Im agnostic. I know evolution is true, and as such, I recognize that life itself, existing in a tiny sliver of time, is the most precisious thing we know of, therefore any deprivation of it, is the worst offense if we agree that such a thing as a crime or offense exists.
It matters not, what stage of accumation the homo sapien cell mass has achieved, it still "life" and so long as we protect homo sapien life generally, it makes no sense to disclude inconvient cell mass accumulations.
In terms of social policy I would also point to out depeleted armed forces and the historical correlation between strength and population. Why is China and India so powerful today?
2006-10-12 12:29:28 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Being Atheist or Agnostic has no bearing on being pro-choice or anti-abortion. I see that you are an anti-abortionist, but I can not tie that to the belief or disbelief in a god. I just don't get the correlation. I do not agree with most of what you say.
2006-10-12 12:36:40 · answer #1 · answered by harold p 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First, consider that there are more options than being an atheist or agnostic. One might believe in a non-theistic God. For a better explanation from a very liberal Episcopalian bishop, check out John Shelby Spong's A NEW CHRISTIANITY FOR A NEW WORLD. I found this a very eye-opening book, and I find myself hopeful again.
Second, personally, I'm pro-choice. My personal belief is that THE key component in the development of ALL living things is Time. One cannot bake an apple pie from apple blossoms. One cannot harvest frog's legs from tadpoles. The beginning of something is, often, nothing like its final stage of development.
Human beings, as a part of the web of life, are no exception. A mass of undifferentiated cells is not analogous to a human being; it's merely the potentiality of one. The process of differentiation and evolution occurs over Time. But not every fertilized ovum gets to go through that process.
People are always surprised by when they discover the truth about miscarriages; an astronomical percentage of pregnancies (more than 50%) end because Nature has decided, without human conscious consent, that (for example) a genetic abnormality would produce an unfit offspring. If it can happen involuntarily for reasons that are never known or maybe even arbitrary, why not terminate a pregnancy voluntarily for reasons that are known?
As for social policy, consider that most of our armed forces are made up of people from lower income brackets who have fewer choices and resources. It isn't like Ivy-Leaguers are rushing to enlist! People in lower income brackets cannot afford to support large families in America because of healthcare, housing, nutrition and other cost factors. Even middle-income families cannot affort to support large families. China and India have different cultural, economic and healthcare systems in place; hence, they have a greater pool of resources from which to draw their armed forces.
But I don't think it will come to that. I think they'll conquer us economically. But that's a different issue.
2006-10-12 13:02:03 · answer #2 · answered by attn2dtale 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pro Choice is a right to choose, hence the word "choice", not believing in god and religion also allows you the right to "free will" the ability to use your brain, logical thought, and decide what is best for you....i see no link to produce a thought pattern that an atheist should be a pro dictator (pro life)
2006-10-12 12:43:27 · answer #3 · answered by Aussieblonde -bundy'd 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personally find it to be reprehensible. Especially given the birth control options available. I personally don't see there is really anything that can logically be considered moral about it. I agree that I don't see any reason it should be allowed. It seems like something the Nazis would have done.
2006-10-12 12:48:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can't be athist/agnostic, first of all. Atheism is a belief in a random order and naturalevolution that eventually got to homo sapiens, and will go farther. Agnostics believe that the proof of God is not consistent, so they choose neither. The God is dead people.
2006-10-12 12:34:19 · answer #5 · answered by TCFKAYM 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, I'm in agreement with you about the silliness of making a distinction between a small body of cells called a fetus and a large body of cells called a person, but I dunno about the "any deprivation of life is the worst offense" part. Are you just talking about human life, or about any old life? Why should I care about the life of a blade of grass? Moreover, could I live if I never killed? The answer is, of course, no.
2006-10-12 12:37:05 · answer #6 · answered by GreetingsEarthling 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
God can use anyone to bring about good. There was an Atheist doctor who came out with the same sense of logic leading to protection of life from conception to old age. I am Christian and that does not preclude us from agreeing on a pro life stance. Keep up the good work.
2006-10-12 12:34:46 · answer #7 · answered by Robert L 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I am pro-life myself but that is me. Just because someone is agnostic/atheist does not mean they think the exact same thing because we each share different ideas. I hope you are not the kind of person who thinks all Muslims are terrorists too.
2006-10-12 12:38:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is but your opinion. I myself do not define a mass of cells that are not aware of their own existence as "life".
2006-10-12 12:32:46 · answer #9 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Like... spell check?
omg lol thx for the 2 pointz- Edna Bambrick
2006-10-12 12:35:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋