Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?

[mymistake]

She nodded at me, clearly giving me respect that I understood what I needed for my healthcare and not pressing the issue. We set up the appointment.

 

 

My fiance was there for me the entire time agreed wholeheartedly that this was the right decision without question.

 

I'm glad to hear your doc and fiance were so cool about it.

 

 I was able to fulfill my responsibilities as an adult to my family and get through my schooling and become a contributing member of society. That would not have happened if I had not been able to get the care I desperately needed then.

 

I like your attitude.  I wish everyone thought like that at that age.

 

I regret nothing.

 

Good for you. 

[mymistake]

 

I don't think an atheist 'should' be anything, except an atheist. These other issues are not related to atheism.

 

This is where theists get confused about atheism.. it's a single position on a single subject. That a large portion of atheists happen to be liberal, pro-life or anything else is irrelevant and has nothing to do with atheism.

 

I agree.

 

Looking back, I think my title of the post is pretty stupid!

 

No.  You asked a question.  People gave their opinion regarding the answer.  You thread title would have been stupid as a statement. 

[Vigile]

why?

 

Does that come down to the whole 'morality from deity' and concept of a 'soul'?

 

Is it implicit in say, believing in evolution, that life has less value?

 

I'm a quality over quantity thinker so maybe I'm missing something

 

Because it implies that you have, at least ideally, chosen reason over magical thinking. 

 

An extreme example: the implication is that as an atheist, you aren't likely to believe in pixies or that the stars determine your future simply by virtue of the reasoning you used to reject the god thesis.

 

When it comes to issues such as abortion, then, if you reject the idea of magic, you probably reject the idea that the biological process that results from an egg and sperm coming into contact with one another represents a magical, holy event that must be respected on that basis alone. 

[Ravenstar]

ahhh.. I thought that was where you were going. So, you think this subject comes down to this dichotomy between the woos and the rationalists?

[Vigile]

Regarding the OP's position on this matter, it's my opinion that the board consider cutting the guy a bit of slack.  He's clearly still working through his deconversion.  We've seen many people escape xianity struggle with it's baggage.  That's what I think is happening here.  Give him some time and room to see where he comes down on issues that are complicated for any of us. 

[Vigile]

ahhh.. I thought that was where you were going. So, you think this subject comes down to this dichotomy between the woos and the rationalists?

 

To a degree, yes.  But not entirely.  It's probably possible to be entirely rational and still be pro life.  In most cases this would probably not hold true though. 

[SquareOne]

 

 

So why not just mind your own business and let women do what they think it best?

 

Because we do not apply that logic to any other area of law.

 

Don't we?

 

IMO, similar logic is used any time we defer to individual rights rather than top-down, one-size-fits-all legislated morality.

 

 

 

This is an empty claim without examples and/or citations.  Law is a massively broad subject. 

 

Good questions, happy to answer.

 

When we make laws, at least in the United Kingdom, they are open to public consultation before being passed. Any member of the public may express their view on a law, via their MP, or consultation papers.  Furthermore, every member of Parliament is entitled to vote.

 

Universal suffrage means that both women and men have an equal say in the passing of laws.

 

However, I do believe that when it comes to abortion law, it seems to me likely that women will have more to say about the topic, and will have more experience, personal or indirect, about the topic.  Therefore, we should make especially sure that all women who wish to be heard, are heard.

 

But I reject the notion that a woman's voice has a higher privilege or importance than a man's voice in this topic, just as I reject the notion that religious people should have a voice of higher importance in a debate about religion.  (Though I accept that these are not the same.)  My point is that we should all have an equal voice in relation to all laws.

[SquareOne]

Regarding the OP's position on this matter, it's my opinion that the board consider cutting the guy a bit of slack.  He's clearly still working through his deconversion.  We've seen many people escape xianity struggle with it's baggage.  That's what I think is happening here.  Give him some time and room to see where he comes down on issues that are complicated for any of us. 

 

Thank you Vigile.  I appreciate that.

[Akheia]

I don't think he's a Christian. I do think he's fairly new at this and he's got a lot of indoctrination to work through. The more legalese someone knows, the harder it is to break through it.

 

I also think that Planned Parenthood is taking the right tack in trying to get past the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" labels. To me, this is what pro-choice means: that regardless of what you personally feel about the matter, you're not trying to get in between a woman and her own choice. A person can be personally against abortion but recognize that s/he is not qualified to force a woman to do the same. In polls, when that wording is used instead of the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice," most people skew pro-choice.

 

Kurari is being very brave and I want to stand beside her and the others in telling my story. I was 25 or so, in another country, and since I was on the run from my stalking fundie ex-husband, I didn't have a home of my own. I was living with a drug abuser when I got knocked up. Later, when the fundie ex found out I'd been pregnant, he informed me with much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that I could have just handed it to him (he was convinced he'd been the father, which seems unlikely given that I'd been away from him for about six months when I got impregnated, but hey, miracles and whatnot). Would either of these men's opinion have mattered to me in the least regarding a termination? Oh fuck no. Here is why:

 

* Women get the bulk of childcare duties. If a woman's not totally into the idea of having a kid, she's going to resent the unequal distribution of work very quickly.

* Women who have children out of wedlock face enormous financial burdens. See above.

* I did not feel that adoption was a choice for me because I didn't have the money or resources to pursue a diet or care regime conducive to maternal health, nor was I interested in the pain and risk of childbirth, nor was I positive that an adoption wouldn't go hideously wrong in the future.

* My druggie boyfriend would have been oh such a great father and such a responsible source of support for me. Or would the forced-birthers have preferred I hand the baby over to the crazy fundie ex who'd threatened to chop me up with a butcher knife?

* Neither of these men were the one facing nine months of sheer hell, a hell that would have culminated in what my mom friends inform me is the worst pain a human body can undergo, nor would they have been the one facing the enormous physical and emotional changes, nor would they have been the one facing the risk of death or lifelong complications from childbirth.

* I had zero expectation of staying with the druggie BF forever and wasn't even sure I was going to be staying in his country for the long haul, and I knew for 100% sure I wanted absolutely nothing to do with the fundie ex.

 

It wasn't much of a choice, really. Thankfully, the druggie BF was completely on board with an abortion and seemed relieved I wasn't even vaguely interested in keeping the pregnancy.

 

My procedure was really easy. I was half-hoping there'd be protesters, but there weren't. They actually couldn't get me in as soon as I realized I was pregnant; the appointment was damn near two weeks later due to demand--the clinic was swamped. It was expensive, but Captain Drugsalot had the scratch. My boyfriend was the only man there, I noticed. One religious girl with long uncut Pentecostal-style hair was crying openly and looking at brochures in one corner, but most people were just chilling and waiting their turn. There was an ultrasound which I witnessed without giving much of a shit, just like filing it under SHIT I ALREADY KNEW, followed by a brief discussion of options, and they played Enya on a little boombox and scraped the teeny little blob out of me. It hurt like FUCK because I apparently have the world's most sensitive ladybits (even Pap smears kill me for two days--another reason to not want to have a kid). I had initially thought I'd want the BF in there with me but in the end decided just to get it done myself; he came in to hold my hand as I recuperated for an hour or two, and then I went home. Ta-da. There was a little bleeding afterward and I was laid out for a couple days, but it wasn't a big deal. I went through weird roller-coaster periods of emotion afterward. I knew I wasn't sad about "losing" the pregnancy; I hadn't wanted it at all. I just thought I was the only woman in the world who felt relieved after my abortion, and sometimes I felt really guilty about that. I didn't know anybody else who'd had one and had only ever talked to ONE woman who I knew had had one: the gorgeous Caribbean-looking half-black girl recuperating beside me in the clinic; she claimed to have had five, and that didn't do much to help my weird mindset.

 

A few months later, once the druggie BF had gotten himself into treatment, in a support group for codependents, I gasped out my horrible secret of having had an abortion and feeling weird about it and every woman there was like "o.O? Yeah, so have I, so what?" which put shit into major perspective for me. I didn't get upset about it a single moment after that. I mean that literally; it was like a curtain had closed. I realized that I was not alone and that many women have had abortions and it wasn't a big deal. The shit about "abortion regret" you hear is just cultural myth.

 

SquareOne, until a man can get pregnant, his voice is not superior to a woman, and is not even equal to a woman's. You have no idea how condescending it is to hear a man spout off about how he'd limit abortion rights. It's all fine and good to pontificate, but the gritty and harsh reality is that a man will never ever understand what a sordid and complete hauling-off of a woman's rights it is to be subjected to a pregnancy she doesn't want. I hope that as you learn about women's stories, you arrive at a more nuanced view of the topic.

[JadedAtheist]

To me, this is what pro-choice means: that regardless of what you personally feel about the matter, you're not trying to get in between a woman and her own choice.

I'd agree, using that definition I would say I am 'pro-choice'.

[SquareOne]

SquareOne, until a man can get pregnant, his voice is not superior to a woman, and is not even equal to a woman's.

 

Why?

[Vigile]

 

SquareOne, until a man can get pregnant, his voice is not superior to a woman, and is not even equal to a woman's.

 

Why?

 

Because no one is asking you to make a 9-month, potentially life-threatening, health suffering, body-transforming sacrifice. 

[Akheia]

I think this question is better answered by you than by me. I think you're aware by now of how callous and cruel I find forced-birthers, and how blithely dismissive I think they are of the real issues and problems women face during an unintended pregnancy. A man is never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to face the very real and visceral issues I outlined above. Never. He's never going to face the hijacking of his body. He's never going to face the idea of someone judging him for exactly how he got pregnant or what decisions he made that led up to the pregnancy. He's never going to face the pain and fear of pregnancy or childbirth. Ever. I mean it's just never going to blip his radar except as an observer. He's never going to have to deal with the outcome of pregnancy or childbirth directly as a physical thing, only as at most an emotional and financial matter, and even then men's contributions in this regard are rarely as great as those a woman must make. Male-dominated societies rarely provide the resources women need to actually make abortions more unnecessary, but these same male-dominated lawmakers think it's totes cool to make women suffer under their lack of aid. He's never going to risk his own death giving birth. And yet men seem compelled to get involved and try to dictate how a woman's going to handle such an intimate decision.

 

The real shocker is that you'd think, under such a scenario, that you have any say whatsoever here or that you should. Why don't you answer your own question? Play devil's advocate. Why would I, as a woman, find your input less than enthralling on the subject of what goes into or out of my own physical body?

[dB-Paradox]

Whether or not the OP is still struggling through a deconversion or not has little bearing on his opinions on the subject.  Remember, Christopher Hitchens was as devout an atheist, or anti-theist, as anyone, and he placed himself in the pro-life camp.

[Vigile]

The real shocker is that you'd think, under such a scenario, that you have any say whatsoever here or that you should.

 

I don't really think it's such a shocker.  I agree with your points in terms of how the pro life position impacts women, but it's a very healthy human quality to sympathize with others and value human life.  The issue I think most pro lifers, and perhaps most of us, struggle with is at what point do we extend that value to others.  It's very much important for us as society to value human life for without it life would indeed agree with Thomas Hobbes' assessment, in that it would be nasty, brutal and short.  I personally don't believe most who hold the position of anti abortion directly wish to control and keep down the women folk.  I think they just fail to see the complexities and the implications of their position in favor of that very important societal function of seeking to protect their fellow humans. 

 

Putting this in less complicated terms, they see "helpless baby, needs my support."  If one of them catches your falling toddler when you are distracted at the DMV, you would be absolutely thankful for it.  They've simply extrapolated from this position. 

[SquareOne]

Whether or not the OP is still struggling through a deconversion or not has little bearing on his opinions on the subject. 

 

Thank you dB-Paradox.

 

Akeitha, I think if I were to answer the question from a woman's perspective, I might say some of the things that you have said  On the other hand, I am concious that "pro-life" is not an exclusively male point of view.  There are women who would make other arguments.  I don't want to sound like I'm dodging your suggestion, but I don't feel like I'm qualified to put myself in a woman's shoes - which is rather what you have been arguing all along.

 

For me though, I do not believe that any one class of people should have a grater say in making a law that affects them more than other people.

 

How should it work in practice?

 

As a practical matter, do you believe that only women members of congress should vote on abortion laws?

 

Do you believe that only women supreme court justices should hear cases concerning abortion?

 

Do you believe only a woman president should sign an abortion law?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic with those questions - I'm asking you as a practical matter - if only women should have a say - then do the above things not hold true for you?

[Vigile]

Whether or not the OP is still struggling through a deconversion or not has little bearing on his opinions on the subject.  Remember, Christopher Hitchens was as devout an atheist, or anti-theist, as anyone, and he placed himself in the pro-life camp.

 

Yeah, you're not going to win me with that argument.  He was about as pro life as Attila the Hun.  Like a lot of conservatives, he would argue pro life positions while supporting Isreali zionism and mindless, never-ending war against the Islamic hoards. I'm sure the million or so dead or deposed Iraqis are lining up to thank him for his 'pro-life' position. 

[msipsy218]

 

Whether or not the OP is still struggling through a deconversion or not has little bearing on his opinions on the subject. 

 

Thank you dB-Paradox.

 

Akeitha, I think if I were to answer the question from a woman's perspective, I might say some of the things that you have said  On the other hand, I am concious that "pro-life" is not an exclusively male point of view.  There are women who would make other arguments.  I don't want to sound like I'm dodging your suggestion, but I don't feel like I'm qualified to put myself in a woman's shoes - which is rather what you have been arguing all along.

 

For me though, I do not believe that any one class of people should have a grater say in making a law that affects them more than other people.

 

How should it work in practise?

 

As a practical matter, do you believe that only women members of congress should vote on abortion laws?

 

Do you believe that only women supreme court justices should hear cases concerning abortion?

 

Do you believe only a woman president should sign an abortion law?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic with those questions - I'm asking you as a practical matter - if only women should have a say - then do the above things not hold true for you?

 

 

The only people who should be making any decisions like that are doctors, in my opinion. So all of the people you named should only do so after carefully and thoroughly taking the advisement of medical professionals. If we had more women available in those positions though, it would be ideal for them to deal with it.

[Akheia]

Vigile: Oh, I get that. I remember telling one of the pro-lifers here that it was funny that she accused people of "ageism" when her entire argument boiled down to "babies are very cute and small and should have more rights than anybody." But the real impact of their idea that even fetuses require that kind of care is devastating to women.

 

SquareOne, I'm not letting you off that easily. I'm not saying women should force other women to have babies. Nobody should. Please don't twist my words. I'm saying that at least women assume 100% of the physical risks and burdens of childbirth, while men assume 0% of these same risks and burdens. Yet men are happy to make laws forcing women to bear these burdens, comfortable in knowing that not a single one of their laws will ever actually apply to them, and equally comfortable passing laws that make their cultures inimical to actually lowering abortion rates while making abortion as scary and inaccessible as possible. Please answer my question. Why do you suppose women might resent men blithely stepping into a realm that is completely and entirely outside their own experience? Why do you suppose women might resent you, as a man who will never ever face any of the physical risks or burdens of a pregnancy while living in a male-dominated culture that is not doing nearly enough to support women facing these unwanted pregnancies, stomping in with your big black Gaston boots on to tell them how they're going to manage their intimate personal decisions?

[mymistake]

For me though, I do not believe that any one class of people should have a grater say in making a law that affects them more than other people.

 

How should it work in practice?

 

As a practical matter, do you believe that only women members of congress should vote on abortion laws?

 

Do you believe that only women supreme court justices should hear cases concerning abortion?

 

Do you believe only a woman president should sign an abortion law?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic with those questions - I'm asking you as a practical matter - if only women should have a say - then do the above things not hold true for you?

 

The way it works in practice is that men realize that they can't know what it is like to go though these issues so they hold back because their own opinion is based on ignorance.  The closest I have come to being pregnant is watching my wife go though it twice.  That isn't very close.

[Akheia]

 

For me though, I do not believe that any one class of people should have a grater say in making a law that affects them more than other people.

 

How should it work in practice?

 

As a practical matter, do you believe that only women members of congress should vote on abortion laws?

 

Do you believe that only women supreme court justices should hear cases concerning abortion?

 

Do you believe only a woman president should sign an abortion law?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic with those questions - I'm asking you as a practical matter - if only women should have a say - then do the above things not hold true for you?

 

The way it works in practice is that men realize that they can't know what it is like to go though these issues so they hold back because their own opinion is based on ignorance.  The closest I have come to being pregnant is watching my wife go though it twice.  That isn't very close.

 

Be honest: were you relieved you'd never have to deal with that yourself?

[dB-Paradox]

 

Whether or not the OP is still struggling through a deconversion or not has little bearing on his opinions on the subject.  Remember, Christopher Hitchens was as devout an atheist, or anti-theist, as anyone, and he placed himself in the pro-life camp.

 

Yeah, you're not going to win me with that argument.  He was about as pro life as Attila the Hun.  Like a lot of conservatives, he would argue pro life positions while supporting Isreali zionism and mindless, never-ending war against the Islamic hoards. I'm sure the million or so dead or deposed Iraqis are lining up to thank him for his 'pro-life' position. 

 

 

I think pro-life regarding potential innocent human life is one thing, and "pro-life" regarding evil human slaughter is quite another.  Just because I'd be the first to put a bullet in Hitler's head, for example, doesn't mean I'm not pro-life...quite the contrary.

[Yrth]

 

You did not say that in your original post.  You have changed, or added to, your argument.  My response was to your original comment, and I stand by my response to your original comment.

 

I changed nothing.  I merely elaborated. 

 

Originally, you said "What makes future potential in an organism that can't appreciate the idea of future potential so special?  As I've said before in these debates.  Fetus doesn't care.  Why should I?"

 

Then, you said "3-month old babies are no longer dependent on their carrier's body, so we as a society have given them the same rights we give to all individuals."

 

The first argument claimed that the ability to appreciate one's own potential warrants rights.

The second argument claims that dependency on on a carrier's body is something that would preclude rights.

 

Appreciation-of-future/self and dependency-on-a-carrier are categorically different arguments.

[SquareOne]

SquareOne, I'm not letting you off that easily. I'm not saying women should force other women to have babies. Nobody should. Please don't twist my words.

 

I didn't say that you were...?? Where's that come from?

 

 

Why do you suppose women might resent men blithely stepping into a realm that is completely and entirely outside their own experience?

 

I think the answer is in the question...  Because the men are are stepping into a realm that is outside their experience and it does not affect them physically.

 

Now.  Please answer my question.

 

 

How should it work in practice?  As a practical matter, do you believe that only women members of congress should vote on abortion laws? Do you believe that only women supreme court justices should hear cases concerning abortion? Do you believe only a woman president should sign an abortion law?

[mymistake]

 

 

For me though, I do not believe that any one class of people should have a grater say in making a law that affects them more than other people.

 

How should it work in practice?

 

As a practical matter, do you believe that only women members of congress should vote on abortion laws?

 

Do you believe that only women supreme court justices should hear cases concerning abortion?

 

Do you believe only a woman president should sign an abortion law?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic with those questions - I'm asking you as a practical matter - if only women should have a say - then do the above things not hold true for you?

 

The way it works in practice is that men realize that they can't know what it is like to go though these issues so they hold back because their own opinion is based on ignorance.  The closest I have come to being pregnant is watching my wife go though it twice.  That isn't very close.

 

Be honest: were you relieved you'd never have to deal with that yourself?

 

That wasn't the emotional reaction I had.  It gave me a greater respect for my mother.  It also made me more awair of how lethal pregnancy can be.