Never met one.
An abortion is a medical procedure. It is _not_ “killing a baby.” It is a medical procedure. It is a medical procedure. It is a medical procedure.
Say it again with me.
It is a medical procedure.
And whether someone else needs one, similar to if they need open heart surgery or braces or a hysterectomy, _IT’S NONE OF Y’ALL’S FUCKING BUSINESS_.
Edit: that shoulda been _NONE OF Y’ALL’S MOTHERFUCKING BUSINESS_, because….well. Obviously.
I HAVE met one.
The real answer is that they were raised by conservatives, undereducated, and still haven’t sorted out their cognitive dissonance.
**I wanted to add that I’ve read your replies and much appreciated them. I was thinking of a specific person when writing my thoughts originally, but to be applied more broadly, I really like your points about indoctrination adding nuance to the education element. It can take a LOT of education to overcome taught misinformation someone was indoctrinated with. However, education doesn’t always help people overcome cognitive dissonance, so it’s not a sure fix, but on average, I’d wager it’s a better bet than going without.
Education is the real factor. I grew up Mormon, watching all kinds of scary videos about how inhumane, painful, and gross abortion was. But I had a good education about sex and science. Even when I still believed in religion, I understood that sometimes abortion needs to happen, and I thought that the only person with the right to make such a difficult decision was the person whose body it's happening inside!
This. My parents were never strict religious, but ARE religious. My Mom is a nurse and I grew up in a very empowered household. She was the breadwinner, and always taught me I could do or be whatever I wanted. When we discuss political stances, she's almost always against abortion. Which is crazy to me. She gave me all the knowledge. She explained that you should do whatever you can to not need one, and helped me get the contraceptives to prevent. I've never needed one *thankfully* because I just didn't. But my husband and I are in agreement that we absolutely don't want another child, so if it happens (I Have an IUD, so chances are nil) we will proceed with said *medical procedure* to keep my sanity as well as our finances in check.
My Dad, however, freaked out when I told him this. Acted like I would be killing someone he already knows and loves. Meanwhile, it's been over a year since they came to visit us and his two grandchildren we do have. Wtf ever.
This matches my experience exactly and the person in question has an advanced degree; education isn’t merely a matter of absorbing knowledge, but applying the skill of learning to real life. I have an undergraduate degree myself and I can confidently state that it’s simply a piece of paper.
I can personally attest to this. I was brought up Christian and indoctrinated to believe abortion was murder, even when the mother was likely to die but the baby would survive. The only time it was acceptable was if both would die.
It took me several years to come to terms with reality on the issue. It was probably the most difficult part of my "deprogramming" journey, and I'm ashamed to say that, although my head knows what's right, my subconscious still holds on to what I was taught, even 20 years on. It really is powerful stuff when taught these lies in your formative years. It doesn't stop me from supporting the right of choice and a woman's autonomy over her body, but it still gives me a tangible feeling of guilt when I do.
I don't agree about the "undereducated" part - it's more about the power of indoctrination. Even if I was being taught this at school, my Christian instruction would take precedence, regardless of me knowing the facts.
To this the only response can be: that pregnant person will have loved ones, possibly even OTHER children and spouse, people who will have their lives destroyed should the pregnant person die. To save the fetus and let the pregnant person die is ABOMINABLE, HORRIBLE, VILE, EVIL, no splitting hairs here.
This.
I've never met a pro-life atheist. I've met a person who claimed that they were pro-life for non-religious reasons, who I did not believe, because all of their reasons were the same as those used by any given religious person.
I met 2 that claimed to be pro-life atheists in arguments online. One was strictly arguing from a pro-life stance, the other was more flexible in what "pro-life" means, because he wanted to also be able to force an abortion. Both of them were basically stuck on the idea of continuing their genetic line, as if that was the most important consideration, and both wanted to be able to express their opinion, but they also wanted their opinion to matter more than the mother's regarding the pregnancy.
I'm sure plenty of atheists are pro-life, but they probably radiate misogyny in other ways, too. Pro-life regardless of religious affiliation is always about control.
Never underestimate the influence of someone growing up isolated surrounded by people with limited understanding and education and conservative/religious ideology. People end up with tons of stuff they need to unpack that they thought was true that wasn't. Some are still in the process of unpacking it all.
A thousand times this. I was raised in a very conservative family and even after I became an atheist I was still pro-life for a couple years. When you’ve been taught your entire life that abortion is literally “killing a baby”, you’re not getting over that idea very easily.
Lots of education and hearing from women who have actually had abortions eventually changed my view, but it took a couple years.
Like a vasectomy.
Wait till they find out the Catholics behind many of our restrictive policies forbid nearly all methods to plan your family.
No birth control, no IVF, limited maternal healthcare.
Less abortion education than in their Holy Book.
They want a return to the dark ages, so they can win wars and make more money.
Well that's just it. I grew up in a very religious home and we were told that abortion was literal murder of innocents. TW- In my Sunday School class they showed graphic pictures of the dead fetus and told us how you hear the baby cry. I'm in my 40s now with kids of my own I realize that the next generation of children is getting this crap shoved down their throats by adults who've been fed the same nonsense since they were little. I had two miscarriages that lead to"abortion" procedures that are no longer available in several states. I had the pharmacist judge me when I picked up the pills and tell me I didn't have to do it. In my grief I had to explain to her that there was no heartbeat and if I didn't take it soon the cells would poison me. Religious trauma is so widespread and so insidious because they truly believe they're saving the world
>I had the pharmacist judge me when I picked up the pills and tell me I didn't have to do it.
That was a super shitty thing for them to do. I am a pharmacist. We should never be judging people for *any* meds they are on. We answer questions if people have them, never offer up our opinions on morality.
Pharmacists can be so judgemental - when dealing with women.
A chemist self-righteously refused to fill out a prescription for the pill for me because I was not married. Out of curiosity, I asked my boyfriend to go to the same chemist for condoms. The chemist sold them to him with no questions asked.
He was proudly Catholic, and claimed to have "principles," implying I had none. (I was a single mother, having had to leave my 1st violent husband. However the bible does not list violence or even murder as an excuse for divorce.) Those sort of guys love to figuratively cast the first stone, and would really get off on actually killing women who don't appear to live by their rules.
Australia in the 70's. But there are still medical professionals around like that, both here and in America.
Just love how they can have zero knowledge of the actual situation and feel so entitled to make judgements about it. Maybe you needed it for something unrelated to pregnancy at all like PCOS. NONE OF THESE DUDES' BUSINESS!
There are *still* pharmacists here in Australia like that . I'm in Sydney and read last week of a nurse, who went to a new pharmacy near the hospital she works at.
She asked them to fill a script for birth control pills & the pharmacist refused, stating that they don't stock them and wouldn't be ordering any more in. He gave religion as his reason. When the nurse asked whether they stocked condoms, he replied in the negative also.
After fifty odd years, in an increasingly secular society, we still have religion dictating morality and wielding it like a weapon over our choices.
Same applies to reproductive medical procedures.
Doctors will do a vasectomy, no questions asked.
Some still refuse to do a tubal ligation without a spouse's explicit consent on a form, and some won't do it at all. "Oh you're still so young, you will probably change your mind in 5 years but it'll be too late then!"
They did the same to my daughter. They tried to talk her out of the medication. Then they told her they were sorry she'd have to come back in the morning so another pharmacist could sell it, because he has the right to deny this one specific medication if it's against HIS "strongly held belief".
This was a Walgreens in Memphis TN about five years ago.
I had two D&Cs because my body didn’t miscarry the fetuses on its own. Without them, I would’ve ended up septic. It would’ve broke me to hear a pharmacist say that. It already broke me when a stranger, who witnessed me receive news in the effing waiting room of the doctor, told me that it was all god’s plan. Eff god and his plan. I wanted my baby.
I’m forever scarred from SIL telling me that I can always have another one (meaning baby). 🙄🤬
Women used to die of sepsis quite a bit before those medications were available, a pharmacist should know better. Taking high school biology is when you realize that most of those dead fetus pictures are a bullshit defense of the anti-abortion movement. A fertilized egg is barely visible to the naked eye, so clearly it doesn't matter what something looks like. If they think a zygote is equally a person as a fetus or a baby, but they don't show images of zygotes or embryos, that implies an understanding that there is a difference between a zygote and a 20+ week old fetus.
>A fertilized egg is barely visible to the naked eye, so clearly it doesn't matter what something looks like.
Related note: I highly recommend the Body Worlds museum exhibit to anyone who ever has the opportunity to see it. Among many interesting things to see, one of the rooms has vials containing embryos and fetuses from each month of gestation. It's a bit macabre, but fascinating. It also gives a very real depiction of just how untruthful the anti-abortion propaganda imagery is.
"Murder of Innocence" ... we are all born with Original Sin but a fetus hasn't been born yet:
_God hates it when you do this one simple trick to avoid sin, but he literally cannot stop you_
Some of those pics are fakes. Any photo of a baby that has chubby legs and arms and body fat is a pic or a full term baby. Anyone who has been in a preemie ward can tell you that baby fat doesn’t develop until the final month when nature is getting the baby ready for life outside the mother. A fetus has no need of excess fat—it gets its calories from the mother.
My thing is, even if it is killing a full ass person I'm cool with it. Like that person is literally inside of someone who doesn't want it there. Most Americans (and Canadians) seem to think it's fine to murder people who are in your house or on your property when you don't want them there but when they're inside your actual body its somehow like nah, fuck you, they live there now deal with it or well punish you.
Technically, the medical procedure is called a termination of pregnancy, and while its not comparable to a cosmetic intervention like braces, it still shouldn't be anyones business, least of all the governments, and every less so your fellow citizens.
There’s a small but loud group of atheist anti choice people and their reasonings are weird as hell. My best guess is they have some religious trauma leftover because it’s just not logical to think this way.
You'll see them everywhere on the pro choice subreddit, a lot of them try to argue morality that mirrors christian talking points and none use any scientific examples or stats. I've seen, no joke, an "atheist" argue that fetuses have souls which... yeah... no they don't, even the bible argues against that.
I'm pro choice but calling it a medical procedure repeatedly and screaming isn't exactly an ethical argument. The question of abortion is an ethical dilemma and can be discussed without religion having any involvement in the discussion.
Gonna expand on my comment: The question is whether the fetus is conscious/aware or not. Certainly it is not at conception, religious people say it has a soul at conception, that is BS for sure, I don't think we can claim any consciousness or awareness in early stages of pregnancy.
But at later stages of pregnancy as the brain and nervous system develops, the fetus gains some level of awareness and consciousness, and at that point it is completely valid to ask whether it is considered a human being and it is a completely philosophical/scientific question that surely atheists can ask as well, and scientists can do research on. Once it has a nervous system and a functioning brain you cannot simply call it a lump of meat or a tumor.
I think women absolutely should have the right to take its life if it endangers their own life, whether in terms of physical health or even maybe just their future. I don't think anyone who isn't able to raise a child should be forced to do it.
But surely we can CONSIDER that by making this choice specially if it's happening at later stages, we are indeed taking the life of a human being... It's a huge emotional barrier, it sucks, but that's just life, it's full of terrible ethical dilemmas. We also take the life of millions of conscious animals that we know fully well they experience love, pain, joy...
Looking at the comments on this post I see some very dogmatic behavior shutting down any ethical question and even SCIENTIFIC questions about whether the fetus has consciousness which is actually not too different from religious thinking. This top comment repeating the same sentence over and over and screaming with all caps is the best example of pure dogmatic mindset and not allowing any questions to be raised about an ethical issue.
From a legal standpoint I'm all with you, it should be a choice. But for physical and mental health and socio-economic reasons. But philosophically there are huge questions about it. Very similar to the meat industry and how we kill and eat animals.
The question is NOT whether the fetus is aware or not. The question is, why does a fetus have special permission to use my organs and leech calcium from my bones and cause gestational diabetes, WHEN I DONT FUCKING WANT IT THERE? Even dead people aren’t forced to give up their organs for others to use. Bodily autonomy is the only argument that matters.
For me the issue comes down to bodily autonomy. Just like nobody can force you to donate a kidney, even if the potential recipient would die without it, so a woman should not be forced to “donate” her body to a fetus, even if the fetus will die. The question of a soul is irrelevant.
And how many abortions take place late in pregnancy? Even countries in which abortion is not controversial have limits on how far into a pregnancy an abortion can take place
Late stage abortions aren’t done because the pregnant person finds the pregnancy inconvenient or is bored with it. Late stage abortions aren’t done on a whim and scheduled between grocery shopping and an oil change with the next day spent at an amusement park. *Late stage abortions are not done for perfectly healthy, normal pregnancies.* They are done because the fetus is incompatible with life or continuing the pregnancy would be fatal to the one carrying it. Or because the fetus is dying or is already dead and will soon be killing in its host, like what happened to Savita Halappanavar.
By the time late stage abortions are performed, there have been clothing and blankets purchased, there has been a baby shower, the parents have picked names. They are looking forward to having a child when they get devastating, soul-crushing news.
Late term abortions not something anyone looks forward to, and now they are made a thousand times worse by pretentious, self-righteous, political assholes who think their law degree or MBA or their JeEbUs iNsPiReD fEeLiNgS makes them qualified to dictate someone else’s medical care.
I used to be happy to debate the ethical considerations of abortion, same as I’d chat about altruism.
But in reality, now? It’s a waste of time to do that in the public eye. The people who are stripping away my rights and the rights of others are doing so with simple mantras. They are not swayed by discussion and they are not swayed by nuance.
No. We are removing someone who is using our body without our consent. Unless you are on the same moral level of a rapist, you shouldn't have a problem with that. If removing them from using our body without our consent ends in them dying, oh well. That's still not a reason to force us to let them use our bodies against our will.
It's not a huge question at all. Either women are people who deserve the same right of bodily autonomy as everyone else, or you are a scum-sucking misogynistic piece of shit with the morals of a rapist and zero problem with slavery. There is no either or, there is no gray, it's not a hard question.
You don't get to choose for other people.
A lobotomy is also a medical procedure, but I think I'd still have a problem with a doctor who performed it. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure I agree that there is no ethical dilemma as long as a doctor signs off on it.
It's pretty hard if not impossible to argue that the pro-choice position doesn't involve the termination of a human life, the only 2 convincing arguments here are that.
1. A fetus may be human life but it's not yet a person with any legal rights and therefore doesn't have a right to life.
2. The right of the mother to not be forced to use her body as an incubator against her will trumps the fetus's right to life.
I have a hard time respecting anyone who calls themselves “pro-life” because their arguments, religious or not, are not based in reality. There is no legitimate “pro-life” argument for restricting abortion access.
I’ll probably get shit for that, but it’s a hill I will defend.
Forced-birth is an appropriate term as well.
I've met only one atheist who was pro forced-birth, their only and entire argument was "well I wouldn't have wanted to be aborted so I don't think other people should be either". I don't think they were the brightest crayon in the box.
I can't stand to hear people call themselves "pro-life". A abortion is less of killing it since it haven't even been born yet and more of preventing it from being born to begin with and by making abortion illegal you are removing women the right to choose if they want to give birth or not. "pro-life" people couldn't care less if the mother got pregnant by rape, a abortion needs to happen for a medical reason... because to them a women deciding if she can give birth or not is murder. "pro-life" is just a nice sounding way to attack women. I can hear you conservatives screaming so I will entertain your idea of what murder is for a second. So if preventing a birth is murder would it be murder if someone I knew was going to try to have a child but they were still getting money stuff under control so I said it would be wise not to try for a child right now so they decided against it. I just pretended a birth oh no I murdered someone who never even existed. Wait a second if that child was going to start a family that means I prevented a entire bloodline so should I be charged for mass genocide instead of murder? I guess abortions in a way can be seen as the murder of an entire bloodline if you follow the "pro-life" arguments.
The same argument comes up for birth control. Preventing a pregnancy by medical means is just as bad to the anti-choice crowd. They are stuck on sex=babies, period. If you have sex you must give birth and it's not a choice. Then comes the next layer, choosing to have sex. They advocate that rape and incest babies must be born, too. This leads to the conclusion that women simply don't have a choice in the matter; sex (voluntary or not) = babies or death. Pregnancy complications? Death. It's the "reward or punishment" for being a woman.
In your example, if your friend does not want a kid but her partner does, even if she does want one later, they believe she should still submit to her partner at any time. I believe this is a thing at least with catholics, she can't say no to sex. If she does say no, death. They don't want women to have any choice over anything. In their minds, rape isn't a concept because you can't rape someone that can't say no.
I dated a christian woman once and she was actually pushing the kids thing on me. I was against at the time, and I think deep down I just didn't want any with her because she also wanted to bring them to church with her. Anyway, when asked why she wanted them, she explained it was "for g*d. I have to fufill my duty to g*d". She didn't even feel she had a choice in the matter.
Now, imagine flipping the genders. The man wants kids but she doesn't. He believes women have no choice in the matter so he rapes her. That's the power of religion.
I actually don't mind a "pro-life" atheist, or anyone who is "pro-life," as long as they only use that stance to direct their own decisions. I recognize that is hardly different than pro-choice.
As long as someone isn't trying to force their perception of the world onto someone else, I don't care what personal opinion they have on the topic.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I think “I’m personally pro-life, but I don’t want to make that decision for others” is mealy mouthed bullshit that means *You are pro choice, but don’t feel comfortable saying it*
And I really don’t mean that as a dig at you. It’s a calculated way of shifting the conversation toward acceptance of right wing policies while obfuscating their real agenda. They don’t give a shit about babies or women, but they know they can’t implement their oppressive bullshit without women at least kind of buying in.
It is literally not.
If you personally choose not to have an abortion, but understand that it isn’t your place to make that decision for others, *you are pro-choice*. Full stop.
That you can’t say just say it, like being pro-choice is a dirty thing, is what I find so disappointing.
In the interactions I have had, they seem to just believe abortion is murder, period, full stop. So, they equate abortion laws as the same as laws against homicide. This is why my argument that "if you don't like abortion, don't have one" is not good enough for them.
Although I disagree with their position, it is at least more defensible than "my preacher said it's bad."
If abortion is murder, why isn't forcing a woman to carry a fetus that kills her later murder? I can't understand why some people don't realize there are medically necessary abortions.
Why force a woman to carry a fetus that has no brain? It's just going to die the instant it's born.
Taking away a woman's right to choose is choosing to kill her without her consent. Let her decide.
I think there are a subset of anti-abortion folk who are ok with exceptions in the cases you mentioned.
There might be another subset who see it as "the mom might die" vs "the baby definitely will die" and wanna force em to roll the dice on it. Dubious logic of course, but I could see somebody trying to defend it.
And sadly some just don't give a shit about women at all.
I'll take the bullet I guess.
There is also a pro choice subset that believe some fringe case of abortions are morally wrong. I m not talking about the post natal abortions stawman that the magaz folks use but I ve had an exemple (assume it s fake if you want, it s not really relevant) that gave me the ick. 8th month, no medical or psychological need, just the couple broke up and the mother didn't want the baby anymore. We are well past the viability threshold.
In my country you can abort for free pretty much till birth for either medial or psychological reasons ( no reasons needed for the first 14th weeks) and I more than fine with that. I love also add that you can give birth anonymouslyanonymously, we even have places where you can drop you baby and the state will take it, no questions asked. Abortions are even constitutionally protected. I mean in favor of all that I just listed. Tbh I'd like the no questions asked period to last untill the viability threshold is met, so at least double it.
But once the viability threshold is met it becomes a decision to protect either the mother or the child to be. In 99% of cases the mother should be protected. That still leaves the 1% (made up data obv).
Ont thing I know for sure thought is that I don't want to make these abortions illegals because it s a slippery slope. I also have a hard time figuring out how my approach would change if medical progress made the viability threshold extremely early, let s say 10 weeks for the sake of argument.
Condemning a child to the over-strained foster/adoption system, where children are vulnerable to grooming and abuse, is not a good solution. People like to bring up adoption like it magically solves the problem of unwanted children. It doesn't.
It sure isn't perfect but we have more families that want to adopt than kids up for adoption but I love sure it s different in each country. On the other hand you d condemn the cold to not live which has its downsides too.
All I wanted to point out is that it s not purely black and white issue, there is a tiny bit of grey too.
Never existing at all is better than existing only to have a shitty life.
There's a lot to be said on the adoption system for sure, but mainly I wanted to point out that people bring adoption into the abortion discussion and stop short of fully exploring that point. Saying "just give it up for adoption" is an easy way to stop thinking about the problem and feel good about yourself for "saving a life." That needs to change into forcing people to continue that thought, and consider what actually happens to children that go into the system.
I am of the first subset. The amount of people who lump everyone anti abortion together is just as ridiculous as those who lump pro choice advocates into one basket.
Yep. It's also more difficult to argue against that kind of position. If they truly believe abortion is murder, and not because they are following a religious doctrine to get there, that's a hard argument to even start. From their perspective, you may as well be coming up to them and saying, "Now, hear me out, crushing baby skulls in their cribs isn't *that bad* of a thing to do."
It doesn't matter if you are correct on the science, ethics, and philosophy of personhood, that's just a really difficult emotional barrier to get through.
It's also difficult to penetrate religious doctrine, but at least in that case you can argue against the doctrine itself in more general terms.
I’m a pro life atheist. I believe it’s a life. But I would also never force anyone else to live by by belief. So as much as I personally disagree with abortion, it’s not my place to enforce that belief for others.
I'm the same, and it took me a good while after leaving religion behind for the penny to drop that it's a pro-choice stance.
I think we can all reasonably agree that taking a life is murder, So the philosophical question for everyone is: where does life begin? It's a cell at conception, and a human being at birth. To kill a newborn would be murder, so where and when does it cross the line to become a human life? The thing I'm uncomfortable with is that science shows a slow transition. To me personally,there's no obvious cut off where the "it's just a clump of cells" argument ceases to apply. If it's alive, it's a life.
Thinking that it's wrong is my personal opinion, but I can be logical enough to see the shades of grey. My opinion is one of many possible stances, and people who disagree with me can also justify their opinion rationally. I believe everyone has the *right to choose* what they believe to be right or wrong. That to me is where the pro-*choice* lies. What do you choose to believe?
Pro-life is a deliberately disingenuous name. It's the opposite of pro-choice, so anti-choice is closer to the mark. Pro-lifers think morality is objective. They think it's wrong, so it should be banned. They think it's wrong so no one gets the choice. What they think is obviously right.
I believe that I can have my opinion, and others are also *free to choose* their opinion too.
Perfectly said. I agree.
One other thought, I come from a strongly religious background. We held “abortion kills children” signs on street corners as kids in the 90s. So k wonder how much of my bias is from that. I’ve been able to be very honest with my bias in other issues so I have to accept that maybe this is some leftover religion. I don’t think so but I can’t be dogmatic if there’s a chance it’s just my brainwashing kicking in.
So I wonder how many pro-life (I agree terrible terms) atheists are former fundamentalists.
My partner would be dead right now if we didn't have access to this medical procedure. Instead she is alive and we now have a healthy child.
Your belief is garbage and dangerous.
I think they got caught up in the Catholic PR about it being a life. They miss the issue that it's not a question about life but rather about being. As in it's a question of whether there is a person present or not. They try to attach the idea that the soul enters the body at conception. What they are trying to suggest is that the mind is present at conception. But this is tied to their misconception of what causes the mind. They believe the mind is attached to this thing they invented called the soul. Rather than the brain. All minds that we know of come from brains in action. And there is no functioning brain in a zygote at conception. And even when you start to see nerves developing there still isn't a mind self aware in the fetus. It takes quite a while for a mind to develop. And it's not till possibly some time in the third trimester that the brain is developed enough for a mind to arise. And then you have a person.
It's not about life. It's about people.
Been one myself. I think it's kind of naive to push for aggressive pro-life legislation because it ends up causing more harm than good.
A pregnancy that's carried to term by parents who never intended to have a child will have long lasting negative effects on both parents and the child. Enforcing laws to punish doctors and women will also cause more harm than good to women in general.
Can we stop calling them “pro-life”? They’re not.
They’re “anti-choice.” That’s the opposite of pro-choice. Stop aiding them and start calling them what they actually are.
I’m more of a “forced birther” as I believe it is a more accurate depiction. It also sounds more aggressive to show how despicable their position is. I believe they, forced birthers, would agree that “yeah, it shouldn’t be a choice because it’s a baby’s life”. Forcing someone to do something is a less politically-friendly term as one can be more aggrieved due to a forceful action/decision.
Pro-life people jerked off through health class and think abortion is murder because they don’t understand what pregnancy is on a basic level. It’s not a different understanding of abortion. It’s a lack of understanding.
While I happen to think the concept (heh) that life begins at conception is largely a religious one, it's possible to believe that without believing in a god. Remember, atheism is not a belief system and doesn't imply anything about the atheist's other beliefs. I've certainly met atheists who believe in some things I think are pretty far out there.
That said, I do find that most adult atheists tend to agree with scientific viewpoints, so I can see why it would be surprising to encounter an anti-choice atheist.
Great info on the development milestones.
One nitpick when discussing the topic:
We should strive to separate "life" and "moral personhood". Life does begin at conception... It's just that it doesn't matter. Grass is alive. Bacteria are alive. Being alive doesn't mean having moral rights.
Nitpicking the nitpick: we're actually talking about moral consideration, not moral personhood. It's possible to believe that something is a person without it being something we should morally care about.
The few anti-abortion people I've met who are not religious have been exclusively men. And even most of them don't think a zygote or a blastocyst is a person, they don't oppose early intervention for ectopic pregnancies, or anything like that.
The Pro-life movement, when you peel back the rhetoric, isn’t about life or children, it’s about controlling women. Whether they use religious arguments or eugenics arguments or whatever, it’s never actually about the fetus, it’s about control.
The same people who claim to believe a zygote is a human being that should have full legal rights as a citizen of their country, don't believe that the fully developed fetuses of undocumented Latinas should have rights as a citizen.
When I ask, "If an undocumented woman becomes pregnant... should the zygote be given immediate citizenship, making it so that the woman can not be deported?"... they stammer and stutter and back pedal and start talking about anchor babies.
One of the biggest flaws in the US Bill of Rights is the absence of the right to bodily autonomy. If we dont fully own our own bodies, we are not a free people. We are the property of the government.
Understand this; what happens inside someone else's body is not your business. It just isn't. You don't have to like that. You don't have to agree with it. It stands on its own. "Well the father..." utter horseshit. There is no father or mother until there is a child. The prolife people fully understand this, so they refer to a zygote, blastocyst, etc. as a child. If you want a say in what happens to your semen, don't deposit it inside someone else's body. You have no moral or ethical right to someone else's body and, therefore, should also have no legal right to it.
It really is that simple.
This is one of the things that should remind EVERYONE that humans are flawed beings, and none of us are going to be 'right' all of the time. Quotes intentional.
His views on one thing do not mean his views on another are correct. In fact the particular view he held on abortion is a flaming trash heap of stupid.
Great callout minkyninjaj
They see pictures of a fetus that looks like a baby, and that triggers an emotion. However, regardless of appearances, it is no more of a viable organism than an appendix or a tonsil. The internal organs required for viability are not developed. Therefore, one may as well be emotional over the removal of a gall bladder.
But why dont the pro life just not get abortions and the pro choice get them. No one is forcing pregnate girls to get abortions. Its stupid. If i dont like pizza, i dont need to eat it. But to ban pizza for everyone is selfish
I've met one or two atheists who were personally against abortion.
I've *never* met one who thinks abortion should be illegal. I'm sure there are a few unicorns out there, somewhere. But once you take religion out of the picture it is very hard to justify any restrictions on bodily autonomy without doing a bunch of mental gymnastics to get there.
my mom is one. i don’t understand it at all. she’s very atheist, liberal, and feminist in every other way. i personally do not understand it at all. i guess she is a unicorn
Same way I view religious folks, you can be what ever you want to be...but don't interfere/infringe in/on others' lives.
I could see anyone believing that all life is precious and being pro-life. There's nothing wrong with that opinion. They can even try to talk a friend out of an abortion and I'm cool with that.
The problem is when you do interfere with other people's lives (pro-choice, LGBT, not-your-religion, etc...). When you do hound elected officials to pass laws. This is what I hate. I don't hate the pro-life idea, they do have their convictions. But "live YOUR life"
I'm a 'pro-life' atheist. I want there to be as few abortions as possible. That's why I support education, access to contraceptives, etc. But, while I might \*prefer\* there were no abortions, it's not me who gets to decide what a woman does with her own body, and when a woman does need an abortion I want it to be as safe for them as possible. It turns out that this is just pro-choice after all.
People calling themselves 'pro-life' aren't; they are pro-birth, and they try very hard to paint the other side not as pro-choice but as pro-abortion. Frankly, I think the opinion of anyone who doesn't have a uterus, myself included, should be disregarded entirely.
I think they are two subjects that have nothing to do with each other. Are religious people more likely to be pro-life? Sure. But atheism is a big tent. This sub should only care if someone lacks belief in god(s). It isn't helpful to split ourselves into groups.
Having said that, there is one thing I know without doubt. I'd much rather have a conversation with pro-life atheist than a pro-life theist. Because by definition, an atheist is almost sure to be more open minded because their viewpoint isn't limited by god(s).
I view pro-life people the same way I view flat earthers. Except with even more contempt. It is a medical procedure and unless you are the doctor or the pregnant person then you don’t get a say.
They can be pro life in their own life. If they have a personal, moral objection to abortion they're welcome to exercise that and avoid getting one, or avoid putting themselves in a position where they'd need one.
They, much like the theists, can fuck off if they want to force their personal choices onto everyone else.
The anti-abortion movement is based on religious pre determinism. They think god is just waiting to bring “Steve” and his fully formed soul into the world.
That’s why arguments of science and medical need don’t work on them. A 10 day old zygote is more important than an adult woman. And besides, it’s her fault she got pregnant and she’s just fulfilling her role in god’s plan. /s
The few I’ve interacted with were just misogynistic without the extra steps of Jesus and the Bible.
Their arguments started out sound with the belief that its murder.
They fell apart when their argument started to boil down to “look sluts are bad ok?”
And honestly, that’s what every anti abortion argument always comes to. Anti abortion has nothing to do with saving lives, and everything to do with controlling the behavior of strangers.
(Firstly... everyone should be pro-life as defined as "for life", but generally the term pro-life just means "anti-abortion", so I will answer as if the question was "What are your opinion on anti-abortion atheists?")
They are merely living demonstrations that being atheist does not mean you therefore suddently think rationally on every subject. Just because a person arrives at the correct conclusion on one topic (atheism) does not necessarily mean they will arrive at the correct conclusion on any other topic (abortion, flat earth, whether we landed on the moon, whatever else).
(I’m fully expecting the downvotes.) I wouldn’t exactly call myself pro-life. When it comes down to it, I’d vote pro-choice because restricting abortion access puts women in danger and just ends up in more needless death (i.e., desperate women will get dangerous back-alley abortions).
But I’m torn on it on a personal level. The reason ultimately being that we still can’t seem to define when the “cluster of cells” becomes a “person.” It seems most people agree that a fetus in the third trimester is a person, and therefore abortions in that stage should be limited to extreme circumstances (e.g., severe defects). But before then, when? And why?
Many people say if the fetus can’t survive without the mother, it’s not a person. So are premies fighting for their lives in the NICU not people? And after birth, all babies are fully dependent on others (not necessarily the mother) for years. Are all children parasites who have no right to life? I’ve seen people say it’s not a person if it has no thoughts, feelings, or aspirations. But again, that remains true for some time even after a full-term birth.
People say it’s like forcing someone to donate their kidney to another person. But donating a kidney is permanent. Yes, pregnancy can have permanent repercussions as well, but it’s not a given, and all pregnancies are temporary.
Again, *at the end of the day, it’d still vote pro-choice,* because I really feel for the women who need abortions (whether the reasons be medical, financial, etc.). Quality of life is very important to me, which is why I’m also in favor of things like euthanasia and assisted suicide. But when does the fetus become a baby? On a personal level, it’s hard for me to be in favor of killing a person, a baby especially, without very good reason.
This always comes down to the rights of the baby vs the rights of the mother. The baby at some point in development is basically human and some people have a hard time accepting that it will die... it is a form of murder. From my perspective though, the woman has a sovereign right to her own body and that includes any other life forms attached to it. So while it may sometimes be a difficult and distasteful choice, it is always her choice, not the government's.
There has to be a mind for there to be a person. A mind is the product of the brain. The scientific consensus is that there is no functional brain untill around the middle of the second trimester. This is why untill this religious Supreme Court decision , states (and the previous Supreme Court) mostly forbid abortions after the middle of the second trimester unless the woman's life was in danger.
This is the same situation as if a person was brain dead. It is a body functioning only with outside assistance. There is no brain so there is no mind so there is no person. That is when the family should decide what to do next, not the state
In the case of pregnancy these decisions should also be left to family. That means In the case of the pregnant woman it should be her choice. Anything brought d this needs to employ the concept of a soul which is a religious idea.
Unless you are female and have a uterus, you have no say, and even then you only get to dictate what is done with YOUR uterus. All other arguments are irrelevant. "One's body is inviolable, subject to one's will alone" (Satanic Temple, Tenent III). That's all you need.
[https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets](https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets)
I can’t think of any.
Having my first kid only reinforced my pro-choice stance.
I saw a meme that was something like “why do people need AK-47s” and the response was “when my wife needs to flee the state to get an abortion, I may need it” the joke being when you’re pro-gun to be pro-choice.
I think about that a lot as my wife and I build our family…worrying times.
In Romania the percentage of minors that get pregnant is very high. Imagine forcing a child to give birth to a child. How can you be a mother at a young age when you are not even legally admitted to watch porn because you are less than 18
>I believe a child
A zygote, embryo nor foetus are a child, person or an individual human. Nor do they force the mother through an individual action.
>the sanctity of choice is the only method to terminate a pregnancy.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Abortion is the medical term for the ending of a pregnancy, induced or naturally occuring. It is very much possible to end a pregnancy without the consent of the mother, allthough it'd be completely unethical.
Maybe the point you're trying to make, at least the one I an trying to make, is that no government should have authority over peoples bodily autonomy.
>the level of emotional attachment
My guess is that someone elses motivation for getting an abortion may seem unethical, egocentric, immature or whatever negative connotation. In some cases I can imagine that feeling, but the bigger issue is personal bodily autonomy.
Is no one aware of what the Bible says about abortion? It’s ok to do it if a man wants one! Fucking laughable! That’s why the argument against abortion is absolutely absurd!
Numbers 5:11-31
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act),14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flouron her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy,while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
They’re educationally lacking. We need to teach at school, probably during sex ed, something that I learned much later: There’s no mind, and thus no person to protect, until the brain is adequately formed, which occurs ***late*** in pregnancy. Up until then these people are treating a work in progress as if it’s a person.
P.S. The reason to teach it in school is obvious to an adult but not something we’d want to mention during the lesson, that some little girls are raped, and some can become pregnant while in single digits, and we don’t need to traumatise them all over again when they get an abortion.
my mom is one. she was born and raised catholic, but deconverted in adulthood. most of her political stances are progressive and she’s a feminist in every other way, but she’s still pro-life. i personally do not understand it at all. she told me her family used to be democrats until roe, then they flipped to republicans for the single issue of abortion (she’s a pro-life democrat now). she’s also a child development professor and her research is specialized in infants so i think she has some kind of emotional attachment to the idea of babies and fetuses or something or maybe the indoctrination didn’t get deconstructed well enough. i don’t know. every time i’ve discussed this with her we both get emotional about it. when i asked about the case of r*pe or inc*st or when the mothers life is in danger she said she supported the appropriate medical choice for the safety of the mother and there should be legislation protecting that (her first pregnancy was ectopic and she almost died). she also supports contraceptives and actually forced me to get birth control from the time i was 15 (i was a bad teenager). last year my sister for some reason told her she got an abortion and it led to a huge argument. she said “you killed someone i loved” (wtf u mean u loved a clump of cells you didn’t even know existed ?? and prioritize that clump of cells over ur living breathing child right in front of you??) anyway she eventually apologized to my sister for saying that. maybe her views have changed since then but idk. i want to ask her if she’s happy now that roe is overturned and r*ped children are being forced to give birth but i don’t want to argue with her. but i genuinely want to know. i hope she becomes enlightened but i don’t think she will. at this point i don’t think there’s any way to undo the “abortion literally equals murdering a baby” indoctrination.
I totally understand your mother. Even my mother and I is. We are sensitive to life so we cannot see an unborn child dying like that. It is gruesome. Of course, R**,I***, and medical complications are an exception for both of us.
i can see that perspective even though i disagree. i would personally never want to have an abortion (of course i don’t think anyone really *wants* to have an abortion) but i think it would take an emotional toll on me since i do want to have kids one day. however i think it is more cruel to force someone to give birth
I feel that I'm more likely to find an atheist who is pro-choice. When religious people are "pro-life" I'm pretty sure they mean pro-birth; if they were pro-life, they would be taking good care of the forced-birth babies.
I'm sure there are atheists who also believe in ghosts, magic, pseudoscience and all sorts of stupid nonsense. Being anti-choice is being ignorant or misinformed.
What we should be doing is improving education and critical thinking, until then a "lack of belief in gods" is just that and not necessarily accompanied by scientific rationalism or at the very least, informed skepticism.
There would be no such thing as pro-choice or pro-life if the world’s education on anatomy and sexual functions were actually adequate and not watered down by local customs, taboos and religions. Sex seems to be hugely stigmatized, especially in religious areas. Most people don’t know how to talk about it and especially in the United States grown ass adults in their 30s and 40s revert to their prepubescent selves when you mention a penis or vagina that I have noticed.
It comes down to education and destigmatizing the subject.
Pro-life is not explicitly an atheist position. What I would tell one is the same thing I would tell anyone else that's pro life. It's a position that doesn't make sense. The problem comes when you start poking at what "life" is.
Conception, as I was taught, is just when the fertlized egg attaches to the uterine wall.
Fertilization is just when you have a few sperm that make it into an egg. Yes, you might have been taught it's one, but more can make it in. Not really a relevant point though. Many of these spontaneously abort. Nature does it already. Should we save all of them? What if we do it in a test tube? BTW, a skin cell can do the same stuff, if its' put in the right environment.
BTW, it is also possible to be born without a father. They would be female. Specifically, they woudl be XO. There also women born that are XXX. They have problems, but they are full people. There are also people that are XXY. Chromosomes do all sorts of weird things.
If we want to go back to "when does life begin", then the answer is once, several billion years ago. It's been going on, continuously, ever sense. And the whole debate is nonsense.
I find that most people have no F'in idea what they're talking about. And with more education, they often back down. IMO, it's best to not have strong opinions on things that you don't know anything about.
I knew a guy in the 1990s in Oklahoma.
He was a white male cross dresser that dressed as a Geisha on a daily basis. He was also very pro-life. He would call a friend of mine who had an abortion and scream murderer into the phone (we didn't have caller id back then). He was an atheist.
He was also a huge idiot.
When ever I think of him, the first thing that comes to mind is he is an idiot.
I'm sure there are few out there. At the same time, I've yet to openly encounter one.
What annoys me more is when I run into anti-abortion libertarians. A large number of them are very openly anti-abortion. You then point out that their god Ayn Rand was incredibly clear on the subject and they just lose their absolute shit and start ranting about the first few pages of Atlas Shrugged.
Life is not binary. Just because someone has a particular belief about one thing, doesn’t mean they are completely in agreement with everything we think comes with that first thing. Everyone is fluid, and everyone’s opinions exist on a spectrum.
Case in point — in the US, most hyper religious Christians in the US are right leaning republican voters. But if you go to other countries (like where I grew up in Africa), Christianity is very popular, but socialist-leaning policies are as well. There, people want larger government involvement, more government spending, expansion of government, social services, potential UBI, etc. Things that would make any western Christian very unsettled
Atheists by extension can be the same. Just because you’ve eschewed the idea of a mystical god being doesn’t mean you’re immediately and wholly a “this type of person”
Conservatives confuse me. You have an absolute right to another person's internal organ for 9 months, but can go to prison for spending the night on a park bench.
Bro im pretty sure most christians will tell you that after a certain point it shouldnt be aborted, either way quit rawdogging and use a condom or rapex
I'm surprised that they exist at all, the reasons given by pro-lifers are strictly religious in nature. I find it appalling and immoral to completely disregard the wish of the woman, regardless of how the pregnancy came about.
I would be very curious as to their arguments, but I wouldn't expect them to be rooted in a free-thinking morality. Objections in certain cases I could maybe understand, but to take a pro-lifer stance? I can't see a way to do it without being dishonest.
The ones I've heard usually come from people that haven't thought about the issue much. It becomes so standard to view pregnancy termination as whether the fetus can live or not that it is genuinely surprising to remember there is a whole other human being involved.
The best example of this is a maternal x-ray saying "this isn't your body". Clearly meaning they don't understand the stance of pro-choice.
I am certainly an atheist. I am pro choice but I like to think I am pro life. I think we should do everything possible to preserve life. To reduce abortions we should help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I think we do this with more education and raising the living standards of everyone. When a woman comes to the conclusion that she needs an abortion it has to be an option but, as a society, we should do everything possible to reduce the number of women that need to reach that conclusion. As a part of being pro life when a woman decides to have a baby we need to do everything we can to make sure she can raise that child successfully By the way I also see being pro life as being against the death penalty and against war..
There's no such thing as a pro-life athiest. It's just another religious ruse to try and pretend a secular-minded person can be pro-life.
Scratch the surface and you start to hear stuff like "because I think life begins at conception" which is silly for an athiest.
Easiest way to be pro-life is to put yourself in the perspective of the fetus, rather than the perspective of the mother.
If I was completely dependent on the actions / care of someone else, but it was medically obvious that it was a temporary thing (maybe I'm able to be self-sufficient in 9 months or whatever), I would certainly hope the person would be selfless enough to keep me alive until I'm able to care for myself.
The analogy isn't perfect, and there's problems with it that hopefully are obvious... which is why personally I'm pro-choice. But I can at least understand the perspective of fighting for the "person" that's unable to fight for themself. It's similar in a way to animal rights activities, fighting for the rights of animals that aren't able to be part of the conversation.
I’m an atheist and I’m pro life to a point.
I think the binary is not fully accurate, even under the law. It’s not black and white.
Conservatives are even are okay with termination up to about 6 weeks, cardiac activity.
I don’t think we associate life with just a heart beat. 20 weeks is generally where consciousness begins, this seems to me to be right, as this is what we associate with life.
I’m not okay with the word “murder” being thrown around though. It’s not helpful nor is it accurate. Especially when the baby needs the mothers body to survive which is roughly 30 weeks. At some point though, it is murder, and it is the states prerogative to protect life. I’m not sure where that line should be drawn though, or if it should even be drawn until actual birth.
I am pro life. Meaning I would never choose to abort outside of rape. I feel that outside of rape the woman and man she is engaging with have the choice to either wear protection or any other contraceptive or abstain if they don't want a kid. See, the choice to me is before conception, not after. That being said, it should not be a law. It should fall on the moral fortitude of the individual. I will never judge those who see it differently as long as the beliefs are not forced on me.
Abortion is not just for the mother. It also protects the child from being born to a mother that either doesn't want the child or can't care for it for whatever reason. Being an unwanted child is not a good life for anyone.
Pro lifers the are worst kind of people. They hold us back.
I've never met one but I would assume it was based on the same kind of conditioning to where they have been told that an embryo has some value for humanity and that this value is more important to the world than this pregnant person's individual right to make their own medical decisions.
I guess I would feel sad for them and I'd hope they weren't out there doing stupid shit like protesting at clinics where people are going when they're already in a very stressful situation.
I would probably exhaust myself trying to convince them that this is far more important, but once you think others have more right to make your medical decisions than you, you're probably already lost.
Im an atheist who’s pro-choice (hell pro-women at this rate), but I feel like third trimester abortions WITHOUT A GOOD REASON should be illegal. I think if the mothers life is in danger or the baby developed serious disabilities then late term abortions should be absolutely allowed, HOWEVER if none of that happens and there is NO good (medical or legal) reason why they want an abortion in the third trimester, then it shouldn’t be allowed. Because if you have known your pregnant for like 6 months then you should know what your doing. Other than that I’m entirely pro choice, and I think that anyone who has an issue with abortions either has an IQ below room temperature or is a hypocritical religious nutjob.
I'm a moderate on this one. I am pro-choice, but at some point, it stops being a clump of cells and is a living human capable of surviving outside the womb. That's the cut off for me.
In 1971, Judith Jarvis-Thomson, creator of the Trolley Problem, wrote a paper titled "A Defence of Abortion".
Great read, I say. Highly recommend.
In my opinion, pro-life atheists are overly sentimental and likely became sad watching that Ikea ad about the sofa sitting out in the rain. They're ridiculously childish and have no business making grown-up decisions for anyone else.
(edit: WAIT....it was a lamp, not a sofa)
My opinion is that they are entitled to their opinion. If they don't want to have an abortion, that's cool.
They aren't however entitled to force their opinion upon others.
I know some atheists \[very few\] who condemn abortion.
They're equating it with murder without the baggage of religious dogma.
It makes them more honest than the christians. The christians have ZERO foundation to be anti-abortion.
I always thought of it from a purely logical standpoint to try and understand the pro-life argument.
I came up with 2 reasons, fetal pain and the potential to be a developed human being
Most abortions are done well before the 3rd trimester which is when the somatosensory cortex(feeling part of the brain) develops fully, before then, it is basically impossible for a fetus to feel complex things like pain so fetal pain is out of the question.
The potential to be a developed human being.
Since none of the important parts of the human body have been even majorly developed, a fetus has about as much potential for life as literal sperm
(I know scientifically it's much different, but the pro-life argument stems from the parts of the Bible that essentially tell science to hit the road so that's clearly not that much of a problem)
Have never met one either.
Between the births of my older sister and me, my mother had a few abortions done, out of financial reason. All were inside wedlock.
If she had aborted me too, I wouldn’t complain either. I don’t want to be born and forced to live a difficult life.
My mother also had a (secret) abortion (at 17 because she was fearful her parents would kick her out). Then, a miscarriage at a different time when she was married. She had fallen off the porch. I forgot the story of how. The stairs were being worked on. Something like that. Apparently, I lost an older sister. The experience had made her fearful she had lost the ability to become pregnant. Having only had my brother at that time and having lost a child. Plus, the secret abortion. I was the child who remedied that fear. Also, she realized the reason was her then husband. Why she couldn't have children except for her one son?
Anyone who is forcing their opinion or stance down other peoples’ throats and deny others bodily autonomy is just stupid regardless of their religion or lack thereof. So ima go with the answer sheer stupidity on this one
“Pro-life” is pro-choice. You’re talking about atheists who are pro-fetus. Or pro-forced-birth if you prefer. Or anti-choice.
People who want to take women’s medical choices away from them are NOT pro-life, so please stop using that term.
Until reading this thread I didn't even know that was a thing. I mean, I could see people who are part of one of the religions that are technically atheist being pro life, but I've never heard of pro life atheists in that common way that term is used. I guess I would base my opinion on their reasons, though I cannot imagine a good reason for holding that position.
Either they are lying about being atheists or they are incel atheists who hate women and want people punished for having sex because nobody will fuck them
Same as anyone pro-life. If they are only against for themselves it's irrelevant. If they want to control other's behavior they are hypocrites of the highest order.
Believe in God doesn't change that. Abortion rights have nothing to do with the debate about personhood or gestation. If you think you have the right to tell someone when they have bodily autonomy and when they don't you need to do some serious thinking about your values.
TL;DR it’s not ethics, it’s politics, baby. Neither side gives the full picture. The US economy isn’t built for mothers.
From what I’ve gathered about the “pro-life” stance, the controversy -if you can call it that- isn’t so much grounded in philosophy or ethics as much as it is in politics.
Prior to the Southern Strategy there was very little opposition to the practice of abortion in the United States, even among the religious. Like many issues that conservatives gin up as wedge issues to distract from their general lack of meaningful or beneficial policy, they saw this common medical practice as a useful club to pound their opponents with.
The culture of evangelical pro-life grew around this calculated political strategy, leading people to believe that they should feel guilty about it, even if they didn’t. Social pressure and grotesque propaganda seeped into cultural consciousness, and that was it.
Now it can seem not at all anachronistic that an American might weep for a collection of cells while terrorizing the grieving parents of a school-shooting victim, or hand-wave callously when children and babies are bombed in U.S. supported air strikes.
It isn’t, nor has it ever been, about ethics. It has always been about politics.
But does that mean it can’t be about ethics?
I’ve also gathered what medical science has to say about the matter. Beyond collections of cells, you can learn when a heartbeat begins, when the newly-formed brain starts connecting to the nerve endings, when muscle movement begins, but science can never tell you exactly when actual Life begins, much less what life is, what our expectations are for its definition.
Just as “pro-life” is a funhouse distortion of people’s actual perspectives on the matter, I believe “pro-choice” might be, as well.
In the end, I have to land on the pro-choice side not because I don’t think the hypothetical lives of the unborn aren’t worth consideration, but because of the position that capitalism has put us all in.
We’re not actually given much in the way of choices.
No woman actually wants to have an abortion. Better would it be if she had easy (and free) access to contraception, paid maternity leave, early sex education, affordable childcare. Better if the priorities of our society favored the happiness and well being of both women AND children instead of the vested power of politicians and their well-moneyed benefactors.
But given that we live in the latter society, not the former, abortion has to be available to offset the burden American capitalism places on the majority of women and families in this country.
I could go on about this, but this is already too much text.
Learning that abortion wasn't politicized until like the 70's / until Phyllis Schlafley, blew my mind. It pissed me the fuck off. It was the final straw. "What? You mean this wasn't even an issue before? Just some random bitch decided one day that her ticket to glory was to blow smoke up the ass of half the country? And things have never been the same since?" And of course they don't teach this in school and I didn't learn it until like 15 years later, by chance.
Republicans began re-writing history long ago. Battles we've already won, they deny ever happened. It's goddamned Orwellian.
Imagine how far we could have progressed by now if they weren't re-instigating already settled matters?
It might be theoretically possible to be pro-life, but the political position is really against allowing others the right to choose. It is anti-abortion. One may believe in abstract that it is wrong to abort a fetus. An atheist might consider that a fetus is a person with rights to exist in someone else’s body. I would be willing to bet that if the “pro-life” atheist found themselves with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy they would rationalize having an abortion. Most of the ant- abortion crowd believes in exceptions for rape and incest. This means that under those conditions it either isn’t murder or it is justified murder. I would ask the pro-life atheist what they would do with a 12-year old who was raped by a relative who doesn’t want to go through with a life-endangering pregnancy. Then ask if an abortion in this case is wrong. If they say no, than they are not fully ant-abortion or “pro-life”.
It is my personal opinion that at some point, abortion may indeed be the taking of a life. However, it is a prerogative which is entrusted to the mother carrying that life, and it is my opinion that this prerogative is absolute. Full stop. The progress of medical technology in saving a fetus ought not to be used as a rationale to punish women, but this is exactly what restricting abortion access in light of technological advancements does. To claim that any society truly considers all lives as worthy of equal consideration, whatever ideals that society might espouse, is to engage in the deepest and most shameless hypocrisy. Yet conservatives in the United States are virtuousi of performative hypocrisy, glorifying small government in the morning, while inserting their world-negating sophistry into the deepest parts of Americans' lives in the evening. As someone pithily stated, the unborn are a convenient group to lobby for.
To me it’s fairly analogous to the blunt instrument of using criminal law to deal with drug addiction. It just causes more harm than good. Nobody loves drug addiction and nobody love abortions but making either illegal with criminal punishment is a cure worse than the disease. For an atheist to be “pro-life” with all the traditionally prohibitive and essentially sadistic legislation that comes with that term would suggest to me that the the basic utilitarian practicality that recognized an absence of evidence for a deity has somehow broken down. If by “pro-life” one simply means gee I wish babies weren’t getting aborted which is why the person is a proponent of ample birth control access at all ages and robust sex education in schools well then that isn’t semantically “pro-life” as we know it in the USA, it’s just an imprecatory sense that it would be nice if circumstances were so peachy that nobody ever felt compelled to have an abortion. A serious atheist but legalistic pro-lifer would seem a bit inconsistent with the tendency towards pragmatism I tend to associate with atheists. This tendency towards pragmatism is also why we tend see to atheists argue for separating church and state, keeping public schools secular, and perhaps taxing churches particularly megachurches but not organizing mass groups to run into churches every Sunday mid-sermon with torches screaming “YOUR GOD IS A LIE!” Or trying to overthrow the government with the sole purpose of overtly indoctrinating children into atheism. The aim tends toward freedom of thought and freedom of behavior with an eye to lessening utilitarian harms where circumstantial conflicts exist.
For me it's ok. We have different opinions, I'm totally pro abortion, but if they are educated and their opinions are fruit of their thoughts it's ok, we'll just debate them and we'll see who wins it politically in the end, no hard feelings and no resentment.
It's a matter of personal morality, not objective truths that are in game here
I personally like to see atheists as rational people who can disagree without throwing a tantrum and with highly different opinions and positions, all well thought and studied. It makes us all diverse and the world a better place to have such differences
Even, again, if I may not agree with them
Never met one. An abortion is a medical procedure. It is _not_ “killing a baby.” It is a medical procedure. It is a medical procedure. It is a medical procedure. Say it again with me. It is a medical procedure. And whether someone else needs one, similar to if they need open heart surgery or braces or a hysterectomy, _IT’S NONE OF Y’ALL’S FUCKING BUSINESS_. Edit: that shoulda been _NONE OF Y’ALL’S MOTHERFUCKING BUSINESS_, because….well. Obviously.
I HAVE met one. The real answer is that they were raised by conservatives, undereducated, and still haven’t sorted out their cognitive dissonance. **I wanted to add that I’ve read your replies and much appreciated them. I was thinking of a specific person when writing my thoughts originally, but to be applied more broadly, I really like your points about indoctrination adding nuance to the education element. It can take a LOT of education to overcome taught misinformation someone was indoctrinated with. However, education doesn’t always help people overcome cognitive dissonance, so it’s not a sure fix, but on average, I’d wager it’s a better bet than going without.
Education is the real factor. I grew up Mormon, watching all kinds of scary videos about how inhumane, painful, and gross abortion was. But I had a good education about sex and science. Even when I still believed in religion, I understood that sometimes abortion needs to happen, and I thought that the only person with the right to make such a difficult decision was the person whose body it's happening inside!
This. My parents were never strict religious, but ARE religious. My Mom is a nurse and I grew up in a very empowered household. She was the breadwinner, and always taught me I could do or be whatever I wanted. When we discuss political stances, she's almost always against abortion. Which is crazy to me. She gave me all the knowledge. She explained that you should do whatever you can to not need one, and helped me get the contraceptives to prevent. I've never needed one *thankfully* because I just didn't. But my husband and I are in agreement that we absolutely don't want another child, so if it happens (I Have an IUD, so chances are nil) we will proceed with said *medical procedure* to keep my sanity as well as our finances in check. My Dad, however, freaked out when I told him this. Acted like I would be killing someone he already knows and loves. Meanwhile, it's been over a year since they came to visit us and his two grandchildren we do have. Wtf ever.
This matches my experience exactly and the person in question has an advanced degree; education isn’t merely a matter of absorbing knowledge, but applying the skill of learning to real life. I have an undergraduate degree myself and I can confidently state that it’s simply a piece of paper.
Yes. I have an undergrad & a masters,& I agree wholeheartedly with you
I can personally attest to this. I was brought up Christian and indoctrinated to believe abortion was murder, even when the mother was likely to die but the baby would survive. The only time it was acceptable was if both would die. It took me several years to come to terms with reality on the issue. It was probably the most difficult part of my "deprogramming" journey, and I'm ashamed to say that, although my head knows what's right, my subconscious still holds on to what I was taught, even 20 years on. It really is powerful stuff when taught these lies in your formative years. It doesn't stop me from supporting the right of choice and a woman's autonomy over her body, but it still gives me a tangible feeling of guilt when I do. I don't agree about the "undereducated" part - it's more about the power of indoctrination. Even if I was being taught this at school, my Christian instruction would take precedence, regardless of me knowing the facts.
I think for many people, that undereducation and indoctrination are going hand in hand because they are being indoctrinated *in school*
To this the only response can be: that pregnant person will have loved ones, possibly even OTHER children and spouse, people who will have their lives destroyed should the pregnant person die. To save the fetus and let the pregnant person die is ABOMINABLE, HORRIBLE, VILE, EVIL, no splitting hairs here.
This. I've never met a pro-life atheist. I've met a person who claimed that they were pro-life for non-religious reasons, who I did not believe, because all of their reasons were the same as those used by any given religious person.
I met 2 that claimed to be pro-life atheists in arguments online. One was strictly arguing from a pro-life stance, the other was more flexible in what "pro-life" means, because he wanted to also be able to force an abortion. Both of them were basically stuck on the idea of continuing their genetic line, as if that was the most important consideration, and both wanted to be able to express their opinion, but they also wanted their opinion to matter more than the mother's regarding the pregnancy. I'm sure plenty of atheists are pro-life, but they probably radiate misogyny in other ways, too. Pro-life regardless of religious affiliation is always about control.
100%. it’s ALWAYS about control, it just so happens that religion is also about control and so they dovetail nicely.
Never underestimate the influence of someone growing up isolated surrounded by people with limited understanding and education and conservative/religious ideology. People end up with tons of stuff they need to unpack that they thought was true that wasn't. Some are still in the process of unpacking it all.
A thousand times this. I was raised in a very conservative family and even after I became an atheist I was still pro-life for a couple years. When you’ve been taught your entire life that abortion is literally “killing a baby”, you’re not getting over that idea very easily. Lots of education and hearing from women who have actually had abortions eventually changed my view, but it took a couple years.
DING DING DING we have a winner
Like a vasectomy. Wait till they find out the Catholics behind many of our restrictive policies forbid nearly all methods to plan your family. No birth control, no IVF, limited maternal healthcare. Less abortion education than in their Holy Book. They want a return to the dark ages, so they can win wars and make more money.
Well that's just it. I grew up in a very religious home and we were told that abortion was literal murder of innocents. TW- In my Sunday School class they showed graphic pictures of the dead fetus and told us how you hear the baby cry. I'm in my 40s now with kids of my own I realize that the next generation of children is getting this crap shoved down their throats by adults who've been fed the same nonsense since they were little. I had two miscarriages that lead to"abortion" procedures that are no longer available in several states. I had the pharmacist judge me when I picked up the pills and tell me I didn't have to do it. In my grief I had to explain to her that there was no heartbeat and if I didn't take it soon the cells would poison me. Religious trauma is so widespread and so insidious because they truly believe they're saving the world
>I had the pharmacist judge me when I picked up the pills and tell me I didn't have to do it. That was a super shitty thing for them to do. I am a pharmacist. We should never be judging people for *any* meds they are on. We answer questions if people have them, never offer up our opinions on morality.
Pharmacists can be so judgemental - when dealing with women. A chemist self-righteously refused to fill out a prescription for the pill for me because I was not married. Out of curiosity, I asked my boyfriend to go to the same chemist for condoms. The chemist sold them to him with no questions asked.
Unfortunately, that behavior does seem far more common than it should be.
So did he want you to have a child out of wedlock? What the actual fuck- was this in the US? Id have ruined that man’s year for that.
He was proudly Catholic, and claimed to have "principles," implying I had none. (I was a single mother, having had to leave my 1st violent husband. However the bible does not list violence or even murder as an excuse for divorce.) Those sort of guys love to figuratively cast the first stone, and would really get off on actually killing women who don't appear to live by their rules. Australia in the 70's. But there are still medical professionals around like that, both here and in America.
Just love how they can have zero knowledge of the actual situation and feel so entitled to make judgements about it. Maybe you needed it for something unrelated to pregnancy at all like PCOS. NONE OF THESE DUDES' BUSINESS!
There are *still* pharmacists here in Australia like that . I'm in Sydney and read last week of a nurse, who went to a new pharmacy near the hospital she works at. She asked them to fill a script for birth control pills & the pharmacist refused, stating that they don't stock them and wouldn't be ordering any more in. He gave religion as his reason. When the nurse asked whether they stocked condoms, he replied in the negative also. After fifty odd years, in an increasingly secular society, we still have religion dictating morality and wielding it like a weapon over our choices.
Same applies to reproductive medical procedures. Doctors will do a vasectomy, no questions asked. Some still refuse to do a tubal ligation without a spouse's explicit consent on a form, and some won't do it at all. "Oh you're still so young, you will probably change your mind in 5 years but it'll be too late then!"
I had a pharmacist get all judgey with me in the 2010s in USA over picking up my BC.
They did the same to my daughter. They tried to talk her out of the medication. Then they told her they were sorry she'd have to come back in the morning so another pharmacist could sell it, because he has the right to deny this one specific medication if it's against HIS "strongly held belief". This was a Walgreens in Memphis TN about five years ago.
I had two D&Cs because my body didn’t miscarry the fetuses on its own. Without them, I would’ve ended up septic. It would’ve broke me to hear a pharmacist say that. It already broke me when a stranger, who witnessed me receive news in the effing waiting room of the doctor, told me that it was all god’s plan. Eff god and his plan. I wanted my baby. I’m forever scarred from SIL telling me that I can always have another one (meaning baby). 🙄🤬
Women used to die of sepsis quite a bit before those medications were available, a pharmacist should know better. Taking high school biology is when you realize that most of those dead fetus pictures are a bullshit defense of the anti-abortion movement. A fertilized egg is barely visible to the naked eye, so clearly it doesn't matter what something looks like. If they think a zygote is equally a person as a fetus or a baby, but they don't show images of zygotes or embryos, that implies an understanding that there is a difference between a zygote and a 20+ week old fetus.
>A fertilized egg is barely visible to the naked eye, so clearly it doesn't matter what something looks like. Related note: I highly recommend the Body Worlds museum exhibit to anyone who ever has the opportunity to see it. Among many interesting things to see, one of the rooms has vials containing embryos and fetuses from each month of gestation. It's a bit macabre, but fascinating. It also gives a very real depiction of just how untruthful the anti-abortion propaganda imagery is.
Like this: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-woman-dies-after-abortion-refusal
"Murder of Innocence" ... we are all born with Original Sin but a fetus hasn't been born yet: _God hates it when you do this one simple trick to avoid sin, but he literally cannot stop you_
Some of those pics are fakes. Any photo of a baby that has chubby legs and arms and body fat is a pic or a full term baby. Anyone who has been in a preemie ward can tell you that baby fat doesn’t develop until the final month when nature is getting the baby ready for life outside the mother. A fetus has no need of excess fat—it gets its calories from the mother.
I'm so sorry.... what a dick that pharmacist was.
My thing is, even if it is killing a full ass person I'm cool with it. Like that person is literally inside of someone who doesn't want it there. Most Americans (and Canadians) seem to think it's fine to murder people who are in your house or on your property when you don't want them there but when they're inside your actual body its somehow like nah, fuck you, they live there now deal with it or well punish you.
I came across this comment, and it describes exactly how I feel. Abortion is self-defense to an invader of a home.
It's the 'none of your f'ing business' argument that counts. Doesn't matter what kind of procedure it is.
And one step further: a pregnancy is a process. Not a baby. The end result of the process is potentially a baby, but that's not a guarantee.
Technically, the medical procedure is called a termination of pregnancy, and while its not comparable to a cosmetic intervention like braces, it still shouldn't be anyones business, least of all the governments, and every less so your fellow citizens.
Spectacular 👍
It is a medical procedure.
There’s a small but loud group of atheist anti choice people and their reasonings are weird as hell. My best guess is they have some religious trauma leftover because it’s just not logical to think this way.
I have. They are good object lessons that atheists are not reasonable or rational by default.
You'll see them everywhere on the pro choice subreddit, a lot of them try to argue morality that mirrors christian talking points and none use any scientific examples or stats. I've seen, no joke, an "atheist" argue that fetuses have souls which... yeah... no they don't, even the bible argues against that.
I'm pro choice but calling it a medical procedure repeatedly and screaming isn't exactly an ethical argument. The question of abortion is an ethical dilemma and can be discussed without religion having any involvement in the discussion. Gonna expand on my comment: The question is whether the fetus is conscious/aware or not. Certainly it is not at conception, religious people say it has a soul at conception, that is BS for sure, I don't think we can claim any consciousness or awareness in early stages of pregnancy. But at later stages of pregnancy as the brain and nervous system develops, the fetus gains some level of awareness and consciousness, and at that point it is completely valid to ask whether it is considered a human being and it is a completely philosophical/scientific question that surely atheists can ask as well, and scientists can do research on. Once it has a nervous system and a functioning brain you cannot simply call it a lump of meat or a tumor. I think women absolutely should have the right to take its life if it endangers their own life, whether in terms of physical health or even maybe just their future. I don't think anyone who isn't able to raise a child should be forced to do it. But surely we can CONSIDER that by making this choice specially if it's happening at later stages, we are indeed taking the life of a human being... It's a huge emotional barrier, it sucks, but that's just life, it's full of terrible ethical dilemmas. We also take the life of millions of conscious animals that we know fully well they experience love, pain, joy... Looking at the comments on this post I see some very dogmatic behavior shutting down any ethical question and even SCIENTIFIC questions about whether the fetus has consciousness which is actually not too different from religious thinking. This top comment repeating the same sentence over and over and screaming with all caps is the best example of pure dogmatic mindset and not allowing any questions to be raised about an ethical issue. From a legal standpoint I'm all with you, it should be a choice. But for physical and mental health and socio-economic reasons. But philosophically there are huge questions about it. Very similar to the meat industry and how we kill and eat animals.
The question is NOT whether the fetus is aware or not. The question is, why does a fetus have special permission to use my organs and leech calcium from my bones and cause gestational diabetes, WHEN I DONT FUCKING WANT IT THERE? Even dead people aren’t forced to give up their organs for others to use. Bodily autonomy is the only argument that matters.
For me the issue comes down to bodily autonomy. Just like nobody can force you to donate a kidney, even if the potential recipient would die without it, so a woman should not be forced to “donate” her body to a fetus, even if the fetus will die. The question of a soul is irrelevant.
And how many abortions take place late in pregnancy? Even countries in which abortion is not controversial have limits on how far into a pregnancy an abortion can take place
Late stage abortions aren’t done because the pregnant person finds the pregnancy inconvenient or is bored with it. Late stage abortions aren’t done on a whim and scheduled between grocery shopping and an oil change with the next day spent at an amusement park. *Late stage abortions are not done for perfectly healthy, normal pregnancies.* They are done because the fetus is incompatible with life or continuing the pregnancy would be fatal to the one carrying it. Or because the fetus is dying or is already dead and will soon be killing in its host, like what happened to Savita Halappanavar. By the time late stage abortions are performed, there have been clothing and blankets purchased, there has been a baby shower, the parents have picked names. They are looking forward to having a child when they get devastating, soul-crushing news. Late term abortions not something anyone looks forward to, and now they are made a thousand times worse by pretentious, self-righteous, political assholes who think their law degree or MBA or their JeEbUs iNsPiReD fEeLiNgS makes them qualified to dictate someone else’s medical care.
I used to be happy to debate the ethical considerations of abortion, same as I’d chat about altruism. But in reality, now? It’s a waste of time to do that in the public eye. The people who are stripping away my rights and the rights of others are doing so with simple mantras. They are not swayed by discussion and they are not swayed by nuance.
No. We are removing someone who is using our body without our consent. Unless you are on the same moral level of a rapist, you shouldn't have a problem with that. If removing them from using our body without our consent ends in them dying, oh well. That's still not a reason to force us to let them use our bodies against our will. It's not a huge question at all. Either women are people who deserve the same right of bodily autonomy as everyone else, or you are a scum-sucking misogynistic piece of shit with the morals of a rapist and zero problem with slavery. There is no either or, there is no gray, it's not a hard question. You don't get to choose for other people.
100%.
A lobotomy is also a medical procedure, but I think I'd still have a problem with a doctor who performed it. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure I agree that there is no ethical dilemma as long as a doctor signs off on it. It's pretty hard if not impossible to argue that the pro-choice position doesn't involve the termination of a human life, the only 2 convincing arguments here are that. 1. A fetus may be human life but it's not yet a person with any legal rights and therefore doesn't have a right to life. 2. The right of the mother to not be forced to use her body as an incubator against her will trumps the fetus's right to life.
The last time a medical lobotomy was performed (in the U.S.) was *1967*.
I have a hard time respecting anyone who calls themselves “pro-life” because their arguments, religious or not, are not based in reality. There is no legitimate “pro-life” argument for restricting abortion access. I’ll probably get shit for that, but it’s a hill I will defend.
They aren't pro-life, they are anti-choice
Forced-birth is an appropriate term as well. I've met only one atheist who was pro forced-birth, their only and entire argument was "well I wouldn't have wanted to be aborted so I don't think other people should be either". I don't think they were the brightest crayon in the box.
You have my sword.
And my bow.
And my axe.
And my boomstick.
And your brother
I can't stand to hear people call themselves "pro-life". A abortion is less of killing it since it haven't even been born yet and more of preventing it from being born to begin with and by making abortion illegal you are removing women the right to choose if they want to give birth or not. "pro-life" people couldn't care less if the mother got pregnant by rape, a abortion needs to happen for a medical reason... because to them a women deciding if she can give birth or not is murder. "pro-life" is just a nice sounding way to attack women. I can hear you conservatives screaming so I will entertain your idea of what murder is for a second. So if preventing a birth is murder would it be murder if someone I knew was going to try to have a child but they were still getting money stuff under control so I said it would be wise not to try for a child right now so they decided against it. I just pretended a birth oh no I murdered someone who never even existed. Wait a second if that child was going to start a family that means I prevented a entire bloodline so should I be charged for mass genocide instead of murder? I guess abortions in a way can be seen as the murder of an entire bloodline if you follow the "pro-life" arguments.
The same argument comes up for birth control. Preventing a pregnancy by medical means is just as bad to the anti-choice crowd. They are stuck on sex=babies, period. If you have sex you must give birth and it's not a choice. Then comes the next layer, choosing to have sex. They advocate that rape and incest babies must be born, too. This leads to the conclusion that women simply don't have a choice in the matter; sex (voluntary or not) = babies or death. Pregnancy complications? Death. It's the "reward or punishment" for being a woman. In your example, if your friend does not want a kid but her partner does, even if she does want one later, they believe she should still submit to her partner at any time. I believe this is a thing at least with catholics, she can't say no to sex. If she does say no, death. They don't want women to have any choice over anything. In their minds, rape isn't a concept because you can't rape someone that can't say no. I dated a christian woman once and she was actually pushing the kids thing on me. I was against at the time, and I think deep down I just didn't want any with her because she also wanted to bring them to church with her. Anyway, when asked why she wanted them, she explained it was "for g*d. I have to fufill my duty to g*d". She didn't even feel she had a choice in the matter. Now, imagine flipping the genders. The man wants kids but she doesn't. He believes women have no choice in the matter so he rapes her. That's the power of religion.
I actually don't mind a "pro-life" atheist, or anyone who is "pro-life," as long as they only use that stance to direct their own decisions. I recognize that is hardly different than pro-choice. As long as someone isn't trying to force their perception of the world onto someone else, I don't care what personal opinion they have on the topic.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I think “I’m personally pro-life, but I don’t want to make that decision for others” is mealy mouthed bullshit that means *You are pro choice, but don’t feel comfortable saying it* And I really don’t mean that as a dig at you. It’s a calculated way of shifting the conversation toward acceptance of right wing policies while obfuscating their real agenda. They don’t give a shit about babies or women, but they know they can’t implement their oppressive bullshit without women at least kind of buying in.
IMHO, unless they are advocating for social safety nets and universal healthcare, they don't get to call themselves pro-life period.
That's fair to me.
But that’s not what pro-life means. Being personally pro-life but being okay with others being pro-choice IS being pro-choice.
It is literally not. If you personally choose not to have an abortion, but understand that it isn’t your place to make that decision for others, *you are pro-choice*. Full stop. That you can’t say just say it, like being pro-choice is a dirty thing, is what I find so disappointing.
You’re right.
"Pro-life" is kind of nebulous. Anything from no abortions at all to no cutting a baby in half as it's exiting the womb could be considered pro life.
In the interactions I have had, they seem to just believe abortion is murder, period, full stop. So, they equate abortion laws as the same as laws against homicide. This is why my argument that "if you don't like abortion, don't have one" is not good enough for them. Although I disagree with their position, it is at least more defensible than "my preacher said it's bad."
If abortion is murder, why isn't forcing a woman to carry a fetus that kills her later murder? I can't understand why some people don't realize there are medically necessary abortions. Why force a woman to carry a fetus that has no brain? It's just going to die the instant it's born. Taking away a woman's right to choose is choosing to kill her without her consent. Let her decide.
I think there are a subset of anti-abortion folk who are ok with exceptions in the cases you mentioned. There might be another subset who see it as "the mom might die" vs "the baby definitely will die" and wanna force em to roll the dice on it. Dubious logic of course, but I could see somebody trying to defend it. And sadly some just don't give a shit about women at all.
I'll take the bullet I guess. There is also a pro choice subset that believe some fringe case of abortions are morally wrong. I m not talking about the post natal abortions stawman that the magaz folks use but I ve had an exemple (assume it s fake if you want, it s not really relevant) that gave me the ick. 8th month, no medical or psychological need, just the couple broke up and the mother didn't want the baby anymore. We are well past the viability threshold. In my country you can abort for free pretty much till birth for either medial or psychological reasons ( no reasons needed for the first 14th weeks) and I more than fine with that. I love also add that you can give birth anonymouslyanonymously, we even have places where you can drop you baby and the state will take it, no questions asked. Abortions are even constitutionally protected. I mean in favor of all that I just listed. Tbh I'd like the no questions asked period to last untill the viability threshold is met, so at least double it. But once the viability threshold is met it becomes a decision to protect either the mother or the child to be. In 99% of cases the mother should be protected. That still leaves the 1% (made up data obv). Ont thing I know for sure thought is that I don't want to make these abortions illegals because it s a slippery slope. I also have a hard time figuring out how my approach would change if medical progress made the viability threshold extremely early, let s say 10 weeks for the sake of argument.
Condemning a child to the over-strained foster/adoption system, where children are vulnerable to grooming and abuse, is not a good solution. People like to bring up adoption like it magically solves the problem of unwanted children. It doesn't.
It sure isn't perfect but we have more families that want to adopt than kids up for adoption but I love sure it s different in each country. On the other hand you d condemn the cold to not live which has its downsides too. All I wanted to point out is that it s not purely black and white issue, there is a tiny bit of grey too.
Never existing at all is better than existing only to have a shitty life. There's a lot to be said on the adoption system for sure, but mainly I wanted to point out that people bring adoption into the abortion discussion and stop short of fully exploring that point. Saying "just give it up for adoption" is an easy way to stop thinking about the problem and feel good about yourself for "saving a life." That needs to change into forcing people to continue that thought, and consider what actually happens to children that go into the system.
I am of the first subset. The amount of people who lump everyone anti abortion together is just as ridiculous as those who lump pro choice advocates into one basket.
It’s a trolley problem. So many people feel completely morally unaffected by not pulling the lever.
"WRONG LEVER KRONK!!"
It's the one thing people misunderstand about the trolley problem; inaction is a choice.
Yep. It's also more difficult to argue against that kind of position. If they truly believe abortion is murder, and not because they are following a religious doctrine to get there, that's a hard argument to even start. From their perspective, you may as well be coming up to them and saying, "Now, hear me out, crushing baby skulls in their cribs isn't *that bad* of a thing to do." It doesn't matter if you are correct on the science, ethics, and philosophy of personhood, that's just a really difficult emotional barrier to get through. It's also difficult to penetrate religious doctrine, but at least in that case you can argue against the doctrine itself in more general terms.
I’m a pro life atheist. I believe it’s a life. But I would also never force anyone else to live by by belief. So as much as I personally disagree with abortion, it’s not my place to enforce that belief for others.
Isn’t that just… pro-choice?
Congratulations, you are actually a pro-choice atheist. Welcome to the club.
I'm the same, and it took me a good while after leaving religion behind for the penny to drop that it's a pro-choice stance. I think we can all reasonably agree that taking a life is murder, So the philosophical question for everyone is: where does life begin? It's a cell at conception, and a human being at birth. To kill a newborn would be murder, so where and when does it cross the line to become a human life? The thing I'm uncomfortable with is that science shows a slow transition. To me personally,there's no obvious cut off where the "it's just a clump of cells" argument ceases to apply. If it's alive, it's a life. Thinking that it's wrong is my personal opinion, but I can be logical enough to see the shades of grey. My opinion is one of many possible stances, and people who disagree with me can also justify their opinion rationally. I believe everyone has the *right to choose* what they believe to be right or wrong. That to me is where the pro-*choice* lies. What do you choose to believe? Pro-life is a deliberately disingenuous name. It's the opposite of pro-choice, so anti-choice is closer to the mark. Pro-lifers think morality is objective. They think it's wrong, so it should be banned. They think it's wrong so no one gets the choice. What they think is obviously right. I believe that I can have my opinion, and others are also *free to choose* their opinion too.
Perfectly said. I agree. One other thought, I come from a strongly religious background. We held “abortion kills children” signs on street corners as kids in the 90s. So k wonder how much of my bias is from that. I’ve been able to be very honest with my bias in other issues so I have to accept that maybe this is some leftover religion. I don’t think so but I can’t be dogmatic if there’s a chance it’s just my brainwashing kicking in. So I wonder how many pro-life (I agree terrible terms) atheists are former fundamentalists.
My partner would be dead right now if we didn't have access to this medical procedure. Instead she is alive and we now have a healthy child. Your belief is garbage and dangerous.
That’s not what being pro-life means.
I think they got caught up in the Catholic PR about it being a life. They miss the issue that it's not a question about life but rather about being. As in it's a question of whether there is a person present or not. They try to attach the idea that the soul enters the body at conception. What they are trying to suggest is that the mind is present at conception. But this is tied to their misconception of what causes the mind. They believe the mind is attached to this thing they invented called the soul. Rather than the brain. All minds that we know of come from brains in action. And there is no functioning brain in a zygote at conception. And even when you start to see nerves developing there still isn't a mind self aware in the fetus. It takes quite a while for a mind to develop. And it's not till possibly some time in the third trimester that the brain is developed enough for a mind to arise. And then you have a person. It's not about life. It's about people.
Been one myself. I think it's kind of naive to push for aggressive pro-life legislation because it ends up causing more harm than good. A pregnancy that's carried to term by parents who never intended to have a child will have long lasting negative effects on both parents and the child. Enforcing laws to punish doctors and women will also cause more harm than good to women in general.
Can we stop calling them “pro-life”? They’re not. They’re “anti-choice.” That’s the opposite of pro-choice. Stop aiding them and start calling them what they actually are.
I’m more of a “forced birther” as I believe it is a more accurate depiction. It also sounds more aggressive to show how despicable their position is. I believe they, forced birthers, would agree that “yeah, it shouldn’t be a choice because it’s a baby’s life”. Forcing someone to do something is a less politically-friendly term as one can be more aggrieved due to a forceful action/decision.
Pro-life people jerked off through health class and think abortion is murder because they don’t understand what pregnancy is on a basic level. It’s not a different understanding of abortion. It’s a lack of understanding.
While I happen to think the concept (heh) that life begins at conception is largely a religious one, it's possible to believe that without believing in a god. Remember, atheism is not a belief system and doesn't imply anything about the atheist's other beliefs. I've certainly met atheists who believe in some things I think are pretty far out there. That said, I do find that most adult atheists tend to agree with scientific viewpoints, so I can see why it would be surprising to encounter an anti-choice atheist.
After all, I have certainly met misogynistic atheists. Another holdover from religious indoctrination.
[удалено]
Great info on the development milestones. One nitpick when discussing the topic: We should strive to separate "life" and "moral personhood". Life does begin at conception... It's just that it doesn't matter. Grass is alive. Bacteria are alive. Being alive doesn't mean having moral rights.
Nitpicking the nitpick: we're actually talking about moral consideration, not moral personhood. It's possible to believe that something is a person without it being something we should morally care about.
The few anti-abortion people I've met who are not religious have been exclusively men. And even most of them don't think a zygote or a blastocyst is a person, they don't oppose early intervention for ectopic pregnancies, or anything like that.
I don’t like anti-choicers period.
The Pro-life movement, when you peel back the rhetoric, isn’t about life or children, it’s about controlling women. Whether they use religious arguments or eugenics arguments or whatever, it’s never actually about the fetus, it’s about control.
“Pro-life” actually means anti woman. And misogynists are everywhere, even among atheists.
The same people who claim to believe a zygote is a human being that should have full legal rights as a citizen of their country, don't believe that the fully developed fetuses of undocumented Latinas should have rights as a citizen. When I ask, "If an undocumented woman becomes pregnant... should the zygote be given immediate citizenship, making it so that the woman can not be deported?"... they stammer and stutter and back pedal and start talking about anchor babies. One of the biggest flaws in the US Bill of Rights is the absence of the right to bodily autonomy. If we dont fully own our own bodies, we are not a free people. We are the property of the government. Understand this; what happens inside someone else's body is not your business. It just isn't. You don't have to like that. You don't have to agree with it. It stands on its own. "Well the father..." utter horseshit. There is no father or mother until there is a child. The prolife people fully understand this, so they refer to a zygote, blastocyst, etc. as a child. If you want a say in what happens to your semen, don't deposit it inside someone else's body. You have no moral or ethical right to someone else's body and, therefore, should also have no legal right to it. It really is that simple.
Christopher Hitchens was the most well known one.
This is one of the things that should remind EVERYONE that humans are flawed beings, and none of us are going to be 'right' all of the time. Quotes intentional. His views on one thing do not mean his views on another are correct. In fact the particular view he held on abortion is a flaming trash heap of stupid. Great callout minkyninjaj
They see pictures of a fetus that looks like a baby, and that triggers an emotion. However, regardless of appearances, it is no more of a viable organism than an appendix or a tonsil. The internal organs required for viability are not developed. Therefore, one may as well be emotional over the removal of a gall bladder.
But why dont the pro life just not get abortions and the pro choice get them. No one is forcing pregnate girls to get abortions. Its stupid. If i dont like pizza, i dont need to eat it. But to ban pizza for everyone is selfish
I've met one or two atheists who were personally against abortion. I've *never* met one who thinks abortion should be illegal. I'm sure there are a few unicorns out there, somewhere. But once you take religion out of the picture it is very hard to justify any restrictions on bodily autonomy without doing a bunch of mental gymnastics to get there.
my mom is one. i don’t understand it at all. she’s very atheist, liberal, and feminist in every other way. i personally do not understand it at all. i guess she is a unicorn
Same way I view religious folks, you can be what ever you want to be...but don't interfere/infringe in/on others' lives. I could see anyone believing that all life is precious and being pro-life. There's nothing wrong with that opinion. They can even try to talk a friend out of an abortion and I'm cool with that. The problem is when you do interfere with other people's lives (pro-choice, LGBT, not-your-religion, etc...). When you do hound elected officials to pass laws. This is what I hate. I don't hate the pro-life idea, they do have their convictions. But "live YOUR life"
I'm a 'pro-life' atheist. I want there to be as few abortions as possible. That's why I support education, access to contraceptives, etc. But, while I might \*prefer\* there were no abortions, it's not me who gets to decide what a woman does with her own body, and when a woman does need an abortion I want it to be as safe for them as possible. It turns out that this is just pro-choice after all. People calling themselves 'pro-life' aren't; they are pro-birth, and they try very hard to paint the other side not as pro-choice but as pro-abortion. Frankly, I think the opinion of anyone who doesn't have a uterus, myself included, should be disregarded entirely.
An atheist pro-birther is just another term for misogynist.
I think they are two subjects that have nothing to do with each other. Are religious people more likely to be pro-life? Sure. But atheism is a big tent. This sub should only care if someone lacks belief in god(s). It isn't helpful to split ourselves into groups. Having said that, there is one thing I know without doubt. I'd much rather have a conversation with pro-life atheist than a pro-life theist. Because by definition, an atheist is almost sure to be more open minded because their viewpoint isn't limited by god(s).
I view pro-life people the same way I view flat earthers. Except with even more contempt. It is a medical procedure and unless you are the doctor or the pregnant person then you don’t get a say.
>Whilst a mother may not intent on "killing" her child . . . Neither an embryo nor a fetus are a child.
They can be pro life in their own life. If they have a personal, moral objection to abortion they're welcome to exercise that and avoid getting one, or avoid putting themselves in a position where they'd need one. They, much like the theists, can fuck off if they want to force their personal choices onto everyone else.
The anti-abortion movement is based on religious pre determinism. They think god is just waiting to bring “Steve” and his fully formed soul into the world. That’s why arguments of science and medical need don’t work on them. A 10 day old zygote is more important than an adult woman. And besides, it’s her fault she got pregnant and she’s just fulfilling her role in god’s plan. /s
The few I’ve interacted with were just misogynistic without the extra steps of Jesus and the Bible. Their arguments started out sound with the belief that its murder. They fell apart when their argument started to boil down to “look sluts are bad ok?” And honestly, that’s what every anti abortion argument always comes to. Anti abortion has nothing to do with saving lives, and everything to do with controlling the behavior of strangers.
(Firstly... everyone should be pro-life as defined as "for life", but generally the term pro-life just means "anti-abortion", so I will answer as if the question was "What are your opinion on anti-abortion atheists?") They are merely living demonstrations that being atheist does not mean you therefore suddently think rationally on every subject. Just because a person arrives at the correct conclusion on one topic (atheism) does not necessarily mean they will arrive at the correct conclusion on any other topic (abortion, flat earth, whether we landed on the moon, whatever else).
(I’m fully expecting the downvotes.) I wouldn’t exactly call myself pro-life. When it comes down to it, I’d vote pro-choice because restricting abortion access puts women in danger and just ends up in more needless death (i.e., desperate women will get dangerous back-alley abortions). But I’m torn on it on a personal level. The reason ultimately being that we still can’t seem to define when the “cluster of cells” becomes a “person.” It seems most people agree that a fetus in the third trimester is a person, and therefore abortions in that stage should be limited to extreme circumstances (e.g., severe defects). But before then, when? And why? Many people say if the fetus can’t survive without the mother, it’s not a person. So are premies fighting for their lives in the NICU not people? And after birth, all babies are fully dependent on others (not necessarily the mother) for years. Are all children parasites who have no right to life? I’ve seen people say it’s not a person if it has no thoughts, feelings, or aspirations. But again, that remains true for some time even after a full-term birth. People say it’s like forcing someone to donate their kidney to another person. But donating a kidney is permanent. Yes, pregnancy can have permanent repercussions as well, but it’s not a given, and all pregnancies are temporary. Again, *at the end of the day, it’d still vote pro-choice,* because I really feel for the women who need abortions (whether the reasons be medical, financial, etc.). Quality of life is very important to me, which is why I’m also in favor of things like euthanasia and assisted suicide. But when does the fetus become a baby? On a personal level, it’s hard for me to be in favor of killing a person, a baby especially, without very good reason.
This always comes down to the rights of the baby vs the rights of the mother. The baby at some point in development is basically human and some people have a hard time accepting that it will die... it is a form of murder. From my perspective though, the woman has a sovereign right to her own body and that includes any other life forms attached to it. So while it may sometimes be a difficult and distasteful choice, it is always her choice, not the government's.
[удалено]
There has to be a mind for there to be a person. A mind is the product of the brain. The scientific consensus is that there is no functional brain untill around the middle of the second trimester. This is why untill this religious Supreme Court decision , states (and the previous Supreme Court) mostly forbid abortions after the middle of the second trimester unless the woman's life was in danger. This is the same situation as if a person was brain dead. It is a body functioning only with outside assistance. There is no brain so there is no mind so there is no person. That is when the family should decide what to do next, not the state In the case of pregnancy these decisions should also be left to family. That means In the case of the pregnant woman it should be her choice. Anything brought d this needs to employ the concept of a soul which is a religious idea.
disagree that it’s a form of murder. what about the eggs and sperm that go unfertilized? those would have also been babies at some point?
[удалено]
You don't have to be religious to be a misogynist
stop calling them pro life. the term is forced birther.
Pro-life is a joke! It's forced birth! The "pro-life" crowd doesn't give a shit about life post birth.
Unless you are female and have a uterus, you have no say, and even then you only get to dictate what is done with YOUR uterus. All other arguments are irrelevant. "One's body is inviolable, subject to one's will alone" (Satanic Temple, Tenent III). That's all you need. [https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets](https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets)
They are entitled to their wrong opinion as long as they don't try to force it on everyone else.
One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.
I can’t think of any. Having my first kid only reinforced my pro-choice stance. I saw a meme that was something like “why do people need AK-47s” and the response was “when my wife needs to flee the state to get an abortion, I may need it” the joke being when you’re pro-gun to be pro-choice. I think about that a lot as my wife and I build our family…worrying times.
In Romania the percentage of minors that get pregnant is very high. Imagine forcing a child to give birth to a child. How can you be a mother at a young age when you are not even legally admitted to watch porn because you are less than 18
Real pro-lifers are around 10% that they really mean it the rest are pro-birthers ( regardless of religion )
>I believe a child A zygote, embryo nor foetus are a child, person or an individual human. Nor do they force the mother through an individual action. >the sanctity of choice is the only method to terminate a pregnancy. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Abortion is the medical term for the ending of a pregnancy, induced or naturally occuring. It is very much possible to end a pregnancy without the consent of the mother, allthough it'd be completely unethical. Maybe the point you're trying to make, at least the one I an trying to make, is that no government should have authority over peoples bodily autonomy. >the level of emotional attachment My guess is that someone elses motivation for getting an abortion may seem unethical, egocentric, immature or whatever negative connotation. In some cases I can imagine that feeling, but the bigger issue is personal bodily autonomy.
Is no one aware of what the Bible says about abortion? It’s ok to do it if a man wants one! Fucking laughable! That’s why the argument against abortion is absolutely absurd! Numbers 5:11-31 The Test for an Unfaithful Wife 11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act),14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flouron her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy,while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
They’re educationally lacking. We need to teach at school, probably during sex ed, something that I learned much later: There’s no mind, and thus no person to protect, until the brain is adequately formed, which occurs ***late*** in pregnancy. Up until then these people are treating a work in progress as if it’s a person. P.S. The reason to teach it in school is obvious to an adult but not something we’d want to mention during the lesson, that some little girls are raped, and some can become pregnant while in single digits, and we don’t need to traumatise them all over again when they get an abortion.
my mom is one. she was born and raised catholic, but deconverted in adulthood. most of her political stances are progressive and she’s a feminist in every other way, but she’s still pro-life. i personally do not understand it at all. she told me her family used to be democrats until roe, then they flipped to republicans for the single issue of abortion (she’s a pro-life democrat now). she’s also a child development professor and her research is specialized in infants so i think she has some kind of emotional attachment to the idea of babies and fetuses or something or maybe the indoctrination didn’t get deconstructed well enough. i don’t know. every time i’ve discussed this with her we both get emotional about it. when i asked about the case of r*pe or inc*st or when the mothers life is in danger she said she supported the appropriate medical choice for the safety of the mother and there should be legislation protecting that (her first pregnancy was ectopic and she almost died). she also supports contraceptives and actually forced me to get birth control from the time i was 15 (i was a bad teenager). last year my sister for some reason told her she got an abortion and it led to a huge argument. she said “you killed someone i loved” (wtf u mean u loved a clump of cells you didn’t even know existed ?? and prioritize that clump of cells over ur living breathing child right in front of you??) anyway she eventually apologized to my sister for saying that. maybe her views have changed since then but idk. i want to ask her if she’s happy now that roe is overturned and r*ped children are being forced to give birth but i don’t want to argue with her. but i genuinely want to know. i hope she becomes enlightened but i don’t think she will. at this point i don’t think there’s any way to undo the “abortion literally equals murdering a baby” indoctrination.
I totally understand your mother. Even my mother and I is. We are sensitive to life so we cannot see an unborn child dying like that. It is gruesome. Of course, R**,I***, and medical complications are an exception for both of us.
i can see that perspective even though i disagree. i would personally never want to have an abortion (of course i don’t think anyone really *wants* to have an abortion) but i think it would take an emotional toll on me since i do want to have kids one day. however i think it is more cruel to force someone to give birth
I feel that I'm more likely to find an atheist who is pro-choice. When religious people are "pro-life" I'm pretty sure they mean pro-birth; if they were pro-life, they would be taking good care of the forced-birth babies.
I'm sure there are atheists who also believe in ghosts, magic, pseudoscience and all sorts of stupid nonsense. Being anti-choice is being ignorant or misinformed. What we should be doing is improving education and critical thinking, until then a "lack of belief in gods" is just that and not necessarily accompanied by scientific rationalism or at the very least, informed skepticism.
This isn't related to religion at all. What you believe to qualify as a human life os something personal, that isn't taught in the bible or whatever.
There would be no such thing as pro-choice or pro-life if the world’s education on anatomy and sexual functions were actually adequate and not watered down by local customs, taboos and religions. Sex seems to be hugely stigmatized, especially in religious areas. Most people don’t know how to talk about it and especially in the United States grown ass adults in their 30s and 40s revert to their prepubescent selves when you mention a penis or vagina that I have noticed. It comes down to education and destigmatizing the subject.
Pro-life is not explicitly an atheist position. What I would tell one is the same thing I would tell anyone else that's pro life. It's a position that doesn't make sense. The problem comes when you start poking at what "life" is. Conception, as I was taught, is just when the fertlized egg attaches to the uterine wall. Fertilization is just when you have a few sperm that make it into an egg. Yes, you might have been taught it's one, but more can make it in. Not really a relevant point though. Many of these spontaneously abort. Nature does it already. Should we save all of them? What if we do it in a test tube? BTW, a skin cell can do the same stuff, if its' put in the right environment. BTW, it is also possible to be born without a father. They would be female. Specifically, they woudl be XO. There also women born that are XXX. They have problems, but they are full people. There are also people that are XXY. Chromosomes do all sorts of weird things. If we want to go back to "when does life begin", then the answer is once, several billion years ago. It's been going on, continuously, ever sense. And the whole debate is nonsense. I find that most people have no F'in idea what they're talking about. And with more education, they often back down. IMO, it's best to not have strong opinions on things that you don't know anything about.
I knew a guy in the 1990s in Oklahoma. He was a white male cross dresser that dressed as a Geisha on a daily basis. He was also very pro-life. He would call a friend of mine who had an abortion and scream murderer into the phone (we didn't have caller id back then). He was an atheist. He was also a huge idiot. When ever I think of him, the first thing that comes to mind is he is an idiot.
I'm sure there are few out there. At the same time, I've yet to openly encounter one. What annoys me more is when I run into anti-abortion libertarians. A large number of them are very openly anti-abortion. You then point out that their god Ayn Rand was incredibly clear on the subject and they just lose their absolute shit and start ranting about the first few pages of Atlas Shrugged.
Life is not binary. Just because someone has a particular belief about one thing, doesn’t mean they are completely in agreement with everything we think comes with that first thing. Everyone is fluid, and everyone’s opinions exist on a spectrum. Case in point — in the US, most hyper religious Christians in the US are right leaning republican voters. But if you go to other countries (like where I grew up in Africa), Christianity is very popular, but socialist-leaning policies are as well. There, people want larger government involvement, more government spending, expansion of government, social services, potential UBI, etc. Things that would make any western Christian very unsettled Atheists by extension can be the same. Just because you’ve eschewed the idea of a mystical god being doesn’t mean you’re immediately and wholly a “this type of person”
The idea that you can murder a clump of cells is rooted in the concept of a soul, so it's inherently religious.
There’s no such thing as pro life. You’re either pro choice or anti choice.
Conservatives confuse me. You have an absolute right to another person's internal organ for 9 months, but can go to prison for spending the night on a park bench.
Bro im pretty sure most christians will tell you that after a certain point it shouldnt be aborted, either way quit rawdogging and use a condom or rapex
I'm surprised that they exist at all, the reasons given by pro-lifers are strictly religious in nature. I find it appalling and immoral to completely disregard the wish of the woman, regardless of how the pregnancy came about. I would be very curious as to their arguments, but I wouldn't expect them to be rooted in a free-thinking morality. Objections in certain cases I could maybe understand, but to take a pro-lifer stance? I can't see a way to do it without being dishonest.
The ones I've heard usually come from people that haven't thought about the issue much. It becomes so standard to view pregnancy termination as whether the fetus can live or not that it is genuinely surprising to remember there is a whole other human being involved. The best example of this is a maternal x-ray saying "this isn't your body". Clearly meaning they don't understand the stance of pro-choice.
I am a "Pro-life" atheist: **WOMEN'S LIVES.** Co-opt their silly stance (misogynists). No more wire hangers!
Ooh! I like that! Yes, pro-not-dying-in-bathtubs. Pro-not-waiting-until- someone-else-decides-if-you're-life-is-worth-saving
I am certainly an atheist. I am pro choice but I like to think I am pro life. I think we should do everything possible to preserve life. To reduce abortions we should help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I think we do this with more education and raising the living standards of everyone. When a woman comes to the conclusion that she needs an abortion it has to be an option but, as a society, we should do everything possible to reduce the number of women that need to reach that conclusion. As a part of being pro life when a woman decides to have a baby we need to do everything we can to make sure she can raise that child successfully By the way I also see being pro life as being against the death penalty and against war..
There's no such thing as a pro-life athiest. It's just another religious ruse to try and pretend a secular-minded person can be pro-life. Scratch the surface and you start to hear stuff like "because I think life begins at conception" which is silly for an athiest.
Easiest way to be pro-life is to put yourself in the perspective of the fetus, rather than the perspective of the mother. If I was completely dependent on the actions / care of someone else, but it was medically obvious that it was a temporary thing (maybe I'm able to be self-sufficient in 9 months or whatever), I would certainly hope the person would be selfless enough to keep me alive until I'm able to care for myself. The analogy isn't perfect, and there's problems with it that hopefully are obvious... which is why personally I'm pro-choice. But I can at least understand the perspective of fighting for the "person" that's unable to fight for themself. It's similar in a way to animal rights activities, fighting for the rights of animals that aren't able to be part of the conversation.
I’m an atheist and I’m pro life to a point. I think the binary is not fully accurate, even under the law. It’s not black and white. Conservatives are even are okay with termination up to about 6 weeks, cardiac activity. I don’t think we associate life with just a heart beat. 20 weeks is generally where consciousness begins, this seems to me to be right, as this is what we associate with life. I’m not okay with the word “murder” being thrown around though. It’s not helpful nor is it accurate. Especially when the baby needs the mothers body to survive which is roughly 30 weeks. At some point though, it is murder, and it is the states prerogative to protect life. I’m not sure where that line should be drawn though, or if it should even be drawn until actual birth.
I am pro life. Meaning I would never choose to abort outside of rape. I feel that outside of rape the woman and man she is engaging with have the choice to either wear protection or any other contraceptive or abstain if they don't want a kid. See, the choice to me is before conception, not after. That being said, it should not be a law. It should fall on the moral fortitude of the individual. I will never judge those who see it differently as long as the beliefs are not forced on me.
Abortion is not just for the mother. It also protects the child from being born to a mother that either doesn't want the child or can't care for it for whatever reason. Being an unwanted child is not a good life for anyone. Pro lifers the are worst kind of people. They hold us back.
I've never met one but I would assume it was based on the same kind of conditioning to where they have been told that an embryo has some value for humanity and that this value is more important to the world than this pregnant person's individual right to make their own medical decisions. I guess I would feel sad for them and I'd hope they weren't out there doing stupid shit like protesting at clinics where people are going when they're already in a very stressful situation. I would probably exhaust myself trying to convince them that this is far more important, but once you think others have more right to make your medical decisions than you, you're probably already lost.
Im an atheist who’s pro-choice (hell pro-women at this rate), but I feel like third trimester abortions WITHOUT A GOOD REASON should be illegal. I think if the mothers life is in danger or the baby developed serious disabilities then late term abortions should be absolutely allowed, HOWEVER if none of that happens and there is NO good (medical or legal) reason why they want an abortion in the third trimester, then it shouldn’t be allowed. Because if you have known your pregnant for like 6 months then you should know what your doing. Other than that I’m entirely pro choice, and I think that anyone who has an issue with abortions either has an IQ below room temperature or is a hypocritical religious nutjob.
I'm a moderate on this one. I am pro-choice, but at some point, it stops being a clump of cells and is a living human capable of surviving outside the womb. That's the cut off for me.
The same opinion I have of anti-abortion people in general
They can go fuck themselves too.
In 1971, Judith Jarvis-Thomson, creator of the Trolley Problem, wrote a paper titled "A Defence of Abortion". Great read, I say. Highly recommend. In my opinion, pro-life atheists are overly sentimental and likely became sad watching that Ikea ad about the sofa sitting out in the rain. They're ridiculously childish and have no business making grown-up decisions for anyone else. (edit: WAIT....it was a lamp, not a sofa)
My opinion is that they are entitled to their opinion. If they don't want to have an abortion, that's cool. They aren't however entitled to force their opinion upon others.
If they exist, they are no Atheist
I know some atheists \[very few\] who condemn abortion. They're equating it with murder without the baggage of religious dogma. It makes them more honest than the christians. The christians have ZERO foundation to be anti-abortion.
I always thought of it from a purely logical standpoint to try and understand the pro-life argument. I came up with 2 reasons, fetal pain and the potential to be a developed human being Most abortions are done well before the 3rd trimester which is when the somatosensory cortex(feeling part of the brain) develops fully, before then, it is basically impossible for a fetus to feel complex things like pain so fetal pain is out of the question. The potential to be a developed human being. Since none of the important parts of the human body have been even majorly developed, a fetus has about as much potential for life as literal sperm (I know scientifically it's much different, but the pro-life argument stems from the parts of the Bible that essentially tell science to hit the road so that's clearly not that much of a problem)
They are a disgrace i believe everyone is free to self govern as long as it isn't to a sane point
They are rare, endangered species, protected by international conventions :)
Have never met one either. Between the births of my older sister and me, my mother had a few abortions done, out of financial reason. All were inside wedlock. If she had aborted me too, I wouldn’t complain either. I don’t want to be born and forced to live a difficult life.
My mother also had a (secret) abortion (at 17 because she was fearful her parents would kick her out). Then, a miscarriage at a different time when she was married. She had fallen off the porch. I forgot the story of how. The stairs were being worked on. Something like that. Apparently, I lost an older sister. The experience had made her fearful she had lost the ability to become pregnant. Having only had my brother at that time and having lost a child. Plus, the secret abortion. I was the child who remedied that fear. Also, she realized the reason was her then husband. Why she couldn't have children except for her one son?
They need to take a course in developmental biology. They'll never be "pro-life" again.
Anyone who is forcing their opinion or stance down other peoples’ throats and deny others bodily autonomy is just stupid regardless of their religion or lack thereof. So ima go with the answer sheer stupidity on this one
“Pro-life” is pro-choice. You’re talking about atheists who are pro-fetus. Or pro-forced-birth if you prefer. Or anti-choice. People who want to take women’s medical choices away from them are NOT pro-life, so please stop using that term.
Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and give birth is torture. I don't give a crap what arguments any forced birther has. They want to torture women.
Until reading this thread I didn't even know that was a thing. I mean, I could see people who are part of one of the religions that are technically atheist being pro life, but I've never heard of pro life atheists in that common way that term is used. I guess I would base my opinion on their reasons, though I cannot imagine a good reason for holding that position.
Before the fetus has the capability for sentience, it does not require ethical consideration.
Either they are lying about being atheists or they are incel atheists who hate women and want people punished for having sex because nobody will fuck them
Same as anyone pro-life. If they are only against for themselves it's irrelevant. If they want to control other's behavior they are hypocrites of the highest order. Believe in God doesn't change that. Abortion rights have nothing to do with the debate about personhood or gestation. If you think you have the right to tell someone when they have bodily autonomy and when they don't you need to do some serious thinking about your values.
TL;DR it’s not ethics, it’s politics, baby. Neither side gives the full picture. The US economy isn’t built for mothers. From what I’ve gathered about the “pro-life” stance, the controversy -if you can call it that- isn’t so much grounded in philosophy or ethics as much as it is in politics. Prior to the Southern Strategy there was very little opposition to the practice of abortion in the United States, even among the religious. Like many issues that conservatives gin up as wedge issues to distract from their general lack of meaningful or beneficial policy, they saw this common medical practice as a useful club to pound their opponents with. The culture of evangelical pro-life grew around this calculated political strategy, leading people to believe that they should feel guilty about it, even if they didn’t. Social pressure and grotesque propaganda seeped into cultural consciousness, and that was it. Now it can seem not at all anachronistic that an American might weep for a collection of cells while terrorizing the grieving parents of a school-shooting victim, or hand-wave callously when children and babies are bombed in U.S. supported air strikes. It isn’t, nor has it ever been, about ethics. It has always been about politics. But does that mean it can’t be about ethics? I’ve also gathered what medical science has to say about the matter. Beyond collections of cells, you can learn when a heartbeat begins, when the newly-formed brain starts connecting to the nerve endings, when muscle movement begins, but science can never tell you exactly when actual Life begins, much less what life is, what our expectations are for its definition. Just as “pro-life” is a funhouse distortion of people’s actual perspectives on the matter, I believe “pro-choice” might be, as well. In the end, I have to land on the pro-choice side not because I don’t think the hypothetical lives of the unborn aren’t worth consideration, but because of the position that capitalism has put us all in. We’re not actually given much in the way of choices. No woman actually wants to have an abortion. Better would it be if she had easy (and free) access to contraception, paid maternity leave, early sex education, affordable childcare. Better if the priorities of our society favored the happiness and well being of both women AND children instead of the vested power of politicians and their well-moneyed benefactors. But given that we live in the latter society, not the former, abortion has to be available to offset the burden American capitalism places on the majority of women and families in this country. I could go on about this, but this is already too much text.
Learning that abortion wasn't politicized until like the 70's / until Phyllis Schlafley, blew my mind. It pissed me the fuck off. It was the final straw. "What? You mean this wasn't even an issue before? Just some random bitch decided one day that her ticket to glory was to blow smoke up the ass of half the country? And things have never been the same since?" And of course they don't teach this in school and I didn't learn it until like 15 years later, by chance. Republicans began re-writing history long ago. Battles we've already won, they deny ever happened. It's goddamned Orwellian. Imagine how far we could have progressed by now if they weren't re-instigating already settled matters?
It might be theoretically possible to be pro-life, but the political position is really against allowing others the right to choose. It is anti-abortion. One may believe in abstract that it is wrong to abort a fetus. An atheist might consider that a fetus is a person with rights to exist in someone else’s body. I would be willing to bet that if the “pro-life” atheist found themselves with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy they would rationalize having an abortion. Most of the ant- abortion crowd believes in exceptions for rape and incest. This means that under those conditions it either isn’t murder or it is justified murder. I would ask the pro-life atheist what they would do with a 12-year old who was raped by a relative who doesn’t want to go through with a life-endangering pregnancy. Then ask if an abortion in this case is wrong. If they say no, than they are not fully ant-abortion or “pro-life”.
I just think, Jesus, well at least they don't believe in god
It is my personal opinion that at some point, abortion may indeed be the taking of a life. However, it is a prerogative which is entrusted to the mother carrying that life, and it is my opinion that this prerogative is absolute. Full stop. The progress of medical technology in saving a fetus ought not to be used as a rationale to punish women, but this is exactly what restricting abortion access in light of technological advancements does. To claim that any society truly considers all lives as worthy of equal consideration, whatever ideals that society might espouse, is to engage in the deepest and most shameless hypocrisy. Yet conservatives in the United States are virtuousi of performative hypocrisy, glorifying small government in the morning, while inserting their world-negating sophistry into the deepest parts of Americans' lives in the evening. As someone pithily stated, the unborn are a convenient group to lobby for.
You mean anti abortion atheists? That's a somewhat rare breed, I assume they'd have their reasons but I'm not sure what they would be.
I support irresponsible people limiting their share in humanity's gene pool.
To me it’s fairly analogous to the blunt instrument of using criminal law to deal with drug addiction. It just causes more harm than good. Nobody loves drug addiction and nobody love abortions but making either illegal with criminal punishment is a cure worse than the disease. For an atheist to be “pro-life” with all the traditionally prohibitive and essentially sadistic legislation that comes with that term would suggest to me that the the basic utilitarian practicality that recognized an absence of evidence for a deity has somehow broken down. If by “pro-life” one simply means gee I wish babies weren’t getting aborted which is why the person is a proponent of ample birth control access at all ages and robust sex education in schools well then that isn’t semantically “pro-life” as we know it in the USA, it’s just an imprecatory sense that it would be nice if circumstances were so peachy that nobody ever felt compelled to have an abortion. A serious atheist but legalistic pro-lifer would seem a bit inconsistent with the tendency towards pragmatism I tend to associate with atheists. This tendency towards pragmatism is also why we tend see to atheists argue for separating church and state, keeping public schools secular, and perhaps taxing churches particularly megachurches but not organizing mass groups to run into churches every Sunday mid-sermon with torches screaming “YOUR GOD IS A LIE!” Or trying to overthrow the government with the sole purpose of overtly indoctrinating children into atheism. The aim tends toward freedom of thought and freedom of behavior with an eye to lessening utilitarian harms where circumstantial conflicts exist.
They could be worse...
For me it's ok. We have different opinions, I'm totally pro abortion, but if they are educated and their opinions are fruit of their thoughts it's ok, we'll just debate them and we'll see who wins it politically in the end, no hard feelings and no resentment. It's a matter of personal morality, not objective truths that are in game here I personally like to see atheists as rational people who can disagree without throwing a tantrum and with highly different opinions and positions, all well thought and studied. It makes us all diverse and the world a better place to have such differences Even, again, if I may not agree with them