NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that all of the pro-lifers that I've met seem to be religious, and mostly belong some sect of Christianity.

I'd be interested to know if there are any atheists here that are opposed to abortion.

EDIT:
In the poll, where I said "pro-abortion", I meant "pro-choice". Sorry about that.

I've noticed that all of the pro-lifers that I've met seem to be religious, and mostly belong some sect of Christianity.

I'd be interested to know if there are any atheists here that are opposed to abortion.
Dude this could totally be discussed in a foxhole over some relaxing jell o and ice cream- why the new thread?

Dude this could totally be discussed in a foxhole over some relaxing jell o and ice cream- why the new thread?
Because it was off-topic to the other thread...
Hey, wait, the other thread was already off-topic, wasn't it. Oh, whatever.

Really, I just wanted my very own poll, is probably most of it.
:D

There's no such thing as a pro-abortion person. Only people who are in favour of it not be a crime. It doesn't mean they think everyone should do it.

Well... I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a "Christian" (in that I don't accept the Bible as being inerrant, and I don't pay much heed to the Tanakh), but I'm kind of pro-life. But it's not a religious reason - I don't think abortion is as bad as murder, but I personally think that the children should be (if possible) adopted into members' of the extended family's families. This is mainly because I think it's hard for people who can't have children, knowing that people out there would rather kill them than let you raise their child. On the other hand, tho, abortion does help to keep the population down, thus letting there be more resources for hungry people. So I don't know.

There's no such thing as a pro-abortion person. Only people who are in favour of it not be a crime. It doesn't mean they think everyone should do it.

Yeah, I mainly voted for pro-abortion, non-religious because he seemed so happy to have his own poll. :D

But really, I think it has its places, but for people that are just too lazy to use *some* protection... just take your hand out to a nice dinner, romance it a little... you know, maybe sparks will fly.

"Pro-abortion" is my new favourite phrase- it makes me think of mormon looking chappies in nice suits going round door to door until a pregnant woman answers a door and they go into their sales speech"Excuse me but have you ever thought about letting abortion into your life?"

There's no such thing as a pro-abortion person. Only people who are in favour of it not be a crime. It doesn't mean they think everyone should do it.
Oh shit!
Thanks for pointing that out...
I meant to put "pro-choice".
Err, is there a way to edit polls?

You need to account for pro-choice :d

ok... so far the results are obvious... religious people have a big fat problem:
they always miss the right option in the poll.

Well... I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a "Christian" (in that I don't accept the Bible as being inerrant, and I don't pay much heed to the Tanakh), but I'm kind of pro-life. But it's not a religious reason - I don't think abortion is as bad as murder, but I personally think that the children should be (if possible) adopted into members' of the extended family's families. This is mainly because I think it's hard for people who can't have children, knowing that people out there would rather kill them than let you raise their child. On the other hand, tho, abortion does help to keep the population down, thus letting there be more resources for hungry people. So I don't know.

People who can't have children (and want children) need to adopt something besides healthy white babies. A ten-year-old in a foster home needs to be adopted more than an unwanted embryo/fetus. Of course, here's a solution -- are we scientifically capable of harvesting the embryos and implanting them into people who actually wish to be pregnant? We create embryos in a lab environment all the time, and the 'extras' are destroyed/frozen. Perhaps unwanted embryos could have the same fate.

ok... so far the results are obvious... religious people have a big fat problem:
they always miss the right option in the poll.
That vote was me- it was the closest thing to "i like boobies" that the poll had

You need to account for pro-choice :d
Yeah, read the post right above yours. I meant to say pro-choice instead of pro-abortion.

I'm a bad Catholic.

Well, I'm an atheist who hasn't heard or thought of a convincing argument for either side. I think that, as the world becomes more over-populated, though, abortions will become more commonly accepted.

I don't think I really fit your categories. I'm far left, anti-Christian, but I believe in God (Jewish philosophy though), and am pro-life except rape and threat to the mother's life.

If you get knocked up, sorry, but it's your responsibility. You could take precautions, but apparently you were lazy.

Oh, and I'd like to add that I'm not a zealot or anything, and am a pretty moderate Jew, and haven't really converted yet. (I'm gay, which says a lot! Haha)

I don't think I really fit your categories. I'm far left, anti-Christian, but I believe in God (Jewish philosophy though), and am pro-life except rape and threat to the mother's life.

If you get knocked up, sorry, but it's your responsibility. You could take precautions, but apparently you were lazy.

Oh, and I'd like to add that I'm not a zealot or anything, and am a pretty moderate Jew, and haven't really converted yet. (I'm gay, which says a lot! Haha)

Precautions don't always work. Birth control has a failure rate, and condoms break.


And don't bring up the risk thing. Denying a woman the option of abortion when her efforts failed is like denying a car accident victim medical treatment because he/she took the risk and got into the car.

Also, having an abortion IS taking responsibility if you don't believe you can care for the child and are morally opposed to carrying a child nine months just to give it up for adoption.

Precautions don't always work. Birth control has a failure rate, and condoms break.


And don't bring up the risk thing. Denying a woman the option of abortion when her efforts failed is like denying a car accident victim medical treatment because he/she took the risk and got into the car.

You don't die from being pregnant (unless you're ill, in which case you should have an abortion.) On the other hand, someone DOES die when you have an abortion for no reason. People argue between whether or not a fetus is self-aware and feeling, but I figure we don't remember being fetuses, so how should we know? We should leave leeway in both directions--take precautions to avoid unnecessary killing, but not put speculation before the welfare of a rape victim or someone too ill or young to give birth.

You don't die from being pregnant (unless you're ill, in which case you should have an abortion.) On the other hand, someone DOES die when you have an abortion for no reason. People argue between whether or not a fetus is self-aware and feeling, but I figure we don't remember being fetuses, so how should we know? We should leave leeway in both directions--take precautions to avoid unnecessary killing, but not put speculation before the welfare of a rape victim or someone to ill or young to give birth.

Death from childbirth is a very real possibility. Perhaps not as great a danger as 150 years ago, but it's still quite possible.

Also, having an abortion IS taking responsibility if you don't believe you can care for the child and are morally opposed to carrying a child nine months just to give it up for adoption.

How is putting a child up for adoption morally objectionable? I think it's better than depriving the kid of a future.

Death from childbirth is a very real possibility. Perhaps not as great a danger as 150 years ago, but it's still quite possible.

That's why I said you should have an abortion if you're too sick to give birth.

How is putting a child up for adoption morally objectionable? I think it's better than depriving the kid of a future.

It is the same as depriving a kid of a future. It allows a baby to be adopted while pre-teen sits in the adoption system and rots during one of the most crucial points in her life.

That's why I said you should have an abortion if you're too sick to give birth.

There's not really any sort of logical argument here. I was just saying.

It is the same as depriving a kid of a future. It allows a baby to be adopted while pre-teen sits in the adoption system and rots during one of the most crucial points in her life.

Would you rather be waiting to be adopted or not exist?

That's why I said you should have an abortion if you're too sick to give birth.

It's usually not someone who is "too sick." It is often someone who runs into unforseen complications during the delivery, such as losing too much blood during a c-section or a reaction to an epidural, or even a heart attack or stroke during labor.

How is putting a child up for adoption morally objectionable? I think it's better than depriving the kid of a future.

If you're opposed to carrying a child just to give it away. Maybe there are people out there who wouldn't want to deal with the emotional strife of giving up a child, but know that they couldn't possibly provide for it.

Yes, please say pro-chioce. I'm not in favor of abortion, I'm in favor of people making their own choices without government interference.

Would you rather be waiting to be adopted or not exist? There is no "waiting to be adopted." There is being adopted, or not being adopted. Personally, if I had to wait out my childhood in a foster home or as a ward of the state, I'd rather not exist. There are things worse than death.

Would you rather be waiting to be adopted or not exist?

How would you even have an opinion if you didn't exist? That's appealing to emotion; logical fallacy.

There is no "waiting to be adopted." There is being adopted, or not being adopted. Personally, if I had to wait out my childhood in a foster home or as a ward of the state, I'd rather not exist. There are things worse than death.

I don't think it's fair for you to make that decision for other people. Many people stay in the "system" but have happy lives. (My grandpa, for example. ^^)

How would you even have an opinion if you didn't exist? That's appealing to emotion; logical fallacy.

You wouldn't, which is why we have to deal with these issues to protect future children.

Please, if I start to sound like a fundamentalist, just stop me! Haha.

I don't think it's fair for you to make that decision for other people. Many people stay in the "system" but have happy lives. (My grandpa, for example. ^^)

I don't think it's fair for you to make decisions about what goes on inside of a woman's body, either. Many women have abortions early in life and go on to have children they love and adore.

I don't think it's fair for you to make decisions about what goes on inside of a woman's body, either. Many women have abortions early in life and go on to have children they love and adore.

But what about the children who didn't have the chance to be adored?

Deist, Strongly anti-personal responsibility zealots, strongly against religious fundamentalism, anti-all religious conversion other then when the convert asks about the religion him or herself, anti-far right conservatism, anti-moralistic people, very pro-tough on violent crime.

And pro lettting women choose personally what they want to believe and do in regards to abortion. As well as of the opinion that males have no business being pro-life. They can't get pregnant, thus should not be as arrogant to demand that women should keep the child.

People are free to have whatever morals they want, but they should also keep them to themselves entirely.

Your freedom ends where anothers freedom begin.

Far right types to often thing everyone should live by there morals, and that is one of my many reasons for despising them.

As well as of the opinion that males have no business being pro-life.

Doesn't everyone have the right to protect the rights of children?

But what about the children who didn't have the chance to be adored?

Like you? Sorry, couldn't resist the flame. Anyway, back to what I was going to say..

Hypothetical children don't matter. And for that matter, older children in the adoption system don't get the chance to be adored -- they're too busy being numbers on paperwork.

Ick, I sound like such a Republican. :(

Like you? Sorry, couldn't resist the flame. Anyway, back to what I was going to say..

Hypothetical children don't matter. And for that matter, older children in the adoption system don't get the chance to be adored -- they're too busy being numbers on paperwork.

A) Haha, I like a good flame. ^^

B) You don't know whether a child will be happy or not in adoption. You should really let the child decide. And besides, why can't we just spend more money to make the lives of kids put up for adoption better?

(Better than buying stupid wars)

And pro lettting women choose personally what they want to believe and do in regards to abortion. As well as of the opinion that males have no business being pro-life. They can't get pregnant, thus should not be as arrogant to demand that women should keep the child.
You realize that there isn't a significant difference between the percentages of women who oppose abortion and men who oppose abortion, right?

A) Haha, I like a good flame. ^^

B) You don't know whether a child will be happy or not in adoption. You should really let the child decide. And besides, why can't we just spend more money to make the lives of kids put up for adoption better?

(Better than buying stupid wars)


You don't know either. The child does not make the decision. The young or poor person who gives birth to it does. Anyway, isn't birth control getting rid of the potential for life? *facetious*

By the way, we DO need to spend more wisely. Thanks for bringing that up.

I don't like getting involved in topics like this because there are a lot of people who feel very passionately about both sides, and it's difficult to maintain a logical progression. It's always being interrupted by murderers and control freaks. In the interests of starting a real discussion, I'd like to put forward the following opinions. Please tell me if you object to using any of them as axioms.

1. A non-anarchist government is responsible, to a certain extent, for enforcing moral guidelines. These morals should not have a religious basis, but they do need to be agreed upon for the benefit of society.

2. Ending a human life without consent or reason to believe that it will never gain consciousness is against the laws of society.

3. Menstruation and masturbation are not against the laws of society.


So, when does it become murder? It must be somewhere between points 2 and 3. Would somebody like to try to narrow it down by argument?

Many claim that it should be only the female's decision. I would require, then, that the father be able to give up all of his rights to a child that he doesn't want, in order to free himself of his financial responsibility.

ur moms an atheist pro-lifer

:headbang:
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped thechronicler's mind."
-DA

ur moms an atheist pro-lifer

:headbang:
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped thechronicler's mind."
-DA
What exactly was that?

I've noticed that all of the pro-lifers that I've met seem to be religious, and mostly belong some sect of Christianity.

I'd be interested to know if there are any atheists here that are opposed to abortion.

EDIT:
In the poll, where I said "pro-abortion", I meant "pro-choice". Sorry about that.

I am an agnosticist, close enough to atheist methinx and I think abortions should only be performed when the mother's life would otherwise be in danger, of if the child is believed to have a big enough chance to die within the first couple of weeks, which would only be agony for the poor unfortunate kid.

Doesn't everyone have the right to protect the rights of children?

There are no children involved in elective abortions, unless the mother for some reason brings along an already born child.

Use correct terminology or I will throw frozen trout at you.

There are no children involved in elective abortions, unless the mother for some reason brings along an already born child.

Use correct terminology or I will throw frozen trout at you.

Perhaps if the mother is under the age of 18?

I will throw frozen trout at you.

:D

There are no children involved in elective abortions, unless the mother for some reason brings along an already born child.

Use correct terminology or I will throw frozen trout at you.
Throw away. Terminology adopted to salve the conscience of one side of the debate is not necessarily correct unless you mean politically. If that is the case then you should be aware not all people suscribe to the politically correct model.

Anybody looking at a modern sonagram, even within the first trimester, can see a functioning prebirth infant. I am not religious. I am pro choice. I am anti bullshit. Why not face facts and admit that you are taking a life? We do it to chickens, cows, sheep, etc. every day. It's called slaughter.

But what about the children who didn't have the chance to be adored?

tough

I suppose I'm prochoice because I think abortion should be legal as long as people want to do it. Personally I'm prolife in all circumstances because I believe that a foetus is an alive person and alive people have a "right" to life that overwhelms all other "rights".

This is nothing to do with god, as i am not so much atheist as apathetic. It is to do with selfishness or not. I don't think a society that allows someone to kill another someone because their existence is an inconvenience is going to function in the best possible way. I think society should encourage much greater empathy, and anyone who wants an abortion should be made to sit through some explanation of what the foetus can hear, react to etc at the time they want the abortion. If you're going to kill someone I think you should know that you're doing it.

There are no children involved in elective abortions, unless the mother for some reason brings along an already born child.

Use correct terminology or I will throw frozen trout at you.

I don't think it is "correct terminology" to apply the word child only to born children, and neither, obviously, do you. If you have to point out that a child = an already born child, you are basically admitting that it is fair enough terminology to say "not yet born child". Otherwise you wouldn't need to (and perhaps wouldn't be able to) draw the distinction.

That vote was me- it was the closest thing to "i like boobies" that the poll had

ok... I think that option should have been in the poll but what the hell... we can still have jell-o and ice cream...
And remember: abortion is our friend.

It really depends on the situtation. Im an ateitst but people should´nt use abortion as a form of birth controll. If you don´t want a baby use rubber, baby!!

abortion definitely should remain legal, because it is after all the woman's own body. true, there is this living thing inside of her, but if she does not want it, why subject the child to the realization that it's parents did not want it to be alive? that would be a tough thing to live with for the rest of a kids life.