Any Good Atheistic Pro-Life Arguments?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I deny that it's anything but preposterous paranoid fantasy. Sure, a woman could break in and steal his sperm. And the government could be tracking everywhere I go by photographing my license place from space.

Put it this way: imagine that used tissue was a huge wad of currency directly proportional to the creator's wealth and earning potential. Would you leave it lying on the floor?

While it might be paranoid to worry about women breaking in to steal your sperm, it's simply a fact that paternity fraud is potentially extremely lucrative and the perpetrators are never or almost never punished or forced to return the money they received.

Hopefully that loophole in the law will be patched some day.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And a fetus doesn't have memories, experiences, software? These all just happen during birth?


So, you're okay with killing the baby after birth but before this several months have passed?

After birth killing the baby is pointless - newborns are always in high demand for adoption.

I personally don't think that a baby magically develops any morally relevant characteristics because it was squeezed through a birth canal, so I've no objections in principle to killing a baby the day before or the day after it does the squeezing. However killing a normal baby that has been born is completely pointless and wasteful so I've got no major objections to drawing a bright line at birth to make things easier.

 

[Mark6]

The discrimination lies in the fact that while a women can get out of being responsible for a child through abortion, no such legal measure exists for the (potential) father.

It is not fair. But it is not fair for a very good reason -- pregnancy is not fair! If a man and a woman, both free of STD, have a one night stand, the worst thing that can happen to the man is he pays $1,000 a month for next 18 years. The worst thing that can happen to the woman is she dies. Yes, even in this day and age women can die in childbirth and, much more often, have permanent, irreversible health problems as a result of pregnancy. So the unfairness is fair, IMO. As long as it is invariably the woman who is saddled with carrying another organism for nine months, with all attendant problems, dangers and indignities, she should have more say in said organism's fate.

As I wrote before, true equality between sexes will not occur until technology enables complete, functional, and fully reversible sex change to be done to one's self, or with minimal assistance, a la Ian Banks' "Culture" novels.

 

[Mark Felt]

-snip-

I think I missed the part where anyone is saying that the mother should be forced to have an abortion, rather than saying that the father should be able to make a choice about how involved he is in the life of the kid, from some level of custody to no involvement at all, whether it be financial or custodial.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is not fair. But it is not fair for a very good reason -- pregnancy is not fair! If a man and a woman, both free of STD, have a one night stand, the worst thing that can happen to the man is he pays $1,000 a month for next 18 years. The worst thing that can happen to the woman is she dies. Yes, even in this day and age women can die in childbirth and, much more often, have permanent, irreversible health problems as a result of pregnancy. So the unfairness is fair, IMO. As long as it is invariably the woman who is saddled with carrying another organism for nine months, with all attendant problems, dangers and indignities, she should have more say in said organism's fate.

As I wrote before, true equality between sexes will not occur until technology enables complete, functional, and fully reversible sex change to be done to one's self, or with minimal assistance, a la Ian Banks' "Culture" novels.

I'm not sure it follows from the premise that pregnancy is not fair, to the conclusion that therefore it's okay to enact further unfair rules. I'm pretty sure that's a case of two wrongs not making a right.

I can't see any moral reason why a woman shouldn't be obliged to inform a potential father early in the pregnancy if she wishes him to have legal responsibility for the child, or why a man shouldn't be able to formally disown a pregnancy early in the pregnancy if he is willing to give up all visitation rights and so forth in exchange for having no financial obligations to the child.

 

[gumboot]

It is not fair. But it is not fair for a very good reason -- pregnancy is not fair! If a man and a woman, both free of STD, have a one night stand, the worst thing that can happen to the man is he pays $1,000 a month for next 18 years. The worst thing that can happen to the woman is she dies. Yes, even in this day and age women can die in childbirth and, much more often, have permanent, irreversible health problems as a result of pregnancy. So the unfairness is fair, IMO. As long as it is invariably the woman who is saddled with carrying another organism for nine months, with all attendant problems, dangers and indignities, she should have more say in said organism's fate.

That's a rather stupid comparison. Pregnancy and any resultant risks are a result of biology, and not something the government is capable of controlling through legislation. Forced child support payments are.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the male should have more say in the organism's fate than the female - indeed I don't think the male should have any say. But if the female has all the say in that organism's fate, the female should accept all the consequences of that organism's fate.

Notice the feeble argument that has already been offered:

"If I thought I might be at risk for creating a pregnancy every time I had an orgasm, I'd be damned careful where and in whose company I had one."

You could easily counter with "If I thought I might be at risk of creating a pregnancy every time I let someone orgasm in me, I'd be damned careful where and in whose company I let that happen."

Such arguments are irrelevant. If you hold that a person does not have to accept the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, that must apply equally to males and females. Otherwise you're discriminating on grounds of gender, which is a breach of most nations' human rights laws.

 

[Mark6]

I think I missed the part where anyone is saying that the mother should be forced to have an abortion, rather than saying that the father should be able to make a choice about how involved he is in the life of the kid, from some level of custody to no involvement at all, whether it be financial or custodial.

Sorry, I misread the thread as the former. But my point remains -- I do not see any way to make the situation truly fair. Although I agree that paternity fraud should be prosecuted vigorously -- which it most certainly is not.

 

[billydkid]

I'm puzzled why anyone would think that the only basis for opposing abortion would be religious. If you think human life is precious - and I think humanism is inclined towards this even more than religious thinking - the only question becomes at what point do you consider a pregnant woman to be carrying a human life. I can't think that anyone seriously thinks it is not a human life ten minutes before birth and somehow becomes one the instant it is born.

 

[Mark Felt]

I'm puzzled why anyone would think that the only basis for opposing abortion would be religious.

Atheists are all immoral abortions-for-everyone liberal commie pinkos, every last one of the bastards.

 

[truethat]

Sure.

If there is no afterlife, then this life is all. If this life is all, then the worst thing that you can possibly do to someone is to kill them; any experience is better than no experience.

I find it funny when arguing with assorted christians on the subject of abortion; why would the baby give a turd? He's partying with Christ, right?

That's exactly my argument. If you don't believe in afterlife or spirit then this is all there is, a craptastic life is better than none at all.

That's how I see it. A person has a shot and no one has the right to take it away from them.

I consider abortion murder. Plain and simple.

 

[truethat]

Keeping population under control by means of abortion is cruel and inhumane. Keeping population in control by widespread starvation, disease and war is far more optimal.

There you go. ^ No religion needed.

Population control is one of the myths associated with abortion and Africa. There's this idea that over population is the cause of Africa's woes when its really lack of development.

 

[This is The End]

Speaking only for myself, I'd love to see a world where contraception had become so easy to use, so failure-proof, so free of unwanted side effects, that no woman got pregnant who wasn't eager looking forward to giving birth, who wasn't physically, emotionally, and financially prepared to have and rear a child. I'd love to see a world where there was no abortion because there was no need for it.

You don't speak just for yourself on that, not by any means.

 

[Gilmar]

Towards the end of the pregnancy, the cartilage of the woman's body alters...(I could fold my nose over sideways.)

Thank you for never showing me that.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm just moderately pro-life, but mostly on the fence, so I'm not interested in pushing for it as an argument, but I wonder if Dawkins' lovely argument about how lucky we are to be alive can be applied to this debate? The "astonishingly unlikely contingency that any of us should be here".

"We are going to die, so therefore we are the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born."

(of course I'm not implying he was thinking of pro-life when he said that, but I think it could apply to some extent)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm just moderately pro-life, but mostly on the fence, so I'm not interested in pushing for it as an argument, but I wonder if Dawkins' lovely argument about how lucky we are to be alive can be applied to this debate? The "astonishingly unlikely contingency that any of us should be here".

"We are going to die, so therefore we are the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born."

(of course I'm not implying he was thinking of pro-life when he said that, but I think it could apply to some extent)

Nah. If being the end of a long, complicated, unlikely causal chain makes you morally important then everything in the universe is important including rocks.

If there's a reason human beings are morally special it's because of what's going on between our ears, because nothing else about us makes us any different to or better than a cow.

 

[martu]

That's exactly my argument. If you don't believe in afterlife or spirit then this is all there is, a craptastic life is better than none at all.

That's how I see it. A person has a shot and no one has the right to take it away from them.

I consider abortion murder. Plain and simple.

I consider your opinion ignorant of biology and immoral.

A clump of cells does not have rights because, well, it's a miniscule clump of cells, and if you consider abortion to be murder then you are denying women the right to do what they will with their bodies.

 

[nexalacer]

I'll start by saying I'd prefer it if we, as human beings, did our best to not kill as many people as possible, though I'd never suggest it'd be alright to kidnap people or take their property for destroying a fetus.

That said, I do find it funny how debates and discussions about abortion never get to the root of the problem. Why are people taking large risks with their bodies by having sex with other people unprotected to the point that they're getting pregnant when they're not prepared for it? With all of the nasty venereal diseases in the world, up to and including AIDS, it's incredible that human beings risk aversion tendencies have been completely side-tracked for the sake of a 10 second nut. As thinkers and people interested in science, I'd say those are the problems and questions to deal with.

Abortion is a fog issue thrown up by people who want to increase their stake in the business of holding the gun in society.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This, of course, explains why babies are able to kick in the womb, since there's no software present.

There is no sentience present, and certainly no sapience.

A decapitated ant will kick, it does not say any useful about how aware the ant is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure it follows from the premise that pregnancy is not fair, to the conclusion that therefore it's okay to enact further unfair rules. I'm pretty sure that's a case of two wrongs not making a right.

I can't see any moral reason why a woman shouldn't be obliged to inform a potential father early in the pregnancy if she wishes him to have legal responsibility for the child, or why a man shouldn't be able to formally disown a pregnancy early in the pregnancy if he is willing to give up all visitation rights and so forth in exchange for having no financial obligations to the child.

The problem is that once there is a child there is a third person who has rights that is forced to abide by an agreement that they where not a party to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm puzzled why anyone would think that the only basis for opposing abortion would be religious. If you think human life is precious - and I think humanism is inclined towards this even more than religious thinking - the only question becomes at what point do you consider a pregnant woman to be carrying a human life. I can't think that anyone seriously thinks it is not a human life ten minutes before birth and somehow becomes one the instant it is born.

The problem is that you have to pick some strange defintions of human.

This leads to the whole "Every sperm is sarcred for secular reasons" issue.