A question for atheists only please?

Question

There are people who are pro life because they think it's a sin and or murder in Gods eyes, but since you guys don't believe in God I was wondering what your views were & if there was any particular reason for your view point or if that's just your opinion. PLEASE religious people don't answer, I already know your opinions

Just to be fair I'm pro choice & I also happen to be a Christian so the people of my own faith hates me

Answer 1

I don't know when a fetus becomes a person. I think scientifically we know it's somewhere around the 3rd trimester.

Since almost all abortions are very EARLY abortions (first trimester -- usually the first few weeks), I think most abortions are fine. Later abortions are almost always done because there's something wrong with the pregnancy.

I'm less comfortable with later-term abortions, but I'll defer to the wisdom of doctor and patient. I can't presume to have all the answers, and I won't interfere with someone who needs to terminate her pregnancy.

Answer 2

I think both of the concepts of gods and souls are just man-made concepts and have nothing to do with reality. I think the thing that makes humans so unique compared to all other animals is the power & potential of our brains. Once a fetuses brain is fully functioning, its a real tragedy to abort the fetus. The real dilemma is that its hard to say at what stage that a fetus's brain is fully functioning, but its almost certainly before the fetus is viable outside the womb.

Theists like to believe that somehow a soul is created and inserted into the embryo at the moment of conception, and so therefore any abortion whatsoever is murdering the soul. I don't believe this at all. An embryo, even a fertilized one, is just a cell, and no more "alive" than any other living cell. For the first trimester, the developing embryo then fetus is still not really a human, just a potential one. But sometime over the next trimester, the fetus develops a brain and nervous system, and begins to learn. At that point, its a horrible tragedy to abort the fetus.

By the way, even thought it is a horrible tragedy, it still MUST be the woman's decision. The state has no right to take that decision away from her. Also, if so called pro-lifers would spend as much working on productive ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then there would be a lot less abortions. Instead, they tend to make policies that actually increase the number of unwanted pregnancies!

Answer 3

First of all because Atheists have no spiritual mediums or ideas that come from organized religion so we have different views. We think for ourselves about what is the most rational thing to do by simply learning the facts about the subjects. Also, not all Christians are pro-life, but most are. On the other end, most atheists are probably pro-choice like myself. Personally I think that forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a woman causes the most harm. It can destroy her life, and hurt many people's lives around her. Think about someone you know that if they got pregnant by accident, what would happen to them. How would the child be raised? What would their life be like? On the other end, looking at the observable facts we know, a multi cellular life form no bigger than an ant being killed, I think, should not be considered murder any more so than a woman having a period because of failing to reproduce that month, in which one egg dies, never mind the millions of sperm that die every time a male human orgasms even if one sperm gets to the female egg. So there is my answer. I believe in pro-choice.

Answer 4

OK, I am agnostic, but I believe by the spirit of the question,
I think I can answer.

Not believing (or not knowing) does not mean that you have
no sense of right or wrong, but it tends to make you more
empirical about how you come to your conclusions.

That is, we have no reason to believe that a fetus is embued
with any magic status (i.e. soul) - so it sits somewhere in the
span of life forms, and different people will place it differently.

Most people who don't believe in killing any animal
won't be happy about killing fetuses. Those who think
of humanity as part of the food chain will be less
unhappy about it.

I really don't think anyone wants to do it for no reason
whatsoever - it is a trade off between the loss of a
potential mind with opinions and graces vs. whatever
the reason is for killing it.

Some might argue that the desire not to kill is
a religious one, but that is poppycock. It is a human
instinct - meant to protect the species when the species
is the underdog. You do not kill members of your own
tribe, because they feed and defend you. It is in your
genes' best interest to make sure that you and yours
live on.

And of course humans are notoriously bad about killing
people who are obviously NOT part of the clan.

As for my opinion: I would try like hell to never put myself
into the position of having an abortion, but if I was there, I
would agonize over it, look at all the other possibilities, and
if there was no other way, do it. And I would feel guilty
about the loss of a potential child.

However, ***I*** would be in the best position to weight
the alternatives here, since it would be my body and my
care we're talking about. I can readily imagine
situations where I would not permit my body to be
held hostage to this potential child.

In the scheme of things (assuming there is no God
for a moment), ultimately, it doesn't matter. Never-the-less,
my instincts tell me to preserve life where I can.

As someone who truly doesn't know, I believe that
that line of reasoning could hold up as well as any other
to the scrutiny of a divine being (or even a collection of them).

After all, would when I eat fish, or whether I cross from left
to right or right to left be any less silly than a general desire
to preserve life - even if it is not for religious reasons?

Nobody of any religion will be able to survive on this planet
without doing in the occasional microbe. We're all filled
with parasites, etc. Absolutism simply doesn't work here.

OK, so I'm not an absolutist.

Shouldn't in-the-flesh-post-birth humanity be protected
absolutely?

No ... but (and here is the kicker) - I have YET to see any
sort of action short of self defense that justifies the taking
of a life. However, I am not willing to say that there isn't one.

I just haven't seen it yet. There always seems to be a better
way.

How's that for a complex and confusing answer?!

Answer 5

Your question is worded so as to sneak in the opinion that disbelief in god equates to an immoral, selfish lifestyle. I hate to disappoint you, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Atheists form their moral guidelines as rationally as it is possible to do so. Supporting the right to abortion is a no-brainer using this method. Abortions are a last resort when all else fails, and most of them by far happen in the first few weeks when the fetus is hardly a fetus, merely a collection of a few hundred cells with the *potential* to develop into a human. Giving something like this the same rights as a full-grown human is simply absurd.

A pregnant woman is a complete person who ought to have complete control over her own body. How can any sensible person argue with this? The answer is they don't; only non-sensical religious nuts argue with it. Most of you "pro-lifers" are only "pro-birthers" or you would be lining up to adopt all the unwanted children born because you prevented them being aborted. Where are these lines of compassionate Christian pro-lifers, anyway?..........

What your misnamed "pro-life" stance really stands for is control over women, to preserve your ancient and no longer viable patriarchal social structure. Why else would the commandment tell you not to covet "your neighbor's wife, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." In other words, your neighbor's *property* (and I know some of you will be asking yourselves "What's his point here?" - you are that clueless).

Calling abortion "murder" is an abuse of the language on the level of 1984's slogans such as "War Is Peace" and "Freedom Is Slavery." But then religious conservatives are only fascists by another name, after all.

Answer 6

Athiests don't have very different basic morality then christians or other religious folk.

It is not clear whether society, religious or otherwise values the life of an embryo or fetus as much as a person who has already been born. That is why you don't see fetal funerals, even in pro-life circles, that's why even pro-life poeple will use the same name for a baby that was miscarried for their next child, that is why Pro-life poeple don't call the coroner when they have a miscarriage.

It is also not clear that the government's interests in protecting fetuses overrides society's interests in protecting womens soverignty over their bodies. If we didn't have a history of treating women and their bodies as property, maybe we wouldn't have so many moral qualms about telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her pregnancy.

Just something to think about.

Answer 7

I think that by religious you mean Christian but as a Buddhist I probably count almost as an atheist.
It is wrong to kill but first it must be decided if abortion is killing. A fetus does not become a person until birth when it enters the world and has an existence independent from the mother. Until birth the fetus is part of the mother in the same way that an appendix or big toe is. To remove an appendix or amputate a big toe is not taking a life and in the same way the removal of a fetus from the mothers womb is not taking a life.
The counter argument is that abortion is stopping a potential life but so is the use of contraceptives, abstaining from sex and sterilization.
Society has chosen a finer definition by saying that a fetus which has reached a stage of development sufficient to be able to sustain its own life if removed from the womb cannot be aborted. In my mind a fairly logical position to take based on the Buddhist view of life. If the fetus is not sufficiently developed to be able to sustain its own independent existence it is not a person in its own right but part of the mother, if it has attained sufficient development then it is an individual waiting to be born and cannot be treated as part of the mother.

Answer 8

I am a Buddhist, which by definition is athiesm. I don't believe in one God, I believe in the power of the individual to attain enlightenment, to understand. Anyway, it's not so easy as yes or no, is it? Just because a person, whatever religion he DOES NOT practice does not mean that he doesn't believe in the sanctity of life, does it. I believe in each individual's choice even though it may not be my own choice if i were them. Each individual must make their own choices. I would not codemn for that. Furthermore, I am not a woman, and for that reason alone, I don't believe that I am able to judge what is biologically, "just" for a woman. Imagine whatit would be like to carry a baby inside of you if you were raped, or worse yet, raped by your father. Would the baby have a good life? Would he be brought up in an atmosphere of love? You see, as much as you, or many, would like to make it a black and white issue, it is not so. Such is life.

Answer 9

I am pro-choice because abortion will occur anyway. The only difference is that women will die if it is made illegal. I am also pro-choice because the same people who are opposed to abortion also oppose social support services for the mostly poor children and mothers who would be affected.

Abortion was never an issue until the 1800's. It's a new morals thing....it's part of the anti-sex victorian period.

Answer 10

It's a fair assessment that a fetus becomes a human when it can live outside of the womb, with minimal medical attention.

I'm pro-choice. Personally, I'm in favor of educating people on all aspects of sexual health (meaning do away with abstinence only education). The more education and information a person has, the better the choices they can make for themselves.