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

[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.

[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]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: sc_q_jayce

Posting in a non-theist area? Only if you're a non-theist!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Uncouth Angel]

• Edited by a Moderator •