why would atheists not be pro-life?

Question

well this question may seem strange, but atheists don't believe in a God, afterlife, etc. so then why would they want to send someone to nothingness before they had any chance to live, if atheism is about this life then why ruin it for some. At least most religions believe in some form of an afterlife for these babies(no i will not call them fetuses) to go to. Everyone should believe in at least giving people a chance in THIS life, regardless of what could happen to you later on.

Yeah atheists tend to be liberals and think that pro-life is automatically associated with religion, but really its not its associated more with simple ethics, you are either murdering the baby (if you believe it is alive) or taking away its unalienable right to life (if you believe it is not alive yet).

i believe that if the mother's LIFE is in real danger then it can be done, because then we would be infringing on her right to life, but if she simply does not want to be burdened, then guess what many other people who be happy to adopt her child.

Answer 1

There's no reason one (atheist or Theist) cannot be pro-life and pro-choice. That's where I count myself, anyway.

And your refusal to use the (proper) word fetus reminds me of the story of Abraham Lincoln when he asked "if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg". Don't be wanton in your ignorance.

Answer 2

We are usually pro-choice because we have no religious dogma telling un that we shouldn't. A fetus is a collection of cellt, and for the most part is not conscious or sentient. The woman has an established life, and that should be the priority. I personally don't think anyone has the right to tell someone that they have to put their health at risk and be a human incubator just because a condom broke, or because a young person made a stupid mistake.

Unintended pregnancies can riun lives depending on the situation. Pregnancy also have many inherent risks, and causes major physiological changes in women. Why would anyone want to force someone to go through that for a baby that isn't even wanted? That almost like a kind of slavery, because at that point, the women would be slave to that baby for 9 months.

I also do not accept the argument that someone should have the baby because someone else will want it. There is no guarantee of that. There are already more unwanted children in the foster system than there are adoptive parents, and there are many children who end up living the first 18 years of their life as wards of the state. Forcing women to have unintended babies just to add them to the system is making the problem worse. It would actually hurt society, because the cost of these programs would skyrocket.

There are so many facts of life today that the pro-life group does not take into account, because their arguments are not based in logic, but emotion. They don't consider the impact that outlawing abortion would have on women or society in general. More women would die from botched illegal abortions. More women would commit suicide. More babies would grow up in state custody, and society would have to pay for those children. Those children that grow up without parents are more likely to get involved with crime and drugs, and that would effect the crime rate. If people would push aside emotion for a minute and think these things out logically, then they would see how many more problems there would be if they got their way.

Answer 3

you are way wrong.
first. "well this question may seem strange, but atheists don't believe in a God, afterlife, etc. so then why would they want to send someone to nothingness before they had any chance to live, if atheism is about this life then why ruin it for some."

Atheist doesn't mean about life. it means no religion. abortion has nothing to do with religion.

"At least most religions believe in some form of an afterlife for these babies(no i will not call them fetuses) to go to. Everyone should believe in at least giving people a chance in THIS life, regardless of what could happen to you later on."

Accually no. if you cant take care of the baby why have it? dont give me that bullsh*t ...if you spred your legs to put it in you should spread them mto get it out. well accidents happen. condoms break birth control doesnt work. theres alot of things. dont give me that bull.

"Yeah atheists tend to be liberals and think that pro-life is automatically associated with religion, but really its not its associated more with simple ethics, you are either murdering the baby (if you believe it is alive) or taking away its unalienable right to life (if you believe it is not alive yet)."

not many athiests believe abortion is about religion. its not. they know it. either way you put it its ok to abort. what about someone who cant take care of it? what about someone who was raped. what about when they tried everything and still got pregnate.
sorry but noone is going to be 'oh well im just not guna have sex :D! hormones dont work like that buddy.
maybe thin of the other side before you point fingers.

Answer 4

You've been reading too much pro-life propaganda . The pro-life folks could care less about life. They just care about promoting their own little myopic political agenda. Think about it . A conservative pro-lifer is actually impossible. A real pro-lifer would be a socialist because their personal morality would impel them to do so.
If a pro-lifer genuinely cared so much about that fetus he saved from the fairly high probability of mortal extinction( not all natural pregnancy's go to full term ) then morally he would have no choice but to create social programs to insure that child and his mother had decent chance at a good life.
Saving a fetus and then kicking it to the curb and walking away from all your responsibilities to it after it's born is by far more immoral than abortion will ever be.

Answer 5

Some atheists/agnostics ARE pro-life, but many aren't. I think it is because they do not believe in any ultimate accountability for people's actions, and they have bought into the lie that either unborn babies aren't really people, or maybe they are but the mother's rights outweigh theirs. Either way, it does seem contrary to humanism to support the idea that people should be able to destroy members of their own species with impunity.

Answer 6

professional-determination. i do no longer think of that's worth bringing a existence into this international if it potential destroying different lives, killing human beings, trashing person-friendly human rights, trampling person-friendly empathy, dehumanizing born human beings, orphaning born infants, making human beings loose jobs, making human beings loose homes, and demonizing human beings for figuring out what replaced into superb for themselves and thier relatives. it rather is merely some issues that happen whilst abortion is stimatized and made unlawful. rather litterally, making abortion saves no one. interior the historical past of human form, making abortion unlawful has in no way as quickly as stopped abortion. It merely added approximately the above, and maintains to realize this. you prefer to decrease abortion? wonderful, that's common. inexpensive and accessible birth control. suited intercourse ed. Make having and raising a baby inexpensive. Make adoption a achievable option for all and sundry. those are merely starts, yet they have all been shown to decrease abortion. They save lives.

Answer 7

well i'm an atheist and i'm pro-choise because if somebody doesn't want to have a baby nobody can force them to have it. it's stupid to end up pregnant if you don't want kids but accidents happen and are you saying that if you accidently ended up pregnant you shouldn't even be given the choise wheather or not you want to keep the baby or not.

Answer 8

It really does depend upon the precise circumstances of individual cases.

Answer 9

Good point. I think most do assume it's about religion, and don't give it any real thought.

Answer 10

First of all, not all atheists are liberals. Secondly, not all atheists are pro-choice. And lastly, a cluster of cells is not a baby. It's your opinion that it's murder, but that opinion is not supported by our laws.