Do You Consider 'Pro-Choice' Part of Atheism?

[Seasanctuary]

I've recently seen some forum posts and pro-Atheism book excerpts which strongly associate Atheism with support of legal abortion. Of course we know that the only true defining attribute of Atheism is not believing in a God, but this can lead to secondary strongly-related positions when God belief seems the only reason to hold the opposite position.

E.g: being for legal same-sex marriages is strongly associated with Atheism because it is hard to see why anyone would reasonably be against it without a specific religious doctrine.

By contrast we can find Atheists (http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html) who want to at least restrict legal abortion. It wouldn't be based on a religious argument such as, "God creates the soul at conception and it is a sin to kill an innocent with a soul." But the same principles which lets Atheists be against killing infants can at least be applied to the time a fetus could be saved outside of the womb. In turn, this can be extended beyond what doctors can accomplish to preserve life to what a woman can do to avoid ending that life.

Since Atheists are allowed to recognize wisdom even when a religious person says it, I refer to Pope JP II's phrase "culture of life." This phrase can certainly be used by secular humanists to mean the advantages of erring on the side of life when ethical dilemmas come up. We don't need a God telling us that "life is sacred" if we as a people value life and want to encourage others to value it. Participating in such a culture can have benefit the individual when his or her own life becomes caught up in such a dilemma: being old, being sick, being a foreigner, being a criminal, being rude around the easily insulted, being a business liability, or any other situation in which life might be threatened.

As adults we are no longer in personal danger of being aborted, but we might not have survived were it not for our mothers choosing not to abort. Much of the value in moral systems has to do with following the code even without apparent, immediate personal gain. We indirectly benefit when others follow the code in such a manner.

Now there is some good debate to be had over whether we should define the beginning of an individual's life with its biological start (conception) or its mental start (neural activity). But don't let this divide overshadow the much larger divide between either of those and physical birth.

Finally, I would like you all to question whether it is a smart idea to associate Atheism with Pro-Choice even if you are Pro-Choice. Many religious people feel very strongly about abortion. If you make abortion something they have to support in order to realize their religious ideas are human superstition, they have all the more motivation to stop critically considering their beliefs.

[Messor Mortis]

I associate a lot of things with atheism other then lack of belief in god. I can tell you that there not very flattering one of them is pro -abortion

[gruntled]

Speaking for myself as a non-believer I don't have a dilemma with abortion - I simply don't believe that we have souls and are anything before birth. Should this be an atheistic stance? I think you might find the jury is out on that one as there are degrees of atheism.

This should be an interesting thread!

gruntled (Ms)

[rizdek]

I am agnostic and do not think abortion is desireabe. So no, I don't think it should be associated with one's god belief or lack thereof. I think of abortion as killing ones own offspring. I would not be in favor of killing my offspring whether it has been born or not. I realize that brings up questions about what if the offspring is an unwanted pregnancy from a rape, or what if the pregnancy is a threat to the existence of the mother. These are tough questions that I don't have answers to, but I doubt that even a fraction of the millions of abortions are dealing with those kinds of issues.

In a way, I would almost envision theists who believe in an afterlife being more amenable to abortion, since most believe through some sort of dispensation the soul of the fetus will be escorted directly to eternal bliss without enduring the rigors of physical life, why not abort it. Certainly the god of the bible doesn't have any problems killing even adults and children and pregnant women (or having them killed in his name) so why stop at the womb? But an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife could see aborting an unborn child as "stealing" it's life from it without due process.

So as I said earlier, I think the issues of ones god belief and abortion are separate and should be. As an agnostic, I am opposed to abortion in general because it is robbing a human of his/her life, usually for no other reason that convenience. But I also think it should not be a matter of national or state laws. It really should be up to the "mother" and involved relatives/loved ones. They are the ones that have to live with their choices.

A selfish view might be, "Go ahead and kill your own children, it makes little difference to me. In fact it leaves more room and resources for me and mine in an already overcrowded planet." But that's not how I look at it.

[Faramir]

Note: Yes, I am a theist. I have requested and received permission from the OP (SeaSanctuary) and one of the owners of this forum, to post in this thread, provided I don't post in a way that argues from a theistic perspective.

The reason I requested such permission is because the abortion issue has always been, for me, one of civil rights, and not one of religion. While my religious beliefs are compatible with a pro-life position, my pro-life position is not dependent on my religious beliefs.

In other words, even if I were not a Christian, I would still be pro-life.

It is my position that Civil Rights, should be extended to all human beings equally. Human beings have a notorious history of selecting certain groups of other humans as less deserving of human rights than others. (And it is always the group in power that is the most deserving of Human Rights, some animals are more equal than others.....but I digress).

The most recent abuses of one group of human beings over another, at least in Western society, has been racially based slavery and discrimination and gender based discrimination.

Arguments have been made that both people of African descent and people of the female gender were somehow less able and/or deserving than their white male counterparts. There were arguments that the White man was doing the Black man a favor by taking him out of the uncivilized regions of Africa and giving him a job, food, shelter and clothing.

We all know (or most people today acknowledge) that such arguments are just wrong. However, intelligent, wise, and otherwise good people have made and and honestly believed such arguments.

But for centuries human beings of one sort have arbitrarily discriminated against human beings of another sort based on race, gender, nationality, etc. In order to provide civil rights equally to all human beings, we can't use an arbitrary standard to determine "personhood" like was done in the antebellum US.

The concept of "personhood" has been and still is a legal fiction used to justify treating one group of human beings differently than another group. In the past the arbitrary criteria for personhood was race. Now, the arbitrary criteria for personhood is age.

Is there something inherent in a persons race that makes them human? No. What is it that makes a human being a human being, and more specifically, what marks one human being from another human being yet still indicates that they are both human beings.

If we can find that, we can come up with a non-arbitrary definition of what a human being is and who should be entitled to human rights.

IMHO, the only candidate for this is a unique genetic make up of the type that is created at the point of conception.

For a little anecdotal explanation of the origins of my pro-life stance:

I was about 12-13. I heard a reference to abortion on TV. I asked my parents what abortion was. I guess they figured I was old enough to know, so they told me. (Only providing the basic definition of surgically terminating a pregnancy). My immediate reaction was, "They can't do that, can they?". The response was, yes they can, as if I was shocked that such a procedure was technically possible. So I clarified. "No, I know it can be done, but this can't be legal?" Once again my parents nonchalantly said, yes they can.

I was horrified. (and a little horrified at my parents nonchalance as well).

I had no indoctrination, no one told me it was wrong. It was just obvious to me that persons a person no matter how small, and that murder is murder no matter the age of the human being involved.

I have studied the issue for years both the legal and philosophical angles, and nothing has yet convinced me that the designation of a fetus as a "non-person" is any less arbitrary than the designation of an African-American as a "non-person".

Thanks again for letting me post Sea.

Edit to add:

As a Libertarian, I am against "legislating morality". And by that I mean legislating laws prohibiting those things that don't violate the rights of others and/or society as a whole. I am all for the legalization of marijuana (even though I have never used the stuff myself. I don't think sodomy laws should be on the books. But I think abortion should be outlawed in every state of the union. )

[Geoffrey]

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

:smile:

[NathanDavid]

From page 6 of my book,

"The Church of Satan opposes acts of variance with laws established for the common good."

Go here and click on hyperlink page 12 to get page 6...

http://freegroups.net/library/new/One-Cloudy-Day--2003-Nathan-E-David/

This area is for non-theist only. Please remember this in the future. Thanks!

[PolarBeer]

I won't claim to have any clear answers on abortion, but I'd certainly agree that you'll find a much higher percentage of pro-choice people amongst atheists as a whole. Without a concept of a soul, "life" becomes a rather difficult thing to put a finger on, and many people fall back to consciousness, arguing that for example, an unborn foetus is not conscious, and is thus not a person.

As it happens, I'm an atheist, and I'm increasingly against abortion - there's no way it's as easy a call as many pro-choice people seem to think it is.

I was just recently watching a documentary on abortion actually - Lake of Fire, directed by Tony Kaye. One of the best parts of it (the documentary itself was not great) was the inclusion of Nat Hentoff, an atheist, liberal anti-abotionist. His writings (and some articles about him) (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/hentoff.html) are quite interesting - have a look.

[Atheist_Skeptic]

I've always despised the idea of abortion and I've heard some really silly rationalizations for people to continue having them. Sure there may be legitimate reasons e.g a rape victims, but I think there needs to be a balance as to how much freedom liberal people want to exercise. Liberalism & Atheism tend to be synonymous but I think PART of that is due to theists and their assumptions that if you don't have a book with a moral code then you have no morals. Never-the-less there are probably just as many (if not more) theists than non-theists who've had abortions. Ancient pagans used to have some cruel methods for aborting fetuses or getting rid of unwanted babies. Sorry for the digression but yes I think that all life is valuable and I'm a die-hard atheist (it must be the Naturalist in me).

[Seasanctuary]

Welcome to Theologyweb, A_S.

[Atheist_Skeptic]

Glad to be here, thanx!

[Bagger_Vance]

I think there is a strong correlation between being pro-choice and being an atheist. Mostly because for many being pro-life will be an argument generally for a thing like souls. For most atheists value is placed on what we can know not what we hope might be. So in the case of a pregnant woman we have a woman we know exists and should have autonomy and something inside her that some people would say is placed there by God and has a soul. Obviously the atheist might be inclined generally to say that is bollocks.

I am pro-choice because I don't think anyone has the perfect knowledge required to tell me what that fetus actually is or where life begins. As such I have to deal with what I do know which is that the woman who wants an abortion IS a person who is alive and does have autonomy. I do not think a decision that will affect her entire life should be made by others with no more insight on where life begins than she or I do.

[Bagger_Vance]

Note: Yes, I am a theist. I have requested and received permission from the OP (SeaSanctuary) and one of the owners of this forum, to post in this thread, provided I don't post in a way that argues from a theistic perspective.

The reason I requested such permission is because the abortion issue has always been, for me, one of civil rights, and not one of religion. While my religious beliefs are compatible with a pro-life position, my pro-life position is not dependent on my religious beliefs.

In other words, even if I were not a Christian, I would still be pro-life.

It is my position that Civil Rights, should be extended to all human beings equally. Human beings have a notorious history of selecting certain groups of other humans as less deserving of human rights than others. (And it is always the group in power that is the most deserving of Human Rights, some animals are more equal than others.....but I digress).

The most recent abuses of one group of human beings over another, at least in Western society, has been racially based slavery and discrimination and gender based discrimination.

Arguments have been made that both people of African descent and people of the female gender were somehow less able and/or deserving than their white male counterparts. There were arguments that the White man was doing the Black man a favor by taking him out of the uncivilized regions of Africa and giving him a job, food, shelter and clothing.

We all know (or most people today acknowledge) that such arguments are just wrong. However, intelligent, wise, and otherwise good people have made and and honestly believed such arguments.

But for centuries human beings of one sort have arbitrarily discriminated against human beings of another sort based on race, gender, nationality, etc. In order to provide civil rights equally to all human beings, we can't use an arbitrary standard to determine "personhood" like was done in the antebellum US.

The concept of "personhood" has been and still is a legal fiction used to justify treating one group of human beings differently than another group. In the past the arbitrary criteria for personhood was race. Now, the arbitrary criteria for personhood is age.

Is there something inherent in a persons race that makes them human? No. What is it that makes a human being a human being, and more specifically, what marks one human being from another human being yet still indicates that they are both human beings.

If we can find that, we can come up with a non-arbitrary definition of what a human being is and who should be entitled to human rights.

IMHO, the only candidate for this is a unique genetic make up of the type that is created at the point of conception.

For a little anecdotal explanation of the origins of my pro-life stance:

I was about 12-13. I heard a reference to abortion on TV. I asked my parents what abortion was. I guess they figured I was old enough to know, so they told me. (Only providing the basic definition of surgically terminating a pregnancy). My immediate reaction was, "They can't do that, can they?". The response was, yes they can, as if I was shocked that such a procedure was technically possible. So I clarified. "No, I know it can be done, but this can't be legal?" Once again my parents nonchalantly said, yes they can.

I was horrified. (and a little horrified at my parents nonchalance as well).

I had no indoctrination, no one told me it was wrong. It was just obvious to me that persons a person no matter how small, and that murder is murder no matter the age of the human being involved.

I have studied the issue for years both the legal and philosophical angles, and nothing has yet convinced me that the designation of a fetus as a "non-person" is any less arbitrary than the designation of an African-American as a "non-person".

Thanks again for letting me post Sea.

Edit to add:

As a Libertarian, I am against "legislating morality". And by that I mean legislating laws prohibiting those things that don't violate the rights of others and/or society as a whole. I am all for the legalization of marijuana (even though I have never used the stuff myself. I don't think sodomy laws should be on the books. But I think abortion should be outlawed in every state of the union. )

I am not understanding your position here. History proves you correct about the sliding scale for what counts as a person. At times that has not included a great many groups. And to this day it is difficult to attain consensus on what counts as a person.

Is a brain-dead vegtable a person? If so then how so? If it is because they were once a person so they are always a person how do we arrive at that? Because we wouldn't say a corpse is a person. But they would have to be because they were once a person. Could it be that there is more to being a person than simply physical make-up? Could it be consciousness?

Furthermore, your examples of prejudice destroying personhood while correct does not apply to the abortion issue. This is because there is no taking of rights for anyone when you apply personhood more broadly in the context you present. Saying an African American is a person does not strip anyone of their personhood in the process. However, if you claim that a fetus is a person and that as such it is your job to force women to carry out their pregancy no matter their personal wishes you are stripping the mother of her civil rights. You are saying the potential mother cedes her civil rights to that of a fetus. Does the woman lose her personhood the moment she becomes pregnant? If not then how can we say she has no right to make decisions over her own body? How do we say that an unconscious fetus has more rights and is more of a person than a woman standing before us?

[Faramir]

I am not understanding your position here. History proves you correct about the sliding scale for what counts as a person. At times that has not included a great many groups. And to this day it is difficult to attain consensus on what counts as a person.

Is a brain-dead vegtable a person? If so then how so? If it is because they were once a person so they are always a person how do we arrive at that? Because we wouldn't say a corpse is a person. But they would have to be because they were once a person. Could it be that there is more to being a person than simply physical make-up? Could it be consciousness?
That seems rather arbitrary to me. When I am asleep, I am not conscious. I am not still a person?

If someone is in a medically induced coma, are they no longer a person?


Furthermore, your examples of prejudice destroying personhood while correct does not apply to the abortion issue. This is because there is no taking of rights for anyone when you apply personhood more broadly in the context you present.

Not true. When slavery was still legal in the US, slaves were property. By granting personhood to African-Americans, the slave owners were denied their property rights. The right to freedom of a person supercedes the right of property.



Saying an African American is a person does not strip anyone of their personhood in the process.

And here you switch terms from "rights" to personhood. Two different terms. Plus saying a fetus is a person does not strip a woman of her personhood either. My mother, and yours carried us to full term, does that make her no longer a person?

However, if you claim that a fetus is a person and that as such it is your job to force women to carry out their pregancy no matter their personal wishes you are stripping the mother of her civil rights.

Just like the abolition of slavery stripped the slave owners of their civil rights to property ownership.

The civil rights of one person ends at the point where they significantly impact the civil rights of another person.

The classic example is the right to free speech does not include shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The right of man to do with his body as he sees fit is a civil right. A man can go out and get a tatoo, a peircing, shave his head bald, grow his hair long, etc.

However, he can not use his body to commit rape or child molestation. Why? Because his right to use his body is only his right so long as it does not violate the right of another person.

So your argument is really begging the question. It is only valid if the fetus is in fact not a person.

You are saying the potential mother cedes her civil rights to that of a fetus. Does the woman lose her personhood the moment she becomes pregnant? If not then how can we say she has no right to make decisions over her own body? How do we say that an unconscious fetus has more rights and is more of a person than a woman standing before us?

It is not a question of "more" rights. It is a question of which right supersedes. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most others, the right to life is one of, if not the highest of all civil rights.

With a normal pregnancy there is not a substantial risk to the mother's life, therefore, the right to life of the fetus supersedes the right of the mother to do with her body what she wishes.

To parallel, let us say I break into a car because I am homeless and cold. I fall asleep in the car. I am unconscious. The owner of the car, certainly has the right to use his property free of my presence. Would he be justified in killing me? Simply because I temporarily do not have consciousness.

Is the car owner less of a person because he cannot kill me in order to exercise his right to his property?

It seems to me that your argument is a case of special pleading. People are constantly denied certain civil rights when granting those rights would infringe upon the rights of others. This does cause these people to cease being persons. Why should a pregnant woman wanting to kill a fetus be any different (without begging the question)?

To me "consciousness" is just as arbitrary as past delimiters (race, color, gender, national origin, etc.)

[Seasanctuary]

I am not understanding your position here. History proves you correct about the sliding scale for what counts as a person. At times that has not included a great many groups. And to this day it is difficult to attain consensus on what counts as a person.

Has it, in general, been better to be inclusive or exclusive?


Is a brain-dead vegtable a person? If so then how so? If it is because they were once a person so they are always a person how do we arrive at that? Because we wouldn't say a corpse is a person.

If the dead occasionally woke up so long as they weren't cremated, I imagine we would treat corpses differently. Our willingness to 'pull the plug' on someone in a coma usually scales with the likelihood of some recovery. The unborn are highly likely to become functional human beings if we keep them on the natural life support in a womb.


Could it be that there is more to being a person than simply physical make-up? Could it be consciousness?

I agree. Which is precisely why birth is a terrible dividing line. The unborn are conscious for much of pregnancy.


However, if you claim that a fetus is a person and that as such it is your job to force women to carry out their pregancy no matter their personal wishes you are stripping the mother of her civil rights.

As Lizard pointed out, you are switching terms. It does not take personhood away from the mother to deny her the 'right' to kill her unborn. I absolutely support the right to decide whether or not to have a child. When carrying that child it is simply too late; the decision has been made.


If not then how can we say she has no right to make decisions over her own body?

Question begging. The unborn are not organs of a woman's body.

[Bagger_Vance]

That seems rather arbitrary to me. When I am asleep, I am not conscious. I am not still a person?

You are indeed still conscious enough to be woken up at an alarm or the like. And it certainly isn't arbitrary because it is the consciousness that separates humans from animals. If you believe there is such a distinction.



Not true. When slavery was still legal in the US, slaves were property. By granting personhood to African-Americans, the slave owners were denied their property rights. The right to freedom of a person supercedes the right of property.

However, I thought we were assuming personhood claims by slavery enthusiasts was wrong. Persons aren't property therefore there was no property right to begin with so the slaveowner never had a right to lose.




And here you switch terms from "rights" to personhood. Two different terms. Plus saying a fetus is a person does not strip a woman of her personhood either. My mother, and yours carried us to full term, does that make her no longer a person?

I don't switch terms. I illustrated that if an African American was always a person then there was never any right to own him/her. So the slaveowner never had a right to own them. They owned them, but had no right to because the slave was a person. Personhood entails rights. The African taken into slavery never ceased to be a person simply because they were a slave. So when they were freed from slavery it is nonsensical to speak of the slaveowner losing a right of property. The slave was a person and never property despite their claim to the contrary.

But personhood matters on this point. If a woman is a person and that entails rights of autonomy then to say that you and I should be able to vote on her personal medical decisions is a contradiction. The woman is a person. She has her body and is not property of the state. Therefore she can make her own personal medical decisions with her doctor. If she had no right to her own body and medical decisions then how does that retain her personhood which entails rights?

And no matter what measure you use it still stands that the pregnant woman is a person with rights. It is my contention that an atheist would be more inclined to err on the side of the woman he/she can see and knows is a person rather than sacrificing her autonomy for the vague notion that a fetus is a person. Which it may or may not be the case.



Just like the abolition of slavery stripped the slave owners of their civil rights to property ownership.

The civil rights of one person ends at the point where they significantly impact the civil rights of another person.

The classic example is the right to free speech does not include shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The right of man to do with his body as he sees fit is a civil right. A man can go out and get a tatoo, a peircing, shave his head bald, grow his hair long, etc.

However, he can not use his body to commit rape or child molestation. Why? Because his right to use his body is only his right so long as it does not violate the right of another person.

So your argument is really begging the question. It is only valid if the fetus is in fact not a person.

There never was a civil right to own another person. So there was no stripping of rights to a slaveowner there was only recognizing the right of the slave as a person as was always the case. This is the same principle that says you can't steal your money back from a thief. If a thief takes your money it is not considered his property and thus if you take it back you didn't steal from him.

[Soundsurfr]

This is the same principle that says you can't steal your money back from a thief. If a thief takes your money it is not considered his property and thus if you take it back you didn't steal from him.

Unless, of course, you're OJ Simpson. :smile:

[Faramir]

You are indeed still conscious enough to be woken up at an alarm or the like. And it certainly isn't arbitrary because it is the consciousness that separates humans from animals. If you believe there is such a distinction.


I see you totally ignored my much more parallel comparison of a person in a medically induced comma..... and by doing so totally dodged the point.


However, I thought we were assuming personhood claims by slavery enthusiasts was wrong. Persons aren't property therefore there was no property right to begin with so the slaveowner never had a right to lose.

No. Your argument was that by outlawing abortion we would deprive women of the right to control their body. You stated that there was no taking of rights when person hood was extended to slaves in the US. You claim that since a slave is a person, that the slave owners had no property rights. That is not true. They did have property rights. However, those rights end when they infringe on the rights of liberty of the former slaves.

And if I change your argument around just a bit it will fit quite nicely with the abortion issue:

However, I thought we were assuming personhood claims by abortion enthusiasts was wrong. Persons aren't tissue therefore there was no right to abortion to begin with so the abortionist never had a right to lose.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either A) extending person hood to slavery did infringe on civil rights of property ownership OR B) the slave owner never had the right to that property to at the expense of another person begin with.

And by parallel:

A) Either extending to person hood to the unborn infringes upon the right to privacy of the mother OR B) the mother never had the right to privacy at the expense of another person.

To be consistent both have to be A or B, you can't have one A and one B (well you did, but you are not being consistent).

And remember your argument was not about whether or not an unborn child is a person, but about the consequences of extending personhood to an unborn child.


I don't switch terms. I illustrated that if an African American was always a person then there was never any right to own him/her. So the slaveowner never had a right to own them. They owned them, but had no right to because the slave was a person. Personhood entails rights. The African taken into slavery never ceased to be a person simply because they were a slave. So when they were freed from slavery it is nonsensical to speak of the slaveowner losing a right of property. The slave was a person and never property despite their claim to the contrary.
If an unborn child was always a person, then there was never any right to abort him/her. So the mother never had a right to kill them. They aborted them, but had no right because the unborn child was a person. Personhood entails rights. The unborn child that was aborted never ceased to be a person simply because they were unborn. So when abortion is outlawed, it is nonsensical to speak of the mother losing a right of privacy. The unborn child was a person and never a piece of tissue despite the claim to the contrary.

See how this same argument can be applied to the abortion issue?

Yet you said:
Saying an African American is a person does not strip anyone of their personhood in the process. However, if you claim that a fetus is a person and that as such it is your job to force women to carry out their pregancy no matter their personal wishes you are stripping the mother of her civil rights. You are saying the potential mother cedes her civil rights to that of a fetus. Does the woman lose her personhood the moment she becomes pregnant? If not then how can we say she has no right to make decisions over her own body? How do we say that an unconscious fetus has more rights and is more of a person than a woman standing before us?

Your entire argument is begging the question. You are assuming the personhood of African Americans, but denying the personhood of the unborn.

Now that is an argument that has been used, but that is not the argument you were raising. You were saying that by granting personhood to the unborn, it would strip personhood from the mother. However, as you aptly cited making a similar claim about African American slaves is nonsensical. I agree. That was my point that your argument was nonsensical.


But personhood matters on this point. If a woman is a person and that entails rights of autonomy then to say that you and I should be able to vote on her personal medical decisions is a contradiction. The woman is a person. She has her body and is not property of the state. Therefore she can make her own personal medical decisions with her doctor. If she had no right to her own body and medical decisions then how does that retain her personhood which entails rights?

But personhood matters on this point. If a slave owner is a person that entails the rights of property ownership then to say that you and I should be able to vote on her property ownership is a contradiction. The slave owner is a person. He has his property and it is not the property of the state. Therefore he can make his own personal property decisions with his vendor. If he has not rights to property, then how can he retain his personhood which entails rights?

Do you not see that you are applying a double standard here? Personhood doesn't matter to the slave owner because the personhood of the slave trumps his rights. But you do not allow the same for the unborn.


And no matter what measure you use it still stands that the pregnant woman is a person with rights. It is my contention that an atheist would be more inclined to err on the side of the woman he/she can see and knows is a person rather than sacrificing her autonomy for the vague notion that a fetus is a person. Which it may or may not be the case.

What is so vague about the notion that a fetus is a person? To a proponent of slavery, the idea that an African American was a person was a pretty vague notion too.



There never was a civil right to own another person. So there was no stripping of rights to a slaveowner there was only recognizing the right of the slave as a person as was always the case. This is the same principle that says you can't steal your money back from a thief. If a thief takes your money it is not considered his property and thus if you take it back you didn't steal from him.

There never was a civil right to murder another person. So there will not be stripping of rights to a mother when abortion is outlawed only recognizing the right of the unborn child as a person as was always the case.

The fact that I can apply every argument you make against slavery to abortion makes it clear to me that the personhood of an unborn child is no more vague than the personhood of an African American.

[MikeDot]

I'm one of the rare atheists who believes that abortions is wrong. The only time it is right is for cases such as rape and incest (did I spell that right?).

Atheism should NOT be tossed together with pro-choice. Atheism is the disbelief and/or denial of the existence of gods; it has nothing to do with whether or not you are pro-choice.

[Faramir]

I'm one of the rare atheists who believes that abortions is wrong. The only time it is right is for cases such as rape and incest (did I spell that right?).

Atheism should NOT be tossed together with pro-choice. Atheism is the disbelief and/or denial of the existence of gods; it has nothing to do with whether or not you are pro-choice.
I agree. At one time, I was very active in the pro-life movement. One reason I am less active now is pragmatic, I was active in the campus pro-life group while I was in college. I no longer have a convenient forum to be active in, plus as a parent with a full time job, I don't have a much spare time.

But one of the things that I really didn't like about the movement was the overtly Christian focus of the entire pro-life community. And remember I am and was at that time a Christian (who has been given express permission to post in this thread). But I am also a libertarian and see abortion as a political issue and not a religious issue.

I think the pro-life community needs to reach out to people of other faith and people of no faith.

Just my :2cents:

[laffer]

I don't consider 'pro-choice' part of atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god/gods, nothing more than that.

So nothing, not even evolution, is really part of atheism. It just happens to be a good natural explanation that many atheists think is correct.

[DMCanuck]

I would not expect an atheist to be automaticaly pro choice. I would not expect a theist to be pro-life.

I know some Buddhists that are pro-life for example, though not all Buddhists are atheistic...

I know theists that are pro-choice.

like anything , there are spectrums on this issue.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't consider 'pro-choice' part of atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god/gods, nothing more than that.This was going to be my original response, so I'll just quote it instead now.

Atheism has nothing to do with abortion.

I do find a bit of the abortion argument ironic. I, as a pro-choice person, believe in a person's right to be against abortion. Yet, that person who is against abortion, is against my choice to believe in their choice.

[Seasanctuary]

I do find a bit of the abortion argument ironic. I, as a pro-choice person, believe in a person's right to be against abortion. Yet, that person who is against abortion, is against my choice to believe in their choice.

It's not self defeating in that way. Pro-Life folks tend to think abortion is a crime against another person just like theft or murder. Pro-Choice folks tend to think abortion is only about one person's self action.

So Pro-Lifers are not choosing for themselves not to abort, then telling others they shouldn't be able to make the same decision. They see it as universally wrong before the decision to do so or not even comes into play.

Let's take the ethically controversial area of digital music sharing. There is a distinction between the following two scenarios:

* I've decided not to download music I haven't paid for. I like to own physical media with the nice cover art as part of the music experience. Plus, I can more easily pop the music CD into my garage stereo without bothering with burning a copy. Since this is my own decision, other people shouldn't download music they haven't paid for either.

* I can't see downloading music I haven't paid for as anything but theft which eventually harms the people who make these wonderful tunes. Therefore neither I nor anyone else should download music we haven't paid for.

Another analogy might be those who choose to be vegetarian for health or 'meat isn't appetizing to me' reasons vs. those who believe it is immoral to eat meat.

I suppose I'm saying it isn't hypocritical. A Pro-Choice person can certainly disagree with the premise that abortion is immoral, but not accuse a Pro-Life person of making a choice while denying others the same choice. There is an incongruity but only because the two incongruous viewpoints are being mixed.

[EvoUK]

You do see a strong correlation between Atheism and certain viewpoints.

Whilst it's true that the only thing that defines an atheist is his or her lack of belief in god(s), it is interesting to note that a high percentage of them are pro-choice.

Though I have to conclude that religious people are generally just as pro-choice as non-religious ones. Take America for example. America is absurdly religious for a developed country, and because of that, is to the right, politically, of other western countries. Abortion is still legal there.

If you visit an atheist discussion board, you'll find that although there are a couple of exceptions, most of them would be pro-choice, anti Iraq war (from the beginning), pro gay marriage etc.

Despite the OP, most, if not all discussions I see in here and take part in with regards to abortion, do not mention religious reasons for being anti-abortion. I used to be quite suprised about this, not that I'd even consider it relevant to the discussion if they did bring it up.

[Zeluvia]

No, I consider it a part of feminism.

[Uncouth Angel]

I have a friend who is an atheist and against abortion. His reasons for sympathizing with the prof-life side of the debate is a scientific one, not a religious one. Human life begins at conception, and this is a biologically proven fact, whether we bring God into the question or not.

He even came up with an interesting rebuttal to the "It's my body" argument:

"What part of 'your body' has different DNA than you? A different heart beat?"Posting in a non-theist area? Only if you're a non-theist!

[Uncouth Angel]

No, I consider it a part of feminism.
Interesting to note that many of the founding feminists, like Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wollstonecraft were themselves pro-life, but most feminists seem to ignore that these days.

I'm of the firm opinion that why you believe something can be more important than what you believe, and I think many feminists are pro-choice for the wrong reasons. For example, while I consider abortion to be murder and inexcuseable on any moral ground, I think it needs to be legal for pragmatic and health reasons, and that is simply because making it illegal would increase the rate of dangerous coathanger abortions and actually cause more harm than good. That is the ONLY reason I think abortion needs to be legal, not out of some misguided notion that women should have the "right" to commit infanticide for the sake of their own selfish convenience.