It has always seemed to me that while atheism itself assumes no shared doctrine, when an atheist/agnostic/skeptic claims to be pro-life we are met with hostility the likes that has been displayed in this thread thus far. No, I am not decrying victimhood here, it is merely an observation. It is interesting to me as I have been in the pro-choice camp, regarding abortions as merely a procedure that removes a fetus and does not raise any issues regarding human rights. My mind changed because the more I questioned my beliefs on the issue, the more I realized justifying abortion as a necessary evil was preposterous in itself. Here we all are, uncaring for complete humans that only need time and nourishment to grow into what we are today. I think the stance 'not sentient now = no rights', is a grand example of our attempts to dehumanize the growing fetus in order to be able to marry our conscience with a despicable act. Because if we take that safety net away, we have to admit that we have been killing humans and even endorsing the killing of humans all along. Then what separates us from monsters?
Does it sound like I am demonizing abortion? Are you offended? If not offended, are you amused that someone would take a bunch of cells to mean so much even though they have no brain, no CNS? They are just a clump of cells after all, nothing more right? I might as well be lobbying for the rights of tumors to remain in their host's bodies, and that curing cancer is as much of a crime as abortion is. Well, that is absurd. You cannot liken a tumour, a tonsil, nor any other body part with that of a growing fetus. A human life.
This also isn't about claiming science to be 'on our side' and that is an infantile argument. We (we meaning those of us who oppose abortion, unless absolutely necessary) are able to utilize the discoveries that science grants us just as equally as the pro-choice camp do. We may arrive at different conclusions using the same source material, but that is the point. Abortion is a question of ethics and human rights. It isn't a black and white subject. And I do not think that discussing and debating a topic that brings into question the ethics of taking human life as far as abortion is concerned, is a pointless feat because it is 'here to stay'. What is to say that abortion should always be necessary? Could it not instead be that male contraception, such as that of RISUG being currently trialed among countless others, are the necessary steps we must take in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions instead? We live in the 21st century. There are innumerable methods of birth control that prevent the sperm from meeting the egg. Yes, accidents happen, and perhaps that is why in instances where even preventative measures could not stop the need for abortion, that they be made legal and safe to do so.
I would hope that given that we live in an age where we are taught about birth control and the risks associated with sex, that we also be aware that every action we take has a consequence, and that pregnancy should be an accepted consequence of sex. That old chestnut, 'with rights come responsibilities'. People have a right to use their body as they wish and no one here is arguing to the contrary. But just as we take precautions when driving in a car, and are held liable for any lives we take with varying severity of sentences depending on the matter in which we take said life on the road, so should we start taking responsibility for the lives we take as a result of having unwanted pregnancies and aborting them. I disagree outright that this is squarely a women's rights issue, and feel that those who argue this are avoiding the crux altogether. This also isn't about demonizing women (though that is the popular argument it seems, and has become an accepted rhetoric unfortunately) and to vilify them because fuck women. As a woman, it is your duty to take precautions and practice safe sex. I'm not talking about rape here either, before someone decides to jump down my throat and call me a pawn of the patriarchy. I'm talking about statements such as these: "Oh yeah, it's the woman's fault that the guy she slept with didn't like to use condoms", ergo she was well within her right to abort the baby. It is the woman's fault if she falls pregnant, all cases of forced sex aside. If you don't want a baby, either use some form of contraception (or two, even better), or don't have sex until you are ready to assume responsibility for a child. We wait until teenagers reach a certain age before allowing them behind the wheel. Why should sex be any different? Why don't we care about protecting the rights of growing human life?
Miscarriages are a natural part of life, and an unfortunate one, but no one here is arguing that women who miscarry are murderers, either. That too is a tired argument and I see it thrown around in these kinds of debates as though we should accept artificial abortions as as much a part of the natural order of things as miscarriages. Pardon me, but take that bullshit elsewhere, because it don't fly.
Pro-life isn't a stance reserved for the religious.
Does it sound like I am demonizing abortion? Are you offended? If not offended, are you amused that someone would take a bunch of cells to mean so much even though they have no brain, no CNS? They are just a clump of cells after all, nothing more right? I might as well be lobbying for the rights of tumors to remain in their host's bodies, and that curing cancer is as much of a crime as abortion is. Well, that is absurd. You cannot liken a tumour, a tonsil, nor any other body part with that of a growing fetus. A human life.
This also isn't about claiming science to be 'on our side' and that is an infantile argument. We (we meaning those of us who oppose abortion, unless absolutely necessary) are able to utilize the discoveries that science grants us just as equally as the pro-choice camp do. We may arrive at different conclusions using the same source material, but that is the point. Abortion is a question of ethics and human rights. It isn't a black and white subject. And I do not think that discussing and debating a topic that brings into question the ethics of taking human life as far as abortion is concerned, is a pointless feat because it is 'here to stay'. What is to say that abortion should always be necessary? Could it not instead be that male contraception, such as that of RISUG being currently trialed among countless others, are the necessary steps we must take in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions instead? We live in the 21st century. There are innumerable methods of birth control that prevent the sperm from meeting the egg. Yes, accidents happen, and perhaps that is why in instances where even preventative measures could not stop the need for abortion, that they be made legal and safe to do so.
I would hope that given that we live in an age where we are taught about birth control and the risks associated with sex, that we also be aware that every action we take has a consequence, and that pregnancy should be an accepted consequence of sex. That old chestnut, 'with rights come responsibilities'. People have a right to use their body as they wish and no one here is arguing to the contrary. But just as we take precautions when driving in a car, and are held liable for any lives we take with varying severity of sentences depending on the matter in which we take said life on the road, so should we start taking responsibility for the lives we take as a result of having unwanted pregnancies and aborting them. I disagree outright that this is squarely a women's rights issue, and feel that those who argue this are avoiding the crux altogether. This also isn't about demonizing women (though that is the popular argument it seems, and has become an accepted rhetoric unfortunately) and to vilify them because fuck women. As a woman, it is your duty to take precautions and practice safe sex. I'm not talking about rape here either, before someone decides to jump down my throat and call me a pawn of the patriarchy. I'm talking about statements such as these: "Oh yeah, it's the woman's fault that the guy she slept with didn't like to use condoms", ergo she was well within her right to abort the baby. It is the woman's fault if she falls pregnant, all cases of forced sex aside. If you don't want a baby, either use some form of contraception (or two, even better), or don't have sex until you are ready to assume responsibility for a child. We wait until teenagers reach a certain age before allowing them behind the wheel. Why should sex be any different? Why don't we care about protecting the rights of growing human life?
Miscarriages are a natural part of life, and an unfortunate one, but no one here is arguing that women who miscarry are murderers, either. That too is a tired argument and I see it thrown around in these kinds of debates as though we should accept artificial abortions as as much a part of the natural order of things as miscarriages. Pardon me, but take that bullshit elsewhere, because it don't fly.
Quote:“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”
-Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great
Pro-life isn't a stance reserved for the religious.
