Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?

[wndwalkr99]

Well, I think I´m pro life. On wikipedia they say pro life movement is against abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, embryonic stem-cell research. I´m against abortion because I think it´s kind of irresponsible. I think woman should have thought about their fertility long before they decided to have sex. Every action has its consequences and if you don´t know that having unprotected sex can make you pregnant than you are a complete ignorant. I think abortion allows women to act irresponsible. Using contraception and acting a little bit smarter is really not hard. 

That's one of the most fucking ignorant, ass-backwards things I've ever heard anyone say. FUCK YOU.

[Ro-bear]

I´m against abortion because I think it´s kind of irresponsible. I think woman should have thought about their fertility long before they decided to have sex. Every action has its consequences and if you don´t know that having unprotected sex can make you pregnant than you are a complete ignorant.  

So you want irresponsible people to be punished with a babY/  Who are you to decide what the consequences will be?  I think having to choose whether or not to bring a fetus to term is consequence enough.

[Yrth]

Just what is irresponsible about wanting to have sex? And why is it only irresponsible for women? What about men and their fertility? 

 

And WHY do you think people DON'T consider the fact that they are fertile? I don't understand this line of reasoning. 

 

Children and parenthood are NOT punishments, consequences, or our little pawns to show off how "responsible" we are. That line of thinking is frankly disgusting, immoral, and has no place in a civilized society. Parenthood is a HUGE undertaking, and children are human beings who deserve a little more consideration to their lives than being born simply because sperm met zygote. Plus to if the men and women involved are truly irresponsible people, I would certainly HOPE they would spare a child their "parenting" skills and get an abortion. Raising a child when you can't feed them, clothe them, or treat them with a modicum of kindness or care at all whether they have the skills they need to be functioning adults when they grow up? Now THAT is irresponsibility. We have enough abused children in this world. 

 

I got pregnant while ON birth control. That actually happens a LOT. Hell, I've even been sterilized and had my endometrium removed, and my husband has had a vasectomy. I'm STILL at a risk for getting pregnant. What else do people want us to do? I've had all of 4 partners in my entire life, and I had an abortion while with my ex-fiance. Birth control fails. If you are going to have sex, there  is no such thing as "fool proof" birth control. You just take it into consideration and do your best. 

 

It's a really annoying and damaging MYTH that only "sluts" and irresponsible women get abortions. The women who have abortions are by majority poor and young. They cannot get or afford or obtain birth control, proper prenatal care, or they cannot afford to raise a child. Many are already mothers who need to take care of the children they have. Is it responsible to force welfare to pay for their children they can't afford, or steal food out of their other children's mouths? 

 

Speaking personally and from being involved in this debate, I've never met a woman who has NOT thought in great depth about or has not had very serious and good reasons for getting an abortion. Maybe their choices won't be your choices, but there is NO logical reason to tell them that their choice is wrong or force them to sacrifice everything they have worked for in their lives for over sex. That's just pure fundamentalist Christian misogyny (and misanthropy) working it's poison into secular society and KILLING our women and children. 

 

 

Most pro-life folks I know would simply say 'You should not have sex at all unless you are prepared to at least give birth in the event that birth control fails.' That would be doing 'your best' in their eyes. The reason is because people do not need to have sex -- which is true. It's also true that people are going to have sex regardless of what you say, but that's a different issue.

 

This would be directed at men and women. Trust me, I got an extreme dose of this growing up. It was actually directed at me way more than my sisters -- a telling mistake on their part, obviously.

[SquareOne]

I would like to say I'm making progress on my summary.

 

Regrettably I haven't started.  Work, work, work, and plus I'm writing my extimony too.

 

But!  I am going to get started tomorrow.

[Akheia]

Yrth, you're right, that's exactly what they say. It's plainly obvious that since their "solution" (non-solution, I'd say) is "just don't have sex," that the real goal is to stop people from having sex. Since a real solution to lowering abortion rates has been shown, time and again, to involve better contraception access, better education, better social support policies, and a broadening of women's rights, and since forced-birthers continue to ignore all of that in favor of clinging to their JUST DON'T HAVE SEX! mantra, we can tell what they're really after.

 

That many women who get abortions are actually married and therefore having completely approved sex doesn't really enter into it, because the fiction they perpetuate in order to continue pushing their agenda involves a slutty young woman who just wants to fuck around and not "get in trouble" for it. For the forced-birth platform to succeed, for its goals to be realized, that fiction must be maintained at all costs.

 

Then you get people who don't feel like fetuses are magic or that babies are "consequences" or that fucking is scary or evil, who don't buy the fiction, and who don't buy into the platform, and we're messing up the entire cloudy, hazy Republican forced-birth vision. If someone feels like babies should be "consequences," he's welcome to that lifestyle. Me, I don't think that, and I'm not going to let someone else's opinion dictate how I live or fuck. I'll concentrate on stuff that actually works to lower unintended pregnancy rates, rather than trying to be right.

[Kurari]

 

Just what is irresponsible about wanting to have sex? And why is it only irresponsible for women? What about men and their fertility? 

 

And WHY do you think people DON'T consider the fact that they are fertile? I don't understand this line of reasoning. 

 

Children and parenthood are NOT punishments, consequences, or our little pawns to show off how "responsible" we are. That line of thinking is frankly disgusting, immoral, and has no place in a civilized society. Parenthood is a HUGE undertaking, and children are human beings who deserve a little more consideration to their lives than being born simply because sperm met zygote. Plus to if the men and women involved are truly irresponsible people, I would certainly HOPE they would spare a child their "parenting" skills and get an abortion. Raising a child when you can't feed them, clothe them, or treat them with a modicum of kindness or care at all whether they have the skills they need to be functioning adults when they grow up? Now THAT is irresponsibility. We have enough abused children in this world. 

 

I got pregnant while ON birth control. That actually happens a LOT. Hell, I've even been sterilized and had my endometrium removed, and my husband has had a vasectomy. I'm STILL at a risk for getting pregnant. What else do people want us to do? I've had all of 4 partners in my entire life, and I had an abortion while with my ex-fiance. Birth control fails. If you are going to have sex, there  is no such thing as "fool proof" birth control. You just take it into consideration and do your best. 

 

It's a really annoying and damaging MYTH that only "sluts" and irresponsible women get abortions. The women who have abortions are by majority poor and young. They cannot get or afford or obtain birth control, proper prenatal care, or they cannot afford to raise a child. Many are already mothers who need to take care of the children they have. Is it responsible to force welfare to pay for their children they can't afford, or steal food out of their other children's mouths? 

 

Speaking personally and from being involved in this debate, I've never met a woman who has NOT thought in great depth about or has not had very serious and good reasons for getting an abortion. Maybe their choices won't be your choices, but there is NO logical reason to tell them that their choice is wrong or force them to sacrifice everything they have worked for in their lives for over sex. That's just pure fundamentalist Christian misogyny (and misanthropy) working it's poison into secular society and KILLING our women and children. 

 

 

Most pro-life folks I know would simply say 'You should not have sex at all unless you are prepared to at least give birth in the event that birth control fails.' That would be doing 'your best' in their eyes. The reason is because people do not need to have sex -- which is true. It's also true that people are going to have sex regardless of what you say, but that's a different issue.

 

This would be directed at men and women. Trust me, I got an extreme dose of this growing up. It was actually directed at me way more than my sisters -- a telling mistake on their part, obviously.

 

You're quite right. For some weird reason, Pro-Liars are completely unable to deduce that women don't have abortions because birth control fails...they have abortions because they know they are unable to carry and/or raise a baby.

 

Even with that explained to them, they don't get it. They are SO focused on what they want, they are unwilling to accept that reality. In their little tiny minds, God never does anything without a reason. Among the non-religious ones, they fantasize there is a way around it all if you just "try hard enough." It's really like listening to a little child tell you how the world works.

 

Sex doesn't have to be a "need" like drinking water daily is a need for it to still be a critically important part of our lives and our society. This has not changed, has never changed, and never will change. It's time to accept that and start working on making sure there is plenty of sex education, contraception, and aid. 

[Yrth]

Yrth, you're right, that's exactly what they say. It's plainly obvious that since their "solution" (non-solution, I'd say) is "just don't have sex," that the real goal is to stop people from having sex. Since a real solution to lowering abortion rates has been shown, time and again, to involve better contraception access, better education, better social support policies, and a broadening of women's rights, and since forced-birthers continue to ignore all of that in favor of clinging to their JUST DON'T HAVE SEX! mantra, we can tell what they're really after.

 

That many women who get abortions are actually married and therefore having completely approved sex doesn't really enter into it, because the fiction they perpetuate in order to continue pushing their agenda involves a slutty young woman who just wants to fuck around and not "get in trouble" for it. For the forced-birth platform to succeed, for its goals to be realized, that fiction must be maintained at all costs.

 

Then you get people who don't feel like fetuses are magic or that babies are "consequences" or that fucking is scary or evil, who don't buy the fiction, and who don't buy into the platform, and we're messing up the entire cloudy, hazy Republican forced-birth vision. If someone feels like babies should be "consequences," he's welcome to that lifestyle. Me, I don't think that, and I'm not going to let someone else's opinion dictate how I live or fuck. I'll concentrate on stuff that actually works to lower unintended pregnancy rates, rather than trying to be right.

 

Just a technical note -- iirc, I believe the official catholic position opposes all sex (including marital sex) where the couple isn't prepared to give birth. 

 

Also, iirc, many pro-life groups do not accept that contraception lowers abortion rates. Although, to be honest, sifting through what most pro-life sites have to say is like sifting through creationism literature. Impossible for me to trust. The secular pro-life site supports certain birth control methods as well as sex ed because they acknowledge that sex ed increases birth control use. There is a consistent caution, however, that condoning birth control (as opposed to simply making it available as a practical measure) will lead people to have even more sex and thus up the odds for an unplanned pregnancy. It makes me wonder what the numbers look like between no birth control, available birth control, and encouraged birth control.

 

Another reason a Christian pro-life position looks so suspicious because Christians are generally also opposed to pre-marital sex for a completely different set of reasons. Bias. Motive. It doesn't look good.

[Yrth]

You're quite right. For some weird reason, Pro-Liars are completely unable to deduce that women don't have abortions because birth control fails...they have abortions because they know they are unable to carry and/or raise a baby.

 

Even with that explained to them, they don't get it. They are SO focused on what they want, they are unwilling to accept that reality. In their little tiny minds, God never does anything without a reason. Among the non-religious ones, they fantasize there is a way around it all if you just "try hard enough." It's really like listening to a little child tell you how the world works.

 

Sex doesn't have to be a "need" like drinking water daily is a need for it to still be a critically important part of our lives and our society. This has not changed, has never changed, and never will change. It's time to accept that and start working on making sure there is plenty of sex education, contraception, and aid. 

I think they know that women have abortions for exactly the reasons you stated, which is why they would say 'do not have sex unless you are prepared to give birth if the birth control fails.'

 

So critically important as to trump someone else's life? It's a rhetorical question. That's the argument.

 

Honestly, this whole issue, abortion, it's just more evidence against 'intelligent design.' The entire pro-life movement is one big acknowledgement that humanity is in one fucked-up situation when it comes to reproduction. 

[Geezer]

 

What is the difference between Christians being required to believe something and an atheist being required to believe something?  

 

Shouldn’t everyone’s beliefs be based on logic, reason, and science?  If a person honestly believes the evidence indicates life can only begin at conception, and that terminating any human life is murder, then I would assume logic would dictate a pro life position.

 

If, however, a person believes the evidence indicates life begins at birth then I assume they would lean toward a pro choice position.

 

What some group thinks, no matter what group that might be, should not be the determining factor, at least in my mind it shouldn’t. Why they think what they do is another matter. If you agree with the reasons for their position then you very well might want to identify with them.

 

[Kurari]

 

You're quite right. For some weird reason, Pro-Liars are completely unable to deduce that women don't have abortions because birth control fails...they have abortions because they know they are unable to carry and/or raise a baby.

 

Even with that explained to them, they don't get it. They are SO focused on what they want, they are unwilling to accept that reality. In their little tiny minds, God never does anything without a reason. Among the non-religious ones, they fantasize there is a way around it all if you just "try hard enough." It's really like listening to a little child tell you how the world works.

 

Sex doesn't have to be a "need" like drinking water daily is a need for it to still be a critically important part of our lives and our society. This has not changed, has never changed, and never will change. It's time to accept that and start working on making sure there is plenty of sex education, contraception, and aid. 

I think they know that women have abortions for exactly the reasons you stated, which is why they would say 'do not have sex unless you are prepared to give birth if the birth control fails.'

 

So critically important as to trump someone else's life? It's a rhetorical question. That's the argument.

 

Honestly, this whole issue, abortion, it's just more evidence against 'intelligent design.' The entire pro-life movement is one big acknowledgement that humanity is in one fucked-up situation when it comes to reproduction. 

 

Except these people actually get in the WAY of proven methods to reduce abortions and making the rates going way, WAY down. 

 

That's because pro-liar position isn't about reproduction, abortion, or even the unborn. It's about morality.

 

Pro-choice and pro-liar will never find common ground with each other. We aren't even talking about the same subject. 

[Akheia]

Also, iirc, many pro-life groups do not accept that contraception lowers abortion rates. Although, to be honest, sifting through what most pro-life sites have to say is like sifting through creationism literature. Impossible for me to trust. The secular pro-life site supports certain birth control methods as well as sex ed because they acknowledge that sex ed increases birth control use. There is a consistent caution, however, that condoning birth control (as opposed to simply making it available as a practical measure) will lead people to have even more sex and thus up the odds for an unplanned pregnancy. It makes me wonder what the numbers look like between no birth control, available birth control, and encouraged birth control.

 

Another reason a Christian pro-life position looks so suspicious because Christians are generally also opposed to pre-marital sex for a completely different set of reasons. Bias. Motive. It doesn't look good.

No, it doesn't. But what I bolded is exactly what I think is wrong with the forced-birth position. The scientific consensus about contraception flat-out contradicts what the religious fucknuts believe. A recent study in a lower-income city provided free contraception to poor women and saw the area's abortion rate plummet more than SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT. And this is not the only study that's shown that. Contraception access directly impacts the rates of unwanted pregnancy, which directly impacts abortion rates. And other studies have shown that the morning-after pill absolutely positively does not cause abortion; it just prevents fertilization by stopping ovulation in the exact same way that the Pill does. But fundie groups got all mixed up with this and RU-486 and insist that both pills are abortifacient in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence. Hell, some of these assholes still think the Pill is abortifacient, so it shouldn't shock anybody that they're not up on the new ladyparts slut pills either.

 

But this wouldn't be the first denials of science forced-birthers employ. Back in my fundie days, their big lies involved links between abortion, cancer, and infertility. That no such links have ever been found doesn't matter at all: they still used these lies with impunity. Then when American women got sick of that shit, it was "abortion regret syndrome." Well, that didn't exist either, but why let facts get in the way of a neat-sounding mental illness that benefits the agenda? Now they're on to "fetal personhood," which is an idea that is categorically not supported by any reputable OB/GYN groups and absolutely not a scientific thing at all, pretending that aborted zygotes are tiny little fully-formed babies rather than strawberry-pip-sized clots, and--most shamelessly of all--trotting out rape and incest survivors who had their abusers' babies as if to imply that if these women could do it, then all women MUST do it. And meanwhile their "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" use vans that park outside legitimate women's clinics to spread lies and propaganda, their politicians talk about rape like it's a fucking sitcom plot, and their "counselors" routinely baldfaced lie to women about whether or not they're even pregnant, if that's what it takes to get them past their state's abortion time limit.

 

The studies for precisely what you wonder about sex ed and access to contraception exist. Look for them, and be amazed that somehow these forced-birth groups don't talk about how dismally their efforts to deny women adequate education and contraception access have failed. Abstinence-only education is dead in the water: it absolutely doesn't work to lower teen pregnancy rates, nor to overly change how often teens have sex. What it does do is limit teens' access to, comfort with, and use of contraception. And the list goes on and on. We know the facts; fundagelical conservatives just don't want to implement policies that relate to those facts.

 

For a group that says it wants to lower abortion rates, one would think the goal was the dead opposite by looking at how they're going about it.

[Margee]

I've never really had an opinion on abortion. I have never put it down during my life or shouted out for it.

 

But I was just thinking to myself about the vegetable - animal kingdom. If you kill a seed that will eventually become a tree.......does the tree care? Does the seed care? There is no awareness in the seed at all. If we shoot an animal for food that has 5 babies growing inside......do the babies know they are being killed? There is no awareness in the babies that are growing. We kill lots of things that are impregnated and don't think twice about it in the animal kingdom. If we decide to abort the seed or fetus  that will eventually become a human....does that fetus have awareness of it's existance? No.There is no awareness until 'something' is born. Yes, there is brain activity, there is heartbeat, there is developement, but no awareness..... If my mother had aborted me while I was in her womb...I would not have any rememberance of it. None. I would just not be here.

 

I still really have no opinion on abortion....it is neither good or bad in my eyes..it is all part of living in the animal kingdom and it  is something that must be dealt with, with each 'aware' individual according to their circumstances.

[midniterider]

I've never really had an opinion on abortion. I have never put it down during my life or shouted out for it.

 

But I was just thinking to myself about the vegetable - animal kingdom. If you kill a seed that will eventually become a tree.......does the tree care? Does the seed care? There is no awareness in the seed at all. If we shoot an animal for food that has 5 babies growing inside......do the babies know they are being killed? There is no awareness in the babies that are growing. We kill lots of things that are impregnated and don't think twice about it in the animal kingdom. If we decide to abort the seed or fetus  that will eventually become a human....does that fetus have awareness of it's existance? No.There is no awareness until 'something' is born. Yes, there is brain activity, there is heartbeat, there is developement, but no awareness..... If my mother had aborted me while I was in her womb...I would not have any rememberance of it. None. I would just not be here.

 

I still really have no opinion on abortion....it is neither good or bad in my eyes..it is all part of living in the animal kingdom and it  is something that must be dealt with, with each 'aware' individual according to their circumstances.

 

 

Bad Margee! You're supposed to pick a side and get all assed up about it!  lol.

[Adrianime]

I've never really had an opinion on abortion. I have never put it down during my life or shouted out for it.

 

But I was just thinking to myself about the vegetable - animal kingdom. If you kill a seed that will eventually become a tree.......does the tree care? Does the seed care? There is no awareness in the seed at all. If we shoot an animal for food that has 5 babies growing inside......do the babies know they are being killed? There is no awareness in the babies that are growing. We kill lots of things that are impregnated and don't think twice about it in the animal kingdom. If we decide to abort the seed or fetus  that will eventually become a human....does that fetus have awareness of it's existance? No.There is no awareness until 'something' is born. Yes, there is brain activity, there is heartbeat, there is developement, but no awareness..... If my mother had aborted me while I was in her womb...I would not have any rememberance of it. None. I would just not be here.

 

I still really have no opinion on abortion....it is neither good or bad in my eyes..it is all part of living in the animal kingdom and it  is something that must be dealt with, with each 'aware' individual according to their circumstances.

 

Hi Margee, for the most part I agree with what you said about "seeds" and awareness.  

 

It made me think of a point I find interesting.  Mortality.  It's a scary thing, that all living things die one day.  One day we will be gone.  It's scary to think about not existing.  About not having an aware, thinking self in existance.  Even I get a little freaked out about it when I think too deeply, and I've never believed in an afterlife of any sort.  I think many Christians may be in a sort of denial on the subject of mortality.  The thought of not existing is just too much to bear.  IMO this is why heaven and eternal life are such GREAT ammunition for Christians.  Like, "Hell yeah!  I'ma live forever.  Eternal life beeyotch!"  Or something to that effect.  That simple promise of immortality addresses our biggest fear: human mortality.  Some Christians may relate their denial of the notion of non-existance, to abortion.  They may not accept/comprehend what it means to not exist, or to not be aware of your existance.  That would make it much harder to accept that a fetus just isn't aware.