Atheists only: Why do most mainstream Atheists believe in pro-choice?

Question

Richard Dawkins talked about the events leading up to a human life would outnumber the grains of sand in the Sahara, and that we are all very lucky to have been born at all, for we are but a small few compared to the many, many more humans that have not existed because certain steps were missed in their creation.

I fully agree with him, and yet it makes me lean towards pro-life because of it. Why kill the baby on the last step of the wonderous journey to become a human being? Some might argue, "Well, what about rape victims? What about the way the world is today?" I fail to see how that is the baby's fault in the least. It did not chose to be, but it is, and you agree that murdering this entity is somehow not wrong.

I work in heathcare, and have seen countless babies in ultrasounds that have their own little personalities and quirks, even before they have fully developed. To say a baby is not alive until it comes out in the third trimester is a very weak argument indeed.

I simply fail to see how educated, and obviously rational people will embrace this murder. Is it just convenient to get an abortion, and therefore is the right answer?

Please help me understand this. I am fully Atheist, and yet this issue makes me wonder about how "just" our ideas really are.

Thanks in advance.

OK I am not saying to push any ideas on anyone else. I am asking how you can believe it yourselves, a totally different question.

Note the "mainstream" part of my question. I am not saying that this is atheist sunday-school.

It is funny to see how many of you view this as some sort of personal attack. I don't know you at all. I am asking HOW you can think this murder is right. Get over yourselves and answer the question, or don't. No need for personal attacks in response to a question I honestly want to know the answer to.

Answer 1

GREAT question! It's one that does not come up too often, and I'm glad it has come up here. Most christians believe that atheists are pro-choice fetus eaters or some other such rubbish.

I myself am pro-life and I too believe that abortion is murder.

I wish i could understand the whole thing, but you have the pro-life people on one side saying it's murder and they'd rather the kids be put up for adoption while the pro-choice people are saying "Well you should adopt the kids then".... It seems like the pro-choice people are simply taking the easy way out...... they aren't going to be the ones to adopt the kids because they think that killing them is the only viable solution to such circumstances..... "Can't take care of your kid? Don't want to risk the child having a rough life in an adoption orphanage? Just kill it! I know what you're thinking! Isn't murder illegal? Normally yes it is.... but if you do it before the baby exits your vagina you're safe!"

I do not believe abortion should even be an issue. I think there should be programs in place to be sure that things like this are taken care of WITHOUT killing. If the woman is raped and doesn't want the child she should have the option to put that child up for adoption with no problems. Abortion should not be an option.

I also think that if fundies would get their heads out of their @sses the abortion rates would decrease because I'd be willing to bet that most of the abortions taking place are done by the children of the fundies who experiment with the things that they are told are evil. (sex) They experiment, get pregnant, and they fear severe punishment or even excommunication from the family so they go to these back-street abortion clinics to get the fetus killed. In a way, even though the fundies are ferociously against the practice of abortion, they are one of the leading causes of it. If there was more understanding within the family unit and less of the bible beating dogma, the doors of communication would be opened and the kids would not fall into the cycle.

Not saying this is the way it always is, but it seems to be the popular trend nowadays.

Answer 2

Well, here is another example that may get your gears winding... What about a very low-income family that finds out their child is going to be disabled in some way (mentally or physically) and because they have such a low income, they will not be able to properly take care of the child. Should the child be forced to suffer in this fate? I know we have an adoption system.. but it's too messed up to even think about. There have been recent stories on the news about people adopting children and they are in an even worse situation with the adopted parent.

Another scenario, the child still has the disability. I know stem cell research is another sore topic for some people, but again, if the child was aborted, scientists could examine the aborted child and possibly find a cure for whatever ailment the child had. We all like to think that people are decent, caring individuals. So, here's the Million Dollar Question: Why should future children suffer a disease, when another child could have sacrificed itself to cure the disease. I realize that the first child is not making the decision, but we all like to think that we're decent people, so would the first child have made the decision to sacrifice itself to aid the future children?

It's all a big, moral, ethics, beliefs conundrum.
Issues of this type will never be solved.

Answer 3

I agree with you to the fullest extent. Some atheists evidently feel that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply in the case of abortion. A yet unborn baby is the product of humans, the fetus is in a manner of speaking, alive, The fetus is in, and part of, the human mother, the fetus can move, feel pain, even suck it's thumb, yet they say it's not alive yet and it's not human yet? Give me a break. If abortion is a pretty good thing, PLEASE watch a film clip of an abortion. See how the arms, legs, etc. are cut off. See how the head is crushed so it can be removed. Now tell me that there is nothing wrong with that ! I wouldn't do that to a dog much less a human being. A person desiring an abortion should be required to watch such a video, if for no other reason, to understand what is going to take place, what an abortion looks like and what an abortion does. Why is it that mothers that want a child, that want to give birth, but during the pregnancy something goes wrong and the fetus doesn't make it, why do they say they lost their baby or they lost their child? There must be something to it. Admittedly, and I guess as you can see, I'm not an atheist and I am pro-life.

Answer 4

It would never be my choice to ask my partner to get an abortion. The arguments for and against are primarily ones of who assigns value to this life. Some argue that life, when it isn't sustainable outside the womb, isn't life at all. Others argue that life of any kind is life (similar I think to your thoughts on the subject).

In the case of rape, I think that the removal of the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy is a different issue. If a person has forced sex with a female, it is not an act of procreation; it is an act of violence. The instant removal of the possibility of a resulting pregnancy (i.e., the morning after pill) is something that I support. This is a potential life that was formed in anger, at great harm to the female, and is in no way a choice of that female.

I see no benefit to making that person suffer for 9 months baring the child of her attacker. I also see no conflict because at that point, you have no idea if the person is pregnant or not...and if you are quick enough with the treatment, you can prevent conception from happening at all...just like using other contraceptive methods in a more consenting situation.

This is a difficult subject, though, and it is deeply personal. It's one of the reasons that so many think government, and by extension, religion, should not be involved in making the decision for the person involved. I don't personally think that abortion as a method of birth control is valid (except in cases of rape, incest, etc.)...what I wish for is a world in which abortion isn't considered because it isn't necessary. But that would take a serious effort to promote forms of contraception...and there are many that are against that as well.

In response to your comments about personal attacks...how do you know what constitutes murder? Is using contraceptives in any form murder as well? You are preventing life after all.

Answer 5

In a lot of instances, more factors go into the though of abortion. Some people are not ready to bear a child, either financially or emotionally. Furthermore, if the mothers health or life is at risk. Accidents do happen in the heat of the moment. The mother should have the option of having the baby or not. She shouldn't be forced to go through the pain and suffering for a year for nothing. It is her body to "choose" what she wants to do with it. Don't you agree? You would want to be forced to have a baby against your will because the law says so. That's why we live in this wonderful FREE WORLD!

Answer 6

Selfishness (well that's with anyone), and maybe they don't feel that they have to answer to anyone so it's that much easier to be brainwashed by Pro-choicer's into believing life doesn't start until a certain point. Hmm, must be a fine line...others are just too young and "alone" and easily talked into doing things they they aren't sure they really want to do, but are too scared to face the reality of the situation.

If someone was raped, incest was involved, the baby had no chance of surviving, or the pregnancy was a tubal as well as a number of other unusual situations...know one knows the right answer.

Answer 7

I feel it's a womans choice to do what she pleases with her body. Not spite or hatred of god fearing people.

A birth of a child is a gift and it shouldnt be wasted but look at this world and all the problems. Many people are fit parents and we have too many unwanted, troubled kids in this world.
If a child is not going to get a life where it can flurish or is going to struggle to survive, why do it?
Something isn't better then nothing here. This is the glass half full approach.

To me if a child can not survive on the parents aid alone then it's not "murder". I think life is better off then forcing 3 people to stuggle because of an unwanted mistake.

Answer 8

Simple. I'm a woman. I see the horrible things that happen to women. I wouldn't wish anyone to have to give birth to a baby they didn't want, to have to be pregnant and stigmatized for what they went through, or for a simple mistake. Besides which, at some point you have to realize that everyone should be capable of making their own, informed decisions about their reproductive rights.

Being pregnant is dangerous, and it involves many problems. You have to get prenatal care. (Very expensive.) You have to take time off work to give birth. (Expensive and problematic if you have an important job.) You have to deal with hormonal changes and health risks. You have to deal with the emotional baggage of having a child, even if you don't keep it. You have to deal with the knowledge that putting it up for adoption could place it in a horrible home.

There's a lot of responsibility. And the guy who's equally responsible can walk away with no consequences. It's not fair. So, to some degree, early-term abortion helps to level the playing field. Do you really want to call the fertilized egg eliminated by the morning after pill an abomination?

Answer 9

In theory, I agree with you, but the fact is that bringing a child into the world is more than just a wonderous event. If you look at places where children are starving, you understand how impotrtant it is to be able to provide for any child you bring into the world. The third trimester argument is weak, but I do think that the argument that it is not a child until it has a human brainwave is good. Remember: kittens have personalities and quirks too. I'm not advocating the murder of kittens here either, but when we cannot provide for them, we put them down because it is the ethical thing to do.

Answer 10

Well, this is a tough question! Let me explain some things:

The first few weeks after conception there is no "baby", there are only cells that procreate. This bunch of cells does not have any feelings, emotions, thoughts or anything else that mgiht class it as "human" or even "animal": we don't kill animals because they have feelings, in the sense that they endure pain.
Those cells don't endure pain during the first weeks after conception, so it is indeed not cruel to not allow them to live. We rip plants from the ground as well, even though it is just as surprising that THEY exist, is it not?
These cells reside in a woman's body, and it is wrong to say that they are a baby - they might make it to be one at a point, but they aren't yet! As such, it is just an accumulation of cells in somebody's body, compareable to a wart or tumor. The person owning her body can decide what to do with it, as always.

However, what does bug me is
firstly: at 12 weeks (that is the legal time to abort in my country), there is in fact something able to feel pain, so I think that to abort at 12 weeks is too late. The deadline should be a lot earlier. That, of course, makes a decision harder and also necessarily quicker - but then it isn't just about the woman anymore. Somebody having unprotected sex can get medication up to 48 hous after intercourse to rpevent a pregnancy from happening. If you don't do that, then I fail to see what gives you the right to wait another 10 weeks to abort. Maybe 6 weeks, but 10 is exaggerated, in my opinion.

Secondly: in my country, babies with severe disabilities can be aborted up to the 22nd week - THAT is plain cruel, expecially considering what "severe" is: trisomy 21, for example, even though some with that condition can work as adults, there is somebody with a doctor's degree and trisomy 21 in Portugal - what gives anybody the right to decide that such a life is not worth being lived? I fail to see the reason there. When I agree with such a decision is on severe(!) cases like anencephaly, where the baby would die, at the latest, a few hours after birth if it isn't stillborn. In that case, to help the mother I would think it unwise to prohibit abortions. Unless a baby is unable to survive outside the womb, however, I see no reason as to why somebody should decide that this life is not worth being lived. That is most horrible and cruel. I don't think it is easy to have a baby with disabilities, but if all else fails a child can be given somewhere where somebody takes care. Adults with trisomy 21 (the most common reason for an abortion) can live outside their home without there parents, and are usually VERY happy individuals indeed.

All in all, I think something isn't a baby until perhaps week 8 (when the embryonic stage is over and the fetal stage begins), though even that is far-fetched because at that point the embryo can move, the heart is beating and eyes are forming. But any abortion later than that does seem cruel, does it not?

Personally, I have supported a friend who had an unplanned pregnancy rather early in life to keep the baby. She is now one of the happiest people I know, with the baby's father supporting her. I do think that an abortion is the worst of choices and very, very rarely the best for a woman - but it is not my place to decide what is best for a woman, as it is not my place to decide what somebody believes in. In a case where a woman sees that as her only option I have, albeit reluctantly, to support her decision and help her through it, as well as to enable her to have a choice - until somebody else would be hurt; the right for a choice is over then.