Abortion

[Saturday]

Hey guys,

Is any atheist or secularist here a pro-lifer? And why?

Just curious.

[Michael]

My opinion used to be that whilst I was absolutely for the right to make the choice for yourself, I preferred to idea of adoption over abortion.

Now that's changed for numerous reasons, one of the more out there ones being human overpopulation. We're not good at managing resources, see, and anything that limits population growth needs to at least be re-assessed.*



*now watch someone try to say this means I support genocide or something.

[Saturday]

Very true. We need to limit population growth. I don't know if that should be done via abortions but yeah, we need people to stop making copies asap.

I think I am where you were. I don't think abortion is necessarily immoral. I was fairly undecided for awhile. I'm just wondering if anyone ever had a valid and sound secular argument against abortion legally or morally because I haven't encountered one yet.

[Smellyoldgit]

.... but aborted foetuses are so delicious - especially with extra garlic!

[Clifton]

Hello everyone,

I'm a pro-lifer because I like living and think the fetus might enjoy it as well. I also think women should have the choice to strangle that little fucker with its own umbilical cord, just don't ask me to help. I have better things to do.

[Saturday]

Clifton wrote

Hello everyone,

I'm a pro-lifer because I like living and think the fetus might enjoy it as well. I also think women should have the choice to strangle that little fucker with its own umbilical cord, just don't ask me to help. I have better things to do.

Well, it's hard to detect sarcasm on the internet.

Usually "pro-life" is mutually exclusive with pro choice. So you're either pro life or pro choice. If what you said wasn't sarcasm, then you're not a pro-lifer, you're a pro choicer.

[Clifton]

Saturday wrote

Well, it's hard to detect sarcasm on the internet.

Usually "pro-life" is mutually exclusive with pro choice. So you're either pro life or pro choice. If what you said wasn't sarcasm, then you're not a pro-lifer, you're a pro choicer.

I don't find it that simple. It's not black or white for me. Every situation can be different. I would base what I feel right or wrong on each account. I could choose to ignore the majority of abortions in feeling that they are none of my business. I could also choose to intervene and totally reject what i feel to be a horrible action.

Why can't I be both?

[davros of skaro]

Just listen to Bindi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYbNbJG3-1k

[Saturday]

welp, I wasn't specifically thinking about overpopulation. But she reiterates a great point. There are too many damn people on this planet.

[ILOVEJESUS]

And more to come!!

[jimmyjet]

this is not a believer/non-believer issue, although many people try to make it out to be one.

biology 101 - each of our lives starts with the joining of a sperm and an egg.

people make the ridiculous mistake of thinking that it is not a human being because it has not formed a head, a foot, etc.

that is so not the point. this is how each and every one of our lives start. we dont look the same as an 18-year-old adult. but just go to some hospice for a day, and take a look at a shriveled up 50 pound person waiting to die, and they dont look very much like an 18-year-old adult either.

it is even more ridiculous to think that one can pinpoint an exact microsecond when the non-human-being becomes a human being.

the only exact point is at conception.

i have a highly atheistic friend who gets very irate when he hears that only theists are pro-life. he remarks very sarcastically "do they think that they are the only ones who know what is fair ?"

many people do think that atheists are all pro-choice, and theists tend to be all pro-life. that just aint true, by a long shot.

in polls taken, christians dont have much greater a percentage of being pro-life than non-christians or non-believers.

i did not listen to the bindi url, cuz i got the drift of what was said from saturday's post.

what ridiculous logic !! the ends do not justify the means. by using that exact same logic, i could say lets just go kill 75% of the population. that too, would solve the population problem.

just cuz we can solve a problem by a particular means, does not justify the means being used.

the unborn child has done nothing wrong. it is their parents who are 100% responsible for their actions.

why not just cut off the guy's penis, and sew up the vagina for people who can not be responsible for their sexual actions ?

this society is so dysfunctional. and we have almost totally forgotten about taking responsibility for our actions. it is not the other guy's fault. we need only look in the mirror.

[Kinich Ahau]

Surprise, surprise!

Oh and fuck off!

[Michael]

jimmyjet wrote

this is not a believer/non-believer issue, although many people try to make it out to be one.

In general I agree with this.

biology 101 - each of our lives starts with the joining of a sperm and an egg.

Not so much with this. But I can certainly see why some might argue this.
However, society disagrees. We don't celebrate our 'conception day' and say "I am 30 today because today was the day my sperm joined with my egg". No. Society says our life begins the day we're born, and if you count your age by that measure, so do you.

people make the ridiculous mistake of thinking that it is not a human being because it has not formed a head, a foot, etc.

that is so not the point. this is how each and every one of our lives start. we dont look the same as an 18-year-old adult. but just go to some hospice for a day, and take a look at a shriveled up 50 pound person waiting to die, and they dont look very much like an 18-year-old adult either.

it is even more ridiculous to think that one can pinpoint an exact microsecond when the non-human-being becomes a human being.

This is fallacious, as your argument first assumes that we even need to pinpoint an *exact* moment. Who ever said we did?
Can you pinpoint the exact generation that was the first homo sapiens sapiens and does that mean diddly squat for evolutionary purposes?

the only exact point is at conception.

i have a highly atheistic friend who gets very irate when he hears that only theists are pro-life. he remarks very sarcastically "do they think that they are the only ones who know what is fair ?"

many people do think that atheists are all pro-choice, and theists tend to be all pro-life. that just aint true, by a long shot.

Except We're yet to hear a good secular argument against it, so most that argue most passionately for it tend to be theistic in nature.
Beyond "imagine if you had been aborted", that is. If I had, I wouldn't know the difference, as i wouldn't exist, or have ever really existed.
And if you are going to make that argument, than any wastage of potential life can be looked at similarly, and periods and masturbation suddenly become a lot more deadly. "Imagine if you had been ejaculated into a tissue instead".

in polls taken, christians dont have much greater a percentage of being pro-life than non-christians or non-believers.

i did not listen to the bindi url, cuz i got the drift of what was said from saturday's post.

what ridiculous logic !! the ends do not justify the means. by using that exact same logic, i could say lets just go kill 75% of the population. that too, would solve the population problem.

Took longer than I thought, but I totally called someone equating this with genocide.

just cuz we can solve a problem by a particular means, does not justify the means being used.

Okay. No general argument here on that, except that the context in which you're saying it is faulty, since you just wrongly equated abortion with genocide.

the unborn child has done nothing wrong. it is their parents who are 100% responsible for their actions.

And the unborn child is perfectly welcome to gestate outside of it's mother's body then. Until then it is a trespasser in someone else's body, and if it is a human being, then it is forcibly inside a woman's uterus without permission.
We wouldn't accept a human being forcing themselves on a woman's body like that at any other time so you're saying that a child has more rights to a woman's body than the woman does?

why not just cut off the guy's penis, and sew up the vagina for people who can not be responsible for their sexual actions ?

That's a little excessive. And disturbing.

[Smellyoldgit]

Methinks we have a slimeball in our midst - still carrying full catlick credentials.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Methinks we have a slimeball in our midst - still carrying full catlick credentials.

No way....ya think?