Any Good Atheistic Pro-Life Arguments?

[truethat]

Equality for women is not common enough and people like you aren’t helping.

Why? Because I believe women should be personally responsible for pregnancy? Because I believe women shouldn't kill other potential women because they are inconvenient? Because I believe eugenics is more often racist than not and these issues dressed up and touted as feminism do far more to hurt the progress of women because they suggest falsly that having a child is now completely a choice?

Answer me this if Equality for women is so important to you.

Why is it, when it comes to having an abortion a woman has the right to say "I'm not ready to have a child and I don't want to have a child" that this woman can kill the baby or give the baby up for adoption.

But a man, has no choice in the matter of economically being responsible for a child he doesn't want for the rest of the child's life.

If a woman gives the child up for adoption she exempts herself of all personal responsibility and economical responsibility. But if a father says I don't want to have this child and the woman chooses to anyway he is financially responsible?

The problem with women and equality is that people treat women like victims all the time and blame men for women being stupid and making stupid decisions.

So for example if a woman deliberately gets pregnant to try to keep a guy and he walks out on her, she's a victim abandoned when pregnant, and he's a dead beat dad.

You can try to play the equality card in many venues unfortunately this is not one of them.

No one forces a woman to have sex. If she's not prepared to handle getting pregnant then don't have sex. No one has ever died from not having sex.

 

[martu]

Why? Because I believe women should be personally responsible for pregnancy?

Having an abortion is being responsible for a pregnancy.

Because I believe women shouldn't kill other potential women because they are inconvenient?

Potential things do not have rights.

Because I believe eugenics is more often racist than not and these issues dressed up and touted as feminism do far more to hurt the progress of women because they suggest falsly that having a child is now completely a choice?

I’m sorry I don’t follow this could you elaborate please?

Answer me this if Equality for women is so important to you.

Why is it, when it comes to having an abortion a woman has the right to say "I'm not ready to have a child and I don't want to have a child" that this woman can kill the baby or give the baby up for adoption.

It’s in her body using her to survive, her choice.

But a man, has no choice in the matter of economically being responsible for a child he doesn't want for the rest of the child's life.

If a woman gives the child up for adoption she exempts herself of all personal responsibility and economical responsibility. But if a father says I don't want to have this child and the woman chooses to anyway he is financially responsible?

Because children who do not receive financial support suffer, children suffering is a bad thing. It’s not fair I agree but it’s the nature of the matter, until the child is born it’s the mother’s responsibility only after that does society, never mind the parents, have a responsibility. I support the rights of fathers to adopt their own baby if the mother doesn’t want it.

The problem with women and equality is that people treat women like victims all the time and blame men for women being stupid and making stupid decisions.

So for example if a woman deliberately gets pregnant to try to keep a guy and he walks out on her, she's a victim abandoned when pregnant, and he's a dead beat dad.

You can try to play the equality card in many venues unfortunately this is not one of them.

Poor men, always so downtrodden and treated harshly by society.

No one forces a woman to have sex. If she's not prepared to handle getting pregnant then don't have sex. No one has ever died from not having sex.

Rape happens in case you were unaware.

 

[Mark Felt]

Because children who do not receive financial support suffer, children suffering is a bad thing.

I think I missed the part where women were forced to remain pregnant, having been alerted to their not recieving any support from the father.

 

[noch1Narr]

Malerin's original question in this thread included the word 'atheistic'
why was that necessary? why not simply call for any pro-life arguments, since the responses would in all likelihood pinpoint the respondant's view of life/world view?
I have followed this thread with intense curiosity/interest and am amazed that
1-the most vehement/passionate arguments in favour of/against a woman's access/right to an abortion come from MEN!
I'm male, I'm against ALL killing (abortion,as well as war), but (to paraphrase Monsieur Voltaire I vehemently defend every woman's right to make that decision for herself. If y'all (I LOVE that Southern US term!) cannot/will not agree to that categorical decision, then-good people-you're going to debate millions of points and sub-points until you're either blue in the face or until "the cows come home"!
2-even though most/all of you are- or at least seem to be- serious human beings, you strike me as being more interested in having the last word on a certain aspect of the discussion than trying to compromise in favour of a pragmatic solution to the central ideas of this thread: a) is killing a human being wrong/immoral, or isn't it? b) who ought to be the one(s) to decide for or against an abortion?
Please disregard the unsolvable question: exactly at which moment are we talking about a human being: whether it's at the moment of conception or at any time thereafter. The critical word in that sentence is 'unsolvable'(=to the satisfaction of most/all).
3-that many/most of y'all consider yourselves atheists: I consider myself an agnostic, open to the-to me at least-admittedly highly unlikely possibility that some day there will become available scientific/rational proof/evidence of the existence of some supernatural entity/god/spirit. Since most/all of you are science-oriented, instead of faith-oriented (those who consider themselves to be "hybrids"are in essence neither, so make up your mind!), should you not acknowledge that none of you/nobody has ever PROVEN the existence nor the non-existence of such a 'higher entity' and that those of us who are convinced that there "ain't nuttin' beyond this life" ought to at least be open-minded enough to consider the theoretical possibility/potential that there is/may be "something"...? You may consider this distinction to be nitpicking on my part, some sort of fence-straddling or cowardly behaviour, I myself do not! I consider the term 'atheist' to be as rigid/zealous/close-minded as the attitude of most/all 'religionists', hence my chosen name "antiChrister"!
4-many of you fail to take the time to proofread your post before submitting it for peer-review! Could the 'Masters of the Forum Universe' possibly install a readily-available spell check that could eliminate at least the most egregious errors?
-------------------
I have yet to introduce myself, will do so today in the appropriate forum.
----------------------
I will continue to follow this and many other threads with varying degrees of interest, even if y'all fall upon my posting and tear it apart with ravenous intensity! I find what you have to say/write nourishing & energising brain food, even if I do not agree with everything you state. I would very much like to meet some of you in person (over a 'cuppa'), although I fear you would likely not find me as stimulating and interesting as I find you!
Bis spaeter! (my rule10 webtv. keyboard does not allow for 'Umlaute') Michael

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't see why you need to believe in god to not believe in killing something.

Personally, I hate a lot of the rhetoric on both sides about the issue. For politics, I am pro-choice because of a woman's right of bodily domain which, according to the Supreme Court (I can find the exact case later), means that she can withhold access to her body even if it means the death of another person.

See, now it doesn't matter when personhood begins .

Personally, I don't really have a clue. I'd say somewhere in the second to third trimester.

But still, it doesn't need to be a full "person" for it to be unethical to kill it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why are you so focused on fertialization then?

In the entire human life cycle, there is one point — and only one — where something comes into existence which is clearly, indisputably, unarguably different from what existed the moment before.

The whole debate about when a human being comes into existence requires such a point, where we can draw a sharp, bright line and say that this is the point.

This point is not birth. It is not “viability”. It is not some arbitrary guess as to when brain activity begins, or a heartbeat, or some other similar phase of development.

This moment is none other than that moment when the DNA from an egg cell and the DNA from a sperm cell have finished pairing up, and forming a new, unique genetic code which identifies this new thing as an organism of the species homo sapiens, unique and different from its parents. This is the moment when something entirely new is created. every other change that will occur in this new person after this point, until the time of his death, is simply a matter of gradual development and change.

At this moment — and no other — you can point to the product and say “Here is a brand new human being that did not exist a moment ago.”

 

[martu]

I think I missed the part where women were forced to remain pregnant, having been alerted to their not recieving any support from the father.

No one forces women to remain pregnant. Men do not have as much of a say before birth. They have responsibilties afterwards.

No it's not fair but it's life.

 

[Mark Felt]

No one forces women to remain pregnant. Men do not have as much of a say before birth. They have responsibilties afterwards.

No it's not fair but it's life.

Right... except I think I missed the part where you explained why. Why, having gained the knowledge that she will not be recieving any child support from the potential father, and given plenty of time to get an abortion, why, why is it reasonable to expect the father to pay child support until the kid dies or hits 18? You haven't argued it, you haven't given an explanation, you've just said that this is how it is. Why should this be how it is?

 

[Toke]

The last political party in denmark to argue against abortion was the christian peoples party.
They have changed their name to christian democrats and have accepted abortion.
I don´t know if that will help them to get over 2% vote and seats in parlaments.

The non-religius arguments against abortion are not as good as the ones for.

 

[gumboot]

Thanks to advances in science we have the ability to masturbate, engage in oral and anal sex, and enjoy the use of various sex toys. We don't need to engage in intercourse, we want to engage in intercourse. I don't see how this is relevant.

I don't think you're thinking hard enough. Face-to-face sexual intercourse reinforces vital emotional bonding. None of the activities you've listed above do this.

Sex isn't just about "getting your rocks off".

 

[gumboot]

No one forces women to remain pregnant. Men do not have as much of a say before birth. They have responsibilties afterwards.

No it's not fair but it's life.

It's not "life". It's the law. Laws are required to be non discriminatory. And laws can be changed.

Your argument falls well short of being convincing.

 

[Mark Felt]

I don't think you're thinking hard enough. Face-to-face sexual intercourse reinforces vital emotional bonding. None of the activities you've listed above do this.

Sex isn't just about "getting your rocks off".

How do gay men get their emotional bonding?

 

[gumboot]

Right... except I think I missed the part where you explained why. Why, having gained the knowledge that she will not be recieving any child support from the potential father, and given plenty of time to get an abortion, why, why is it reasonable to expect the father to pay child support until the kid dies or hits 18? You haven't argued it, you haven't given an explanation, you've just said that this is how it is. Why should this be how it is?

Just out of curiosity, in the USA does the father still have to pay child support if the mother enters into a relationship with another man?

Current child support laws make perfect sense in a society where abortion is illegal. But as soon as you allow that abortion is an option, you have to address follow on laws relating to parenting.

 

[Mark Felt]

Just out of curiosity, in the USA does the father still have to pay child support if the mother enters into a relationship with another man?

No idea. I really, really hope not, but I suspect it to be true. Hell, I remember hearing about guys who were forced to pay for kids that weren't even theirs, and this was known when they went to court.

Current child support laws make perfect sense in a society where abortion is illegal. But as soon as you allow that abortion is an option, you have to address follow on laws relating to parenting.

No disagreement.

 

[gumboot]

How do gay men get their emotional bonding?

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? How is that relevant?

 

[Mark Felt]

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? How is that relevant?

Face-to-face sexual intercourse reinforces vital emotional bonding. None of the activities you've listed above do this.

Derp.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But couldn't it be argued that by denying this life the opportunity to live out that incredible chance of existing, it's an affront to life itself, regardless of cows and rocks?

If you can show me "life itself" and how it suffers when it gets kicked, or has plans for its future, or can do a crossword puzzle then I'll treat it as an entity with morally relevant qualities and/or interests.

Until then I'll continue to think it's just a silly idea, like "school spirit". I don't care, morally, about "affronting school spirit" in and of itself, unless you can show me how that's just another way of saying "hurting actual people who matter".

 

[maxpower1227]

I prefer scientific approaches to issues whenever possible. I've seen the argument made somewhere that insight as to deciding where to define the beginning of life can be gained from looking at how we define the end of life. Someone mentioned viability as being a dividing line, but I reject that. An octogenarian may be unable to survive on their own without someone's constant assistance with food, hygeine, etc, but we generally don't consider it ok to end that person's life without their permission. However, defining the end of life as something like the cessation of brain activity or other vital signs can have a useful analog on the other end. If a zygote has divided into a total of 4 cells, it's easy to argue that that is not a human life. If the development has progressed to the point that the life has brain waves, a heartbeat, and is self-aware, I consider it alive.

Try getting that line of thinking to fly in this country though.

 

[gentlehorse]

Malerin's original question in this thread included the word 'atheistic'
why was that necessary? why not simply call for any pro-life arguments, since the responses would in all likelihood pinpoint the respondant's view of life/world view?

My guess: Because the discussion would soon center around whether god exists as opposed to rational pro-life arguments?

2-even though most/all of you are- or at least seem to be- serious human beings, you strike me as being more interested in having the last word on a certain aspect of the discussion than trying to compromise in favour of a pragmatic solution to the central ideas of this thread: a) is killing a human being wrong/immoral, or isn't it?

In general, yes, but only because I don't like it.

b) who ought to be the one(s) to decide for or against an abortion?

In general, the woman who's considering having the abortion.

3-that many/most of y'all consider yourselves atheists: I consider myself an agnostic, open to the-to me at least-admittedly highly unlikely possibility that some day there will become available scientific/rational proof/evidence of the existence of some supernatural entity/god/spirit.

If there is evidence of "something", can that "something" be considered supernatural?

Since most/all of you are science-oriented, instead of faith-oriented (those who consider themselves to be "hybrids"are in essence neither, so make up your mind!), should you not acknowledge that none of you/nobody has ever PROVEN the existence nor the non-existence of such a 'higher entity' and that those of us who are convinced that there "ain't nuttin' beyond this life" ought to at least be open-minded enough to consider the theoretical possibility/potential that there is/may be "something"...?

Proving non-existence can be very difficult. Demonstrating that something exists is much easier. Being open-minded to the possible existence of something for which there is no evidence leaves one open to considering the possible existence of all manner of nonsensical entities. While they may exist, because no one's disproved them, there's no reason to give one any more consideration than another.

I consider the term 'atheist' to be as rigid/zealous/close-minded as the attitude of most/all 'religionists', hence my chosen name "antiChrister"!

I consider the term "agnostic" to mean "without knowledge of god". By this definition, I am agnostic.

I consider the term "atheist" to mean "without belief in god". By this definition, and because of my agnosticism, I am atheist.

Oh... Try spacing your work. It makes it easier to read.

ETA: Welcome!

 

[Pardalis]

If you can show me "life itself" and how it suffers when it gets kicked, or has plans for its future, or can do a crossword puzzle then I'll treat it as an entity with morally relevant qualities and/or interests.

What about people with mental disabilities and children? Some people, although rare, don't feel pain, what about them?

Until then I'll continue to think it's just a silly idea, like "school spirit".

I don't know what that is.