Any Good Atheistic Pro-Life Arguments?

What about people with mental disabilities and children?

To me it depends how badly off the mentally disabled person is, and how young the child is, although in both cases there's a strong case for drawing the line well past the point at which I personally stop caring, just to make sure we don't put anything we should care about on the wrong side of the line.

Some people, although rare, don't feel pain, what about them?

I'd call feeling pain a sufficient condition for moral consideration, but not a necessary condition.

I don't know what that is.

Substitute "national interest" or "manifest destiny" or "natural rights" or "the dignity of man" or any other fine-sounding abstraction. If it doesn't cash out in terms of harm or benefit to concrete beings, I don't care in the least if you "affront" it.
 
Having an abortion is being responsible for a pregnancy.



Potential things do not have rights.



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



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



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.



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



Rape happens in case you were unaware.


Sorry but why not educate yourself about abortion before mouthing off so loudly about it.

Abortion started because of the Eugenics movement. The first abortion center was established in a minority neighborhood because Margaret Sanger considered black folks WEEDS that needed to be pruned.

This is where abortion has its roots. Abortion is a Eugenics issue dressed up in women's rights clothing and doesn't do anything really for the rights of women.

Men are not responsible for women being too stupid to realize that if they have sex they might get pregnant.

If a woman has a right to give a child up for adoption and to say she no longer wishes to have the responsibility of being a parent then so too should men. But as long as the birth mother keeps the child the father has to pay for it. Its ridiculous because many many ignorant women have children on PURPOSE.

Rape is over reported and exaggerated. Regretting having sex the next day because you got wasted the night before is not rape. No sympathy from me for the "victim that is me" mantra of the women's movement.

Eugenics

A simple wiki link for you. If you are really interested look it up. Its common knowledge or so I thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Margaret Sanger and Eugenics


Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, a social philosophy that gained strong support in the United States in the early 20th century. The philosophy claimed that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Methods of social intervention (targeted at those seen as "genetically unfit") advocated by eugenists have included selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia. In "A Plan for Peace" (1932), for example, Sanger argued for:

A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[13]

Her first pamphlet read:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.[14]

Sanger promoted the idea of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups. Sanger considered the unchecked multiplication of the "unfit" to be "the greatest present menace to civilization."[15] She suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population."[16]

Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. Edwin Black writes:

In [William] Robinson's book, Eugenics, Marriage and Birth Control (Practical Eugenics), he advocated gassing the children of the unfit. In plain words, Robinson insisted: 'The best thing would be to gently chloroform these children or give them a dose of potassium cyanide.' Margaret Sanger was well aware that her fellow birth control advocates were promoting lethal chambers, but she herself rejected the idea completely. 'Nor do we believe,' wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, 'that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.'[17]
 
I fail to see how a pro-life stance -- I mean, as a political position, not as a personal choice -- can be anything but woo.

What rational basis could there be for wanting to stop other people from ending pregnancies in the first trimester?
 
I thought eugenics started long before abortion arrived on the scene.

With the idea that some people were more fit to breed than others, and thus the undesireables should be preveneted from breeding. The forced abortions and sterilizations followed, of course, but did not cause it.

At least, not to my understanding.
 
I said Abortion has its roots in Eugenics not the other way around. At least I thought I did. Let me check.

Yep that's what I said.

I wonder how many people are aware that their precious Planned Parenthood centeres were actually the inspiration for Hitler's genocide of the Jews and "less fit" classes.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people are aware that their precious Planned Parenthood centeres were actually the inspiration for Hitler's genocide of the Jews and "less fit" classes.

So what?
 

Wow I decided to quote this in case you came to your senses and decided to delete it.

So what indeed. And then people wonder why people consider proponets of abortion unethical.


Nice avatar btw, is that from Lord of the Flies? One of my favorites.
 
How do I know? Because the vast majority of people alive fight for life. If being killed was better I'd think people would be going for that right?

And yet countless people throughout history have risked and even sacrificed their lives in a struggle for a better one, indicating that quality of life is just as important, if not more so, than just simply being alive.
 
Wow I decided to quote this in case you came to your senses and decided to delete it.

So what indeed. And then people wonder why people consider proponets of abortion unethical.


Nice avatar btw, is that from Lord of the Flies? One of my favorites.

Yes, Hugh Edwards from the first film version, as Piggy.

But you didn't answer my question.

So what?
 
I am not answering your question. Its not a question for me, its a rejection of thought process. Don't ask others to do your thinking for you. Its in bad form.


Its funny because I was just looking at stills from that movie the other day, that's the one Balthezar Getty was in correct ?
 
And yet countless people throughout history have risked and even sacrificed their lives in a struggle for a better one, indicating that quality of life is just as important, if not more so, than just simply being alive.


One thing has nothing to do with another. Once you establish yourself you try for a better life. The question here is whether a difficult and horrible life is better than death. To me its quite clear by the way most people do not committ suicide in these types of situations that indeed life is better than no life.
 
Sorry but why not educate yourself about abortion before mouthing off so loudly about it.

Abortion started because of the Eugenics movement. The first abortion center was established in a minority neighborhood because Margaret Sanger considered black folks WEEDS that needed to be pruned.

This is where abortion has its roots. Abortion is a Eugenics issue dressed up in women's rights clothing and doesn't do anything really for the rights of women.
This is a genetic fallacy. The fact that an idea has questionable origins has nothing to do with the validity of the idea. Besides, you're also confusing cause and effect. Abortion is a tool of eugenics, not the other way around, and it doesn't logically follow that all abortions are done for the sake of eugenics. Do you want to know what the other half of the eugenics equation involves? It involves forcing the women who have "superior" genes to keep the pregnancies, whether they want them or not!

Whether it's forced pregnancies or forced abortions, the common factor is the lack of choice on the part of the woman. Forcing a woman to keep an unwanted pregnancy is just as immoral as forcing a woman to get an abortion if she wants to keep the baby.
Men are not responsible for women being too stupid to realize that if they have sex they might get pregnant.
I could flip that around. Women are not responsible for men being too stupid to realize that if they have sex they might impregnate a woman. At the risk of playing semantics, women don't just get pregnant, they have to be made pregnant by men.
If a woman has a right to give a child up for adoption and to say she no longer wishes to have the responsibility of being a parent then so too should men. But as long as the birth mother keeps the child the father has to pay for it. Its ridiculous because many many ignorant women have children on PURPOSE.
Oh yes, because the woman risking her life to carry the pregnancy to term and then endure the pain of childbirth is so much easier than the man shelling out a few dollars. Do you have evidence, such as studies, statistics, or legal testimony, of your claim that "many ignorant women have children on purpose" just to entrap men?

Furthermore, how does this help your anti-abortion argument?
Rape is over reported and exaggerated. Regretting having sex the next day because you got wasted the night before is not rape. No sympathy from me for the "victim that is me" mantra of the women's movement.
You know this, how? Most rape victims are too scared and ashamed to report what happened to them. The fact that rape even occurs at all shoots down your claim that nobody ever forces women to have sex.
 
Last edited:
That's not true about forcing women to keep the babies they don't want. In theory that might be the situation but certainly not in application. As you stated abortion is a tool of the eugenics movement.


As far as the "genetic fallacy" please examine the Planned Parenthood centers around the world and you will very much see that eugenics is alive and well in the planned parenthood centers.



And you can't flip it around because MEN are not the ones who become pregnant. WOMEN ARE.

So the idea of personal responsibility lies with the woman. Its funny how its your body your right, ONLY when you are playing the victim, but when abortion comes into the discussion suddenly the men "did this to you"

Give me a break.

Additionally we're not talking rape. We're talking pregnancies as a result of rape. VERY small minority of the number of women getting abortions but this is red flagged around as the issue of the day. As is women who's lives are in danger.

Just more same Feminist victim bullhockey. The truth is irresponsible women in general are the ones getting the most abortions. Period.
 
Abortion started because of the Eugenics movement.



This is nonsense. Humans have been practicing abortion for thousands of years. The Hippocratic Oath, which dates back to the 4th C BC specifically mentions abortion.

The first recorded documentation of an abortion is from 1550 BC. The Chinese were conducting abortions at least as early as 500 BC.

The Greek physician Soranus from the 2nd C AD offered up methods of abortion in his work Gynaecology.

In South East Asia it has been practiced for centuries. Japanese records indicate they have been practiced at least since the 12th Century. Maori practised abortion, which means it's likely all Pacific Islanders did.

It was only in the late 19th Century that the illegality of abortion was really established in western society.

The reality is that abortion has been legal in human society far, far longer than it has been illegal.
 
This is nonsense. Humans have been practicing abortion for thousands of years. The Hippocratic Oath, which dates back to the 4th C BC specifically mentions abortion.

The first recorded documentation of an abortion is from 1550 BC. The Chinese were conducting abortions at least as early as 500 BC.

The Greek physician Soranus from the 2nd C AD offered up methods of abortion in his work Gynaecology.

In South East Asia it has been practiced for centuries. Japanese records indicate they have been practiced at least since the 12th Century. Maori practised abortion, which means it's likely all Pacific Islanders did.

It was only in the late 19th Century that the illegality of abortion was really established in western society.

The reality is that abortion has been legal in human society far, far longer than it has been illegal.


Actually I stand corrected. Because this is exactly right. What I was referring to is the way abortion is marketed as a "women's rights issue"

That aspect of abortion started with the Eugenics movement. This is what I meant to say.

I think you can see the gist of it in my posts but I should have been clearer.
 
I said Abortion has its roots in Eugenics not the other way around. At least I thought I did. Let me check.

Yep that's what I said.

I wonder how many people are aware that their precious Planned Parenthood centeres were actually the inspiration for Hitler's genocide of the Jews and "less fit" classes.



I believe you just Godwined this thread.
 
What does Godwined mean? Hitler killing Jews and less fit classes is history not religion.
 
That's not true about forcing women to keep the babies they don't want. In theory that might be the situation but certainly not in application. As you stated abortion is a tool of the eugenics movement.
Wrong. This was very much a part of eugenics as practiced by Nazi Germany, which you were so keen on bringing up. Jewish women were forced to terminate their pregnancies. German women however, being the "superior race" according to Hitler, were forced to bear as many children as they could. Again, the common factor is the lack of choice on the part of the women.
As far as the "genetic fallacy" please examine the Planned Parenthood centers around the world and you will very much see that eugenics is alive and well in the planned parenthood centers.
I don't think you understood what I meant by "genetic fallacy." The origins of an idea, belief, or practice have nothing to do, one way or another, with the validity of it. People were discussing abortion in the context of modern society and morality and you brought up its alleged origins as if that somehow proves it's wrong. It doesn't prove it wrong, or right. It's irrelevant.

Also, your response was a weak evasion. The burden is on you to provide evidence for your own claims, not tell people to travel around the world and look for themselves. Truthers tell people to just watch the DVD, as if that will prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. New Agers tell people to just try the treatments and see, as if that provides any evidence that they work. If you're trying to claim that you've traveled around the world and seen eugenics being practiced at planned parenthood centers, then it should be no trouble for you to explain your case. Seeing as how you have failed to do this, your attempt at a red herring also fails.
And you can't flip it around because MEN are not the ones who become pregnant. WOMEN ARE.

So the idea of personal responsibility lies with the woman. Its funny how its your body your right, ONLY when you are playing the victim, but when abortion comes into the discussion suddenly the men "did this to you"

Give me a break.
Last I checked, men are biologically necessary for a pregnancy to occur. A male had to take part in the act of copulation, and a male had to contribute one of the two gametes. You're arguing against your own point here. If the responsibility applies only to the woman, as you seem to be arguing, then the abortion should be none of the man's business. If you're trying to argue that the child belongs to the man too, then you should have no problem with the man having to take financial responsibility. You can't have it both ways.
Additionally we're not talking rape. We're talking pregnancies as a result of rape. VERY small minority of the number of women getting abortions but this is red flagged around as the issue of the day. As is women who's lives are in danger.
No, the topic of rape is relevant to your claim that "nobody ever forces women to have sex." This claim is empirically false, regardless of how many abortions are the result of rape. Even one incident would be enough to refute your statement.
Just more same Feminist victim bullhockey. The truth is irresponsible women in general are the ones getting the most abortions. Period.
In other words, ad hominems against women are the only support you have for your arguments. I asked for evidence, statistics, legal testimony, etc. and you've only hocked up a bunch of subjective assertions.
 
Actually I stand corrected. Because this is exactly right. What I was referring to is the way abortion is marketed as a "women's rights issue"

That aspect of abortion started with the Eugenics movement. This is what I meant to say.

I think you can see the gist of it in my posts but I should have been clearer.



Abortion is a woman's right issue. I fail to see how it can be otherwise. More specifically it's a conflict between the rights of women and the rights of an unborn child.

If the issue of women's right to abortion emerged at the end of the 19th Century, it's primarily because that's when the right was taken away.

How dare women complain about a right they've had for three thousand years being taken away! The gall!
 

Back
Top Bottom