Re: Tough Questions for Atheists #2: Abortion

[chesster423]

im against abortion.. destroying an upcoming life is just plain wrong... specifically when it is done by two individuals with full consciousness and knowledge...

and also, it's against nature...

but yeah, there are some cases where a woman got pregnant because of rape... which I really don't know what would be the right thing to do... i don't want to raise a child of a rapist :(

[45678ret]

my opinion on abortion is that it should be used as a last resort (such as a rape victim or a woman who will die if the baby is born) but it shouldn't be used as birth control

[71TheHeretic]

@ShaolinEast That is being very presumptuous of the reasons for a woman to get an abortion. You make it sound as if all women who do are narcistic and callouse. You are assuming that they are all just cruel baby killers. You my frined have no idea why some women have abortions and you nor any government cannot legislate what what a woman can do with her own body and make her own decisions.

[PALOMITA694]

LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION LIFE BEGAN MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO CONCEPTION IS JUST A METAMORPHOSIS OF LIFE!

[ShaolinEast]

What cold hearted logic, to think some of you irresponsible people are stupid enough to mate and then have the legal power to decide "i think ile throw my baby in the trash can as im too busy to provide for it" Obviously none of you have children or decent morals. to think of looking at my baby daughter then think about her being aborted, it sickens me to no end.

You people are pure trash what a disgusting little generation of spawns you are, how utterly sterile and cold your hearts are.

[601271]

@ShaolinEast The Constitution gives us freedom to americans...

[gilless429]

@ShaolinEast You can't abort a child when he's already out, so no worries ! No, seriously, can't you think about those who could barely give a miserable life to their children, so don't want to have any ? And rape victims ? Don't insult them by saying they should keep their baby and be reminded of what was done to them each time they look at their child. It's below you. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. Don't you think everyone should do what they want with their body ?

[wachnathan]

I think women have the right to do what they want with there own bodies regardless of what people think its there burden not anyone elses there biology belongs to them if people are going to call abortion murder then i guess you can call misscarage the same thing.

[mandrillaben]

If a teenager accidently got pregnant OR if she got raped. Shouldn't she have the option to eather get an abortion or to keep the baby? Imagine their lifes. If she is studdying, she might drop out, if she has to take care of a little baby. And think about the baby who HAS to grow up with a teenage mother who perhaps cannot take care of a baby. Of course you shouldn't allow abortion when the fetus is more than 10 or 12 weeks old..

Its not up to you, me or anybody else than the mother of the baby.

[hoodooman9]

Very intersting...

I am an atheist, but do not support abortion.

My position is that:

1st, it is not the woman's body, and thus not her choice. Just because the entity is within her body does not make it part of her. Two seperate lives must be considered.

2nd, abortion, whether you believe the baby to be alive or not, is destroying a unique set of DNA that has not existed and never will again exist. I believe this is a travesty.

Every person has value, born or unborn.

[eye0thetiger]

Is the value of humanity in its DNA( a sequence of nucleic acids that map the genome of an individual)? I believe it is in fact, in our sentience, consciousness, or ability to evaluate the world that the significance of human life exists. If it were in our DNA, just think of the moral culpability each time you masturbate (genocide)! Sperm and eggs separated are still just as genetically unique as the blastula.

[eye0thetiger]

That you think the fetus is or is not a part of a woman's body (though it is physically attached to the woman), is of little consequence. That it poses an incredible health risk to a woman matters; that in this patriarchal society, it is much more prevalent for woman to be a single-parent matters; that the fetus is absolutely and entirely dependent on the woman until the 7th month matters; furthermore, that cognition does not occur until the 7th month matters.

[Pelonetillo]

if its not a part of her, if theyre really separate, then just separate them... oh wait, thats an abortion. my bad.

[alxt2000]

Same here. Well said.

[nyctoguitar]

I agree exactly with your philosophy.

[Wadukadoo]

nicely said

[christianx92]

pro-abortion? sounds like my cup of tea.

lets abort the super christian freaks in this country.

[fazelinae]

What about adoption

[boldertits]

Abortion is wrong after the point when the fetus becomes fully formed.

To compare a fetus to a tumor is wrong. Walk upto a woman who wants a child and say lets get that nast tumor out of you.

In the end it comes down to parents choice and how old the fetus is.

[hermanainchrist]

It's like saying: 'I personally wouldn't kill anyone, but I think people should have the right to "choose" to kill people.' I'd like to know your criteria for "de-personizing" the unborn child, since it is you cannot deny it is intrinsically human and alive. Then what makes a "person"in your opinion?

[johnlewisbrooks]

I truly hope you get right with Him. If not I will only mourn your loss.

[johnlewisbrooks]

I watched one of your video's and you said you were an exceptional student. How can anyone say they are exceptional when they don't see how wicked this is?

The baby MATTERS! I don't care what the circumstances are!

And we are reaping the fruit of this stupidity now. How? Our economy needs bodies...but 40million and growing are dead now.

I wouldn't care if I died even giving birth, my end WILL be better than my beginning.

[johnlewisbrooks]

How about people simply keep their legs shut?

[atheistliberty]

Good Idea. I am all for responsible behavior but since there is no brain capable of conscious thought until well into the third trimester, I see no moral reason not to allow women to control their own body in this regard.

[johnlewisbrooks]

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations." ...

That's why! A life is still a life.

[johnlewisbrooks]

Abortin is murder. You whine and cry about God pouring out His judgements and yet condone killing babies?

I bet those babies wish they had another belly to sit in.

[elizabethmcnam]

ABORTION:

-is an ILLEGAL

-HOMICIDE

-of INNOCENT BABIES

-by KILLERS and CRAZY people

God bless you

[atheistliberty]

I disagree. Killing a fetus is like removing a tumor. There is not person there. Therefore it is not murder. The fact that you are to uneducated to understand neuroscience enough to realize that a fetus cannot think or have a mind is not an excuse for forcing women to have children they do not want.

[johnlewisbrooks]

You compare a baby to a TUMOR?

[humanistheart]

@elizabethmcnam Ah, no. It's legal through the 2nd trimester.

[Twh57318]

I am pro choice - But with certain limitations before 2months. If the child is going to die a horrible life/death only pain because of a deformity , spina bifida ect. then yes abortion later then 2 months is fine with me .If the mother was raped fine if mother will die . Partial birth abortion is killing im sorry to say. Other then that Im for the woman's choice to have a baby or not to .

[Fanatic4FreeThought]

Whats with this whole holding the gun to the mother's head thing. Is the government holding a gun to your head by not letting men rape others? The same could be said about making anything illegal, the government has an obligation to protect people from others, even their parents, using force if necessary.

I'm getting tired of this whole "choice" argument. If you believe human beings have the fundamental right to live then someone just "choosing" for convenience to kill you isn't justified.

[narut0777]

Seriously, an abortion... the only reason one got a child is because they most likely had sex out of marriage and now they dont want the responsibility of caring for a child. Its their fault that the child is there and if they get an abortion it just shows how weak they are. Its a life and your taking away a life. Who do you think you are? It would seem it is an act of murder in the eyes of God.

[atheistliberty]

Then let God come down here a smite all those who have had an abortion. Until there is conclusive evidence that the creator of the universe cares when a cell mass is prematurely removed from the womb of a woman, I support their right to choose.

Since it is unlikely that your God even exists, I don't quite care what the fuck you think your God wants.

As for who I think I am, I am a thinking person who can determine right from wrong on my own without your fairy tales to guide me.

[stirringwater]

he will smite u but u gotta die first dummy

[leiapeison]

sciencener213: i said i was pro CHOICE. i don't want abortion outlawed anymore than you. i support it being an option.

[atheistliberty]

Seems that people on both sides of the debate can jump to conclusions. sciencenerd213, read the WHOLE comment, then respond :).

[leiapeison]

im a christian but i am pro choice. the belief in human personhood at conception i feel is a religious belief and not a scientific one.

[sciencenerd213]

leiapeison how many adopted children do you have? I ask because people that are pro choice need to step up and take responsibility for these kids.

I don't want women to have abortions but if they want to abort its not my place to say no.

[stirringwater]

well if your prochoice your obviously not a true christian, jesus died in pain and suffering and you cant bear a child? shame on you

[leiapeison]

my faith and my politics are seperate. there is seperation of church and state. only a woman herself can decide whether she bears a child. she is the one that is pregnant and not someone else. if a girl is raped we cannot force her to give birth against her will. to do so would be to rape her again.

[stirringwater]

a seperation of church and state, well obviously you have your faith mixed up with the doctrines of man my friend. if you faith tells you thall shall not kill, but if the state said you must kill your kid would you still do it?

[leiapeison]

the pro choice position is not tht abortion is moral or that anyone "must' get an abortion. no one is saying women must do anything. it is about choice. the government does not make women get abortions.

[johnlewisbrooks]

GIDEM!lol

[SpoolDonkey]

abourtion is way too esy to do now days, it should only be used in the most extreme curcumstances, however, if a 12 year old is raped and on top of that the child has HIV cause the rapeist had it then i cant see any reason that abortion would be bad, but i think we need severe legal consequences for people that have abortions cause they could not be bothered to use a condom, that is just sick, and yes... sadly it does happen, specially in china (so i have been told) each case is different.

[SpoolDonkey]

well, im atheist, but im also pro choice and also against abortion, i think abortion is way way too widely used, such that some treat it as a form of contraception. see, my understanding is that murder is genocide, because in killing someone not only do you remove them from existance, but you deny there children life and there childrens children, 1 murder is in fact potentially millions of murders, HIV/AIDS then abortion would be ok... ''to be continued''

[mellowmushgrapetripp]

QUICK ROLL A JOINT JESUS IS COMIN

[rebryant66]

I want to break this down into simple morals and standards. Yes I agree a woman should have a choice. I'm not against abortion or birth, but the male part of this should have equal say. They both encounter and make wrong decisions. They should both have say for the outcome. I know you can't force a woman to have an abortion, so if accidents happen it falls in the male genders lap. There has to be a balance.

[atheistliberty]

One thing I have noticed is that it is men who are the most vehement in their opposition to a woman's right to choose. I am not accusing you but I think it is because men do not like to loose control.

Men know the score going in, so to speak. When "accidents" ( actually: carelessness ) happens, it is the woman that is left holding the bag, no matter how supportive the man is, she is the one hosting this new growth. It is her decision alone. After birth, is when the man has a say.

[Bravo2zero0]

hmmmm but without eugenics will humans really evolve any further? I personally think that any "moral Issues" such not stop the advancement of science in any area. Say if Scientists could somehow transfer the gene in alligators that makes them so immune to infections and somehow transfer that into the human body. That might be an exmaple of "cross genetic engineering" but would it really be a bad thing? I wouldnt mind having that. Obviously im not talking about having wings or anything like that.

[atheistliberty]

We will evolve just as we always have. With or without our intervening. In fact we already have. We have changed significantly from humans that lived only a few thousand years ago. We are not a different species but we are as different from them as domesticated dogs are to their wild brethren. Some anthropologists and biologists have suggested that we are "domesticated" apes. Only we were the ones that domesticated ourselves instead of, in the case of dogs, us doing it to anther species.

[Bravo2zero0]

Sorry but what relevance does that have to my comment? Whats the problem with doing (if it is ever possible) the above.

[atheistliberty]

You seemed to be implying that we will not evolve if we do not use something like eugenics. I was pointing out that we have changed significantly from the first true humans and, therefore, may one day actually qualify as a different species from them.

As for "cross genetic engineering", I see no moral implications whatsoever.

[Bravo2zero0]

Yes but nature may not be quick enough to keep up with the science and im sure that in the not to near future we might be able to do the above. Also with the medical advances we have now will the same basis for evolution still apply to us? For example a man born with a slightly greater muscle mass then the average human may not gain the same natural advantage and therefore not pass on those genes as he would without all the medical advances.

[atheistliberty]

You are right that the same traits will not be selected for, necessarily due to our radically changed living environment. However, evolution does not stop. Selection pressure may have favored muscular men in the past but now maybe, intelligence is being selected for. Any trait that our females find more attractive or that enhance a person's fruitfulness will be selected for. On the other hand, medical science allows people who otherwise would never survive child-birth to carry babies to term.

[Bravo2zero0]

hmmm does intelligence pass on in the same way? Are people born naturally cleverier then others? i thought that people developed intelligence throughout their lives and that say for example Einstein's children would be naturally no more intelligent then any other child? or am i totally wrong? i know alittle bit about memes from Richard Dawkins but not much.

[atheistliberty]

Considering that genetics affects almost every other feature and our intelligence is the product of evolution, which acts on the genes, then, yes I think the capacity for intelligence is passed along. That is not to say that people cannot be trained to be intelligent even though their parents, maybe, showed a deficiency in that area. My wife is a Doctor. However, she had to overcome significant impediments to accomplish that largely due to her mother calling her stupid all her life.

[PvblivsAelivs]

My own thoughts are that when fetus has brain waves and can feel pain it deserves some protection from being killed for a mere "choice." The term "pro-choice" is as much a misnomer as the term "pro-life." To be truly pro-choice one would have to say that all decisions were immune to regulation not just those pertaining to abortion.

[atheistliberty]

While I am almost always "pro-choice", eg pro-freedom, I was using the term here to apply strictly to the issue of abortion. As such, your point about choice being immune to regulation is absurd. As to when a fetus becomes a life worthy of protection, since we have no evidence that consciousness begins even at birth I feel it is best to draw the line at the most obvious event that separates one life from the other. And that is birth.

[JacobTrue]

I've said it before and I'll say it a again.

SOUL PATCH!!!

[KasparHauser4]

During WW2 there were unknown thousands of abortions performed and also infanticide because of the pressure for sex that the women were subjected to by their boy friends going off to war. They had the illegal (at that time) and unsafe abortions to protect family honor and their standing in chruch and the community. If you make abortions illegal again then you are opening the door once more to unsafe and dangerous abortions and to infanticide

[atheistliberty]

Right you are! Choice is a commitment to the mother's life. The only life we know for certain has any potential. The zygote insider her may or may not have any potential. So the correct stance is to fall on the side of freedom, safety, and reason and that is Choice.

[simchamo]

very interesting response. I think the comparison with abortion and eugenics is fallacious. Furthermore, the stigma on the term eugenics isn't helpful as the concept really covers a lot of ground not just killing handicapped children as was done in WWII germany.

[atheistliberty]

There are ways of doing eugenics without killing innocent people. Selective breeding programs could work.  They work for animals but this violates people's rights. If you make it voluntary then that issue is mitigated but then you will have is two groups who are, at least artificially, separated, and isn't that the way evolution says speciation happens? However, since I stipulated a voluntary program there will be cross breeding and that should prevent a true splitting of the species.

[NEWSTOGOD]

Taking the anti position based on religious grounds is what bothers me. Children can't go to heaven anyway, I guess. If religion was off the table then we could approach it as a sociatle issue. I'd like to more prevention for young women, especially. Christians fight any prevention cause gaawd wouldn't like it.

[atheistliberty]

Exactly. Christians don't want us to teach their children about sex and provide information on how to do it safely without getting a disease or becoming pregnant but when the child does become pregnant or has a disease they seek to admonish the child for sinning and, in the case of pregnancy, they want the government to force the child to have the baby. It's worse in Africa where Theists (both Xtian and Islamic) are preventing sex Ed., even to the adults, because it goes against their religion.

[joeyoap]

I agree that it's not really a question of atheism.You can be an atheist and be either pro-choice or not.I do find abortion a difficult subject but it has nothing to do with how I feel about religion.

As a man it's not for me to tell a woman what to do with her own body but that doesn't mean I think abortion is a good thing.I do think there is a need for it but it's not a course of action that should be taken lightly and I suspect there are very few woman who do take it lightly.

[atheistliberty]

I know women who have had abortions and agonized over the decisions for years afterward. They did not make the decision lightly and they do not live with it easily but who can say if it was the right choice? Their lives could have been very different if they had gone ahead with the pregnancy. Who is to say it would have been better one way over another? I do not judge them.