???Pro-life Atheists???

[JBeukema]

Am I the only one? Whenever the subject comes up at an atheist board, I've noticed that the responses almost always boil down to 'stfu, fundy, keep your religion out of someone else's uterus! Have you ever been pregnant'?

The hilarity of this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything of me. Why do people seem to have so much difficulty responding to non-religions pro-life arguments? Why do they seem incapable of grasping the concept that such a thing as a pro-life atheist even exists? I swear, explaining it to some if them is like arguing with kent Hovind about evolution..

 

[BrokenAngel]

Am I the only one? Whenever the subject comes up at an atheist board, I've noticed that the responses almost always boil down to 'stfu, fundy, keep your religion out of someone else's uterus! Have you ever been pregnant'?

The hilarity of this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything of me. Why do people seem to have so much difficulty responding to non-religions pro-life arguments? Why do they seem incapable of grasping the concept that such a thing as a pro-life atheist even exists? I swear, explaining it to some if them is like arguing with kent Hovind about evolution..

A pro-life atheist should be in existence. It would be someone who saw a fetus as a child, not worrying about the soul but more what the fetus would grow to be and place value on that because it is one of their own. You are right though and the same thing happens when you talk about politics in America. Everyone is so uptight that when faced with a decision it is like they run for a handbook on how they are supposed to feel and everyone comes up with the same cookie cutter responses. Hehehe.. its like everyone wanting to stand out in school.. they all end up dressing the same, copying each other, and eventually become clicks and within each click they are all clones. They don't all really fit in with the crowd they are hanging with ( a poet football player for example ) but they play the part so they still fit the perameters of how they had defined themselves.. it feels safe.

 

[Kalam]

I was pro-life as an atheist. I still don't attempt to justify my position religiously; it seems self-evident to me that destroying a life or a potential life is an immoral act.

 

[JBeukema]

I was pro-life as an atheist. I still don't attempt to justify my position religiously; it seems self-evident to me that destroying a life or a potential life is an immoral act.

The problem with that statement is that it raises the subject of morality- a discussion unto itself. I start with the social condemnation of homicide. It's evident if one extrapolate the reason for such laws (social contract and self interest) that any logical consistent condemnation of homicide must include the protection of the unborn from the moment of conception. I have yet to see any argument that reaches and other conclusion. Usually people just stip thinking, attack their opponents, and refuse to address the matter. in this regard, they are much like theists.

Pointing out that similarity brought the wrath of the mods down upon me at another board

 

[Kalam]

I was pro-life as an atheist. I still don't attempt to justify my position religiously; it seems self-evident to me that destroying a life or a potential life is an immoral act.

The problem with that statement is that it raises the subject of morality- a discussion unto itself. I start with the social condemnation of homicide. It's evident if one extrapolate the reason for such laws (social contract and self interest) that any logical consistent condemnation of homicide must include the protection of the unborn from the moment of conception. I have yet to see any argument that reaches and other conclusion. Usually people just stip thinking, attack their opponents, and refuse to address the matter. in this regard, they are much like theists.

Pointing out that similarity brought the wrath of the mods down upon me at another board

Right, that's what I meant - immoral according to the standards that are already accepted almost universally in postindustrial societies. I should have been clear. I guess opposing abortion simply because you consider it immoral is as lame as trying to argue against it using religion.

 

[The Illusion]

Am I the only one? Whenever the subject comes up at an atheist board, I've noticed that the responses almost always boil down to 'stfu, fundy, keep your religion out of someone else's uterus! Have you ever been pregnant'?

The hilarity of this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything of me. Why do people seem to have so much difficulty responding to non-religions pro-life arguments? Why do they seem incapable of grasping the concept that such a thing as a pro-life atheist even exists? I swear, explaining it to some if them is like arguing with kent Hovind about evolution..

God to some people, I think, is the sole reason for living. God gives them an excuse to live. God gives them an excuse for everything that they do. God gives them peace of mind to know right from wrong.

I think people panic when something such as abortion comes along because they believe that God will do them a dishonor if they encourage such thought. They are scared of anything outside of that "god" realm they live in. They are scared of going to hell or being punished in this incarnation by karma for thinking "bad" thoughts. If they go along with a non religious "pro life" discussion, they are defaming their God and are scared of the consequences.

Check out this link: Kill The Afterlife: The Consequences of Atheism

You'll thank me for it If you havent already seen it

Jamie

 

[Amanda]

Am I the only one? Whenever the subject comes up at an atheist board, I've noticed that the responses almost always boil down to 'stfu, fundy, keep your religion out of someone else's uterus! Have you ever been pregnant'?

The hilarity of this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything of me. Why do people seem to have so much difficulty responding to non-religions pro-life arguments? Why do they seem incapable of grasping the concept that such a thing as a pro-life atheist even exists? I swear, explaining it to some if them is like arguing with kent Hovind about evolution..

And then there's the other end of that weird spectrum, the pro-choice believer. I can't imagine having an abortion for any reason, but I wouldn't deny anyone else autonomy over their body. If they end up answering to God that's between them and God, I'm not a part of that. I don't expect anyone else to show up and plead my case when I face God. I have no illusions about being allowed to enter heaven. I expect God will laugh at me and cast me aside because I have fucked up as much as I think is possible in this life, but again, that's between me and God, and no one else. And that's where I think this argument starts and ends.

 

[mattskramer]

Take heart. I'm a pro-life Agnostic. Ewww. I hate labels. They don't give a clear picture. I'm an agnostic. I'm opposed to capital punishment but believe convicts should serve harsher and longer time in jail. I think that abortion should be illegal except for cases in which the mother's life is in serious risk - and perhaps in cases of rape and incest.

I guess that makes me an agnostic pro-lifer.

 

[Amanda]

Take heart. I'm a pro-life Agnostic. Ewww. I hate labels. They don't give a clear picture. I'm an agnostic. I'm opposed to capital punishment but believe convicts should serve harsher and longer time in jail. I think that abortion should be illegal except for cases in which the mother's life is in serious risk - and perhaps in cases of rape and incest.

I guess that makes me an agnostic pro-lifer.

Labels can seem to make it easier for us to understand others beliefs but in reality prolly do all of us more of a disservice. I don't know anyone that is as simple as their label would make it seem.

 

[JBeukema]

I can't imagine having an abortion for any reason, but I wouldn't deny anyone else autonomy over their body.

It's not their body. We're dealing with a distinct living human organism- another human being. Why is it that anti-lifers can never be honest and simply say they support homicide if the person being killed is below age x for reason y? Why can you people never be honest or argue fir what you want? Why is it all lies? Lies about the child being human, lies about the child being alive, lies about being raped..

If they end up answering to God that's between them and God, I'm not a part of that. I don't expect anyone else to show up and plead my case when I face God. I have no illusions about being allowed to enter heaven. I expect God will laugh at me and cast me aside because I have fucked up as much as I think is possible in this life, but again, that's between me and God, and no one else. And that's where I think this argument starts and ends.

Do you apply that argument to all homicides,rapes, and theft? Or do you only apply it where it suits your purposes, fits your agenda, or or seems to support in your limited view the position you want it to?

 

[Amanda]

I can't imagine having an abortion for any reason, but I wouldn't deny anyone else autonomy over their body.

It's not their body. We're dealing with a distinct living human organism- another human being. Why is it that anti-lifers can never be honest and simply say they support homicide if the person being killed is below age x for reason y? Why can you people never be honest or argue fir what you want? Why is it all lies? Lies about the child being human, lies about the child being alive, lies about being raped..

This is MY body. I'm in charge of it. No 1 else. I've said repeatedly that I would not have an abortion. That's me, I don't speak for anyone else. I can not tell anyone else what to do. What they do is between them and God.

If they end up answering to God that's between them and God, I'm not a part of that. I don't expect anyone else to show up and plead my case when I face God. I have no illusions about being allowed to enter heaven. I expect God will laugh at me and cast me aside because I have fucked up as much as I think is possible in this life, but again, that's between me and God, and no one else. And that's where I think this argument starts and ends.

Do you apply that argument to all homicides,rapes, and theft? Or do you only apply it where it suits your purposes, fits your agenda, or or seems to support in your limited view the position you want it to?[/QUOTE]

I apply that argument to everything. I am responsible for what I do, no 1 else. What other people do is what they are responsible for. I don't have an agenda. I don't make excuses for other people do and I won't answer for them. Asking me to justify what someone else decides isn't fair. If you want to take issue with someone else's decision talk to them.

 

[mattskramer]

This is MY body. I'm in charge of it. No 1 else. I've said repeatedly that I would not have an abortion. That's me, I don't speak for anyone else. I can not tell anyone else what to do. What they do is between them and God.

Although it is inside the mother, attached to her, and dependent on her, the fetus is a distinct human life. An arm, leg, foot, or other body part will not grow into a human being when it is detached from the mother’s body. It will not even be able to stay intact for very long. The cells will soon die, and the arm will begin decomposing. The fetus, on the other hand, will eventually develop into a recognizable human being. At this point, the person who supports murdering fetuses will likely say that this argument is flawed because the fetus, at least during the first few weeks, cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb, regardless of what medical care it receives. However, this would be saying that the point of changing from a fetus to a human being is dependent on technology. Thus, years ago, when there was no treatment for a baby born prematurely at all, the fetus was not a human being until its anticipated date of birth. That would mean that even when the baby had full brain activity, a heart, lungs, etc. that it still was not a human until birth. Even some liberals agree that you cannot say the baby is not a live human being once it has heart/brain/lung activity. So why would technology be the deciding factor in what makes a life today?

Another reason why the “it’s only a part of the mother’s body” argument is invalid is that the fetus has distinct DNA. If you were to take a DNA sample of any body part of any human being, it would have the same DNA as the rest of the body. However, the fetus has its own separate, unique DNA, that is 100% human DNA. Only humans have human DNA, and only a distinct human being has a DNA that is different from any other human being’s DNA. It can be argued that computers have some type of “DNA” because of their hardware and software, and computers are not alive, so having DNA does not make it a living thing. However, a computer does not have “DNA” that is similar to any living thing. A fetus has the same type of DNA as every other human, but the exact details of it make it unique to that fetus.

THe fetus is not your body. It is a different body.

 

[Shogun]

hehehe..

I've been known to argue for pro-life options... Just ask Manifold about it. He's got a pamphlet about half abortion compromises in his briefcase.

the genetic reality of the fetus totally destroys the idea that it is "her body". Feel free to use that on your Fetus Jelly tackboard the next time you are protesting an abortion clinic.

 

[Newby]

Am I the only one? Whenever the subject comes up at an atheist board, I've noticed that the responses almost always boil down to 'stfu, fundy, keep your religion out of someone else's uterus! Have you ever been pregnant'?

The hilarity of this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything of me. Why do people seem to have so much difficulty responding to non-religions pro-life arguments? Why do they seem incapable of grasping the concept that such a thing as a pro-life atheist even exists? I swear, explaining it to some if them is like arguing with kent Hovind about evolution..

This might be the only thing we agree on! I'm not an atheist, but I also hate when someone implies that my stance against abortion is due to religious beliefs. To me it's simply a matter of right and wrong, and killing your baby is wrong. It has nothing to do with religion at all. I would feel the same way about it if I weren't religious. I've never understood what was so difficult to understand about that, but a lot of people seem to not understand it.

 

[Anguille]

This is MY body. I'm in charge of it. No 1 else. I've said repeatedly that I would not have an abortion. That's me, I don't speak for anyone else. I can not tell anyone else what to do. What they do is between them and God.

Although it is inside the mother, attached to her, and dependent on her, the fetus is a distinct human life. An arm, leg, foot, or other body part will not grow into a human being when it is detached from the mother’s body. It will not even be able to stay intact for very long. The cells will soon die, and the arm will begin decomposing. The fetus, on the other hand, will eventually develop into a recognizable human being. At this point, the person who supports murdering fetuses will likely say that this argument is flawed because the fetus, at least during the first few weeks, cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb, regardless of what medical care it receives. However, this would be saying that the point of changing from a fetus to a human being is dependent on technology. Thus, years ago, when there was no treatment for a baby born prematurely at all, the fetus was not a human being until its anticipated date of birth. That would mean that even when the baby had full brain activity, a heart, lungs, etc. that it still was not a human until birth. Even some liberals agree that you cannot say the baby is not a live human being once it has heart/brain/lung activity. So why would technology be the deciding factor in what makes a life today?

Another reason why the “it’s only a part of the mother’s body” argument is invalid is that the fetus has distinct DNA. If you were to take a DNA sample of any body part of any human being, it would have the same DNA as the rest of the body. However, the fetus has its own separate, unique DNA, that is 100% human DNA. Only humans have human DNA, and only a distinct human being has a DNA that is different from any other human being’s DNA. It can be argued that computers have some type of “DNA” because of their hardware and software, and computers are not alive, so having DNA does not make it a living thing. However, a computer does not have “DNA” that is similar to any living thing. A fetus has the same type of DNA as every other human, but the exact details of it make it unique to that fetus.

THe fetus is not your body. It is a different body.

But it's occupying another, just as valid body. If that other body wants no part of it then it's got no business being there. Too bad. Those are the facts of life.

 

[Amanda]

This is MY body. I'm in charge of it. No 1 else. I've said repeatedly that I would not have an abortion. That's me, I don't speak for anyone else. I can not tell anyone else what to do. What they do is between them and God.

Although it is inside the mother, attached to her, and dependent on her, the fetus is a distinct human life. An arm, leg, foot, or other body part will not grow into a human being when it is detached from the mother’s body. It will not even be able to stay intact for very long. The cells will soon die, and the arm will begin decomposing. The fetus, on the other hand, will eventually develop into a recognizable human being. At this point, the person who supports murdering fetuses will likely say that this argument is flawed because the fetus, at least during the first few weeks, cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb, regardless of what medical care it receives. However, this would be saying that the point of changing from a fetus to a human being is dependent on technology. Thus, years ago, when there was no treatment for a baby born prematurely at all, the fetus was not a human being until its anticipated date of birth. That would mean that even when the baby had full brain activity, a heart, lungs, etc. that it still was not a human until birth. Even some liberals agree that you cannot say the baby is not a live human being once it has heart/brain/lung activity. So why would technology be the deciding factor in what makes a life today?

Another reason why the “it’s only a part of the mother’s body” argument is invalid is that the fetus has distinct DNA. If you were to take a DNA sample of any body part of any human being, it would have the same DNA as the rest of the body. However, the fetus has its own separate, unique DNA, that is 100% human DNA. Only humans have human DNA, and only a distinct human being has a DNA that is different from any other human being’s DNA. It can be argued that computers have some type of “DNA” because of their hardware and software, and computers are not alive, so having DNA does not make it a living thing. However, a computer does not have “DNA” that is similar to any living thing. A fetus has the same type of DNA as every other human, but the exact details of it make it unique to that fetus.

THe fetus is not your body. It is a different body.

I never said it was. I don't give a shit about when this becomes that or what role technology plays in it. I said MY body is MY body and I will do what I want with it and if that's wrong I will answer to God and no 1 else.

 

[Anguille]

Am I the only one? Whenever the subject comes up at an atheist board, I've noticed that the responses almost always boil down to 'stfu, fundy, keep your religion out of someone else's uterus! Have you ever been pregnant'?

The hilarity of this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything of me. Why do people seem to have so much difficulty responding to non-religions pro-life arguments? Why do they seem incapable of grasping the concept that such a thing as a pro-life atheist even exists? I swear, explaining it to some if them is like arguing with kent Hovind about evolution..

God to some people, I think, is the sole reason for living. God gives them an excuse to live. God gives them an excuse for everything that they do. God gives them peace of mind to know right from wrong.

I think people panic when something such as abortion comes along because they believe that God will do them a dishonor if they encourage such thought. They are scared of anything outside of that "god" realm they live in. They are scared of going to hell or being punished in this incarnation by karma for thinking "bad" thoughts. If they go along with a non religious "pro life" discussion, they are defaming their God and are scared of the consequences.

Check out this link: Kill The Afterlife: The Consequences of Atheism

You'll thank me for it If you havent already seen it

Jamie

Lots of people who believe in god also believe abortion is not immoral.

 

[Newby]

I was pro-life as an atheist. I still don't attempt to justify my position religiously; it seems self-evident to me that destroying a life or a potential life is an immoral act.

The problem with that statement is that it raises the subject of morality- a discussion unto itself. I start with the social condemnation of homicide. It's evident if one extrapolate the reason for such laws (social contract and self interest) that any logical consistent condemnation of homicide must include the protection of the unborn from the moment of conception. I have yet to see any argument that reaches and other conclusion. Usually people just stip thinking, attack their opponents, and refuse to address the matter. in this regard, they are much like theists.

Pointing out that similarity brought the wrath of the mods down upon me at another board

Exactly, morality exists outside of religion. Any honest person of faith would agree with that.

 

[JBeukema]

This is MY body.

Your body's not at issue. Another human life is. If you didn't want to have a kid, you should've used BC and been responsible. Time to grow the fuck up.

I apply that argument to everything. I am responsible for what I do, no 1 else.

Then you oppose all law and are the biggest fool of all. I recommend moving to central Africa if you want ton know how your idea works out.

 

[JBeukema]

This might be the only thing we agree on! I'm not an atheist, but I also hate when someone implies that my stance against abortion is due to religious beliefs. To me it's simply a matter of right and wrong, and killing your baby is wrong. It has nothing to do with religion at all. I would feel the same way about it if I weren't religious. I've never understood what was so difficult to understand about that, but a lot of people seem to not understand it.

It's the language you use. 'Right and wrong' do not exist, but are rerligious terminology used to refer to moral absolutes that are3 imaginary and non-existent.