I have run in pro-life circles for 14 years now. And in that time I have only met a handfull of atheists - about 5. The vast majority of pro-lifers are either christian, muslim, or orthodox jews. Now when it comes to the practical application of one's ethics why is it that the theists are the ones trying to save innocent human lives, and the atheists who don't seem to care?

I have been reading about the Catholic Church for quite sometime now. And in that time I have never heard of an atheist Priest or Bishop. The vast majority of Catholic Priests are, well Catholic. And they are thoroughly trained Christian theologians (much more so than Seer), who have to pass a rigorous review before they are ordained. Now when it comes to the practical application of one's ethics why is it that so many countless Priests have raped and sexually molested children, and then intimitated them to keep them quiet, and had their transgressions covered up by their stonewalling Bishops? Why are so few in jail and why are the victims paid off with the hard earned donations of their congregations?

LGM
...just imagining the lucky atheist who got to stand next to Seer with his bullhorn and "Burn in Hell" placard at his last pro-life rally...

Now when it comes to the practical application of one's ethics why is it that the theists are the ones trying to save innocent human lives, and the atheists who don't seem to care?

Do you have any solid evidence to show that atheists don't care about saving lives? You know, that Buddhists, Confucians, pantheists, etc just don't care?

Vorkosigan

Actually there are Atheists for Life.

Also remember that America is like 90% theist... and abortion is still legal here.

- Ehhh...

why is it that the theists are the ones trying to save innocent human lives, and the atheists who don't seem to care?

- This is pretty much the standard anti-choice line. "Innocent human lives"... well define "life". Do you mean a cluster of cells without the capacity for thought? Or do you mean a human being? There's a tremendous difference.

Today @ 02:08 AM post located here
seer:

Now when it comes to the practical application of one's ethics why is it that the theists are the ones trying to save innocent human lives, and the atheists who don't seem to care?

Nice loaded question, Seer.

Do you have any solid evidence to show that atheists don't care about saving lives? You know, that Buddhists, Confucians, pantheists, etc just don't care?

I do know Buddists that are strongly pro-life. Are you pro-life Vorkosigan? How many atheist here are pro-life?

This is pretty much the standard anti-choice line. "Innocent human lives"... well define "life". Do you mean a cluster of cells without the capacity for thought? Or do you mean a human being? There's a tremendous difference.

As far as I know human life starts at one point - conception.

Actually there are Atheists for Life.

One of the most radical pro-lifers I knew was a woman and an atheist...

I would guess that's an indication that there are no good reasons for being anti-abortion outside from adhering to the commandments of a fundie religion... wouldn't you? Similarly, it's amazing how few non-Jews wear yarmulkes for the fashion statement alone.

Hello WinAce:

I would guess that's an indication that there are no good reasons for being anti-abortion outside from adhering to the commandments of a fundie religion... wouldn't you?

Ummmmmmmmm no. Here is why I believe an atheist is more likely to take a pro-choice stance than a Christian is........

1. The definition of life****Since an atheist would presumably be using science as his (yes Im using the male tense here, so just eat it all you feminists) guide for the definition of life he would have a rather blurry "line in the sand" for when the embryo is truly "life". With science as the guide the exact moment isnt really cut and dry, so I could see why an atheist would be pro-choice (since pro-life excludes ALL abortion....regardless of development or lack thereof)

2. The definition of human****Again the definition according to science can be a bit blurry here as to exactly when the embryo is truly "human". We Christians believe this begins at conception, but many people disagree and believe consciousness is directly related to brain function alone.

3. Special circumstances****I have heard atheists argue from the position of practicality also. They might say that if an unwanted child is forcibly brought into this world, then it might be better for society (and maybe even the child also) if the child was never born in the first place. Kind of a "least harm principle" argument. ****Also under this category are the situations of medical complications with the pregnancy and rape. These might also contribute to someone not being pro-life.



So those are some reasons why I think an atheist might be pro-choice and not pro-life.

Similarly, it's amazing how few non-Jews wear yarmulkes for the fashion statement alone.

Sorry WinAce, this one isnt quite that simple. (Nice try though---here have a bunny ) Satire and witty comments arent enough to explain this one because it is a complex issue.



Russ

As far as I know human life starts at one point - conception.

- And I repeat: Human life is not the same thing as a human being.

- My skin cells are "human life".

Today @ 02:17 PM post located here
warcraft3:

Hello WinAce:

Hi there.

Ummmmmmmmm no. Here is why I believe an atheist is more likely to take a pro-choice stance than a Christian is........

Those are pretty much the reasons anyone would be pro-choice. For a large segment of the population, however, what they infer from an ancient text takes precedence over such reasons. Atheists (generally) have no such problem.

And I wasn't kidding about the yarmulke analogy....

And I repeat: Human life is not the same thing as a human being.

- My skin cells are "human life".

That is just silly. Your skin cells are not human life.

We have two facts:

1. The fetus is alive (life).

2. And it is human (not plant,fish,mineral).

= human life. So you say it is ok to kill innocent human life?

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here
seer:

That is just silly. Your skin cells are not human life.

We have two facts:

1. The fetus is alive (life).

2. And it is human (not plant,fish,mineral).

= human life. So you say it is ok to kill innocent human life?

But by that definition, your skin cells are human life...

1. Your skin cells are alive (life)

2. And they are human (not plant, fish, mineral)

= human life. So do you exfoliate?

For the record, however, although I do not recognize a zygote or blastocyst as human life worthy of legal protection, I am generally opposed to abortion as a means of birth control. It should be primarily a procedure of medical or psychological necessity.

C. D. Ward

For the record, however, although I do not recognize a zygote or blastocyst as human life worthy of legal protection.

Exactly,few atheist do. My point all along... Making excuses to kill innocent human life.

But by that definition, your skin cells are human life...

1. Your skin cells are alive (life)

2. And they are human (not plant, fish, mineral)

= human life. So do you exfoliate?

Then you wouldn't mind if I skinned you?

The fact is a skin cell is part of the human body, a zygote is the WHOLE human.