Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?

[Akheia]

I don't think you've spent enough time thinking about my question, and I don't think you really understand yet. Why do women resent it when men try to legislate situations that will not affect them directly? Why do you suppose men should be allowed to legislate matters like abortion while simultaneously refusing to address the cultural and financial roots of abortion?

 

As to your question, I don't think anybody should be legislating what I do with what's inside my own body. I don't think that my rights should be up for a vote at all. But it particularly offends me when the people who speak the loudest about taking my rights away have the very least at stake in the matter.

[alpha centauri]

SquareOne, I understand some of where you are coming from. I was staunchly pro-life when I was a Christian (but never favored the sick tactics that many anti-abortionists use in their crusade against abortion). I never once demonstrated, etc. but I strongly believed that most abortion was wrong.

 

While there are certainly still elements of abortion that trouble me, and I think the forced abortions of China are completely awful, I have come to see the issue in different terms now.

 

Yes, I value life and hate to think of abortion, but I'd imagine that many of the women who choose to have an abortion are troubled about it as well. I can't imagine it's the first choice of just about anyone -- they merely see it as the lesser of two evils.

 

The bottom line for me is -- who am I to tell any woman -- especially one who I don't know that she has no right to terminate her pregnancy. And then if you start making exceptions (well, it was rape, incest, the mother's life could be endangered) then you're forcing women who want an abotion to lie.

 

Once the baby is born, if she doesn't want the child, she can surrender it at a safe haven.

 

But forcing the woman to bear the child against her wishes -- again, what gives anyone the right? We have rejected the religious morality in favor of freewill.

 

Yes, some may say, what about the freewill of the child? Until a woman actually gives birth, the child is still a part of her body.

 

It's not an easy issue, and again, I believe that even those women who decide to have abortions often have many misgivings. But to take away the control that a woman has over her body is to deny her liberty.

 

Perhaps in the future, there will be much more advanced medical techniques that will eliminate many of the horrors associated with abortion, thus leaving only those most staunchly fundamentalist arguing against the legality of the procedure.

[dB-Paradox]

Do you know what the most annoying this is regarding this discussion (and others as long as this)?  The quote function is confusing!  I'm finding myself trying to find the end of the quote, and the beginning of the reply!  lol

[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. 

 

 

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.

 

Ol' Hitch would go past putting a bullet in Hitler's head and move on to carpet-bombing cities and water-boarding refugees. 

[Akheia]

 

 

 

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.

 

Oh yeah. Women die giving birth. And suffer all sorts of weird complications. Don't get me started about my poor sister, who's had two kids.

 

Funny memory you provoked.. my fundie ex-husband had discovered that no, really, I wasn't ever having kids and had apparently gotten his own mother into the browbeating campaign to change my mind, but didn't get to her until right after she spent an afternoon reminiscing to me all about how horrible her childbirth experience with my ex had been, in a bid to get me to make sure I was taking precautions. I was 19 or so and she was preaching to the choir there. Oh my god her experience was long, involved, bloody, and nearly fatal. I was absolutely fucking floored. Horrified. Terrified. An hour later, she came back into the living room to sit down and tell me how it'd ALL BEEN WORTH IT and pat my hand reassuringly. I'll let you guess what my reaction to these two sermonettes was.

[Vigile]

 

 

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.

 

 

I assumed the implications of my argument were obvious.  I'm very much not going to get into a debate with you on this subject.  I've seen how you debate this subject.  Homey ain't gonna play. 

[Vigile]

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?

 

Does congress or state and regional medical boards make rules regarding removal of appendices?  First busy bodies force the public debate over a very private issue and now we are forced to decide who gets to make laws about it.  Hopefully you can see how obnoxious this is. 

[SquareOne]

I don't think you've spent enough time thinking about my question, and I don't think you really understand yet.

 

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.  Realistically, Is there any answer I could give that would satisfy you?  Other than changing mind and saying I am pro choice?

 

 

As to your question, I don't think anybody should be legislating what I do with what's inside my own body. I don't think that my rights should be up for a vote at all. But it particularly offends me when the people who speak the loudest about taking my rights away have the very least at stake in the matter.

 

If you think your rights should not be up for a vote, how are your rights going to be determined?  How are they to be enshrined into law?

[Yrth]

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.

SquareOne also indicated that his pro-life views developed towards the end or after his deconversion.

 

Becoming pro-choice is not just another part of leaving Christianity. There are plenty of atheist pro-life folks out there with sound reasons for their beliefs. http://secularprolife.org/ They should be able to discuss their thoughts here without members assuring them that its just some kind of deconversion phase or that their beliefs make them trolls. Right? Otherwise, you may as well rename the website www.ex-christian-and-pro-choice.net.

[dB-Paradox]

Funny memory you provoked.. my fundie ex-husband had discovered that no, really, I wasn't ever having kids and had apparently gotten his own mother into the browbeating campaign to change my mind, but didn't get to her until right after she spent an afternoon reminiscing to me all about how horrible her childbirth experience with my ex had been, in a bid to get me to make sure I was taking precautions. I was 19 or so and she was preaching to the choir there. Oh my god her experience was long, involved, bloody, and nearly fatal. I was absolutely fucking floored. Horrified. Terrified. An hour later, she came back into the living room to sit down and tell me how it'd ALL BEEN WORTH IT and pat my hand reassuringly. I'll let you guess what my reaction to these two sermonettes was.

 

Hilarious!!  Not exactly a motivational speaker, was she?!

[Yrth]

 

I assumed the implications of my argument were obvious.  I'm very much not going to get into a debate with you on this subject.  I've seen how you debate this subject.  Homey ain't gonna play. 

 

Bad assumption. The one clearly does not imply the other.

 

OP displays superhuman patience. I could never do the same -- even this little jibe from you has me a little riled. I have a hard time believing OP's patience will last forever, British reserve or no.

[SquareOne]

Becoming pro-choice is not just another part of leaving Christianity. There are plenty of atheist pro-life folks out there with sound reasons for their beliefs. http://secularprolife.org/ They should be able to discuss their thoughts here without members assuring them that its just some kind of deconversion phase or that their beliefs make them trolls. Right? Otherwise, you may as well rename the website www.ex-christian-and-pro-choice.net.

 

Thank you Yrth, I appreciate your comments.

 

 

 

OP displays superhuman patience. I could never do the same -- even this little jibe from you has me a little riled. I have a hard time believing OP's patience will last forever, British reserve or no.

 

Thank you again, that's very kind.  And funny!  

[SquareOne]

Does congress or state and regional medical boards make rules regarding removal of appendices?  First busy bodies force the public debate over a very private issue and now we are forced to decide who gets to make laws about it.  Hopefully you can see how obnoxious this is. 

 

Well, I assume there are laws governing healthcare practices generally, and medical boards will have rules about surgical procedures, so yes.  And rightly so.

 

In any event, those bodies do, and have historically had a say in the matter of abortion.  So, there exists a current state of affairs.  And if you wish to change the law, you must work within the parameters of your constitution.

 

So I ask again: 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?

[Kurari]

 

I have HAD an abortion. 

 

Thank you for sharing your story. Whilst I would class myself as 'pro-life' I guess technically speaking I would be 'pro-choice' in the sense that I feel it's not my place to tell a woman what to do regarding the fetus in her womb. Rather, I would that we live in a more ideal world where it wouldn't need to be an option but until then I believe it should be an available option.

 

You're welcome. As long as someone is willing to recognize that it's not ethical or logical to tell others what to do in this sort of situation, they're all right by me. It's a sensible way to feel. Maybe if more people felt like that, we could actually make some headway in reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions before they even happen. Which I would really like to see, because they really are hell to go through, even if the surgery itself is pretty simple and safe.

 

It's really not as easy as just running into the clinic between errands, which seems to be a pervading myth. That and the idea that women who have abortions are doing so ignorantly and flippantly, and they really don't care about their fetuses. 

 

 

Pro-Lifers...the ones who try to legislate our bodies...I consider to be vicious terrorists. Yes, I mean that as strongly as that is worded. I include atheist ones in that too. I have unfortunately met atheist pro-liars and they are just as self-absorbed nasty douchebags vomiting out the same stupid tired old lies as the religious ones, just with less god-speak. 

 

 

 

 

Since you invited questions, I was curious as to how you think things would play out if your partner at the time wanted to keep the baby? Do you feel that men in this case have any say or any weight to add to the decision?

 

 

Thank you for asking.

 

I would have definitely have sat down and discussed it with him and given what he had to say considerable weight. Ultimately though, I think I would have still opted for the abortion even if he didn't agree because I did NOT want to go through pregnancy. Pro-liars try to downplay it, but I've worked in OB/GYN medicine before. Pregnancy in general is a pretty HUGE thing to go through, and it's pretty tough on your body. I didn't have an ounce of energy to spare running between school, work, and caring for my mom then. I really don't think I could have handled that stress load AND tried to carry a pregnancy. 

 

Unfortunately, I can't throw my cards into "Men SHOULD have a say" because, well, the biology doesn't work that way. It's horribly unfair for certain, but neither men or women got a say in how this would go when our species evolved. As it stands, human women are the only ones who can carry a pregnancy and give birth. This debate would be pretty radically different if we were like seahorses or we still laid eggs or something. 

 

I don't blame men in the slightest for the grief of losing a pregnancy they wanted. That just makes sense. I would really hope that women could talk to and involve the fathers in things, but I know that life just doesn't work out that way sometimes. In the end, only women can ultimately really decide.  

[Vigile]

Well, I assume there are laws governing healthcare practices generally, and medical boards will have rules about surgical procedures, so yes.  And rightly so.

 

It's my understanding that the vast majority of medical procedures are under the jurisdiction of local medical boards and are not micromanaged by congress or other political authorities.  This particular procedure is singled out, primarily by a group of religious folk, and now we all are forced to acquiesce to the idea that it be subjected to the democratic process.  Unless the democratic process is in itself totalitarian, ideally there will be a number of areas in our lives, particularly areas of a personal nature that do not impact our neighbors, that it abstains from and that it isn't welcome. 

 

And if you wish to change the law, you must work within the parameters of your constitution.

 

Ha! Tell that to the supreme court, which only recently even further marginalized mine and everyone else's who doesn't have a billion dollars opinons; but that's a separate issue. 

 

 

So I ask again: How should it work in practice?

 

In practice, it should not be an issue subjected to the political process as I stated. 

[SquareOne]

 

So I ask again: How should it work in practice?

 

In practice, it should not be an issue subjected to the political process as I stated. 

 

You have answered the question in ideological terms, not practical terms.

 

In my opinion your inability to answer this question demonstrates the practical non-workability of the assertion that only women should have a say in this issue.

[Thackerie]

 

Men have been telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies for thousand of years. It's time to let woman control their own bodies     bill.

 

Does a woman have the right to use her hand to pull the trigger on a gun pointed to your head?

 

Wow! If you can't tell the difference between a living, breathing person and an embryo/fetus, I hope you are not involved in the medical or legal professions in any way.

[Akheia]

 

I don't think you've spent enough time thinking about my question, and I don't think you really understand yet.

 

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.  Realistically, Is there any answer I could give that would satisfy you?  Other than changing mind and saying I am pro choice?

 

 

>As to your question, I don't think anybody should be legislating what I do with what's inside my own body. I don't think that my rights should be up for a vote at all. But it particularly offends me when the people who speak the loudest about taking my rights away have the very least at stake in the matter.

 

If you think your rights should not be up for a vote, how are your rights going to be determined?  How are they to be enshrined into law?

 

 

More false dilemmas and an absurdism just for variety... your playbook's a bit thin, SquareOne. No, I'm saying don't answer me by just regurgitating precisely what I already said. Really think about this. Think about how you, an aggregate man, are dominant in society. You hold the cards. You make the rules. You overwhelmingly dominate in government and pass laws that are, weirdly, very favorable to yourself. You've set up a society that is categorically hostile to women facing unplanned pregnancies. You are never going to face that situation yourself, of course, unlike any other situation you might want to legislate. You're not going to be able to shoulder any of the physical burdens of bearing a child, and unless you're tapped by law to do so by fathering a child, you're not going to provide financial or social support for the raising of it. And you're actively working against things that will give women greater power and control over their fertility, as we see conservatives doing in the US regarding the ACA's contraception mandate. Yet you think it's fine to dictate what women will do in that situation. I invite you once again: please think a little about how breathtakingly presumptuous and disrespectful such a stance is. Why do you think women bristle when men start talking about what's best for them to do in such a situation? Why do you suppose they think it's unfair and completely out of bounds for men to do that? Do you even understand how stacked the deck looks to a woman in this situation?

 

The beginning of empathy is being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. You haven't quite made it that far yet.

 

Your understanding of laws and rights seems a little underdeveloped to me. Rights aren't up for a vote. I can see why you think rights are subjective if you think that the majority's opinion should determine what someone else's rights should be. Often rights end up in the hands of the judicial branch in the US (no idea how they handle it in the UK), or even the executive, as when the President said he wasn't intending to defend DOMA anymore. Why don't you study the history of women's and gay rights, and maybe your understanding of how rights become law will unfold a little more?

[Akheia]

 

 

So I ask again: How should it work in practice?

 

In practice, it should not be an issue subjected to the political process as I stated. 

 

You have answered the question in ideological terms, not practical terms.

 

In my opinion your inability to answer this question demonstrates the practical non-workability of the assertion that only women should have a say in this issue.

 

Or.... maybe... it demonstrates that nobody should have a say in someone else's private decision-making process except the only fucking person intimately involved in that decision.

 

It's not practical to just let women handle it themselves individually, and you personally can't see a way that works to let women collectively decide something that only happens to them, so damn, you big tough manly men are just gonna have to step in and save us dumb sluts from our own murderous stupidity. WOW THANKS MISTER

[Vigile]

 

 

So I ask again: How should it work in practice?

 

In practice, it should not be an issue subjected to the political process as I stated. 

 

You have answered the question in ideological terms, not practical terms.

 

In my opinion your inability to answer this question demonstrates the practical non-workability of the assertion that only women should have a say in this issue.

 

Well, I didn't make the claim that men shouldn't have a vote when bills are floated, but how do you want me to answer when I think no one should get a vote on the issue? 

 

In any case, currently, in the US, the supreme court has decided the matter.  Now we are dealing with religious fanatics trying to use the political process to make end runs around a settled score.   The whole thing is a clusterfuck IMO. 

[SquareOne]

Again you ask the same question.  Again I ask in reply - realistically, Is there any answer I could give that would satisfy you?  Other than changing mind and saying I am pro choice?

 

Why don't you study the history of women's and gay rights, and maybe your understanding of how rights become law will unfold a little more?

 

You have no idea about much I know about these subjects.

 

 

It's not practical to just let women handle it themselves individually, and you personally can't see a way that works to let women collectively decide something that only happens to them, so damn, you big tough manly men are just gonna have to step in and save us dumb sluts from our own murderous stupidity.

 

I don't think women should handle these things individually   But you do.  And you have not proposed a way to let women collectively decide about something that only happens to them.

 

I ask again: Do you think only a woman president / governor / legislature / court should be able to have a say on these issues?

 

 

 

Your understanding of laws and rights seems a little underdeveloped to me. Rights aren't up for a vote.

 

So would you kindly explain for me how the First - Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution, including the Right to Privacy, came into existence?

[SquareOne]

 

 

 

So I ask again: How should it work in practice?

 

In practice, it should not be an issue subjected to the political process as I stated. 

 

You have answered the question in ideological terms, not practical terms.

 

In my opinion your inability to answer this question demonstrates the practical non-workability of the assertion that only women should have a say in this issue.

 

Well, I didn't make the claim that men shouldn't have a vote when bills are floated, but how do you want me to answer when I think no one should get a vote on the issue? 

 

In any case, currently, in the US, the supreme court has decided the matter.  Now we are dealing with religious fanatics trying to use the political process to make end runs around a settled score.   The whole thing is a clusterfuck IMO. 

 

If no-one should get a vote, if no laws can be enacted, by what means can a woman prove to me her right to privacy?

[Ro-bear]

I think the notion that atheists should somehow unite on one side or the other of this debate is ludicrous.  Abortion has nothing to do with atheism.

[SquareOne]

I think the notion that atheists should somehow unite on one side or the other of this debate is ludicrous.  Abortion has nothing to do with atheism.

 

I agree.  My post title is pretty dumb.

[Vigile]

I don't think women should handle these things individually   But you do.  And you have not proposed a way to let women collectively decide about something that only happens to them.

 

The burden is on you, who wishes to usurp the autonomy of a woman over her very body.  That it's been done that way for a long time or that it has found its way into the legal quagmire is not an answer.  What if you decide you don't like her getting a tattoo too?  Should we justify to you why you shouldn't have a say in the matter?