If you're pro-life, how far do you take that?

[Fireball]

I am seriously conflicted on abortion.

I can appreciate that this would be one of the toughest decisions (either way) for a woman to make.

[robvalue]

I remembered we do have at least one atheist pro lifer. I'd be interested to hear their stance here. That was a while ago that I read them say that though so I guess they could have changed their mind since then.

I am seriously conflicted on abortion.

Do you mean you're conflicted on whether it should be a legal matter? Or just about the ethics?

I'd say that anyone who thinks there are no ethics to consider whatsoever is oversimplifying the issues as much as someone running around with "abortion is murder" posters. Personally I see being pro choice as the lesser of two evils. As with all things in life, it's about the best compromise given the situations we find ourselves in.

[vulcanlogician]

I am seriously conflicted on abortion.

I'm conflicted about it, too. Not about the legality of it. I think abortion, at a societal level, is more or less a good thing. It gives options to those who do not have the resources/desire to raise a child properly. It reduces the number of children in poverty, and it respects the bodily sovereignty of a woman. These are all positives.

My problem with it comes about due to ethical concerns. If it was my decision to make, would it be morally correct to say "yes" to an abortion? It's not a decision I ever will foreseeably make (being a single, reclusive male with no aspirations to marry or have kids), but I can consider hypotheticals.

To me, killing a newborn infant is wrong, pure and simple, in 99.9999% of cases. I mean, it would have to be an "out there" scenario like: "This kid is carrying a strain of ebola that could wipe out humanity" to make me consider the killing of an infant permissible. To me all persons (including infants and adults) have a right to live, so killing is wrong in any case. I'm even opposed to the death penalty in all instances.

So then I ask myself: What changes as far as the child's right to live by one slip-and-slide down the uterus? Nothing really. So I must conclude that a child is a "person" even in the womb. Viability outside the womb is a common measuring stick brought up in philosophical debates, but for various reasons (which I won't get into here) I find this mark to be arbitrary.

On the other end of the process, I don't think personhood begins at conception. Again, it's an arbitrary mark, only meaningful to us to mark when a biological process begins; it is not ethically relevant. Furthermore, there is a phase, post-conception, in which cells are totipotent, that is to say, we could separate them in a laboratory and grow many different individuals in test tubes if we so desired. Personhood then, must logically begin after this phase. I would have no moral conflict in saying "yes" to remove a group of totipotent cells from a womb.

The long and short of it is: I would feel most comfortable (ethically) saying "yes" to an abortion in early term/first trimester, and morally compelled to say "no" in late term/third trimester. As philosophically dissatisfying as that position is... it's the best I can come up with. Again, this is all assuming that it is my decision--which, again, is unlikely to ever happen.

At a legal level, I am comfortable with late term abortions being prohibited. I think it is a reasonable compromise. And I also see where pro-lifers are coming from. I do not immediately assume that they oppose women's rights (though it is doubtless that it's probably the motivation for a rotten handful of them). I think pro lifers are probably coming from the same place I am. Wanting to respect human life.

Politically, I'll probably never vote Republican, so I am de facto pro choice. Also, as I said in the first paragraph, I think abortion has many societal benefits, and legal abortion respects a woman's right to make her own decisions concerning her own body. So my pro choice position goes a bit further than "de facto." 

When we, as a society, get our shit together enough to stop fighting meaningless wars that squander our resources... when we, as a society stop allowing a vast portion of our population struggle to survive in ghettos... when we as a society can ensure that every child who is born can be given a fair chance to live their lives free of poverty and exploitation... come talk to me and I might budge from my pro choice position in favor of finding a place in which every child can be born, live, and thrive. But if you don't advocate for the welfare of the living, don't try to tell me anything about the welfare of the unborn who are soon to join them.

[vorlon13]

Pro life folks certainly don't take that belief to Scripture for validation.

Scripture will NEVER validate heresy.

[Succubus]

I remembered we do have at least one atheist pro lifer. I'd be interested to hear their stance here. That was a while ago that I read them say that though so I guess they could have changed their mind since then.

I am seriously conflicted on abortion.

Do you mean you're conflicted on whether it should be a legal matter? Or just about the ethics?

I'd say that anyone who thinks there are no ethics to consider whatsoever is oversimplifying the issues as much as someone running around with "abortion is murder" posters. Personally I see being pro choice as the lesser of two evils. As with all things in life, it's about the best compromise given the situations we find ourselves in.

I can't speak for LadyForCamus but I personally feel very uncomfortable when I contemplate the actual mechanical procedure involved in rendering down an eight month pregnancy so that it can be removed from the womb.
Having said that, there should be no time limit if the mothers health is in danger. Now as to where the cut off point should be in all other cases, I have no idea.

[Brian37]

I have never gotten a good answer as to punishing the female, if the morons on the right want to call it murder. If two people go into a bank and rob it, and the clerk is killed, the law usually does not ask who fired and who didn't but both are charged equally.

[LadyForCamus]

I remembered we do have at least one atheist pro lifer. I'd be interested to hear their stance here. That was a while ago that I read them say that though so I guess they could have changed their mind since then.

I am seriously conflicted on abortion.

Do you mean you're conflicted on whether it should be a legal matter? Or just about the ethics?

I'd say that anyone who thinks there are no ethics to consider whatsoever is oversimplifying the issues as much as someone running around with "abortion is murder" posters. Personally I see being pro choice as the lesser of two evils. As with all things in life, it's about the best compromise given the situations we find ourselves in.

Yeah, I couldn’t have said that better myself.  It’s a true moral dilemma for me, but forcing women to continue a pregnancy that they don’t want is no solution.

---

I am seriously conflicted on abortion.

I'm conflicted about it, too. Not about the legality of it. I think abortion, at a societal level, is more or less a good thing. It gives options to those who do not have the resources/desire to raise a child properly. It reduces the number of children in poverty, and it respects the bodily sovereignty of a woman. These are all positives.

My problem with it comes about due to ethical concerns. If it was my decision to make, would it be morally correct to say "yes" to an abortion? It's not a decision I ever will foreseeably make (being a single, reclusive male with no aspirations to marry or have kids), but I can consider hypotheticals.

To me, killing a newborn infant is wrong, pure and simple, in 99.9999% of cases. I mean, it would have to be an "out there" scenario like: "This kid is carrying a strain of ebola that could wipe out humanity" to make me consider the killing of an infant permissible. To me all persons (including infants and adults) have a right to live, so killing is wrong in any case. I'm even opposed to the death penalty in all instances.

So then I ask myself: What changes as far as the child's right to live by one slip-and-slide down the uterus? Nothing really. So I must conclude that a child is a "person" even in the womb. Viability outside the womb is a common measuring stick brought up in philosophical debates, but for various reasons (which I won't get into here) I find this mark to be arbitrary.

On the other end of the process, I don't think personhood begins at conception. Again, it's an arbitrary mark, only meaningful to us to mark when a biological process begins; it is not ethically relevant. Furthermore, there is a phase, post-conception, in which cells are totipotent, that is to say, we could separate them in a laboratory and grow many different individuals in test tubes if we so desired. Personhood then, must logically begin after this phase. I would have no moral conflict in saying "yes" to remove a group of totipotent cells from a womb.

The long and short of it is: I would feel most comfortable (ethically) saying "yes" to an abortion in early term/first trimester, and morally compelled to say "no" in late term/third trimester. As philosophically dissatisfying as that position is... it's the best I can come up with. Again, this is all assuming that it is my decision--which, again, is unlikely to ever happen.

At a legal level, I am comfortable with late term abortions being prohibited. I think it is a reasonable compromise. And I also see where pro-lifers are coming from. I do not immediately assume that they oppose women's rights (though it is doubtless that it's probably the motivation for a rotten handful of them). I think pro lifers are probably coming from the same place I am. Wanting to respect human life.

Politically, I'll probably never vote Republican, so I am de facto pro choice. Also, as I said in the first paragraph, I think abortion has many societal benefits, and legal abortion respects a woman's right to make her own decisions concerning her own body. So my pro choice position goes a bit further than "de facto." 

When we, as a society, get our shit together enough to stop fighting meaningless wars that squander our resources... when we, as a society stop allowing a vast portion of our population struggle to survive in ghettos... when we as a society can ensure that every child who is born can be given a fair chance to live their lives free of poverty and exploitation... come talk to me and I might budge from my pro choice position in favor of finding a place in which every child can be born, live, and thrive. But if you don't advocate for the welfare of the living, don't try to tell me anything about the welfare of the unborn who are soon to join them.

I agree with you on the issue of viability as a cut-off.  IMO, it’s incomplete. It doesn’t address the experience of the living thing that is being considered.  Can it hear, see, taste, feel, and dream? Can it experience stress, and comfort? Around 19ish weeks, these experiential properties start to emerge. One position might be that a fetus having the ability to react to stimuli doesn’t qualify it as a being but we’re still talking about permanently ending a living thing’s experiences, however rudimentary those experiences may be compared to ours.

[Graufreud]

My former girlfriend being an atheist was strongly pro-life. She was an obstetrician.

[LadyForCamus]

I remembered we do have at least one atheist pro lifer. I'd be interested to hear their stance here. That was a while ago that I read them say that though so I guess they could have changed their mind since then.


Do you mean you're conflicted on whether it should be a legal matter? Or just about the ethics?

I'd say that anyone who thinks there are no ethics to consider whatsoever is oversimplifying the issues as much as someone running around with "abortion is murder" posters. Personally I see being pro choice as the lesser of two evils. As with all things in life, it's about the best compromise given the situations we find ourselves in.

Having said that, there should be no time limit if the mothers health is in danger. Now as to where the cut off point should be in all other cases, I have no idea.

And, it’s a question worth examining, IMO.  Problem is (as Vulc already mentioned) a lot of people, from both sides of the argument, seem too stubborn and fearful to go there.  It’s either, “all abortions are murder, you baby-murder lover!”, or, “you want women in chains! Why not just make rape legal?!”

[Catholic_Lady]

Depends.

If abortion became illegal tomorrow, the first step to enforcing it would be to very mildly prosecute the doctor who killed the unborn baby. Maybe pay a fine, or get his license to practice revoked for a time, etc.

Why such a "small" penalty for killing a human being? Because unfortunately we, as a society, are not at the stage yet where we fully see unborn humans as actual humans, deserving of the right to life just like all other humans. Making abortion illegal is a first step, but isn't, in and of itself, going to change people's hearts. Coming to that change of heart, that understanding and acceptance, takes time. It is a process towards building a culture of life and towards seeing ALL humans as having the inherent right to live, regardless of religion, race, sex, orientation, or age.

A doctor who performs an abortion isn't necessarily a bad person, because he probably hasn't reached the stage yet where he views an unborn human as the human being that he/she truly is. Therefore his culpability is greatly lessened, and so too, must his punishment.

In the future though, once it is fully understood and fully accepted that unborn humans are humans who deserve the right to life just like all other humans, the penalty should increase proportionally to that understanding.. as at that point it would take a truly evil person to kill an unborn baby, no differently from how it takes a truly evil person to kill a baby who was just born.

But right now, we are not at that point yet, and there are plenty of well meaning people doing abortions.

(With that being said, the mother herself should never be prosecuted. Only the abortionist. Again, due to a matter of culpability and taking into account the vulnerable and desperate position a woman is in when she finds herself unexpectedly pregnant. In that sense, she is also a victim.)