Well, 'pro-life' can be a secular position. Like, if you have an extremely moralistic outlook on human life & fetal development, you might reach the conclusion that abortion is immoral without relying on a superstitious framework.
A friend of mine taught me a sort-of mean trick once: show a 'pro-life' proponent an image of a rat fetus (because a rat fetus - and indeed virtually any fetus - is all but indistinguishable from a human fetus) and ask them to explain why they think this form of life should be protected. They'll ramble on about how it's heart develops soooo quickly and it has some limited autonomy or whatever, and then you tell them it's a picture of a rat fetus, not a human fetus, and they couldn't even tell the difference.
Well, having an extremely moralistic outlook on human life & fetal development means that both of those things are at the focus of the way you morally frame the world. Or that's what I meant by it, anyway.
In otherwords, if you believe that it is always immoral to terminate a human life, it would also make sense to believe that aborting a human fetus is immoral (...it wouldn't be necessary to also believe that, but it would be logical).
EDIT: In a parallel way, there are also some secular homophobes. Not very many, granted, but it's possible to construct the framework if you really want to be an asshole without scapegoating a deity.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
There's an episode of the Point of Inquiry podcast wherein the conservative pro-life Robert M. Price interviews one of the heads of one of the largest atheistic pro-life organisations in the US.
The arguments were not very good, but it was interesting nonetheless.
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited April 2012
I know plenty of atheists who have mixed feelings about abortion, including many philosophers. For a while it was even taken as a standard example an issue where reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
I think this is bonkers, but it's less because I'm atheist than it is because I reject certain sorts of metaphysical theories of personhood. People who think both that people are identical to certain animals and that there exist well-defined starting and ending conditions for animals are more likely to think that fetal life has moral relevance. On the other hand, people like me, who primarily identify people with streams of conscious experience, are unlikely to think that fetal life means anything at all.
Well, having an extremely moralistic outlook on human life & fetal development means that both of those things are at the focus of the way you morally frame the world. Or that's what I meant by it, anyway.
In otherwords, if you believe that it is always immoral to terminate a human life, it would also make sense to believe that aborting a human fetus is immoral (...it wouldn't be necessary to also believe that, but it would be logical).
EDIT: In a parallel way, there are also some secular homophobes. Not very many, granted, but it's possible to construct the framework if you really want to be an asshole without scapegoating a deity.
So you're saying that they have a certain ethical view of abortion and the status of a fetus, and that effects their views and actions. Except wrapped up in such a way as to suggest that holding the moral views is the problem, not their content.
I gotta agree, I'm waaay conflicted about abortion.
I respect the rights of the individual to do as they please with their own body, and wouldn't dare suggest that outsiders have a say (certainly not religious people). I also know there have been definate benefits to abortion in the form of a reduced number of terrible parents raising children to be horrible people themselves etc.
But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest.
Let me be clear; I am pro-contraception. I'm just not pro-abortion-as-contraception.
But ultimately I feel it's better than children growing up neglected and abused...
Theres also a huge difference between saying I dont like abortions and I would never get one and I dont like abortions so nobody should get one ever, fuck you.
But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human.
Contraception also cuts off a potential human. Hell, so does abstinence. There's only a difference between them if you think that there's something really intrinsically important about fertilization, but that strikes me as an odd thing to think (though many people do indeed think it).
I guess I just feel that contraception better demonstrates that the people involved have actually prepared for the possibility of sex leading to pregnancy, whereas treating abortion as contraception gives off a much more irresponsible aura.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't think many people use abortion as contraception, and it's fairly insulting when people assume they do.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Pro-choicers really need to dispell this "we love life!" mantle the Pro-lifers enshroud themselves in. If they cared about life so much, they'd all be championing the EPA and the various government programs that measurably improve quality of life.
As it stands, they're all just a bunch of idiots who worship at the altar of White Fertility.
I don't think many people use abortion as contraception, and it's fairly insulting when people assume they do.
I've heard it was the preferred method of contraception in the Soviet Union, when the State provided abortions to Russian women for free, no questions asked. I don't know what happened to abortion rates after the USSR collapsed but Googling around, I see one blurb claiming that in 2006, there were 1.5 million live births in Russia and 1.6 million abortions.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Given the state of the economy in Russia, I'm not at all surprised by those numbers.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
They also have terrible access to birth control.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't think many people use abortion as contraception, and it's fairly insulting when people assume they do.
I've heard it was the preferred method of contraception in the Soviet Union, when the State provided abortions to Russian women for free, no questions asked. I don't know what happened to abortion rates after the USSR collapsed but Googling around, I see one blurb claiming that in 2006, there were 1.5 million live births in Russia and 1.6 million abortions.
Oh look, statistics concerning a country with a vastly different history and socio-economic structure from the United States.
I guess I just feel that contraception better demonstrates that the people involved have actually prepared for the possibility of sex leading to pregnancy, whereas treating abortion as contraception gives off a much more irresponsible aura.
I used to have a problem with this, as well, until I realized that if using abortion as contraception gives off an irresponsible aura, it's all the worse to suggest that such a person carry a pregnancy to term. That is to say, if abortion as contraception reflects so badly on such a person in your mind, these are the people we want entrusting fetuses to the least.
After that, I say, some mythical person having an abortion as contraception because they don't know enough or care enough or have enough money for contraception (the last one being silly since BC is so much less expensive than an abortion)? Go for it. Please.
The only problem remaining is that in my country (the UK) my taxes pay for those idiots to do this. Admittedly it's an infinitesimally small amount for me personally, but the fact remains. Maybe those types of people should be charged some nominal amount?
You had sex but didn't use any contraception and have only just realised after 3 months that you're pregnant, and a baby doens't fit into your life plans right now? You get charged. Etc.
Euphoriac on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The only problem remaining is that in my country (the UK) my taxes pay for those idiots to do this. Admittedly it's an infinitesimally small amount for me personally, but the fact remains. Maybe those types of people should be charged some nominal amount?
You had sex but didn't use any contraception and have only just realised after 3 months that you're pregnant, and a baby doens't fit into your life plans right now? You get charged. Etc.
I'd suggest you learn more about the subject before sticking your feet in your mouth again.
Basically this is an incredibly simplistic view of the subject. And the argument "my taxes pay for X so it shouldn't happen!"
I guess we'll charge soldiers to serve in the army because some people are pacifists.
Why wait? Just tell me what I said wrong and if I agree i'll apologise
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You start off saying "these idiots" and "my taxes" which are both silly statements to make. I can't speak for the UK's education system, but many people in the US don't have access to the education or health services which you seem to be taken for granted. I imagine the situation is similar in Britain.
The menstrual cycle isn't the same for every woman, so saying "stupid woman, you didn't know you're pregnant after only three months geeeeeeze" is just horrifically incorrect.
You're trivializing what is a magnificently complicated decision for women.
I don't think many people use abortion as contraception, and it's fairly insulting when people assume they do.
I just saw someone had posted that was overwhelmingly the case, but cant find the damn post atm to check the source. Edit to be made...and it was good ol Wikipedia.
Xeddicus on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You start off saying "these idiots" and "my taxes" which are both silly statements to make. I can't speak for the UK's education system, but many people in the US don't have access to the education or health services which you seem to be taken for granted. I imagine the situation is similar in Britain.
The menstrual cycle isn't the same for every woman, so saying "stupid woman, you didn't know you're pregnant after only three months geeeeeeze" is just horrifically incorrect.
You're trivializing what is a magnificently complicated decision for women.
Fair point, i'll retract the language, it was stupid. And maybe 3 months IS too short to realise.
But my overall point still stands. In my honest opinion, it is rediculous to abort a fetus simply because it would inconvinience you. Both partners using contraceptive should be ALL you need to prevent pregnancy. Hell, if either or both are THAT adverse to the idea, get some eggs/sperm frozen and get a vasectomy/tubal ligation until you are. We have the science!
You start off saying "these idiots" and "my taxes" which are both silly statements to make. I can't speak for the UK's education system, but many people in the US don't have access to the education or health services which you seem to be taken for granted. I imagine the situation is similar in Britain.
The menstrual cycle isn't the same for every woman, so saying "stupid woman, you didn't know you're pregnant after only three months geeeeeeze" is just horrifically incorrect.
You're trivializing what is a magnificently complicated decision for women.
Fair point, i'll retract the language, it was stupid. And maybe 3 months IS too short to realise.
But my overall point still stands. In my honest opinion, it is rediculous to abort a fetus simply because it would inconvinience you. Both partners using contraceptive should be ALL you need to prevent pregnancy. Hell, if either or both are THAT adverse to the idea, get some eggs/sperm frozen and get a vasectomy/tubal ligation until you are. We have the science!
That is not even close to a legitimate solution, though. Again, at least not in the US. Access to "just freeze some eggs/sperm" doesn't exist. Vasectomies are probably more affordable, but probably still beyond the means of teenagers/twenty year olds.
I find it hard to believe that there are people going around having sex and this conversation happens:
"Should I get a condom?"
"No need, I'll just go get a suck and chuck in a few months."
"Sweet."
I don't think many people use abortion as contraception, and it's fairly insulting when people assume they do.
I just saw someone had posted that was overwhelmingly the case, but cant find the damn post atm to check the source. Edit to be made...
They were posting about Soviet Russia
Not the post a few back, the one someone snagged the stats from wikipedia for the USA.
Would it shock you to find out that not everyone in the US has good access to contraception/sexual education, and that a lack of both correlates strongly with teen pregnancies and high abortion rates?
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Pro-choicers really need to dispell this "we love life!" mantle the Pro-lifers enshroud themselves in. If they cared about life so much, they'd all be championing the EPA and the various government programs that measurably improve quality of life.
As it stands, they're all just a bunch of idiots who worship at the altar of White Fertility.
This is ultimately my biggest problem with the 'pro-life' label: the vast majority are quite happy to deliver napalm baths to people overseas, have people executed in gas chambers, lobby for the murder of doctors, etc.
There's a bit of difference between those 2 groups (unborn people vs terrorists/felons/etc). A vast difference, really. So vast it's a nonsense comparison.
Isn't for Catholics, officially. Not that the Vatican gives much of a shit about their own stance on the death penalty. And God knows the American Bishops don't, as they are functioning as an arm of the Republican Party.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Wait what? From pro choice Pentecost to pro life atheist?
Oh god, why did I look at the comments!? Why do I always look at the comments!?
A friend of mine taught me a sort-of mean trick once: show a 'pro-life' proponent an image of a rat fetus (because a rat fetus - and indeed virtually any fetus - is all but indistinguishable from a human fetus) and ask them to explain why they think this form of life should be protected. They'll ramble on about how it's heart develops soooo quickly and it has some limited autonomy or whatever, and then you tell them it's a picture of a rat fetus, not a human fetus, and they couldn't even tell the difference.
Like what does that even mean?
Well, having an extremely moralistic outlook on human life & fetal development means that both of those things are at the focus of the way you morally frame the world. Or that's what I meant by it, anyway.
In otherwords, if you believe that it is always immoral to terminate a human life, it would also make sense to believe that aborting a human fetus is immoral (...it wouldn't be necessary to also believe that, but it would be logical).
EDIT: In a parallel way, there are also some secular homophobes. Not very many, granted, but it's possible to construct the framework if you really want to be an asshole without scapegoating a deity.
The arguments were not very good, but it was interesting nonetheless.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jen_roth_atheist_against_abortion/
I think this is bonkers, but it's less because I'm atheist than it is because I reject certain sorts of metaphysical theories of personhood. People who think both that people are identical to certain animals and that there exist well-defined starting and ending conditions for animals are more likely to think that fetal life has moral relevance. On the other hand, people like me, who primarily identify people with streams of conscious experience, are unlikely to think that fetal life means anything at all.
So you're saying that they have a certain ethical view of abortion and the status of a fetus, and that effects their views and actions. Except wrapped up in such a way as to suggest that holding the moral views is the problem, not their content.
But they are.
If you say abortions are a necessary evil, you're admitting abortion is evil.
I sincerely hope that you didn't make that post in a serious manner.
Because if so:
"Whoosh!
I respect the rights of the individual to do as they please with their own body, and wouldn't dare suggest that outsiders have a say (certainly not religious people). I also know there have been definate benefits to abortion in the form of a reduced number of terrible parents raising children to be horrible people themselves etc.
But I can't get around the fact that abortion is essentially cutting off a potential human. Especially when the abortion occurs on grounds other than medical or as a result of rape/incest.
Let me be clear; I am pro-contraception. I'm just not pro-abortion-as-contraception.
But ultimately I feel it's better than children growing up neglected and abused...
But that doesn't mean I'll ever stop anyone from getting one, either.
Incidentally, I'm also a man.
Contraception also cuts off a potential human. Hell, so does abstinence. There's only a difference between them if you think that there's something really intrinsically important about fertilization, but that strikes me as an odd thing to think (though many people do indeed think it).
As it stands, they're all just a bunch of idiots who worship at the altar of White Fertility.
I've heard it was the preferred method of contraception in the Soviet Union, when the State provided abortions to Russian women for free, no questions asked. I don't know what happened to abortion rates after the USSR collapsed but Googling around, I see one blurb claiming that in 2006, there were 1.5 million live births in Russia and 1.6 million abortions.
Oh look, statistics concerning a country with a vastly different history and socio-economic structure from the United States.
Well done.
I used to have a problem with this, as well, until I realized that if using abortion as contraception gives off an irresponsible aura, it's all the worse to suggest that such a person carry a pregnancy to term. That is to say, if abortion as contraception reflects so badly on such a person in your mind, these are the people we want entrusting fetuses to the least.
After that, I say, some mythical person having an abortion as contraception because they don't know enough or care enough or have enough money for contraception (the last one being silly since BC is so much less expensive than an abortion)? Go for it. Please.
The only problem remaining is that in my country (the UK) my taxes pay for those idiots to do this. Admittedly it's an infinitesimally small amount for me personally, but the fact remains. Maybe those types of people should be charged some nominal amount?
You had sex but didn't use any contraception and have only just realised after 3 months that you're pregnant, and a baby doens't fit into your life plans right now? You get charged. Etc.
I'd suggest you learn more about the subject before sticking your feet in your mouth again.
Basically this is an incredibly simplistic view of the subject. And the argument "my taxes pay for X so it shouldn't happen!"
I guess we'll charge soldiers to serve in the army because some people are pacifists.
The menstrual cycle isn't the same for every woman, so saying "stupid woman, you didn't know you're pregnant after only three months geeeeeeze" is just horrifically incorrect.
You're trivializing what is a magnificently complicated decision for women.
I just saw someone had posted that was overwhelmingly the case, but cant find the damn post atm to check the source. Edit to be made...and it was good ol Wikipedia.
They were posting about Soviet Russia
Fair point, i'll retract the language, it was stupid. And maybe 3 months IS too short to realise.
But my overall point still stands. In my honest opinion, it is rediculous to abort a fetus simply because it would inconvinience you. Both partners using contraceptive should be ALL you need to prevent pregnancy. Hell, if either or both are THAT adverse to the idea, get some eggs/sperm frozen and get a vasectomy/tubal ligation until you are. We have the science!
No it isn't. Babies are expensive, and birth control isn't 100% effective. Shit happens. This is not a perfect world.
That is not even close to a legitimate solution, though. Again, at least not in the US. Access to "just freeze some eggs/sperm" doesn't exist. Vasectomies are probably more affordable, but probably still beyond the means of teenagers/twenty year olds.
I find it hard to believe that there are people going around having sex and this conversation happens:
"Should I get a condom?"
"No need, I'll just go get a suck and chuck in a few months."
"Sweet."
Not the post a few back, the one someone snagged the stats from wikipedia for the USA.
Would it shock you to find out that not everyone in the US has good access to contraception/sexual education, and that a lack of both correlates strongly with teen pregnancies and high abortion rates?
God I wish they did. I laughed way too hard at this.
This is ultimately my biggest problem with the 'pro-life' label: the vast majority are quite happy to deliver napalm baths to people overseas, have people executed in gas chambers, lobby for the murder of doctors, etc.
'Pro-life' my ass.