Nine months of pregnancy and labour risks their lives, too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion
- Thread starter leahrachelle
- Start date
leahrachelle
Active Member
That's a decision they have to make then. But the point is, they are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Aye, we call that the pro-choice stance.
Okay... don't arrest 'em; just issue $100 fines. Does this plan now become reasonable?
Yes you did. Right here:
You alluded to scientific investigation that support syour position, but when asked, you effectively said that it wasn't valid support after all.
Ah... so it's not so much about preventing abortions as merely making them inconvenient?
The Constitutional guarantee of liberty agrees with you.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you cared about all human and potentially human life. Was I wrong?
The point is that you're going to cause harm in different ways if you make it illegal. One way you have more abortions. The other way, you have less abortions but probably the same total amount of deaths. You're saying that the second way is preferable to you because you don't care about some people's lives?
You're missing the point. I'm not saying we have the perfect way in place. I think it's obvious we don't. The question here is what the perfect way is. You seem to think it's making it illegal, and I'm saying I don't think that solves the problem at all. I think things like those you mentioned and I repeated here are a better way to go than making it illegal.
Your point about it being illegal to teach about safe sex only helps support my point. I have to say, though, that I find it hard to believe that it's illegal to do so anywhere.
GiantHouseKey
Well-Known Member
[mod edit]
Whilst not strictly an atheist, I do not believe in God so I guess that makes me one... On a basic level I guess I take a 'Pro-life' approach. Whether the life is that of the child (Anti-abortion) or whether an abortion saves the life of the mother, I believe that human life should be actively sustained. If an abortion is necessary to save the mother, then I think that it is acceptable.
...And to that end, I certainly do not think that there should be legal implications of abortion. However, I respect everybody's right to have different beliefs, so if a mother chooses to kill their unborn child it is of no personal concern to me.
GhK.
Whilst not strictly an atheist, I do not believe in God so I guess that makes me one... On a basic level I guess I take a 'Pro-life' approach. Whether the life is that of the child (Anti-abortion) or whether an abortion saves the life of the mother, I believe that human life should be actively sustained. If an abortion is necessary to save the mother, then I think that it is acceptable.
...And to that end, I certainly do not think that there should be legal implications of abortion. However, I respect everybody's right to have different beliefs, so if a mother chooses to kill their unborn child it is of no personal concern to me.
GhK.
Last edited by a moderator:
leahrachelle
Active Member
Just because that statement applies for one thing doesn't mean it applies to all
leahrachelle
Active Member
You can't do that either. Very few people have that kind of money.
I didn't say that it wasn't valid. I just said I couldn't debate it
You could look at it that wat I guess, but that isn't the goal. The goal is truly trying to stop it, but since people find their own ways of doing stuff, it does in fact make it less convenient. That's how laws work though.
leahrachelle
Active Member
if they are WILLINGLY taking their OWN life, why is it my business? Why should I care?
If they're risking killing themselves then its their fault if they hurt themselves.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying we have the perfect way in place. I think it's obvious we don't. The question here is what the perfect way is. You seem to think it's making it illegal, and I'm saying I don't think that solves the problem at all. I think things like those you mentioned and I repeated here are a better way to go than making it illegal.
Your point about it being illegal to teach about safe sex only helps support my point. I have to say, though, that I find it hard to believe that it's illegal to do so anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, we already see that this is not working.
Just btw, its not 2200 a day its about 3000 (yahoo news about the abortion rally yesterday)
Are you accusing me of lying?
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Why is it any of your business whether anyone does anything with their lives? Are you going to go around and lecture every junkie you come across because you dislike the use of heroin?
Abortion should be legal, because if it is not, a coathanger is the next decent alternative. Then there's shonky backyard jobs.
Why stop abortion? IS it your moral obligation to make sure every human comes into this world that is already 2 billion overpopulated?
Once we reach 3 billion more, people will starve to death at an alarming rate. Will all you pro-life activists take the blame there? Hardly, im sure you can find another group to palm the blame onto.
That, too, is part of the pro-choice stance. :yes:
Last edited:
No, it's not: ineffective law is bad law. The fact that we have some laws on the books that have proven ineffective isn't justification to purposely make more of them.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Because they're not willingly taking their own life. They're trying to get an abortion, and have a normal life. Besides, you're missing the point. You're now making a distinction between lives. You're saying that some lives are more important to you than others. That contradicts your pro-life stance.
Or it's your fault for making it illegal and making them risk harm to do it.
We already see that what is not working?
What do you mean "Am I accusing you of lying"? What do you think I'm accusing you of lying about?
Smoke
Done here.
What really helps to bring down the abortion rate is education and the ready availability of contraception. Some countries where abortion is illegal or severely restricted have abortion rates higher than that of the United States. (The highest abortion rates, though, are in Eastern Europe, where abortion is legal and decent contraception has usually not been available, leaving women with no option other than abortion to limit the size of their families.)
Most people just don't want fifteen kids. Most women don't want to endure fifteen pregnancies. If you marry at fifteen and have a kid every two years, you can easily find yourself in that situation, unless either abortion or contraception is available. If contraception isn't available, and legal abortion isn't available, a lot of women are going to have illegal abortions. There's really not much that can be done to change that. People who don't approve of abortion, therefore, ought to support comprehensive sex education and the ready availability of contraception. In the United States, though, what we typically find is that most of the people who think abortion should be illegal also don't approve of comprehensive sex education or the ready availability of contraception, and so are helping to make sure the abortion rate stays high. Their answer, that nobody should have sex unless they're prepared to have a baby, is ridiculously unrealistic.
I sometimes wonder whether the "pro-life" position isn't a cynical calculation on the part of the leadership. They can keep their followers stirred up and motivated by talking about a "holocaust" of "babies." By managing to restrict sex education and the ready availability of contraception, they help make sure the "holocaust" continues. Job security!
Most people just don't want fifteen kids. Most women don't want to endure fifteen pregnancies. If you marry at fifteen and have a kid every two years, you can easily find yourself in that situation, unless either abortion or contraception is available. If contraception isn't available, and legal abortion isn't available, a lot of women are going to have illegal abortions. There's really not much that can be done to change that. People who don't approve of abortion, therefore, ought to support comprehensive sex education and the ready availability of contraception. In the United States, though, what we typically find is that most of the people who think abortion should be illegal also don't approve of comprehensive sex education or the ready availability of contraception, and so are helping to make sure the abortion rate stays high. Their answer, that nobody should have sex unless they're prepared to have a baby, is ridiculously unrealistic.
I sometimes wonder whether the "pro-life" position isn't a cynical calculation on the part of the leadership. They can keep their followers stirred up and motivated by talking about a "holocaust" of "babies." By managing to restrict sex education and the ready availability of contraception, they help make sure the "holocaust" continues. Job security!
lamplighter
Almighty Tallest
It's funny you should bring this up, since if abortion is made illegal you'll have more children who'll feel unwanted, since you'll have more parents treating their children as if they were a burden, if you don't know children are EXPENSIVE. This increase in financial burden is why some people get an abortion in the first place, as having another child may put them beyond their ability to support themselves and their children. So you would rather children be forced into poverty, or put up for adoption in a system which many children are left parentless for the entire lives. You also increase the rate of death among women, as many couldn't bare either of those for their child, and forced with home "remedies", try reading a A Raisin in the Sun it portrays an excellent example of this. Sometimes death for a life that might have been, is better than a life of endless pain and sorrow. I'm not condoning abortion in this situation, I think to remedy such situations we should increase sex education, and provide free contraception, the world as too many people, we don't need more hungry mouths left wanting until death. I believe eliminating the desire for such an abortion through the practice of safe sex, is the moral high ground in comparison to abortion, but abortion even in these situations is better than forcing people into pain in suffering by either means of home abortions, forcing children into poverty, or into a parentless life that leaves them feeling unloved. Some people are inevitably going to commit suicide, but I do believe we shouldn't make an effort to increase the suicide rate by forcing people into situations that create such a desire to do so.
leahrachelle
Active Member
What?? That doesn't even make sense
leahrachelle
Active Member
It's their life.
And no, the baby is not their life.
leahrachelle
Active Member
From the definition you're implying, what law ISN'T ineffective?