Pro-Choice?

[Carmen]

Since deconverting I've changed my views on a lot of social issues: separation of church and state, homosexuality, the role of women, etc. But there's one thing that I still mostly agree with the Christians on: abortion. To me it still seems immoral to kill a potential life. I just have a hard time understanding why so many non-Christians seem to be so nonchalant about abortion. I'm not here to start a big debate, I just wanted to get some feedback on this because I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Did you change your views on abortion when you lost your faith? If so, why?

[SilentLoner]

I became pro choice before I deconverted (while I was still catholic). It never made any sense to me why pre fetal tissue took priority over the life of a woman.

[dichotomy]

I too became pro-choice before I deconverted. I don't think I'd ever have an abortion myself, unless there were very extreme circumstances, but I cannot take the position that I, or the state, or anyone else, have the right to tell another woman what she should do.

 

The reason I became pro-choice, having been quite staunchly pro-life at one point is because whilst I firmly believe that abortion is a very difficult choice to make it *must* be a choice. I guess my value of an individuals right to have control and autonomy over their own life out weights my value for protecting the beginnings of an innocent life. I do however agree with the limit on abortion, which here in UK is 24 weeks (possibly will be reduced further at some point) unless there are extreme medical reasons.

 

My main moral difficulty that I have with abortion is when a woman chooses to have abortion whilst knowing that the father would be devastated and would want to keep the child. *That* I struggle more with.

[RankStranger]

I changed my opinion as I grew up. When I was younger, I was anti-abortion because obviously an abortion was ending a real and/or potential human life. I still don't like the idea of it, but I'll spell out why I've changed my opinion to pro-choice.

 

Nobody can conclusively answer the question of when a separate, conscious life that should have 'rights' begins. I mean yeah, you can latch onto some easily definable point like conception... but should a few dozen cells really have 'rights'? What about a fetus that can be visually recognized as human, but can't possibly be conscious? There's no easy answer here, and ANY line that's drawn will be arbitrary. So in my opinion, the person who is best suited to make that decision is the one who will be most directly affected by it... the person carrying said zygote or fetus. I don't have to like the idea of it to acknowledge that it's HER body and it should be HER decision. What right do I have to tell somebody what they should do with their OWN body?

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think abortion in the U.S. is generally legal through the first two trimesters... after that the legality becomes sticky and contingent on the circumstances and doctors' opinions. It's kinda messy, kinda arbitrary... but I think it's the best compromise that we're going to come up with.

[JadedAtheist]

I would still be classed as "pro-life". As it has been already mentioned, it's hard to draw a line in the dirt and say this is life and this isn't but I think conception will have to do. I don't have a right to tell other people what to do when it doesn't personally affect me and when I don't understand/know all the dynamics of their situation so I won't fight against people's rights to have an abortion but for now I fail to see it anything other than ending a human life at this current point in time.

[ClaraOlive]

I became pro-choice before I left Christianity. I do not believe that a non-viable fetus is a human life.

 

I am childfree and if I got pregnant, I would absolutely get an abortion. I am and always have been extremely careful and consistent about birth control and I have NEVER had unprotected sex. To me it is a much worse sin to bring a unwanted child into the world than to end the life of a fetus.

 

I was an unwanted baby and was adopted. So I KNOW that the "choose life, your mother did" rhetoric is bullshit. It was lucky that I was adopted, but I could have just as easily been left to be malnourished and uncared for in the orphanage. If I could go back and affect past events, I would gladly contribute to a world in which my biological mother felt free to choose abortion. Not because I wish I were dead, but because I recognize that I didn't have some soul that was unhappy being unborn.

[HappyChef]

My stance never changed whether in or out of xianity.Abortion is a womans health issue and unless one has a uterus they should keep their condemnation and opinion(and vote) out of others lives.

 

Being responsible BEFORE it is an issue is what gets ignored too often.If you are male and have a certain belief then talk before you do the deed!!!!Or here's an idea FIND a like minded person before shagging!

[Franciscan Monkey]

I am staunchly pro-choice in the early weeks of pregnancy, and staunchly pro-life in the last weeks of pregnancy (except in cases of rape, incest, or the health/life of the mother). It's where to draw the line that's the issue, as Rank Stranger has already mentioned. My opinion is that the line should be drawn at the point where the fetus can feel pain. Determining that point is not easy.

 

I was pro-life when I was a Christian, but even then I didn't think that a legal, logical argument could be made for the pro-life side in the eariest stages of pregnancy. I was pro-life solely on religious grounds.

 

I cannot see how anyone can think that aborting a 1-month old fetus is a problem, and I also cannot see how anyone can think that aborting a 8-month old fetus isn't a problem.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

[ilovemybrain]

I changed my opinion as I grew up. When I was younger, I was anti-abortion because obviously and abortion was ending a real and/or potential human life. I still don't like the idea of it, but I'll spell out why I've changed my opinion to pro-choice.

 

Nobody can conclusively answer the question of when a separate, conscious life that should have 'rights' begins. I mean yeah, you can latch onto some easily definable point like conception... but should a few dozen cells really have 'rights'? What about a fetus that can be visually recognized as human, but can't possibly be conscious? There's no easy answer here, and ANY line that's drawn will be arbitrary. So in my opinion, the person who is best suited to make that decision is the one who will be most directly affected by it... the person carrying said zygote or fetus. I don't have to like the idea of it to acknowledge that it's HER body and it should be HER decision. What right do I have to tell somebody what they should do with their OWN body?

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think abortion in the U.S. is generally legal through the first two trimesters... after that the legality becomes sticky and contingent on the circumstances and doctors' opinions. It's kinda messy, kinda arbitrary... but I think it's the best compromise that we're going to come up with.

 

 

Well said. It's a horrible thing, and I wish it weren't overused or treated so casually. My views since conversion is that since I've learned I don't know everything and I'm not always right, maybe it's not my place to say what someone else should or shouldn't do, and where that line is.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I did change my view on abortion. I'm no longer 100% against it, but I think that what usually matters most is whether or not there's a cruelty factor.

 

Prior to the brain being functional, the fetus can't feel anything, and thus there is nothing cruel about terminating it. Therefore, as another mentioned above, I would classify myself as pro-choice in the early phase of pregnancy.

 

Once brainwaves are in full swing and pain can be felt, I'm certainly not a fan of the idea of doing something that would be torturing a baby, and thus I have to be pro-life in the final phase of pregnancy.

 

There's a little bit of a gray period in-between those. How much of a gap is there between initial brain functionality and the ability to feel pain? I don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of caution and say that I prefer to lean pro-life during that period.

 

Of course, there are sometimes other factors that can make the issue too difficult to be cut-and-dry (such as the mother's life being in danger), but to my understanding those make up a small fraction of abortions.

[Overcame Faith]

As a Christian, I knew I knew the right position to take - staunch prolife. As a person who has flushed the bible and now relies on his own intellect to make decisions on issues like these, I'm still largely undecided. It's a topic worthy of much thought.

[Guest ephymeris]

I was pro-choice as a christian and I continue to be pro-choice as an atheist. I'm not denying that abortions stops a life from occurring but why does the baby's life supercede the woman's life? Our lives aren't made up of black and white, easily catagorized experiences. Sex and conception occur under varying circumstances. If I'm not making this kind of decision for myself as a woman, who will have that power? I have the right to make my own decisions either way.

 

I was raped at a young age, should I have been required to carry that child to term if one had been conceived? In cases where there is no rape involved, it is heinous, detrimental, and sexist to regard pregnancy as a deserved punishment (the old "she should have kept her legs closed" opion disgusts me).

 

I understand the pro-choice opinion and I respect their right to chose for themselves. I want them to be free to have children as they want to, I'm not shutting down the Duggers or other Quiverful types. As long as they can provide for these kids without my assistance, that's their decision. I am also NOT pro-abortion, I wish this wasn't even an issue in the world we live in but it is. I just wish to remain free to make my decisions and I want every other woman in this world to be free to make their own decision.

[Shion]

I am pro-choice, and became so shortly before my deconversion. Reading about women's history, science, other cultures, and becoming better educated about sex lead to this belief more than mere philosophy. Because it is a tremendous form of cruelty to force a woman (in this case a female able to bare children not necessarily one of legal age) to go through pain and trauma of childbirth. Although we live in a fairly advanced society (technologically) there are still a lot of risks involved with child birth that can lead to death, sexual dysfunction, disfigurement, not to mention the financial and psychological burden of raising a child.

 

I am also 50/50 on whether or not the euthanasia of extremely disabled infants should be allowed upon parental request and medical evaluation.

 

On the other hand we are talking about killing another lifeform that has the potentiality of sentient. In this sense it is a sad event, but there are many circumstances where killing is necessary for the sane running of society.

[Vendredie]

I was totally against it as an Xtian, mostly because I was a stupid 12 year old parroting what everyone else said. I became pro-choice at 13 or 14 when I started thinking for myself.

 

I don't like the idea of destroying a potential human life, but when it's a fetus, it is tissues basically mooching off the mother. It cannot live outside the womb. However we're perfectly willing to kill cows for food, kill cats and dogs when they are too sick, and kill deer or bears or wolves when their populations get too big. The last two are supposed to be considered humane and/or better for society. But look at humans! Humans get sick to the point where the pain is too much, they can't take care of themselves, but we refuse to euthanize them because that's "murder". The human population is inching ever closer to seven billion- we're running out of resources. Of course we can't still kill humans just to control population (I think it's equally wrong to kill wolves and bears for the same reason) but we can't abort unwanted children? We waste resources on infants and children who have no chance of ever living healthy, normal, even conscious lives, or ever taking some care of themselves?

 

It's also cruel to force a woman to carry a child she had no intention of having or caring for, and even more cruel when she cannot care for it for whatever reason. I honestly don't know why we have children and struggle to find the time and money and food, when it should be quite the other way around...

[Guest I Love Dog]

Basically I am pro-choice, seeing it as the right of a woman to make decisions about her body, especially where there are circumstances that deem an abortion preferable to carrying through with the pregnancy, but.....

 

I have concerns about the rights of the prospective father. It occurs to me that perhaps he should have some say in the matter, even though it is the woman's body and how he would stand legally if he contested the decision of the woman alone to abort the fetus.

 

Just throwing this in for perhaps a woman's perspective on this aspect.

[SilentLoner]

I have concerns about the rights of the prospective father. It occurs to me that perhaps he should have some say in the matter, even though it is the woman's body and how he would stand legally if he contested the decision of the woman alone to abort the fetus.

 

Just throwing this in for perhaps a woman's perspective on this aspect.

 

I guess I'll chime in then.

 

Ideally every couple in the world can have an honest discussion and agree with the decision of what to do. But in reality it doesn't always happen. Conception is 50/50, and parenting of children should be 50/50. I'm very pro-father's rights in equal child custody. But the basic biological fact is that pregnancy is not 50/50, it disproportionately affects the woman. She faces the health risks of pregnancy and birth, has to take time off work, and does the physical requirments of the pregnancy. She has no guarantees the man will stay to provide for the baby.

 

And if the father wants to stop her, what are they going to do? Drag on legal procedures until its too late to terminate? Handcuff her to a hospital bed until she gives birth to make sure she doesn't try and induce a miscarrige?

 

Then the issue of abusive boyfriends/husbands comes into play. Should an abuser be able to dictate a woman will carry her pregnancy to term? What about a rapist? I heard about a woman who was raped and got pregnant, she actually had to go to the prison and have the rapist sign papers so she could give the kid up for adoption.

 

And let me propose the reverse scenario - who should have the more rights if the woman wants to carry to term but the prospective father wants the abortion?

[Guest riverrunner]

as an xtian i was super prolife and now as a humanist I am still pro-life in the sense that it's not right to me to kill a fetus or a grandma but my view of the reality of this existence has changed dramatically. life is cruel and uncaring overall and accidents happen, murders happen, abortions happen, our planet could be destroyed by a large meteor and no one would care except us. dealing with this reality is too challenging for religions people they just hide in their myths.

 

did i answer the question or just ramble on?

[RankStranger]

I have concerns about the rights of the prospective father. It occurs to me that perhaps he should have some say in the matter, even though it is the woman's body and how he would stand legally if he contested the decision of the woman alone to abort the fetus.

 

Just throwing this in for perhaps a woman's perspective on this aspect.

 

I guess I'll chime in then.

 

Ideally every couple in the world can have an honest discussion and agree with the decision of what to do. But in reality it doesn't always happen. Conception is 50/50, and parenting of children should be 50/50. I'm very pro-father's rights in equal child custody. But the basic biological fact is that pregnancy is not 50/50, it disproportionately affects the woman. She faces the health risks of pregnancy and birth, has to take time off work, and does the physical requirments of the pregnancy. She has no guarantees the man will stay to provide for the baby.

 

And if the father wants to stop her, what are they going to do? Drag on legal procedures until its too late to terminate? Handcuff her to a hospital bed until she gives birth to make sure she doesn't try and induce a miscarrige?

 

Then the issue of abusive boyfriends/husbands comes into play. Should an abuser be able to dictate a woman will carry her pregnancy to term? What about a rapist? I heard about a woman who was raped and got pregnant, she actually had to go to the prison and have the rapist sign papers so she could give the kid up for adoption.

 

And let me propose the reverse scenario - who should have the more rights if the woman wants to carry to term but the prospective father wants the abortion?

 

Agreed. Kinda sucks for men that we have little or no say in the matter- but neither do we have to carry the kid around and squeeze it out our vagina. Pregnant women are directly and personally affected by the decision, and IMO it's only right that the decision should ultimately be theirs.

[ExFundiDCLawyer]

I have always been mostly libertarian in my political views, so I have held positions on social issues which were in contrast to my church long before my deconversion. On abortion however I have always been Pro-life. I always found it however to be completely disengenous for christians to make arguments on abortion based on the bible, especially when the bible is not pro-life at all. The way I see it(and I know many libertarian who disagree) is that the mother has a legitimate liberty interest in the control of her body, but the child also has a legitimate liberty interest in life. In my mind, the liberty interest of the life of one person suberseeds any liberty interest of the mother to control her body. Where I would agree there can be reasonale and rational debate is when does life begin. As a personal matter I would argue at conception, but as a legal matter at the point of viability, whenever that may be.

[Guest Valk0010]

To me the women always had a right to do whatever the hell she wants as far as her baby. I believe that the women should have the right to do whatever she wants, and when I was a believer I tacked on, face the consequences thereof.

 

I am pro life in that I don't want to see abortions don't for any reason outside of medical need. But I figure I am not a women so who am I to say squat.

[Vixentrox]

Pro-choice now but with the caveat that abortion should be a last option and done early. Fucking without taking reasonable measures to ensure you don't get pregnant to begin with is irresponsible and stupid.

 

I also have trouble with some pro-choice arguments that you should be able to abort any time and that a fetus is not a baby till it is born. If you are three or 4 months pregnant and someone beats you and it kills the fetus but the criminal doesn't face any extra charge because a fetus isn't a life, is that going to be any consolation to an expectant mother who desperatly wanted to carry that "fetus" to term?

[Guest wester]

Thank you, guy - and I assume you are a guy -

 

I had to run screaming from the so-called church because of the dogmatic totalitarian control freaks utterly devoid of self-confidence, integrity or agency, who take a sanctimonious view about abortion so they can have an excuse to push around weak and vulnerable members of the human family - namely poor young girls who, like everyone else, are just trying to understand themselves, their place and figure out the best course in life. I watched in horror as these so-called Christians got their perverted sense of self-confidence by terrorizing young girls and other people who care about what happens to them.

 

"To me it still seems immoral to kill a potential life." - then, I am sure you have no problem in overturning capitalism so that all the potential lives of the already born in Africa, in Cambodia, in Vietnam in India and rural China are not ripped away from them by a greed-driven food distribution system and exploitative system which allows others to violently rip away the true value which their labor produces every day.

 

No mother ever chooses abortion. It is the external circumstances that result in her action. Either she has no money, no job, no hope for the future, no one who can give her a job, or help or hope...or she is surrounded by cretins who value social norms over their relationship to the woman in question.

 

If you are simplifying and reducing an important issue for a human mother - her choice whether or not to abort her

very own baby - If you are going to get all sanctimonious about an issue, at least have the integrity to view it in the big picture and don't to be a situational relativist about it. Try to understand the immorality that is involved in you, your judgment, your family, your society, the system you live in, and then look at the woman who is considering an abortion. Don't take the cheap road to sanctimoniousness by latching onto one point of view that allows you to leverage yourself up on the backs of others.

 

Cheers

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I am pro choice. I think until 20-24 weeks (the general window of time before nervous system is in place) they should be available for any reason. After that time they should be more restricted for medical reason or fetus viablity/ deformity reasons. People often go on and on about the loss of potential life, but there is always loss of potential life. Every period, every ejaculation is loss of potential lives. People think its different when conception happens but its not really. There are many people who are alive today because of an earlier abortion. Here is an article from the main blog that tells a different story http://articles.exchristian.net/2009/06/my-abortion-baby.html

 

Drawing the line at conception is ridiculous. The body clears out most of those and hormonal birth control largely works because it prevents implantation not fertilization. Most abortions occur in the first two months and most that occur after that are due to medical complications.

 

We'd all like to see less abortions through better birth control use and safe sex. Not by legislating it away or intimidating/ harassing women.

[Thackerie]

I would still be classed as "pro-life". As it has been already mentioned, it's hard to draw a line in the dirt and say this is life and this isn't but I think conception will have to do. I don't have a right to tell other people what to do when it doesn't personally affect me and when I don't understand/know all the dynamics of their situation so I won't fight against people's rights to have an abortion but for now I fail to see it anything other than ending a human life at this current point in time.

 

Guess what? You're pro-choice!

 

And you're not the only one who has responded in a similar way thus far on this thread - that is, that you are personally opposed to abortion but that you realize you don't have the right to make decisions for other people.

 

Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. All pro-choice means is endorsing the right of the individual woman to make her own choice; it IS not an endorsement of abortion.

[Ouroboros]

Guess what? You're pro-choice!

 

And you're not the only one who has responded in a similar way thus far on this thread - that is, that you are personally opposed to abortion but that you realize you don't have the right to make decisions for other people.

 

Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. All pro-choice means is endorsing the right of the individual woman to make her own choice; it IS not an endorsement of abortion.

+1 Very good point.