the mother is the one who is already conscious and has feelings, the fetus isn’t.
Well, i’m a pro-choice atheist, but i certainly think an athieist could be anti-abortion, and i don’t think it’s necessary to label them a moron for being so. However, if they’re bombing abortion clinics for it…
I don’t like to bring up rape in abortion discussions at all. The woman is pregnant. It should not matter how she got to be pregnant. And sentencing unlucky women to pregnancy for having consensual sex is just as appalling as sentencing unlucky women to pregnancy for being raped. Except in cultures with sex taboos designed to prevent any sex that doesn’t have a possibility of conception, and infant mortality’s plenty low enough that we don’t need those taboos anymore. (Not that we really ever did.)
I don’t get it. What is wrong is being pro-life? Should we be anti-life? I never really understood that. I can understand pro-choice, and I am all for pro-choice regarding all issues across the board.
I believe you can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time.
Now… about walking around wearing a sign… I want to to ask why? Going off on a tangent here… I always struggle to understand why people find it necessary to wear signs and/or labels, such as the word “atheist” or the letter “A”, for example. I know we’ve discussed this before. Christians are also notorious for all kinds of ways of labeling themselves. I can think of many other labels we put on ourselves as if we can’t remember who we are without them. (I am also guilty of doing some of that, come to think of it…) Can’t we just let our actions speak for themselves?
Oops! I’m rambling again… :+
“I don’t get it. What is wrong is being pro-life? Should we be anti-life? I never really understood that. I can understand pro-choice, and I am all for pro-choice regarding all issues across the board.
I believe you can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. ”
I think we need to take care and capitalize these ridiculous sloganized terms properly as Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. When you do not capitalize them, it leads to trouble. If you have a dog named Kitty, you shouldn’t refer to it as “kitty.”
We’re of course all (generally) pro-life and all pro-choice, just as we are all (generally) republicans and democrats. Being a republican, though, has nothing to do with being a Republican; just as being pro-life has nothing to do with being Pro-Life.
And let’s dispense with the false dichotomy between Pro-life and Pro-choice. A large portion of us fall somewhere in between the extremes of “absolutely never kill a fertilized egg ever” and “abortions a wonderful idea for whatever reason right up to the second before birth”.
I don’t see why anyone with an open mind couldn’t be pro-life.
If you aren’t convinced about whether a fetus should be considered human, I think the overwhelmingly negative effects on pregnant women who have abortions speak pretty loudly..
What is the difference between a ‘republican’ and a ‘Republican’? How about an ‘atheist’ and an ‘Atheist’?
MrOrange, I hope that what you meant at the end of this paragraph was that you are pro-choice, rather than pro-abortion. The misleading label “pro-abortion” is a heinous strawman frequently used by some fanatical pro-birth advocates to vilify pro-choicers.
While atheists seemingly seldom support the pro-birth position, it is by no means intrinsically inconsistent with atheism — but neither is it the least bit shaped by atheism, whereas the pro-birth philosophy of most people who hold it is most often shaped by their religious convictions (and/or by the religious leaders who dictate to them what their religious convictions supposedly are).
~David D.G.
First comment is an ad-hominem. Nice.
MrOrange, I’ve struggled with this question for a long time. Personally, I lean more toward the anti-abortion side of the argument, but I’m not fully convinced. What changed your mind completely?
Adrian, the vast majority of rape does NOT result in a pregnancy. Your argument is an emotional ploy, and not really an argument at all, but an attempt at gross manipulation based on feelings of fear and guilt. Use a different one. It isn’t the fault of the fetus where it came from, is it?
Jonathan, it’s not a false dichotomy at all, and you’re being willfully ignorant. The examples he used, (Kitty, kitty) were just that. Examples. For you to trot out atheists vs. Atheists just shows that either you are, indeed, being willfully ignorant, or, you didn’t understand the usefulness of the examples.
If you really need it explained, I would wager that MrOrange meant that a ‘republican’ is one who thinks that a republic as a form of government is a good idea while a ‘Republican’ is a member of the political party known as The Republicans. It’s the difference between names and labels.
A small “r” republican is who who favors republicanism as the best form of government. A big “r” Republican is one who belongs to the Republican Party. Going to my example, if I have a dog named Cat, it is still a dog regardless of the name. It is not a small “c” cat as it is a canine, but it is a big “c” Cat as it is its name.
The same goes with Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. Being Pro-Choice isn’t one who advocates choice (perhaps on this one single issue), it is one who is pro-abortion rights.
As for atheism/Atheism, I am not aware of anything which Atheism is. A Christian faith could call their branch of Christianity “Atheism.” Just because they’re called Atheists does not make them atheists.
I’m of course pro-choice on everything that one has the right to choose on, just as I am pro-life on most things (and pro-life rights on all things). On this case, I do mean that I am pro-abortion. It does not mean that I am pro-mandated abortion or anything along those lines, I am pro-abortion in the sense that I would advocate that the woman obtain an abortion rather than give birth. Some who are pro-abortion rights are also anti-abortion (meaning that abhor abortion or prefer adoption over it). I disagree with them, now.
First, you need to provide some proof that abortions have worse effects on women who have them, than do unwanted pregnancies where the woman is forced to carry the baby to term. Secondly, it is not up to any of us to decide what’s best for any given woman. One may be absolutely horrified by the idea of aborting her foetus where another is horrified by the thought of becoming an unwilling mother. Either way, all women have different feelings on the matter and live in different contexts.
Religious people use the same arguments as secular people against abortion. The difference is when religious people say “human life”, “life begins” etc… they mean souls. Secular people who are anti-abortion don’t believe in souls, so they’re really advocating life rights for cells with human DNA, for a human organism regardless what that consists of. I view them as similar to the animal rights advocates that equate the meat industry with the holocaust, many of them are also atheists. It’s just a very bizarre value system, it’s unusual for such horrible values to be gained unaided by religion.
Suppose I agree with this… therefore what? We as a society should make this very serious decision FOR women? Abortion should be illegal because it’s bad for you women and WE know better? Milena, c’mon! Don’t you find that patronizing?
Remember folks, “pro-life” means you want to outlaw abortions and “pro-choice” means keep them legal. Clearly one can be pro-choice and still wish to reduce the number of abortions. You can even be pro-choice and think that abortions are sad!
I don’t see any inherent contradiction between atheism and being pro-life, but I can’t imagine what rational argument the pro-life stance would be based on. “Life” begins at conception? Says who? How do you justify that statement without faith?
I consider myself “grudgingly pro-choice”, and it took a bit of soul-searching (if you’ll humour me using the word “soul”) to come to a conclusion on the matter that satisfied my conscience. I can certainly understand how other people fall into a wide spectrum of opinions on the subject.
I don’t presume that disbelief in a god should imply any particular opinion on abortion. What I presume is that an atheist could at least sit down and have a rational dialogue about why s/he feels one way or the other.
So perhaps when atheists “say there are plenty of non-religious arguments to be made against abortion”, we should hear them out and think about their arguments before we start wondering if these people are contradictory. We don’t all have to agree, but we should be able to have a civil discourse based in reason.
First, I think that the pro-life/pro-choice distinction is a false dichotomy. There are many points in between and many of us fall somewhere in that spectrum.
We atheists are often quick to point out that morality is not dependent upon religion. It is generally accepted among atheists and theists alike that it is morally wrong to take human life. However, most of us agree that there may be exceptions to that under certain circumstances. That is essentially my view on abortion. I believe that a fetus is human life and that in general it is morally wrong to terminate it. But in some circumstances it may be the morally correct thing to do. Even within this view, there is a lot of elasticity - at what point in a pregnancy does it become wrong to abort? Certainly getting rid of a zygote is not the same as getting rid of an 8-month gestational fetus. I don’t have an answer to that.
That being said, I don’t think that abortion should be illegal. A government that has the power to outlaw abortion also has the power to mandate abortion and I don’t want our government to be able to do either. I think the answer is in prevention of unwanted pregnancy. We’ve come a long way with contraception, but there is still more that can be done.
Sorry, no easy answers to this question.
I don’t see any inherent contradiction between atheism and pro-life, but I can’t imagine what rational argument the pro-life stance would be based on. “Life” begins at conception? Says who? Certainly not biologists.
How about being willing to acknowledge that we don’t know exactly when life (whatever that means) begins or when the fetus reaches a stage of development when it can suffer because of the abortion? I don’t know and you don’t know.
Personally, I’m glad that other people acknowledge my right to live despite the lack of a precise definition of life. I’m happy that there are laws to protect my right. I’m also happy to protect others’ right to live. No one has an absolute right to life (there are limits), but I hope that we aren’t cavalier about the destruction of life, especially those who are the most vulnerable.
The writings of Carl Sagan (and for the moment I do not have access to the specific passages) seemed to indicate that he was a pro-life atheist, at least to a degree. I believe his compromise to the question of when human life began was measurable brain activity, which strikes me as an entirely reasonable stance.
I can certainly understand how an atheist might also be against abortion.
But when you get right down to it, I don’t see why this issue should be a societal concern at all. It should be between a woman and her physician and that’s it. If forcing pregnant women and teenage girls to carry pregnancies to term is your number one issue, then you really need to get your priorities in order.
I once read a secular abortion debate between Richard Carrier and Jennifer Roth. So there are people who argue the anti-abortion case from a secular perspective. I don’t remember all the exact arguments but it’s still up on infidels.org if anyone wants to read it. The main disagreement, as I recall, was the definition of personhood and when someone becomes a “person” and are given rights as such. Carrier’s position, which I largely agree with, was once the fetus had sufficient neural structure to support a unique, individual personality.
I also agree with someone earlier who said the rape scenario was irrelevant. It is more an issue of personhood–once the fetus has the rights of a person then it cannot be morally aborted. Before that it is the woman’s choice. The woman’s situation has no bearing on this at least from the perspective of the baby and its rights.
This sounds an awful lot like “I believe in God because no one can prove He doesn’t exist.” You’re right - the child may or may not be “alive” and I don’t know for sure 100%. Meanwhile, we have a mother who absolutely IS alive and is being stripped of her options because “you can’t prove a negative.” Maybe this is a satisfying argument for some people but it should not satisfy atheists.
I’m totally down with Carl Sagan’s compromise.
It is an issue because human rights is an issue. And we can all agree that at some point during conception to birth the fetus becomes human and deserves human rights. And it is our responsibility as a society to recognize and protect those rights. The grey area is when exactly this happens, but like most things in life there are no hard lines.
I’m not certain what you mean, since what I said was basically in line with what you posted. Maybe you got me confused with Brendon, who actually posted the text you quoted. =/
Oh and when I say that the mother “absolutely is alive”, I mean that any reasonable definition of life (what we’re worried about protecting here) must apply to a pregnant woman who is making decisions. Re-defining life to the point where we’re not even sure if the people having this discussion are “alive” misses the point I think.
@Milena - Whoops! Yeah I was quoting something you quoted.
I don’t see a dichotomy. Pro-lifers are against abortion. Atheists don’t believe in gods. Unless someone were proposing terminating the pregnancy of the next virgin Mary I just don’t see a cross over in opinion at all. Honestly it’s equivalent to claiming to be a Christian vegetarian.
This sounds an awful lot like “I believe in God because no one can prove He doesn’t exist.” You’re right - the child may or may not be “alive” and I don’t know for sure 100%. Meanwhile, we have a mother who absolutely IS alive and is being stripped of her options because “you can’t prove a negative.” Maybe this is a satisfying argument for some people but it should not satisfy atheists.
The abortion question is more important, in some ways, than the question of whether or not God exists. I don’t really care all that much whether or not there’s a God.
Abortion involves real flesh and blood. I hope we aren’t flippantly disregarding the possible rights of the unborn because it makes the abortion question easier for us to answer to ourselves. It’s hard to balance the rights of two people (if that’s indeed what they are). In the end, I think the rights of the mother should weigh more heavily than the unborn because she is more obviously alive. I hope we don’t allow ourselves to become so callous that we aren’t distressed a little when an abortion becomes necessary.
Yes - well said. But the original point was that I was asking how an atheist could possibly justify outlawing abortion. Your answer was roughly “because no one knows when life begins, or even what ‘life’ means.” And my point is that if the atheist values reason (and life!), then this is a terrible argument to make. Sure the topic may be more important than whether there’s a god, but this argument is still as weak as similar arguments for god, and it should be rejected for the same reasons. Maybe there is a secular argument to be made for outlawing abortion, but this isn’t it.
Jonathan Blake,
How about not using meaningless words in sentences? At a minimum you should know what you mean, but here we are, with you writing about something without knowledge of its meaning. How can we know that we don’t know when it begins, when we both don’t know what you mean when you write it?
Of course an atheist can be pro-life! The questions seems to assume that atheists think strictly from a logic/science-based framework. There are atheists who don’t believe in a god, but don’t know or care much about science and all the high-brow brainiac shenanigans that go along with “that type”.
So deciding issues from an emotional or moral basis is perfectly valid.
Seriously, I support pro-choice policies, but personally have become very pro-life, because a pregnancy is a potential human and should not be wasted simply because it’s inconvenient to a woman or to society. BUT, that view leads me to be much more concerned about preventing pregnancy to begin with, and improving the opportunities for those most likely to get pregnant and abort - the poor and uneducated - rather than worry about someone choosing to abort. I realize that many, if not most, women have abortions for very valid reasons; yet, they became pregnant while aware of these obstacles. Lack of health care and contraceptives, and ignorance, are what should be changed, not access to abortions.
Herb, I think we started of with a misunderstanding. I didn’t mean to argue that abortion should be outlawed because we don’t know when life starts. I said that we should be cautious because we don’t know. In other words, if those of us who want to restrict abortions can’t argue based on the assumption that life begins at conception (I think we both agree that this is inappropriate), then those who want to promote abortion rights can’t argue that life begins at birth or whenever. We just don’t know. So we shouldn’t be so ready to dismiss the potential rights of the unborn.
How about not using meaningless words in sentences? At a minimum you should know what you mean, but here we are, with you writing about something without knowledge of its meaning. How can we know that we don’t know when it begins, when we both don’t know what you mean when you write it?
Huh?
wwyoud,
Spot on.
In my personal life, I’m pro-life… in a strict public sense, I’m pro-choice. I don’t expect to hold society to the same level of responsibility I hold myself. Plus, I’m a guy, so it’s not really my choice either way, is it? I guess it’d be more accurate to say that I’m “pro-supporting whatever her decision is, but I’d prefer to avoid an abortion if possible”.
Kinda off-topic, but guys who ditch girls after getting them pregnant are the lowest form of life on earth. I know a few…
Johnathan - OK I think I’m with you now.
Jonathan, it’s not a false dichotomy at all, and you’re being willfully ignorant. The examples he used, (Kitty, kitty) were just that. Examples. For you to trot out atheists vs. Atheists just shows that either you are, indeed, being willfully ignorant, or, you didn’t understand the usefulness of the examples.
Did I miss something?
So you’re saying that Pro-life and Pro-choice is a true dichotomy (i.e. you can either be on or the other, there is nothing in between). Interesting. Please explain.
edit: I think you’ve got me confused with someone else.
RRS aren’t morons- they are just annoying. You know, like an alarm clock. Of course, if you ignore the clock, than you are late for work and fired.
wwyoud,
That doesn’t make sense to me. Contraception stops a potential “human” (person?), it wastes the opportunity of a person as well. Both result in not having a baby.
Yes, it’s their fault they became pregnant, they should be pregnant and later give birth as a punishment for their carelessness. Abortions should only be allowed for women who have “valid” reasons for getting pregnant. Women shouldn’t have abortions unless it’s unreasonable to expect a woman to prevent pregnancy, like being raped.
If someone accidently cuts their finger off, and it was their fault, we shouldn’t reattach it, it should be left off, so that they will be more careful next time. When someone smokes, we don’t treat their cancer. When someone gets HIV, we don’t give them medicine, if they had unprotected sex with a stranger they deserve what they get.
What I’m finding to be most interesting about this discussion, and perhaps I’m assuming the vast majority of us here are atheists, is the immediate jump to conclusions, and overtly hostile/emotional replies. Particularly the few comments containing ad-hominems and broad generalizations.
Why is it assumed that if an atheist is anti-abortion, he or she would be pro-law about restricting abortion? This is definitely the type of question where the conclusion may not lead to the action so many are jumping on straight away. Plenty of things are morally wrong, but not illegal. It’s morally wrong to cheat on one’s spouse, but it’s not illegal, for example.
Wouldn’t it be far more reasonable to conclude that if abortion is to be considered morally wrong, at any degree, wwyoud’s proposed solution of greater education and availability of contraception be a far more reasoned, and effective, response?
Just eat the thing one bite at at time, okay?
I am personally very anti-abortion, and I think that anyone who considers a person a moron simply for that reason seriously needs to get his or her head checked. That certainly isn’t very rational thinking, seeing as how people’s morals and ethics can, believe it or not, differ. For instance, I feel that it is very wrong that stupid kids can make very stupid choices and not face their due consequences, but instead passing those consequences on to another human, while someone else might feel that a fetus is not human and therefore abortion is, while not good, the only choice for someone who made a mistake. I am convinced that a fetus is human because it has a heartbeat, legs, arms, brain, torso, reproductive organs, et cetera, very early on. And while there is nothing different from a baby two seconds after being born and a week before birth, there is a very strong difference between a sperm/egg and a one week old fetus.
Reed Braden, I would like an apology. I am not a moron.
During the first twelve weeks, it’s an embryo. It’s only after that that it’s a fetus. /pedant
Shane said,
Whoever said that was probably a man. Who does not have a sister.
My mom is 65, and has had a hysterectomy. Yet she will never vote for a politician who is “pro-life”. Maybe this is presumptuous, but I think for a lot of women, abortion is like the camel’s nose in the tent. To a lot of women, the issue of reproductive rights is used by a lot of men as a way to control women. Sometimes that looks like exactly what is going on. A lot of “pro-life” people will fight tooth and nail for an unborn child, but refuse to lift a finger for that child once it is born. That is a pretty narrow definition of “pro-life”.
As has been stated, “pro-choice” people do not go around trying to get pregnant just so they can have an abortion. That is “pro-life” propaganda. It is easy to take a black and white view of an issue when it is not your life. Look at Bob Barr (who said his wife getting an abortion was a private matter) or Jeb Bush (who said his daughter’s drug problems were a private matter while a lot of people are rotting in Florida jails for doing what the then-governor’s daughter did). That does not make abortion okay, but it is a reason to be skeptical of the extremist view that a lot of people take about other people’s lives.
I also agree with what wwyoud said at June 24, 2008 at 6:14 pm.
Spork - I think we’re all using different definitions of a few key words, and the result = confusion.
For instance, I was under the impression that being “pro-life” is a political term meaning you want to give rights to fetuses/embryos (or outlaw most/all abortions which is equivalent I think). And I thought pro-choice was the negation of being pro-life. But I see people using the terms differently, so perhaps a lot of us actually agree with each other.
Can an atheist be Pro-Life? Absolutely. While many of the Pro-Life arguments are religious in nature, there are plenty which are simply based on emotions and opinions derived more from cultural norms and taboos than anything else.
Then of course there are the bad “scientific” reasons, which tend to point out that, yes, there can be some negative health effects due to abortions, without considering the particular method or drug, let alone facilities and doctors involved, the general health of the patient having the abortion, etc… and this is before whether or not these trumped-up problems even compare to the complications arising from actually bearing children is so much as considered.
I am one of many women who would probably never want to have an abortion, but I have nothing against the practice. I think people need to focus n being responsible and not letting this become a problem in the first place, but if it does, I would not fault someone for it. Accidents happen.
The most important part of it is that where you draw the line is not necessarily where someone else draws the line. The very fact that there is a debate speaks to the notion that people need to choose what course of action they want to take in their own lives, rather than set up laws to decide what is best for everyone.
Nothing is best for everyone.
Jonas,
I don’t know what you mean by human. What do you mean by human? Most mammals have the things you list. I haven’t heard any abortion rights supporter use the terms “human” or “not human” to support their arguments. Further, I don’t see why having a brain or legs should matter to the right to life.
Biologically a fetus can be more developed than a baby. There’s a difference between a zygote and a blastocyst, a big difference between a blastocyst and a 4 week old embryo, an embryo to a fetus. Is any of this relevant to why you’re anti-abortion, and why is that?
I think the answer is yes…but I must clarify that a bit.
Of course there are those who are atheist and not necessarily so because of a grasp of ethics, science or other principles which could greatly affect such a view…idiots and morons who, regardless of what ideology they claim, have very little knowledge of what it is they are espousing…but, those types aside, yes.
The problem is really that the abortion battles have been drawn around incongruent lines. Look at the oppositions: life or choice. Quite frankly I am pro-life and pro-choice. I greatly value life…far more, I believe, than someone who believe this life is a temporary stop on the way to heaven and eternity. Since I believe (and know of no evidence to the contrary) that this is our only shot at existence…then of course I am pro-life.
Further, I personally do not think I would choose abortion over other options, but I am the first to admit that without being in a specific situation I cannot know for certain. I feel my decision is more based on personal responsibility and my own views in that area. I do not for one minute presume to tell others what their choices should be. And, I do not view this as life or death…I do not count a fetus as a human life…it is a potential human and nothing more.
I am also pro-choice, because I am not everyone…I am me…and I cannot speak for, nor know what is best for everyone. I believe firmly that everyone should have this choice, and I am quite confident that it is the correct choice for many people. So no…I would never carry a sign to influence others on this very personal decision.
Yes…atheists can be pro-life. Truthfully…as has been pointed out over and over…the only thing an atheist cannot be is a theist…by definition. Atheists come from wildly diverse backgrounds and are so for many reasons…tibetan buddhists are aslo, technically, atheist. I am quite sure that there are some buddhists who would oppose abortion, for decidedly different reasons than a christian…(and I can assure you that they will not resort to blowing up clinics). There are quite possibly atheists who would say they are pro-life simply because ‘babies are so darn cute’.
The real battle-line is pro-/anti-abortion. I am very much pro-abortion…in that it should be available to those who choose it. As I said, it is not something I can see myself choosing, but I am also the first to admit that I have not been in the situations so many find themselves in. And…I do not want to make everyone believe as I do, so let the choice rest on each individual.
On a side note: I find it very revealing that so many who believe that each person is accountable to a personal god feel they still need to try to shape what others do. It is not even logical within their own fuzzy christian logic considering that their diety has spent a large amount of time and effort according to the believers, preparing the punishment of the wrongdoers.
That was me, and last I looked I’m female and I have three sisters. Relevance? And I stand by my assertion, by the way. A woman who finds herself pregnant and who does not desire to remain pregnant another however many months should not be compelled to remain pregnant; the circumstances leading to her finding herself pregnant are irrelevant.
(ETA: what’s wrong with using nested blockquotes?)
MercuryBlue said,
Define what you mean by “the circumstances leading to her finding herself pregnant“. If a woman does not become pregnant due to sexual assault, then a woman becomes pregnant due to her own actions. To “find oneself pregnant” sounds random, or perhaps a way of trying to evade responsibility. If you really don’t want to “find yourself pregnant”, you can either take pills for that, keep your legs together, or be more careful about the men you choose.
Would ‘discovering that she is pregnant’ be a better way to phrase it?
Unlurking…
I’m late to the discussion, and a first time poster, but I must chime in. Abortion always brings everyone out, don’t it?
Anyway, as for the discussion re: capitalization of phrases, I think it’s an important distinction. I am Pro-Choice (note caps), I am also pro-life (note lack of caps). I have accepted that some pregnancies are not wanted, or are an undue burden for whatever reason. As long as there is a rational place to put the limit on timing, such as the Sagan argument above, I think on-demand abortion should be freely legal. Past that, medical necessity or strong extenuating circumstances (sorry for the vagueness) should be allowed as valid reasons for exception. That’s the Pro-Choice part.
The pro-life part is that I would rather that the potential human developing in the womb have a chance at life. I would rather a potential baby have the chance to see this cool ass world.
Now back to Hemant’s original question, I think it could be a somewhat rational position (I’m substituting “rational” for “atheist”, as I think that’s the more interesting question), granted that initial premise that human life begins at conception. There isn’t enough information about the guy’s stance to say if he takes the premise to its logical conclusion. If abortion is murder, there are several things that must follow. In cases of rape, as brought up above, would that be prosecutable as aggravated (secondary) manslaughter (murder? IANAL)? Same question in regard to incest. Those are two of the main allowances grudgingly granted by the religious community that wouldn’t apply to a rational application of that first premise.
The argument from the first premise could be carried farther, though. Is miscarriage negligent manslaughter? If it’s caused by, say, drug use, is it worse?
Is a drug using mother responsible for her choices regarding sex? Would she, at the time of self induced drug haze be a victim of rape, being unable to give real consent?
I submit that it is not possible to sustain a rational Pro-Life (caps) position without severe legal repercussions. I am not willing to accept those repercussions.
I’ll try not to lurk without comment so much, but I’m a n00b to the blog thing and a bit nervous to lay it all out like that. Sorry for the long comment.
I’d like to add myself to the chorus of people who find the “pro-life/pro-choice” dichotomy wrong. And I’d also like to open up the idea that the phrase “pro-choice” and the idea of basing it on an artificial “right” is inaccurate and unhelpful.
I think that the reason why that term is used is that Americans of both sides don’t understand that pregnancy, and how to manage it, is a public health issue, and cannot be separated from other public health related issues, such as sex education and public awareness campaigns about contraception.
Roe v. Wade did not find or create any right of “choice”. It based its decision on the issue of medical privacy. How about rather than talking about a non-existent right of “choice”, we talk about the real, serious human right that is medical privacy? That’s an issue that everyone can get behind, no?
Because I’m a materialist and I’d like to see an egalitarian and altruistic society, my opinion is:
1. The health and safety of the mother are more important than the child’s.
2. If, after being born, the child would not live without considerable life support attempts, or would live in considerable pain, it’s acceptable to terminate.
3. There is such a thing as “too late” to allow for abortion under any circumstances of conception.
4. There is such a thing as “early enough” to allow for abortion under any circumstances of conception.
Because of 3 and 4, I believe that abortions past 26 weeks are unacceptable and that abortions before 12 weeks are probably acceptable. The area in between is too gray and should be left to qualified people (such as ethicists and the medical community) to consider. Ultimately, I think that conception and birth are terrible markers to consider the abortion issue.
The obvious way to answer this question is to find an atheist who opposes abortion rights. It only takes one black swan. And he’s in your photo, so that’s that. Of course atheists can have opposing views on any ethical question - that’s the unique thing about atheism.
A more difficult question is “should you be a pro-life atheist?” That seems to break down into several secularly difficult questions: 1) What is the status of a fetus? 2) What status must it have to earn a right to life? 3) How does a fetus’ right to life (if any) weigh against the mother’s right to choose what lives in her uterus? 4) Should government enforce these conclusions? Some religions offer clear answers to the first couple, and maybe even the third, though they can’t go far into the fourth without violating the conditions of their tax exemption. Certainly, the vast majority of opposition to abortion rights is due to religion, but informed atheists can still disagree about all these points.
An even more difficult question is “should atheist organizations take a position on abortion rights?”
I don’t see a contradiction in this at all. It wouldn’t be my position, necessarily, but I would tend to respect that atheist’s position on abortion more than I would a religious person’s, and not simply because he’s an atheist but because it is contrary to what you would expect his position to be.
My suspicion is that he had given more thought to his position than someone who is against abortion because it’s part of the package of being religious. Given the fact that he’s atheist, he has reasons other than because a “human soul” is being terminated, and they may be perfectly valid reasons consistent, in his mind, with his rejection of anything supernatural.
My kids are 5 years apart. We were going to have one in-between them but my wife miscarriaged after about 1 month of pregnancy. From the religious perspective, the miscarriage was an act of God. So logically, from the pro-life perspective, I would want to arrest God for murder and have God serve time…. maybe even get the death penalty. God should also be arrested to prevent all future miscarriages. This might be a justifiable deicide.
it isn’t a contradiction, its just an unnecessary label.
EKM said,
Whoever said that was probably a man. Who does not have a sister.
What a sexist, irrelevant, and silly thing to say. Opinions are only valid when accompanied by the correct set of genitals or proper sibling configuration?
Argue the point based on logic and not genitalia. Unless, of course, you’re trying to control the discussion (manipulation) due to gender issues (subjugation for “incorrect” gender posession) and dominate the other party through bullying and not through peaceful discourse. But, you wouldn’t be doing that at all, would you?
I’m kind of a fan of respiration, myself.
Im an atheist, and I think abortion is disgusting. I do think its ending a potential life, someone who could have been a writer, a doctor, maybe a president. I hate to see so many of my friends unable to have children, and then hear about garbage pails filled with aborted fetuses. I would much rather these women put them up for adoption. However, I am Pro-choice. Do what ever you want, thats your business, not mine. I have no judgement for others, just know it is not for me, and I find abortion an unfortunate but necessary option that should be safe and legal for every women in the world.
Being an atheist requires only one thing: a lack of belief in gods.
You can still believe all kinds of other stuff.
I can’t see any reason why there wouldn’t be pro-life* atheists (I think they’re wrong but that doesn’t stop them from existing.
*(oh, how I detest that term - the so called “pro-life” position is very often anti-life, and pro-misery)
My opinion has always been to not have one. I’m a male, I can’t have a child, I should have no say in the matter. So, I guess that technically makes me Pro-Choice.
That said, I also don’t see any reason that a Pro-Life atheist is a contradiction in terms. If anything, I picture atheists/skeptics to be more aware of what is happening during the various stages of fetal development than “believers”.
Yes, one may be an atheist and pro-life.
I reject extremists, whether pro-choice or pro-life. They’re not willing to discuss the issues involved and that’s stupid.
The decision to abort is a difficult one for the parents. It’s a sad thing.
I agree with wwyoud that we should try to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Removing the religious component from this question makes it easier to reason it out and to consider the public interest in policies that touch upon abortion.
I think whenever possible the state should stay the hell out of reproductive decisions. Unless a clear and overriding state interest in the birthing of the unborn can be demonstrated, all such decisions ought to be left to the parents.
I think whenever we begin to apply legal philosophy to reproduction we get ourselves into a fix. For example, the decision to have children is rarely restricted by law here in the U.S. China has had its one-child-policy, which was purported to be in the public interest. But, we tend to let consenting adults do as they please. Why should we let them procreate without restriction, yet put restrictions on the outcome? If it is unlawful to prevent a birth after conception, how is the public harmed?
I like the idea of a “right of privacy.” I also like the idea of a “right to life.” Both I think are recognized by our Constitution. But does a right of privacy overrule the right to life when the privacy is that of the parents, or the mother, and the life is that of the unborn If so, when? Always? I don’t like the thought that government, that is law, can compel a couple to have a child based upon the idea of a right to life. What is the public interest in that? I think the whole idea of “right” poses a problem in this regard. We say that the right to life attaches to all persons, and if the developing child is granted the status of a person, then ergo we have our dilemma. Ought we to regard the unborn as persons?
If a pregnant woman knowingly and willfully endangers her unborn child by using drugs, do we charge her with a crime predicated upon the idea that she is harming her unborn child? But, the unborn need not even be considered a person to be thought worthy of protection, would it? We don’t consider animals persons, yet most of us would probably object to the willful harming of them for personal pleasure, wouldn’t we? If it is illegal to abuse the unborn by using drugs during a pregnancy, why isn’t it illegal to kill the unborn? What is the public interest here? Why does the law step in and charge the mother with a crime? I think a case could be made for a public interest, if the child is birthed. I’d be willing to bet that most of you reading this would have disgust for that woman wouldn’t you? But, would you check your emotions and think “well, it’s her body, and she has a right to do with it as she wills?” If not for this then why for abortion?
If we are willing to prosecute a murderer for two homicides when he kills a pregnant mother, then we must be granting person-hood to the unborn. But, if the murdered unborn might have been aborted without harm to the public interest, why is it murder?
Stacy,
Are you against contraception? The end is the same, no potential writers or doctors. The vast majority of abortions are not on fetuses.
Why would you prefer a woman to carry a child for months and then go through labour?
MikeG,
What’s human life and why does it deserve a “right to life”?
MrOrange,
Got it! So, I guess the answer would be you can be pro-life and an atheist but you cannot be Pro-life and an Atheist? But the sign reads “PRO-LIFE ATHEIST.” He must be trying to mess with us…
It does make sense, when you consider Darwinism, which obviously goes hand in hand with Atheism.
Abortion (and even birth control for that matter) are certainly anti-Darwinist acts.
I am surprised no one mentioned this yet.
Wow, good work folks.
I’m pro-choice; I say that as a male who is a feminist and who thinks that abortion is a matter that only women have any decent logical input to add to the conversation. My take on it is: people deserve to have equal rights regardless of their sex chromosomes, so if it’s ethical/legal for a male to do whatever he can to prevent pregnancies, it’s also ethical/legal for a female to do whatever she can to prevent pregnancies.
Where this dialogue crashes into the ground is when pro-choice peeps or moderates attempt to dialogue with pro-life extremists: people who think that a zygote (implanted or not) is a distinct human being who deserves the same rights as a birthed individual human. Such a viewpoint is drastically different than any moral code ever enacted by human society/civilization. If it was somehow enacted, all zygotes would either have to be placed into test tubes to ensure their safety, or the women who carry them would have to be prevented from any activity that could cause any danger to the zygote within them. …I mean, basically, choose your dystopian novel, Brave New World or Handmaiden’s Tale and decide which you like best.
These people, like religious fundamentalists, are very, very, very difficult to reason with and help cause this conversation to become a lot more odd than it should be, when it should be (as it has been in some cases above) a discussion about when the rights of an individual human emerge.
So….to answer the original post, yes, an atheist can be pro-life; if that atheist thinks women don’t have the right to control what happens in their uterus. You don’t have to be sexist to be pro-life, but, damn it helps out a lot.
I’m pro-life - anybody that isn’t needs to think carefully about their stance. It certainly doesn’t make you a moron (Reed Braden - try and think a little more carefully before commenting lest you unintentionally reinforce your own point).
I’m also pro-choice. It should be a woman’s right to choose.
No, that’s not a contradiction. Just take a look at the rising incidences of abortion being used as a contraceptive. Having an over the counter “abortion pill” doesn’t help either. It means that women (normally young girls) often get pregant needlessly, always thinking in the back of their minds “oh well, if it happens I can always have an abortion”.
I have 2 young sons. Both of them were “accidental”. The thought that we could have aborted either one of them because we didn’t want to change our lifestyle is abhorrent.
So yes, I am pro-life, but the bottom line is that the only fair way to do things is to allow the woman to choose. This will be abused like any system but the alternative is far worse.
Christopher Hitchens certainly provides evidence that you can be an atheist and still be a misogynistic, racist asshole, so I don’t see why it shouldn’t be possible for there to be some pro-life atheists as well.
I’m pro-life and atheist. I’m pro-choice and atheist. Yes, you can be both. What’s wrong with the so-called ‘prolife’ movement is that they are fascists in wanting to dictate their morals to everyone else. I don’t eat animals because I think that is wrong - but am I standing in line to force that belief into law? You can be Pro-life and Pro-Choice when it comes to animal rights as well as abortion issue.
I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. You can still feel that abortion is murder without attributing it to a soul or some religious reason. I haven’t met any pro-life atheists, but I’m sure they exist.
Mike Nicholson:
First let me say that I’m glad you’re pro-choice. I admire those who are thoughtful enough to separate out their personal feelings of disgust or disapproval about abortion from their sense of fairness and respect for personal liberty. But I do have to quibble with some of what you say in your post.
You say:
A lot of people say this, and no one ever provides evidence of it being true. Abortion is often an emotionally painful choice (though not in every case); it is certainly an uncomfortable, expensive, and serious medical procedure (though it must be said that in all these areas, legal abortion pales in comparison to the much more painful, potentially physically damaging, expensive, and dangerous option of carrying a pregnancy to term). I fail to see how something like that could be a matter of “convenience.” Do you have any evidence to back up your statement that there are “rising incidences of abortion being used as a contraceptive?”
Here I think you must be confusing RU486, which is used to induce chemical abortion early in a pregnancy (within the first 8 weeks), and Plan B, the morning after pill, which is taken after unprotected sex but before pregnancy actually begins. RU486 is not available over the counter or even from a pharmacy, at least in the US. It must be taken in a doctors office.
On the other hand, Plan B is available without a prescription, though it is kept behind the counter and one must request it from the pharmacist (and this means that in some areas of the country it is, in practical terms, unavailable, because laws in many states allow pharmacists the right to impose on their customers their completely unscientific “moral” judgments about whether women deserve their legal medication or not, all in the name of religion.) Please note that “unprotected sex” can include contraceptive failure, or even rape, as well as your putative irresponsible young girl.
How do you figure that? Parental fitness is as important a part of the evolutionary process (Darwin was a man, not an ism) as individual fitness, and even if it is an act of self-selection, choosing to prevent some of your potential offspring from becoming part the general population may ultimately enhance the parental fitness of that population. More simply, people who choose not to be parents, perhaps because they know they will be substandard, may reduce the number of substandard parents in the general population because they won’t be passing on “bad parenting” genes.
Of course, to a great degree all of human civilization circumvents the natural evolutionary process. With my eyesight as bad as it is, the natural world probably would have selected me for death years ago, removing my nearsighted trait from gene pool. Eyeglasses, insulin and buildings that keep us from freezing to death in the winter have altered the environmental pressures that drive human evolution. Although sometimes the jungle of thought that we currently inhabit can be as savage as the natural world.
I’m a guy so I don’t think I should have a say in this(though I do wish to have an opinion on it). I wish we didn’t have unwanted pregnancies but since we do I will remain pro-choice since someone women will choose to deliver and others will choose to abort. I’m also a big proponent in the world is full of people so stop having 3 or more kids.
Then I assume you’ll not be killing any mosquitoes any time soon? I’m not sure that this definition as to when something becomes human is better than any others