Atheism and Abortion

Often in the debate concerning abortion I see a majority of those who identify as atheist, also take the pro-choice position. This has always seemed odd to me for reasons I will now go into:

  1. Choice is arbitrary

The argument most often attached to the abortion debate is one of choice–that is–the choice for the woman to either carry the child or abort when it is still within the legal time frame. A late term abortion is considered as the 21st to 24th week of gestation, which is late in the second trimester, yet even within this we see the problem, that the choice is one of arbitrarily drawing a line of division and claiming that before this point, not life–while after this point–life.

Even the experts see this:

That gestational period roughly corresponds to the point of “fetal viability” or when a fetus might be able to survive outside the womb with or without medical assistance. However, there is no precise medical or legal definition of “late-term,” and many doctors and scientists avoid that language, calling it imprecise and misleading. So it seems to me that the only logically consistent position is that life begins at the beginning of the life process, conception.

If they cannot even accurately define one trimester from the next, how can they be expected to accurately define when life does or does not begin?

  1. No life but this life.

This one is much easier to express, if it is true that we only get this one chance at life, then it seem to me that the most humanitarian approach is to lean towards the assumption that life begins at the start of the biological process that creates life.

  1. Overt Attachment to Political Dogma

There seems to be to be an unwillingness to honestly asses the arguments from the pro-life side of the debate. Instead of an honest critique of their position, there is instead the outright regurgitation of pro-choice talking points, mockery in lieu of an argument, and self-congratulatory circle-jerking when one has ‘triggered’ the bible thumpers. But what about when the dogma is on your own side?

I would certainly argue that the position of ‘her body, her choice’ is one held not on reason or empirical evidence, but on dogma and dogma alone, by those who also identify as liberal or progressive.

Dogma is defined as: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

There are many examples both anecdotal and empirical that show that a child in a womb is not a ‘part’ of the mother’s body, in the same way as a pancreases or liver.

When a child in the womb gets hiccups, it is not the mother who has hiccups. Here we have an event that is within the body of the mother but entirely separate from her. For it is the child who is having muscle spasms, not the mother.

To finish, While an atheist is not an humanist by default. Atheism was a product of humanism, and to me, attachment to arbitrary choice, political dogma, arguments tantamount to sophistry, are counter to what it means to be a humanist, and by loose extension, atheism.

1 Like

AlphaLogica157Atheist

Awwww! For fuck sake… There is “NO” Atheism and abortion. Atheism says nothing at all about the Ancient biblical practice of abortion.

The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including “cursed shall be the fruit of your womb” and “you will eat the fruit of your womb,” directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).

God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).

For rebelling against God, Samaria’s people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).

ATHEISM IS A PRODUCT OF HUMANISM:
What fucktard planet did you grow up on?

HUMANISM: " Humanism , system of education and mode of inquiry that originated in northern Italy during the 13th and 14th centuries and later spread through continental Europe and England." ttps://www.google.com/search?q=origins+of+humanism&rlz=1C1SQJL_koKR896KR896&oq=Origins+of+humanism&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.4735j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

ATHEISM: “Diagoras of Melos who lived in 5th Century BCE is considered to be “ first atheist ”. For he blasphemed by making public the explanations for some mysteries of the time and discouraged people from being initiated. Also related to the earliest atheistic philosophy is the one of Epicureanism.”

YOU HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE!

CHOICE IS NOT THE ISSUE IN PRO-CHOICE: Damn you are one confused puppy. A woman’s right to her body IS NOT ARBITRARY! You can no more tell a woman what to do with her body than she can tell you what to do with yours.

“gestational period” is a fucking red herring bullshit argument. And!!! Even so, our current legal position is MUCH MORE MORAL than the fucking BIBLE.

YES A FRIGGING CELL IS ALIVE - SO WHAT! Once again you miss the entire point of the abortion debate. A WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY. A blasphemous does not have human rights.

I am neither liberal or progressive and still have the ability to grasp the fact that a woman has a right to her own body. Nothing dogmatic about that in any way shape or form.

With that said, and here is where the conservative bend comes into play. Abortions should not be free. They are not a normal part of health care for a woman. Furthermore, Abortion IS NOT birth control. If a woman is constantly having abortions, something is mentally wrong with her. IMO. We reserve the right to institutionalize people with mental problems. Abortion is not as simple as removing an unwanted tooth. I believe it should be taken seriously and treated as a serious issue. It is, in my opinion, a very serious choice for a woman to make. Treating it like simple dental surgery is just weird. So while I am 100% pro-choice, I also believe there should be restrictions. And the only people doing the counseling right now appear to be the pro-life assholes who guilt moms into having babies that they do not want and can not care for.

No one argues that a child in the womb is 'PART OF THE MOTHER’S BODY" Where in the fk do you come up with this stuff? The fetus lives off the mother’s body in the same way a hookworm or other parasite lives off the mother’s body. Without the mother’s body the fetus would die. It is DEPENDENT on the mother’s body for survival. It is the mother’s choice to allow that dependency or to terminate it. ADEQUATE GROUNDS? It’s her body. No other grounds needed!

6 Likes

Ummmm, what if the hiccups are a specific symptomatology of preclampsia, or other, and the host has a stroke and dies? Woman’s rights extend from pre-insemination, to after birth.

1 Like

I hold to the basic principle that any person (notwithstanding they are sane) has the right to control their body.

Imagine if the roles were reversed, that a male was deemed too “productive” or some other reason, and society decided to cut his balls off. That will never happen because men do still control almost all power, and no one is going to mess with a guy’s junk.

But a woman? Yea, we can casually discuss what we will inflict on her body.

Doesn’t anyone else see the hypocrisy?

4 Likes

Your exercise in sophistry in no way addressed my argument. Your biblical notation is irrelevant, Atheism as we know it today is a product of humanism that was brought about via the enlightenment…if you want to get technical, then Christians are the first Atheists as they were the first to have that used as a label against them by Roman Pagans.

So try again.

We do not need to imagine if the roles were reversed, as you are proposing a test with no possibility of verifying the results. This is my whole point, ‘a woman’s choice’ is treated like some sacred and unchangeable doctrine, where its truth is demonstrated simply by it utterance. That is not how the truth works, just because the moral majority is in consensus, does not make it right or correct.

What in the hell does this discussion have to do with power? Why are you inserting woke talking points into a discussion where they do not belong? This is a discussion on the justification for a pro-choice perspective considering the VERY broken foundation it is built upon.

The very tone of this conversation, where we casually discuss what to do with a woman’s body, is all the proof I need.

And you should take the time to read other person’s posts carefully. My post began with “I hold to the basic principle”, which illustrates that this topic is my opinion, and my opinion alone. I am not attempting to pretend there is a consensus, I am stating my personal opinion.

You are not going to silence or control me by bullying or false accusations.

You have the right to voice your opinion, I have that same right.

4 Likes

@AlphaLogica157

quote=“AlphaLogica157, post:1, topic:172”]
I see a majority of those who identify as atheist, also take the pro-choice position. This has always seemed odd to me for reasons I will now go into:
[/quote]

Your opinion is simply that unless you can prove it. Even if you could prove that the majority of atheist are pro choice, what you have is a correlation, not proof of a causal connection.

Here we go again: (second time today so far,and it’s only 1135 hours here)

An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god(s). NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER IS IMPLIED OR MAY BE INFERRED.

Atheism is not : a belief system, a philosophy a political position or even a club. There is no such thing as an atheist position on any subject other than a disbelief in god(s)

There is no such thing as an atheist spokesperson.

An atheist may not reasonably say "as an atheist, A BC to Z ", on any topic except the existence of god(s)

I won’t comment on abortion, although I have a firm opinion. In terms of my atheism , it’s irrelevant.

I probably have some kind of an opinion about most topics you can raise*** Many of my opinions and much of my world view were formed long before I became an atheist, about 30 years ago. I had spent 20 years searching for answers to what I consider THE questions; EG Existence of god, the soul, and and afterlife. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? I found one ONE answer kind-of.

What is the meaning of life? A: Either “there isn’t one” or B “the meaning of life is itself, in every form it takes. The crude individual egoism of humans is without value”

I apologise if I have been unclear,and you are unable to grasp what I have tried to explain


** I admit I’m an opinionated prick. Have been pretty much all of my life. As a chronically catholic youth I was an obnoxious little prig. Today I’m a bit kinder to myself. I call myself a dilettante. IE I know a little about about a few things,and a lot about a couple of things. But understand that all human knowledge is relative. Compared with all there is to know, we humans know almost nothing.

3 Likes

Heaven forbid. Abortion is legal in my country. It is a choice.
To carry a baby in a woman’s body alters the woman’s body and her emotional/mental state. This can be a welcome choice for a woman …or not. I referred to another thread, where it is like a “penis”.
When she welcomes it into her body, it’s a wonderful experience - when she does not consent, it is rape - HER body HER choice.

Pro-life lol -
It’s simply a pro-birth stance. The “life” of the child, once born, is rarely given any thought to outsiders that would force gestation.

The choice is between the woman and her doctor.

If you don’t like abortion - don’t have one. Simple. That’s called a choice.

4 Likes

My opinion is: It is none of my fucking business (pun intended). Certainly as a male I am uniquely UNQUALIFIED to hold an opinion on this important, women’s health issue.

I am equally certain that religious organisations, misogynists and politicians should keep their male probosci out of the fucking debate and stop acting like they own any woman’s body. Fuck right off. Wankers.

5 Likes

@AlphaLogica157

Well, other than individual laws, there is not much that defines individuals rights, except maybe our innate morality, which is what actually defines those laws. Our moral ancestry can be validation for right and wrong or what effects survival. Just sayin. The rub is, that the host has the right to survive…in direct conflict with increasing the species number. I think that our moral proclevity teaches us that the host can have more children if she survives.

What do you think?

1 Like

“Certainly as a male I am uniquely UNQUALIFIED to hold an opinion on this important, women’s health issue.”

You’re so brave, look at you laying prostrate at the alter of your privilege. You gonna invoke some other woke dogma?

So only a woman has the right to hold an opinion on a matter of human reproduction? You know it’s not a one sided process…men are still required to create life and thus have a say in the discussion.

You have not said anything at all…Who is bullying you? You are talking about power dynamics between males and female…that is a woke talking point that has no bearing on the discussion of abortion. No matter how badly you want it too, it simply does not apply. Now if you want to stick to the topic then please continue.

If you don’t own your body, you are a slave; imo.

4 Likes

AAnd here we have a dickwad comment by a butthurt incel who wants “freedom” for his own insufferably ignorant opinions yet wishes to lay down rules for 50% of the human race to abide by…

Too fucking right. If she wishes my involvement she will ask. Otherwise nothing to do with me at all.

But the pregnant one doesn’t have to know who the sperm donor is…or may not want that lucky sperm to go full term.

That is why it is none of my business. And none of yours either.

You want women to have control of your masturbatory habits, and legislate them? Just be happy you DON’T have to make such decisions, it seems you are singularly ill equipped to make them anyway.

3 Likes

First thank you for taking the time to actually respond, seems like you are the only one who actually wants to have a discussion.

So, it does not matter what the woman can or cannot provide in terms of the overall number of children, if you want to discuss issues where the pregnancy could jeopardize the mother then OK.

But when it comes to abortion for any reason other than Rape/Incest/Risk of life…that is where I want to discuss the justification for abortion, and the rational behind those who believe there is only one life, this life. Seems to me that the only logical and moral choice is to err on the side of life, yet you cannot even make that argument before you hear the woke litany of talking points that are just primed and ready to be regurgitated at the slightest provocation.

A lot is just asserted as true without even an attempt of justification. Why is it "Her body her choice?’ Based on what? Decided by whom?

“yet wishes to lay down rules for 50% of the human race to abide by”

Aaand here we have an illiterate white-knight tripping over himself just to prove how NOT sexist he is, while failing to get the point. You dropped your shield on the way in.

See how easy this little game is?

“If she wishes my involvement she will ask. Otherwise nothing to do with me at all.”
“That is why it is none of my business. And none of yours either.”

Ok but that is YOUR choice, you do not speak for all men, you are not the arbiter masculinity and for you to be arrogant enough to think that you can simply dismiss the topic AS IF it was already decided is rich.

No I don’t “speak for all men” or even one woman. Nor, unlike you and your seething misogynist fester of wishful authoritarian control, do you. And for that I will be thankful.

Because of your single minded wish for control you want to legislate for 50% of the human race to conform to your simple minded wishes. Poor boy.

Can’t stand women deciding their own destiny? Pathetic.

3 Likes

Re: OP

Woman’s body, woman’s decision. Period. I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about that.

How do you think the entire male population would react if a large group of women and/or religious nuts tried passing a law that made it illegal for men to get a vasectomy? Because some of those women and religious nuts might interpret the bible to say that every sperm in a man’s body is a potential life that should be protected. Or, to take it a step further, maybe they want to try to make it illegal for men to masturbate? Again, this would be under the premise of treating all the sperm as individual potential lives. (Oh, wait… The Catholics already think that way, don’t they? :thinking:) Anyway, what kind of explosion do you think that would cause? (Pardon the pun.) Bottom line is, woman’s choice. Pretty damn simple, if you ask me.

Oh, and what the hell does this have to do with atheism??? :woozy_face:

If your argument relies on the postulate that the fetus (or whatever) has a life (or is a life, whatever) that needs protection; then why would rape or incest be special cases? Shouldn’t the “life” of a fetus created by rape be protected also?

1 Like