Any Good Atheistic Pro-Life Arguments?

[roger]

For me, the strongest argument against abortion isn't on religious grounds at all. It assumes that murder is wrong and then poses the question of when life starts. If we wouldn't consider it to be okay for a mother to kill her 2 year old, her 1 year old or her 2 day old baby, why is killing an unborn baby so different?

In the same way it would be wrong for me to walk up and kill somebody in the street, legal but icky if someone was hit by a car in the street and I refused to give a needed blood transfusion, legal and understandable if I refused to give them a needed kidney, and horrifically unacceptable to expect me to give that person my heart. I'm not allowed to kill somebody because they inconvience me, but I'm also not required to support their life to the detriment of my own. Note I'm also not required to send food to the starving people in country X. etc.

I do acknowledge your point that early development is a continuum, and reasonable people will differ as to when to draw the line. But the paragraph above is why some of us draw it earlier than you might.

 

[Egg]

So are miscariges then manslaughter?

What abotu miscarriages brought about by actions of the mother?

Good questions.

Following the argument, then, yes potentially a miscarriage brought about by careless actions of the mother would be manslaughter in the same way that a mother absent-mindedly leaving her baby outside overnight to die in the cold might count as manslaughter.

 

[Egg]

In the same way it would be wrong for me to walk up and kill somebody in the street, legal but icky if someone was hit by a car in the street and I refused to give a needed blood transfusion, legal and understandable if I refused to give them a needed kidney, and horrifically unacceptable to expect me to give that person my heart. I'm not allowed to kill somebody because they inconvience me, but I'm also not required to support their life to the detriment of my own. Note I'm also not required to send food to the starving people in country X. etc.

I do acknowledge your point that early development is a continuum, and reasonable people will differ as to when to draw the line. But the paragraph above is why some of us draw it earlier than you might.

Some very good points. Although, once the baby has been born, you would be expected to support their life to the detriment of your own, and you would be expected to feed them if they were starving...at least while they were in your care.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Good questions.

Following the argument, then, yes potentially a miscarriage brought about by careless actions of the mother would be manslaughter in the same way that a mother absent-mindedly leaving her baby outside overnight to die in the cold might count as manslaughter.

So, using birth control pills constitutes manslaughter? They don't just work by suppressing release of eggs......

 

[sophia8]

I also know from one person that has had several abortions that the psychological damage from her abortions is very difficult to deal with now. She has serious problems and has needed some therapy to deal with what was an easy issue in her teens ...and is now in her 20's a feeling of depression as she counts the ages her children would be. (this person is a JREF member and an atheist!)

It is just as likely that having several abortions/unwanted pregnancies in your teens is actually another symptom of psychological problems, not the cause.
During the latter half the the 20th Century, abortion was the only form of birth control available in several totalitarian Eastern Bloc countries - I read statistics somewhere that Eastern bloc women had on average seven abortions during their lifetimes. If abortions cause psychological problems, that's an awful lot of unhappy women.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm pro-choice (I believe in souls, but I also believe that a soul in an aborted body would simply incarnate in another non-aborted body). But let me take a stab at an atheistic pro-life argument.

Suppose, in the future, someone will come up with an incontrovertable proof that abortion, at any stage in the life of the fetus, is murder (excepting when the life of the mother is at stake). If we continue on our pro-choice ways, and such a proof is offered, then we will have allowed millions of people to be murdered. However, if we outlaw abortion now there will be a certain amount of death and suffering (mainly due to illegal abortions), but nothing like the millions of murders that go on every year.

Without knowing whether such a proof is possible or not, isn't the safest course of action to assume a pro-life position? If a proof that the pro-life position is wrong appears, the worst that happens is some deaths from illegal abortion, and emotional suffering of women being forced to carry nearly all pregancies to term. If a proof that the pro-life position is right appears, however, millions will have been murdered. In the absence of a clear position, shouldn't we strive to minimize the worst-case scenario?

The argument turns on the probability (possibility) of a definitive "proof" being offered in the abortion debate one way or another, but it's not impossible. Slavery was believed by millions to be morally justified. There wasn't a single argument that reduced it to the morally reprehensible position it is today, but more of a gestalt shift in societal values. But that same shift may also happen in abortion- in 100 years, we may look back in horror at all the murders that took place. Our moral positions have evolved on other issues- forcing people to fight to the death, rules of warfare, interracial marriage, suffrage for women, etc. Why not abortion?

Wthether by proof or gradual evolution of values, might abortion be one of those things we look back at with horror, and if the possibility that we might look back at that way exists, should we assume a pro-life position, just to be on the safe side?

What this type of argument completely fails to take into account, and what becomes the strongest pro-choice argument available, is that bearing a child is not a simple task. Even if it goes perfectly an entire 9+ months of the mother's life are altered. Worst case, the mother can die from complications of the pregnancy.

Now ask yourself this -- do you feel that a living person can make a claim against 9+ months of a person's life? What about a claim against their possible death? If not, then why should a living future-person be able to?

You might say that the mother is partially at fault, because she is responsible for getting pregnant. But such an argument also shows that the child would never exist if the mother had not become pregnant either. And in my opinion those factors cancel each other out at the very least, leaving only the above -- "What, ethically speaking, is a person obligated to sacrifice in order to save the life of another?"

 

[gumboot]

Yes and no. There are inconsistencies in it, but the problem is that it deals with rights over your body and then rights an individual has to have the best enviroment provided for them.

Abortion vs childsupport is a complex issue, and someone has to get screwed, either the child or the father.


Yes this is a problem but not one that currently has a solution that is better than current one.

If as a man you are truely worred about that, you could always always use condoms and provide them yourself. That way you do not depend on your partner.

Or just engage in non procreative sex

It's not something that worries me, I just find it an interesting side issue to the whole abortion debate, and as you say, a rather complex one.

My solution is to just make sure that myself and my partner are in complete and confident agreement on the issue. No form of contraception is 100% guaranteed, so it pays to discuss the "what if" early I find.

 

[rocketdodger]

Not even your own?

From a certain standpoint, no.

My current opinion on the matter is that if some-thing perceives a net cost from my life, then it is perfectly ethical for it to terminate my life.

As a conscious being, then, it is my job to either 1) insure all things that can decide to end my life perceive no net cost from it or 2) fight for my life with things that I failed to convince otherwise.

 

[Moochie]

First off... let's drop the "pro life" spin. Everyone is for life. We're talking about being anti-abortion. Hardly anyone is "pro-abortion" either, because very few people consider it the best of all possible choices. Finally, there's no such thing as an "atheistic pro-life argument" on account of atheism not being a belief system from which other arguments can be made.

Having said all of that, I find that there's no compelling argument for banning abortion, although there are plenty of reasons to provide other choices when possible.

I was thinking the same when I got to your post, so well said. It bothers me when people resort to euphemisms.


M.

 

[Beerina]

I have to say I do respect people that are against abortion but also are against the death penalty. It's confusing me to how people can be anti abortion yet pro death penalty. It's like "all human life is sacred" .. well no not ALL human life....

Innocent life. God told ya to kill the killers.

It's simple. This is a non-argument for pro choice to make.





As far as pro-life is concerned, the only argument I could make is that the line dividing a sentient human and a non-sentient human-to-be is fuzzy, so it's best to err on the safe side, like we do for people with severe brain damage and the comatose.


Not that I agree with that, but it's the best I can do.

 

[Patsy]

I was thinking the same when I got to your post, so well said. It bothers me when people resort to euphemisms.


M.

Especially when those euphemisms are meant to obscure true motivations. When someone tells me they are "pro-life" I ask if they oppose the death penalty. If the answer is no, I point out that they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. In my experience they usually want to hide the fact they are anti-abortion because they want to hide their true motivations, which have nothing to do with respect for life, and everything to do with mysogyny and religious prattery.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not something that worries me, I just find it an interesting side issue to the whole abortion debate, and as you say, a rather complex one.

My solution is to just make sure that myself and my partner are in complete and confident agreement on the issue. No form of contraception is 100% guaranteed, so it pays to discuss the "what if" early I find.

How does not practicing vaginal sex possibly fail as a method of contraception?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

PT -- Any time you have the chance for live sperm to end up inside a fertile woman -- be it by fingertip, tongue, mechanical toy, or what-have-you--conception can occur. It's rare, certainly, but it can happen.

 

[Toke]

Most of the anti abortion crowd are motivated by religion.
Deep down* they consider women property and breeding stock.

Banning contraception and abortion is one of the ways they try to turn time back.
The argumentation has been modified and elaborated to affect the less devout.

No, abortion is not a nice thing, but can be reduced with better sexed and contraception

*Sometimes not so deep, see rural africa and some muslim countries.


(why did my post go red and underlined?)

 

[Egg]

So, using birth control pills constitutes manslaughter? They don't just work by suppressing release of eggs......

Possibly at the extreme end of the argument. The morning after pill at least.

The argument didn't draw a particular line, it just suggested that there's no particular reason to draw the line at birth.

 

[gumboot]

How does not practicing vaginal sex possibly fail as a method of contraception?

Sorry I guess I was thinking a narrower definition of "sex". I tend to use "sex" as an abbreviation of "sexual intercourse" in the biological sense. I suppose if you want to get pedantic I meant coitus or intromission.

 

[Mark Felt]

Let's change one word...



Does that change anything?

You're a fertilised egg; or are you? What is the difference, in principle, between you and an embryo?

 

[Mark6]

I don't know anyone for just free and unlimted abortions no matter what the age of the person. I also know from one person that has had several abortions that the psychological damage from her abortions is very difficult to deal with now. She has serious problems and has needed some therapy to deal with what was an easy issue in her teens ...and is now in her 20's a feeling of depression as she counts the ages her children would be.

I suspect this is very much culture-influenced. In Soviet Union abortion was main method of birth control for most women, simply because all other birth control devices (like everything else material) were always in short supply. Many women had several abortions every year, for years, and thought nothing of it. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it suggests that post-abortion depression is not a universal or fundamental condition.

 

[Mark6]

You're a fertilised egg; or are you? What is the difference, in principle, between you and an embryo?

The difference is memories, experiences, software. I do not believe in immortal soul, but I think that a brain with no patterns in it is just inert meat -- hardware. The person is software.

 

[This is The End]

Viability outside of the womb being the normal response. (Though I would wonder how large the gap is between viability in a current hospital setting and viability in a historic natural setting. Not to mention whether or not people are around to help, with no help it wouldn't really matter if it was a hospital or a cave...)

I'm not personally trying to move these (somewhat shaky) goalposts that are set from a viability standpoint, yet since some people seem to find the need for them to be moved back to conception, I pose the following.

I doubt the "software program" than the human brain "runs" to make us "human" (I'd rather not turn this into a memory/processing topic) is very developed at all until several months after the 3rd term/birth.