Pro-life Atheists: An Argument to Oppose Abortion

[Kimstu]

@nate

You are failing to accept practicalities.

My point is that condoning actual murder for the sake of “practicalities” is generally not something that anybody is willing to accept when it comes to the lives of fully human persons.

@nate

Of course we shouldn’t be acceptable to 1 murder, but there is currently no alternative for this type of birth control.

Well, if we really believed that a fertilized egg was really equivalent to a fully human person, the alternative we would choose would be to ban not only elective abortion but any type of birth control that performs its function by occasionally killing fertilized eggs.

We would end up with lots more unwanted pregnancies that way, but in the case of fully human persons we don’t let that kind of trade-off affect our stringent prohibition on murdering people.

For example, many Americans agree that it would be a good thing to have effective border security, because we don’t want people from other countries immigrating into our country without legal permission. Nonetheless, when some immigrants sometimes manage to evade border security and enter the country illegally, it is not legal to kill them in order to get rid of them.

But that’s exactly the sort of approach that you’re advocating in the case of fertilized eggs: Do your best to keep them from entering the system in the first place, but if some of them do enter, it’s permissible (albeit regrettable) to go ahead and wipe them out.

[MandaJo]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

I agree. But I can’t think of another way to equalize the biological fact that women are the ultimate arbiters of parenthood. .

Why does it need to be equalized? It’s a side effect of the fact that people have bodily autonomy. We don’t “equalize” the fact that women have to be the ones to accept damage to their bodies pregnancy and childbirth cause. You can’t just invent the right to not be a parent. Where does that exist?

If for some reason a woman was forced to carry a baby to term and the baby was born, she still has the legal obligations of a parent to that child, exactly as a man would. Hell, as a woman, if a surrogate refuses to abort my child, I still have the legal obligations of a parent to my child.

Once a kid is born, once a person is person, they are entitled to the support of their parents.

[Trinopus]

@MandaJo

. . . Once a kid is born, once a person is person, they are entitled to the support of their parents.

Several states have laws allowing a parent to surrender his/her child to the authorities, and to have no further responsibility.

This was enacted to counter people leaving babies in dumpsters, or in front of churches.

The right “not to be a parent” is established in some places in the U.S., at least.

[MandaJo]

It can’t be that simple. If I’m the non custodial parent drops the kid off at the fire station and they call the custodial parent to come get the kid, that doesn’t get the former off the hook for child support.

Safe haven laws protect you from charges of child abandonment, they don’t remove your legal obligations.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@MandaJo

It can’t be that simple. If I’m the non custodial parent drops the kid off at the fire station and they call the custodial parent to come get the kid, that doesn’t get the former off the hook for child support.

Safe haven laws protect you from charges of child abandonment, they don’t remove your legal obligations.

I think they should, but only within a short period of time: at any time prior to birth and within 30 days of the date of birth. I really do think that it is in the best interest of the child and our society if we accept collective responsibility for unwanted children as opposed to saddling them with uninterested parents who are nothing more than bank account that invariably affects the parents’ ability to provide for other children or afford their own basic necessities.

[Trinopus]

@MandaJo

It can’t be that simple. If I’m the non custodial parent drops the kid off at the fire station and they call the custodial parent to come get the kid, that doesn’t get the former off the hook for child support.

Safe haven laws protect you from charges of child abandonment, they don’t remove your legal obligations.

I had thought they did. The news coverage I’d read/seen made it sound as if you could just give up the baby, forever, and be shut of it. If that ain’t so…that’s a shame.

(For one thing, it leads people back to the dumpsters and churches.)

[truthseeker3]

It depends. According to wikipedia

Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint. Others treat safe-haven surrenders as adoption surrenders, hence a waiver of parental rights

[zuer-coli]

I am not at all sure that I have much to add to what has been said, so to be clear; what follows is my opinion. I do not have any intention or desire to persuade anyone of any particular point I may raise. If someone doesn’t come out and say I am wrong about any particular point or my whole post, I will be very surprised.

In addition, I do not intend to get in an argument, these are my opinions, you are not under any obligation to share them, you have every right to disagree.

So, I am male, have never been married, have never been in a situation where my advise would been asked as input about someone’s abortion.

I consider myself Agnostic versus Atheist, but don’t think that is of much difference in this discussion.

My first point is in regard to logic, given any particular premises, you can make just about any conclusion logical. I am going out an a limb here, but I don’t think there are adequate basis’s (spelling, usage?) for a “logical” argument for any position on abortion. If you prefer: From where I stand, all starting points lead to equally logical conclusions, that doesn’t make them valid. It’s my thought that the OP’s request for a logical argument is somewhat misleading.

I myself favor the; legal, safe, readily available but very rare, point of view about abortion.

I don’t consider myself to have enough wisdom to make more of a guideline than the decision should be up to the women, her Doctors and any family members, friends, religious figures or counselors she cares to add. If your opinion wasn’t sought, keep it to yourself in that context. I will add that there is an argument based on scientific advancements for shorting the period in which such a decision is made, however exceptions will apply.

In general I do think that all human life is valuable, but as has been pointed out, human history and practice doesn’t suggest a very wide spread implementation. I also think that “human life is valuable” isn’t so helpful when you get down to cases.

I also think the stronger you try to make a given moral or ethical position absolute, the more exceptions people will find.

Which all respect to all. whether you agree with any part of what I have written or if you don’t agree with any of it.

Zuer-coli

[truthseeker3]

@Mijin

And? This argument implies that if I were to fertilize a million eggs in a test tube I now have a moral resposibility to get all those eggs into women and through to term.

Or perhaps not create them in the first place. I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with saying, “Certain fetuses need to be destroyed because we don’t have the resources to support them - but we’ve got time and money to throw into creating a bunch of surplus embryos.”

[Kimstu]

@truthseeker3

Or perhaps not create them in the first place. I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with saying, “Certain fetuses need to be destroyed because we don’t have the resources to support them - but we’ve got time and money to throw into creating a bunch of surplus embryos.”

Well, for one thing, parental bias is pretty much intrinsic to the whole phenomenon of parenthood. Most parents are always going to care far more about producing and raising their own offspring than about providing resources to support somebody else’s. Expecting infertile couples eager for parenthood to direct their time and money to the children of others rather than to overcoming their infertility problems is unrealistic.

For another thing, abortion rights are founded not on the issue of available resources but on a principle of bodily autonomy. A pregnant woman has the right to destroy the early-term fetus in her own body irrespective of whether or not she has the resources to support a child if she carries it to term.

[RTFirefly]

@Kimstu

Well, for one thing, parental bias is pretty much intrinsic to the whole phenomenon of parenthood. Most parents are always going to care far more about producing and raising their own offspring than about providing resources to support somebody else’s. Expecting infertile couples eager for parenthood to direct their time and money to the children of others rather than to overcoming their infertility problems is unrealistic.

Speaking from personal experience, it’s more of a tradeoff: how far are you willing to go down the road of overcoming your own fertility problems before pursuing adoption?

My wife and I were willing to take some steps to deal with our own infertility problems, but there were things we decided against, pretty early on. Hence the Firebug.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m an atheist who might be willing to visit his pro-choice views in the face of human-extinction-threatening circumstances.

[Kimstu]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m an atheist who might be willing to visit his pro-choice views in the face of human-extinction-threatening circumstances.

Not that I can’t sympathize with natural concerns about confronting the literal extinction of one’s species, but from a civil-liberties point of view this is potentially a bit worrying. Would you also be willing to revisit, say, your anti-rape-legalization views in the same circumstances?

ISTM that if a society recognizes a woman’s right to control her own body as superseding the rights of potential or early-fetal human life inhabiting her body, then making her continue an early-term pregnancy against her will is just as much an infringement of her rights as inseminating her against her will in the first place.

Strictly speaking, inalienable human rights remain inalienable even if their bearers might be literally the last people on earth.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kimstu

Not that I can’t sympathize with natural concerns about confronting the literal extinction of one’s species, but from a civil-liberties point of view this is potentially a bit worrying. Would you also be willing to revisit, say, your anti-rape-legalization views in the same circumstances?

I’m willing to entertain the idea of revisiting pretty much all my current views if the situation was sufficiently dire. I’m not sure what kind of situation would have to be in place for me to consider doing away with rape laws (in the sense that I’m not sure how doing so would seem better than not doing so) - I think it would have to be pretty science-fictiony, i.e. some weird disease causes all human females to regress intellectually to animal level, and since humans don’t have a periodic estrous cycle like other mammals (or at least not a very strong one), human females become uniformly and consistently unreceptive.

As for some kind of extinction-level circumstance and its effect on abortion, I suspect encouraging and rewarding women who keep trying to get pregnant (rather than banning abortion for women who find themselves unwillingly pregnant) is a better strategy. I’m guessing by the time banning abortion starts to sound necessary, civil liberties will likely be seen as an unaffordable luxury and the human species is pretty much doomed anyway. This should not be read as something I’m looking forward to.

[truthseeker3]

@Kimstu

Well, for one thing, parental bias is pretty much intrinsic to the whole phenomenon of parenthood. Most parents are always going to care far more about producing and raising their own offspring than about providing resources to support somebody else’s. Expecting infertile couples eager for parenthood to direct their time and money to the children of others rather than to overcoming their infertility problems is unrealistic.

I don’t blame infertile couples for wanting a baby. But I do think there’s some inconsistency in saying that DNA means nothing for a zygote but everything for an infertile couple.

@Kimstu

For another thing, abortion rights are founded not on the issue of available resources but on a principle of bodily autonomy.

Perhaps, but financial difficulties always seem to get mentioned as a reason to allow elective abortion.

[truthseeker3]

@RTFirefly

Speaking from personal experience, it’s more of a tradeoff: how far are you willing to go down the road of overcoming your own fertility problems before pursuing adoption?

My wife and I were willing to take some steps to deal with our own infertility problems, but there were things we decided against, pretty early on. Hence the Firebug.

Congratulations and best wishes

[Bryan_Ekers]

@truthseeker3

Perhaps, but financial difficulties always seem to get mentioned as a reason to allow elective abortion.

It’s more of a side-effect. Once we grant bodily autonomy as justifying the right to abort, the specific reasons someone might have to want to exercise that right become nobody else’s concern. Sure, there might be financial difficulties. Or the pregnancy is inconvenient. Or the fetus is an undesired gender. None of our business, really - it’s between her and her doctor.

[SeniorCitizen007]

As an atheist my attitude to abortion has been moulded by the fact that I’ve known quite a few women who have had abortions who, failing to find a man with whom they felt safe to have a child, have found themselves in a confused state of mind in which they experience intense regret at having had an abortion mixed with a craving to get pregnant again but fearful that if they do they’ll end up having another abortion. One woman I knew booked into an abortion clinic 5 times over a two day period, walked out 4 times, and was finallly “persuaded” by the clinic staff to have the abortion.

[truthseeker3]

@Bryan_Ekers

Once we grant bodily autonomy as justifying the right to abort…

Bodily autonomy is not absolute; as one of my teachers used to say, “My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.” (He was speaking in general - not specifically about abortion - but I think it applies.) Except in self-defense, no one has the right to take action that leads to someone else’s death.

(Just to clarify… I’m catholic; but I hope that if I refrain from mentioning you-know-who, I can be considered an honorary atheist for the duration of this thread.)

[Kimstu]

@truthseeker3

Except in self-defense, no one has the right to take action that leads to someone else’s death.

In practical terms, of course, that requires you to define what you mean by “someone else”. We kill all sorts of living creatures all the time that are not considered to be human persons.

Supporters of abortion rights do not consider embryos and early-term fetuses to be fully human persons endowed with human rights, so rules against killing persons do not apply to them.