Pro-life Atheists: An Argument to Oppose Abortion

Great Debates
181

Comparing a pregnancy to spilt milk is a tortured analogy, but if this is what we’re working with, let me give it a try. Contraception is the glass. There was no intention to spill the milk and precautions were taken. Cleaning up the milk is aborting the pregnancy. Getting a new table without spilt milk on it would be allowing the pregnancy to continue but divesting of the resulting child after the fact. Like I said, it’s tortured, but I didn’t have a lot to work with.

Sometimes life ends spontaneously, sometimes it is ended because it has no value. It sounds harsh, but we assess the value of life every single day. We execute criminals and sometimes we execute the innocent wrongfully found guilty. We allow people to die because we value not being forced to give up our own blood more than those who need it; we even value religious views about corpses more than living people in need of organ transplants. We accept more than 40,000 traffic deaths per year in favor of expedience and convenience even though we know how to prevent many of those deaths. We fight wars over territory and resources or political power and as a result young men, old women, and children lose their lives. The list goes on and on… Who can say what value one life has over another? What value did fetus Jeffrey Dahmer bring into this world?

I guess this is where we disagree. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility to make medical decisions for oneself. It may also be taking the responsibility to not bring another unwanted child into this world. There is a choice and abortion is a valid one. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be. By using contraception, the intent is clear. You can’t reasonably expect someone who has already shown intent to prevent pregnancy to accept it. Making abortion illegal is not going to convince every woman who is dealing with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it. Abortion will not go away because we make it illegal; it will only become more dangerous for those who seek it out and those who provide it, as well as those for whom pregnancy itself puts their lives at risk.

182

The fetus is, by necessity, dependent on the mother. There’s no other option. It’s not like somebody who needs an organ, or blood, or what have you, where there are multiple ways to get that. There’s no way to transplant the fetus into another womb. So, it’s more or less a unique circumstance.

Isn’t it illegal in some states for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol? That seems most on point. There are also states that, because of herd immunity and public health, have mandatory vaccination laws. That’s violating a person’s bodily autonomy for the benefit of others.

183

In the first example, the decision to have a baby has been made. The future baby would be harmed by alcohol, and so the drinking can be legitimately banned by law. It’s sort of like a law against “partial abortions,” where the procedure removes the legs of the fetus, but doesn’t destroy it. The result is a damaged person, which is contrary to all societal good.

In the second example, there are ways to avoid getting vaccinations, based on religious belief and other exemptions. A child without shots can be home-schooled.

But…yes, in the abstract, you’re right: legitimate governmental power does extend, in some cases and to some degree, even into our private bodies. Those of us on the pro-choice side believe that a ban on abortion is an excessive intrusion.

184

I hardly see how this is relevant. Am I to believe that only future serial killers, and not future Nobel Laureates would be aborted? Indeed who can say what the value is?

…medical decisions for oneself, and a death sentence to the fetus.

Unwanted by whom? And does unwanted equal not deserving of life? Does unwanted always equal un-cared for? Does unwanted equal unvalued?

Why shouldn’t they accept it? Why does intention matter? People have to accept things they don’t want and don’t intend all the time.

Maybe, but this is a different argument than whether or not elective abortion is moral.

185

There’s only one way to get an organ or blood and that is from another human being. And yet, once again, we don’t force anyone to provide those even when lives are on the line. There’s often no other option and that person dies as a result of not being able to depend on other humans for that which will sustain their life.

Good point. Yet another reason why forcing an alcoholic to continue an unwanted pregnancy is neither appropriate nor ideal. To be honest, I think those laws are well-intended but misguided as is often the case when you treat medical issues with criminal consequences. What do we get from violating bodily autonomy here other than a pregnant woman in the prison system and/or an infant with fetal alcohol syndrome? Wouldn’t you say a better solution is access to affordable contraception and safe abortion as well as treatment for her disease?

Is it really autonomy if someone else, i.e. a parent, is making that decision for you?
Is it a violation if the exception to mandatory vaccination is the ability for parents to opt out of a public education? One can legally reject vaccinations and home school, right?

186

I don’t see American society stepping up to provide this care and value any time soon.

187

:mad: Based on what? Thousands of adoptive parents in American society beg to differ. They are stepping up daily.

188

It’s only relevant if you are assigning value to human lives, including those in the womb. If we can agree that Jeffrey Dahmer has no value as a living person, did he ever have value? If yes, what?

You are absolutely right, though, in that there is no way to predict whether a fetus is going to become a serial killer or a Nobel Laureate, which is a good enough reason to refrain from assigning value to zygotes/fetuses.

Yes because fetuses are incapable of making medical decisions for anyone. And fathers cannot make medical decisions for mothers without her consent.

Unwanted by the person carrying the fetus. Does actually being a breathing, thinking person with a name undeserving of life? Deserve is a funny word to use as if pregnancy is about reward and abortion is about punishment. It’s almost as if the medical condition of the woman is…irrelevant?

You and I both know that yes, sometimes unwanted does equal unvalued and uncared for. The unbelievably high prevalence of child abuse should attest to that. It seems especially egregious when it occurs in the foster system in which caregivers are awarded custody of children out of some perception of fitness to properly care for the child. Not only is it tragic and appalling for the children, what society reaps from it is often chronic instability, including mental health issues, drug use, continuation of abuse of others, and other criminal behavior. If society is looking to cultivate serial killers, this is an effective method to do so. No, I’m not saying that all unwanted children are going to become serial killers or are doomed to a horrible, unworthy life, but it’s significant enough of a problem for society that maybe it would be better to address the problem of what happens to unwanted children before we ensure a glut of more unwanted children and/or butchered women.

Because as has been demonstrated by years and years of women becoming pregnant when they don’t want to be, they won’t just accept it and will seek out abortion whether legal or not. And society is not served by turning women who have been denied the legal right to plan their families into criminals.

I’m not arguing morality because clearly yours differs from mine, just as the decision to separate the East African twins presented an ethical dilemma for the medical staff involved in the case. You don’t have to agree, but for you to dictate your morality on others is at issue. Pro-choice allows for this divergence of ethical assessments.

189

Would you agree that a mother killing an unwanted 6 year old child is wrong? If so, at what point in the child’s development do you propose we stop allowing for this divergence of ethical assessments? Why at that point?

190

::sigh::

Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the child’s development, but rather the (do I sound like a broken record yet?) bodily autonomy of the woman. So, I suppose the answer to your question is at the point in the child’s development that it’s continued existence does not violate the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. When she can say, “I don’t wish to be pregnant,” and the child survives, we have found that point in time.

191

Because with the already-born child, there is an obvious, easy, simple, straightforward alternative, with which no one has a strong moral objection.

Really, really bad comparison.

192

::sigh:: me too. Thanks for your responding, I understand, but respectfully disagree. Appreciate your all’s arguing and making me think.

193

The argument was made that the pro-choice position allows for a divergence of ethical assessments, and is therefore superior to the pro-life position. I was attempting to illustrate with absurdity why allowing a divergence of ethical assessments is not useful. I just don’t see much difference in killing a newborn and a 38 week fetus.

Again, appreciate your points, and arguing with me, but I am respectfully bowing out. I can see neither of us is going to change our mind on the subject.

You would think we could solve all the world’s troubles on an internet message board, right?

194

The “mad” smiley, really? Learn some basic math first. You claim thousands of adoptive parents, I can casually point out that there are about 1 million abortions in the U.S. every year. Even if half of those were seen to term and the babies released to the waiting arms of adoptive families, supply will very rapidly exceed demand. Add to that the lack of effort to extend free or subsidized pre-natal care to women who need it and it’s clear that while you demand pregnant women take “responsibility” as you define the term, you’re not asking anyone else to similarly step up in the numbers your ideas would require.

195

It would be a different world! Perhaps a better one.

Happy trails!

196

The “mad” smiley is because your comment is insulting to those adoptive families with which I have personal experience. Also I don’t understand why you limited your comment toward “American” society. Are you suggesting Canadians are more compassionate than Americans? In my personal experiences with adoption in America, people are stepping up. Now you are personally attacking my intelligence, suggesting I don’t understand basic math.

I hereby demand people step up and take care of children instead of killing, abusing, and abandoning them. Better?

I am fully aware of the numbers of adoptions vs. abortions currently, thank you very much.

197

It’s not insulting to point out that there aren’t nearly enough of them to address the problem an abortion ban would create.

Because I’m not American and I assumed this thread was mostly about abortion policies in the U.S.

Heck, forget suggesting it, I’ll be happy to say it outright. Of course, it’s an aggregate comment about Canadian vs. American societies, not to be used to compare randomly-selected Canadian individuals with randomly-selected American individuals.

Unless you can show your work and say adopters are stepping up in not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands necessary to take care of post-abortion-ban babies, I gather your grasp of the numbers involved is shaky at best.

Well, demand in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up first.

Are the number of potential adopters equal to or in excess of the number of elective abortions? Will there be at least a half-million families looking to adopt every year?

198

But there’s a huge difference between killing a newborn and a fourth-week fetus. The pro-life position deliberately ignores this and thus is, itself, absurd.

I try not to be absurd, so the way I see the situation is you have two conflicting factors - a fetus which is definitely not a person when it starts but at some point along the way becomes one, and a woman who is a person from day one. (I…don’t consider the father to have a voice in the discussion, I’m afraid. And I’m a male!) After the fetus develops into a person, then it has a claim on a right to be allowed to live. The woman, from day one (okay, from several years before day one) has a claim on the right not to have her body used as a baby factory. These claims are contradictory and, after the fetus has developed into a person, there is no way to resolve the claims without one of them losing out, at least until things reach a point where the fetus can be removed from the woman and still live.

So the way I see it, we have five possible positions.

  1. People who pretend the fetus is a person from day 1 in order to ban abortion.

  2. People who accept that at some point the fetus develops enough to be considered a person, and that after (and only after) that point should abortion be banned. Absent a clear way to assess this turning point, they pick a cutoff arbitrarily, typically somewhere towards the beginning or end of the second trimester.

  3. People who accept that at some point the fetus develops enough to be considered a person, but feel that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps the right of a fetal freeloader and thus that the woman should be allowed to abort at any time up until the fetus can (instead) be removed via a method that lets it live.

  4. People who accept that at some point the fetus develops enough to be considered a person (like the people holding position 2) but feel that the determination of when the cutoff should be is sufficiently dodgy that the law should refrain from stating a time after which abortions should be disallowed, allowed, leaving that decision between the woman and what doctors/coat hangers she can find that are willing to accommodate her.

Of the four positions, I believe only position 1 is counterfactual and unsupportable. I personally waffle between positions 3 and 4 (which conveniently have exactly the same ramifications with regard to outcome).

199

Wait a minute. I never said it was superior. I pointed out that in the absence of consensus of ethical judgments, leaving the decision up to the woman and her doctor avoids forcing everyone to adhere to one judgment. Pro-choice allows for every woman to reject abortion as an option for dealing with her pregnancy; anti-abortion does not allow for any woman to accept to abortion as an option. Therefore, I’m not saying pro-choice is a superior position, but it is a logical and equitable way to deal with the ethical dilemma.

Now you’re moving the goal posts. You did not present it as the difference between killing a newborn and a 38 week fetus. You presented the difference between a 6 year old child and a fetus. That’s an enormous difference. However, my answer still applies to your new hypothetical: When the mother can say, “I no longer wish to be pregnant,” and the fetus survives, there’s precious little difference. A 38 week old fetus can become a newborn and survive, so deliver it and allow the mother to relinquish her parental rights and responsibilities if she so desires. But yours is a solution looking for a problem. Women don’t choose to abort healthy 38 week old fetuses, so I don’t understand why this is even worthy of basing policy upon.

Well, it might help if you would read what I actually wrote. But thank you for participating.

Yeah, and if you believe our POTUS, Twitter is a great place to establish U.S. policy. :dubious:

200

I can picture a woman in the very late stages of pregnancy who is in enough physical and psychological distress that she demands “I want this pregnancy over NOW! I don’t CARE if the baby dies, get it out of me NOW!”

I’m prepared to let her doctor’s response to this be guided by medical ethics rather than legislation.