any other pro-life/anti-abortion atheists out there?

Post Reply New Topic

i don't believe a pro-life argument has to be made on a religious ground at all

what i do believe is that the unborn should be granted the right to life as a human (biology says it is human from conception, with unique dna that will lead to a person), instead of being discriminated against simply because it's in an earlier stage of development and doesn't have a voice

i also believe that this right should clearly trump the mother's right to her body

That is insanity.

You are going against the woman's wishes. Seriously, do you not understand how wrong that is?

So you'd be against abortion even if the woman was raped? Was in a case of incest? In the case of her health?

I'm with you, OP.

Edit: Ah, good timing from me. I've just seen your reply to my post on another thread!

I'm pro choice, but don't think it is a simple question they has to be a sensible legal cut off.

Fortunately education has seen a decline in teenage pregnancy, and people use effective precautions more an more. Even in the 3rd world the size of families is tending towards 2 children, despite the perception.

I see nothing inherently wrong with atheists being pro-life, if that is their ethical position.

This is why I never liked groups like Atheism+. Atheism is not a congregation, we don't all have the same positions.

A few secular thoughts about terminating a pregnancy:

A fertilized egg is not a human being - a person - any more than a cell swabbed from my cheek. Or a stem cell from my lower skin layers, for that matter. Both have the *potential* to become a full human - if and only if they make it through six- to-nine months of nearly perfect conditions.

Most fertilized eggs - by far - are spontaneously aborted in the first trimester. There is nothing special about a fetus at that stage that makes it a person, yet.

So, while I do not for a moment concede the "fetus is a person" argument, lets look at that aspect. Let's say it was a person, with a fully formed sense of Self and Other, and so on.

Consider this thought exercise:

Imagine someone was in a coma, was dying, needed blood and yours was a match. It would not be ethically wrong to refuse. Whether it would be morally right or wrong depends on values and opinions. But many would expect you to give the person as much as you could without it endangering yourself because it's easy, painless and quickly replenished. Would it be okay, though, to make laws *forcing* you to give up your blood for anyone who needs it to live?

Now consider if it were bone marrow. The harvesting is painful, as is the recovery, and there is a risk of infection to the donor.

Let's up the ante. What about a partial organ donation, say a spleen, liver, or lung. Should we as a society decide that it would be morally wrong if someone refuses to allow their body to be used to possibly, potentially (because these things don't work 100% of the time) save the life of another? Should we make laws forcing them to do so?

Let's say there was a procedure where you'd be connected to this person that would otherwise die, and your body would clean their blood and provide them with oxygen and nutrients. And let's say that in order for them to someday possibly be alert, conscious and live independently you had to have your blood supply tied to theirs 24/7 and carry them everywhere you went. For a half year or longer. Should laws force you to have to do so on the chance they might live?

If you proclaim an unborn early fetus to be a separate person, why should another sovereign person be forced to risk - and it is a very real risk - their health, possibly their life, have to deal with and pain/discomfort, and forever change their body just to increase the chance that other "person" does not die and might - only three out of four times - someday be conscious and independent?

A final thought: My spouse and I have two wonderful children that we love very much. But if a D&C (the process used in an abortion) had not been available for one of our earlier pregnancies, instead of our family existing today there would only be one very sad person.

Last edited by Edenthiel on 12 Apr 2016, 9:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.

My opinion is gestation is through genetic instruction but requires chemical invention external to the fetal to drive the development for much of the pregnancy. Babies don't come alive on their own, it is process within the mother's body. It is not just fertilization and that is it.

Organisms without live birth, still have have incubation. However it far more complex in mammals.

I don't think fetuses are sentient before 20 weeks. The anterior cingulate is not developed, thalamocortical connections have not been made.

The presence of certain chemicals indicate the fetus is both sedated and anesthetised.

The cut off of 20 weeks is sensible, as 22-27 weeks is where research indicates fetuses have the equipment to be able to perceive. However that doesn't mean they use this equipment at this point. .

As long as the embryo or fetus has no consciousness, I don't see it as being anything other than a potential person. The thing which would make it a person doesn't yet exist. It has no rights, because it has no opinion, no perception, no thoughts, feelings, or anything. It's a body without a mind.

Combinations of dna don't make a person. There are people with two sets of dna (genetic chimeras); are they then two people instead of one? And identical twins were once the same egg; the dna starts out exactly the same. So are they at that point only one person? I guess it's ok to abort one identical twin in that case, using your logic.

Sperm and ova can lead to a person as well. I suppose that means that "every sperm is sacred," since it may lead to a person.

Something that may potentially exist doesn't get a voice. It doesn't exist. No one goes around asking embryos whether they want to be born. Did anyone give me a choice? What if my choice would have been not to have been born? I guess nobody is really thinking about that. How many people would have chosen to not be born if they had been given that choice?

Why should something that doesn't even have a mind, and is not yet a person, be given preference over a person who already exists, has a mind, and an opinion? That makes no sense whatsoever. And how is it "discrimination"? How can one "discriminate" against something which has no mind? The whole idea seems to be based on emotion rather than reason.

They barely have what we'd even call a brain by 20 weeks, to say nothing about it being connected and functioning in a way that we could understand as sentient, to say nothing of consciousness: