Pro-Life Atheists

[CapnAwesome]

Hi, I was wondering if there are any other Pro-Life Atheists here?

Look at the past to see what happened before abortion was legalised and you will realise why I am pro-choice. 

Go on do a bit of research into the lives it ruined.
The death toll among the young women desperate to try any means to get rid of the foetus. The unwanted children left in orphanages to rot.
The burden that those would place on the state.
The horror that would re-imposing a ban.

Go on. 


Look into it.

I'll wait.

You don't just have to look at history, that condition still exists in most Latin American countries where abotion is largely illegal. Thats more or less why I'm pro-choice. Even if you were concerned about the morality of each abortion you should be in favor of legal abortion. Countries where it's illegal acutually have more abotions. It seems to be a prohibition effect, where banning it has strictly negative consequences.

[LastPoet]

My mother suffered quite a bit when I was coming out. I saw my wife having her vajayjay ripped apart to give birth.

The important part is to be born of a wanting mother. The scariest of all things. Suffice to say all men are born from women. We call them mother.

My first born decided to salute when he came out, which did the wifes nethers no favours at all.

Yeah, still have my mother. I could face 10o0 armies.

[brewer]

I think we broke this one.

[Simon Moon]

.
.
.
.
.
.

So, where in this process does the fertilized egg become a 'young human'?

At viability.

Of course. But then, you are basing your conclusion on rationality and evidence...

Unlike the OP, who is pulling stuff out of her ass, like this jem,

"Well, science tells us that the life of a distinct living human being is there at conception".

[Angrboda]

"Well, science tells us that the life of a distinct living human being is there at conception".

The major problem with that is that it's a political statement, rather than a scientific one.

[The Valkyrie]

"Well, science tells us that the life of a distinct living human being is there at conception".

The major problem with that is that it's a political statement, rather than a scientific one.

And certainly not a medical one

[SaStrike]

"Well, science tells us that the life of a distinct living human being is there at conception".

The major problem with that is that it's a political statement, rather than a scientific one.

No scientifically there is actually life at conception. (Heck, there is even life before conception as sperm is living). The tough part is whether the under-developed life in the womb is considered human or less than human. And at what time period do we decide it is fully human.

---

The major problem with that is that it's a political statement, rather than a scientific one.

And certainly not a medical one

How far into pregnancy is it considered human? (I don't have a side with the abortion debate btw)

[Angrboda]

The major problem with that is that it's a political statement, rather than a scientific one.

No scientifically there is actually life at conception. (Heck, there is even life before conception as sperm is living). The tough part is whether the under-developed life in the womb is considered human or less than human. And at what time period do we decide it is fully human.

---

And certainly not a medical one

How far into pregnancy is it considered human? (I don't have a side with the abortion debate btw)

The question isn't whether or not it's human or not, it definitely is. But people want to smuggle in the auxiliary premise, "therefore it has a right to life." I can accept that it's human without accepting that latter premise. Indeed, particularly where competing interests are involved, we regularly put limits on otherwise unobjectionable rights. You can say anything you want, but you can't cry, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In abortion we can't grant everyone everything, so limits have to be placed, and where fundamental rights exist, that conflict must be resolved. Now, in the case of human life, a right to life for the unborn necessarily requires a sacrifice of certain rights of the woman. So, is it practical, or even realistic, to give the right to life to a fetus that isn't even viable outside the womb? For pro-life advocates of a certain persuasion, the mere fact of it being human endows it with a right to life that trumps all other interests. And that is a political/moral statement, not a scientific one, and so it cannot be resolved by simply appealing to the fact that a fetus is, "human."

[Little lunch]

I feel very uneasy about abortion.
Although, I feel sorry for women who have had to make that tough decision and I could never look at them as murderers.

I think that if I was a woman I would possibly abort pregnancy in the early stage, as in the after morning pill.
But I think I wouldn't be able to abort after their little heart starts to beat, unless there was going to be a medical problem in which their life would not be worth living.

I fully admit that my position comes from emotion and not science but no matter how much pro abortion literature I read, I can't seem to change that.

[Succubus]

Should have named yourself Kristin Stewart; she was another shite actress.

---

IMO you are a fucking idiot.
A fetus does not become self aware until ~18 months ex fanny.

So up to a 8th trimester abortion? I doubt people use conciousness as the baseline for whether or not to abort.

I sincerely hope not.