ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[leahrachelle]

In other words, you don't see it as letting her do what she wants with her body. Regardless of whether you want to see it that way, it is telling her what she can and can't do with her own body. My point was a question of why you think it would be deemed acceptable or legal to allow a woman to make that decision on her own in some cases (like rape), but not in others. How is that different from saying that it's never ok to kill someone unless your life is in danger or if you've been raped? Obviously, the first is sort of acceptable. If it can be proven, then you generally won't be convicted, if it's a case of self-defense. However, you might get some sympathy if the person you killed had raped you, but it wouldn't make it legal, and you'd still most likely be convicted of some kind of murder.

So, since, to you, having an abortion is no different than murdering another adult human being, then why would you expect this inconsistency in the law?

I didn't say that I agree with it - because I don't. I said that the law possibly could because she has already done what she wants to her body.. But in cases of rape that wouldn't apply.

 

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mball1297
I couldn't agree more here. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you had to have a license to have kids?

Yet I'm the one that wants to control people..???

Actually, it's a marvelous idea that needn't infringe on liberty whatsoever. Oh well...

 

[Magic Man]

I didn't say that I agree with it - because I don't. I said that the law possibly could because she has already done what she wants to her body.. But in cases of rape that wouldn't apply.

That's why I was speaking legally. Why would you expect it to be legal for a woman to have an abortion after rape, when she can't kill the guy that raped her legally? By your logic, the two acts are no different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why I was speaking legally. Why would you expect it to be legal for a woman to have an abortion after rape, when she can't kill the guy that raped her legally? By your logic, the two acts are no different.

To be fair to leahrachelle, the two acts are different in terms of public sentiment. If your mission is to prevent as many abortions as possible but don't think you'd have the political clout or support to make abortions in the case of rape illegal, then pragmatically, you go for what you can get.

It's not like there's a huge public outcry demanding that rape victims be able to execute their attackers.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I didn't say that I agree with it - because I don't. I said that the law possibly could because she has already done what she wants to her body.. But in cases of rape that wouldn't apply.

IMO you're STILL putting a limitation as to what she can and can't do with her own body. Your assumption is that because she had unprotected sex...she has made her "CHOICE" and as such has no further rights to do what she pleases with her body when it is discovered she is pregnant.

There seems to be some inclination from you, albeit vague, that in the case of rape she has the right to an abortion. I gather, from a few responses, you're in agreement with abortion in the case of the mother's health/life. What about incest?

And if the ones above are ok with you then what's the problem with any other personal reason for her wanting an abortion?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Your assumption is that because she had unprotected sex...she has made her "CHOICE" and as such has no further rights to do what she pleases with her body when it is discovered she is pregnant.

In the case where the assumption is correct, then I agree that should be the case. Why should the child pay for the incompetence of the adults? It's very easy nowadays - If you have sex, protect yourself. If you CHOOSE not to, then you must suffer the consequences.

Adoption exists. There are thousands of people that are desperate to have a child which makes me even more angry that people think that a child is just a problem which has to be sorted out.

There seems to be some inclination from you, albeit vague, that in the case of rape she has the right to an abortion. I gather, from a few responses, you're in agreement with abortion in the case of the mother's health/life. What about incest?

Incest is wrong to begin with. If it was consensual incest that is unprotected then an abortion is not ok, and I can only hope that the child will be alright. But again, if the child will die, or the mother will be physically harmed then an abortion is acceptable. In the case of incest rape then as long as the mother is perfectly safe and the child will be born with an adequate quality of life (Basic health) then abortion is not acceptable, in my opinion, which evidently counts for very little I know.

 

[Willamena]

If you CHOOSE not to, then you must suffer the consequences.

Realistically, though, humans are a bit more forgiving than this stance would indicate. People make mistakes, people take chances, people fall in love, and people who love people forgive.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Realistically, though, humans are a bit more forgiving than this stance would indicate. People make mistakes, people take chances, people fall in love, and people who love people forgive.

Not this human. People know that to get pregnant, you have unprotected sex. It's not difficult. If you choose to have unprotected sex you risk a pregnancy that you might not want. If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have unprotected sex. Is that really too much to ask?

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have unprotected sex. Is that really too much to ask?

Yes. It is. Your words also imply that their actions in taking a risk adversly affect you, since you have to ask, so I have to wonder... what's it to you?

 

[Sententia]

Yes. It is. Your words also imply that their actions in taking a risk adversly affect you, since you have to ask, so I have to wonder... what's it to you?

Well I cant answer for them but I can state my own thoughts.

Getting pregnant knowingly with the intention of abortion because you just want to roll the dice and dont like the feel of condoms or whatever is just wrong on a few levels.

Selfishness maybe... But creating a baby is extremely taxxing on a mother. Its harmful but a good harmful if it ends up with a baby better then the sum of its parts. (Haha... read into that :thud If it doesnt produce a benefit it is just harmful.

You dont really have to go much further if you can already prove it is harmful. But sometimes you have to. Sometimes having the baby is more harmful then not.

So thats the issue really. Some people say aborting a baby is wrong you will burn in hell you evil blah blah blah... and other people say well wait... what if the baby was born then what would of happened and how could you allow this baby to be born etc etc etc...

Its the mothers choice.

She might be wrong, she might be right. It is her body and her baby. Not yours.

 

[Magic Man]

In the case where the assumption is correct, then I agree that should be the case. Why should the child pay for the incompetence of the adults? It's very easy nowadays - If you have sex, protect yourself. If you CHOOSE not to, then you must suffer the consequences.

What if you protect yourself, and you still get pregnant?

I don't think the child is paying for that incompetence. I think of it more like two people who go out on a couple of dates. They decide after two dates that it's not going to work, and so they call it quits. That way the hurt feelings and problems are minimized. If they continued to go out for 3 or 4 months or more, then they create problems when they do break up.

Adoption exists. There are thousands of people that are desperate to have a child which makes me even more angry that people think that a child is just a problem which has to be sorted out.

Yes, it does, but you do realize how many children are out there right now for adoption, right? And how many potential parents for those kids? It's not a good ratio.

Getting pregnant knowingly with the intention of abortion because you just want to roll the dice and dont like the feel of condoms or whatever is just wrong on a few levels.

That's true. No one would deny that. When dealing with a situation like this, though, one has to take the bad with the good. I don't think overall it's a good idea to ban abortions, even if sometimes, like in your example, the mother is in the wrong.

So thats the issue really. Some people say aborting a baby is wrong you will burn in hell you evil blah blah blah... and other people say well wait... what if the baby was born then what would of happened and how could you allow this baby to be born etc etc etc...

I was reminded of this debate the other day while reading an article in Rolling Stone magazine. It was an article from many months ago about a kid here in the U.S. who took an AK47 into a department store and killed 8 people before killing himself. The article told the story of his life. It included parents who had him in the hope that another kid would solve their marital problems (but obviously only made things worse, and then proceeded to fight verbally and physically from the time he was an infant. They finally divorced, and the kid, Robert Hawkins, lived with his dad before being bounced around from foster homes to group homes to mental institutions. I won't go into any more detail, although you can look it up. The point is that sometimes being born is worse than not.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Yes. It is.

I think I can safely say that it is pretty easy not to have unprotected sex. I guess you know how intercourse works, as you are clearly an intelligent person, and to this end I guess you would most likely agree that it is very simple not to do it. Can you please explain as I am obviously not getting this.

Your words also imply that their actions in taking a risk adversly affect you, since you have to ask, so I have to wonder... what's it to you?

You are right. Individual cases of abortion do not affect me. To be honest, i'm not passionate about changing abortion laws, and even if I had any control over the legal system I would allow abortion. Not because I like the idea of abortion or think that abortions are acceptable but because people should be able to work this out for themselves. People don't need me telling them what to do and you're absolutely right why should I care?

But you're saying that because it doesn't have anything to do with me I can't argue my point? So anybody who is not in the situation cannot have an view? The only people that can really participate in this debate are pregnant women?

She might be wrong, she might be right. It is her body and her baby. Not yours.

You are also right, it is her baby and not mine. But then why is abortion at 8 months not acceptable? Or is it?

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

...is just wrong on a few levels.
Selfishness maybe...
...If it doesnt produce a benefit it is just harmful.

Its the mothers choice.

She might be wrong, she might be right. It is her body and her baby. Not yours.

None of which answers the question ...what's it to you? Really, the risk they take is no one's business.

 

[Magic Man]

You are also right, it is her baby and not mine. But then why is abortion at 8 months not acceptable? Or is it?

GhK.

Because at that point, the baby could come out and most likely live on its own. It is fully human by then.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

What if you protect yourself, and you still get pregnant?

Then that sucks for you. If you protect yourself in battle and still get killed, you've got 2 choice rather than die. 1 is protect yourself better and 2 is don't go into battle. Of course battle is not the same, but you get what I mean.

I don't think the child is paying for that incompetence. I think of it more like two people who go out on a couple of dates. They decide after two dates that it's not going to work, and so they call it quits. That way the hurt feelings and problems are minimized. If they continued to go out for 3 or 4 months or more, then they create problems when they do break up.

In this situation, both people involved have a say and no life or potential life or whatever you want to call it is being destroyed in the process of a break-up.

Yes, it does, but you do realize how many children are out there right now for adoption, right? And how many potential parents for those kids? It's not a good ratio.

I know that it's a sad statistic. Adoption is not a good system and I agree it's not a solution to the abortion problem.

I was reminded of this debate the other day while reading an article in Rolling Stone magazine. It was an article from many months ago about a kid here in the U.S. who took an AK47 into a department store and killed 8 people before killing himself. The article told the story of his life. It included parents who had him in the hope that another kid would solve their marital problems (but obviously only made things worse, and then proceeded to fight verbally and physically from the time he was an infant. They finally divorced, and the kid, Robert Hawkins, lived with his dad before being bounced around from foster homes to group homes to mental institutions. I won't go into any more detail, although you can look it up. The point is that sometimes being born is worse than not.

So what you're saying is that we should allow abortions because the child might turn out to be a serial killer? But what if the child turned out to invent the cure for cancer? Neither possibility is likely, but you can't justify killing anybody because of something they might or might not do. Why not just kill me now just incase I end up killing somebody in the future, is that what you're saying?
And by the way, I know people who have had pretty bad lives and have turned out to be perfectly nice people.

GhK.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Because at that point, the baby could come out and most likely live on its own. It is fully human by then.

When do you consider to be the instant that abortion becomes unacceptable?

GhK.

 

[Magic Man]

Then that sucks for you. If you protect yourself in battle and still get killed, you've got 2 choice rather than die. 1 is protect yourself better and 2 is don't go into battle. Of course battle is not the same, but you get what I mean.

Sorry, in other words, you group this in with not protecting yourself? What do you consider adequate protection?

In this situation, both people involved have a say and no life or potential life or whatever you want to call it is being destroyed in the process of a break-up.

It was an analogy. The point was that if you do it early, then it's not a big deal, but if you wait a long time, it can be. As in, if you get an abortion early, you're not hurting a child, just a potential one. If you wait several months, then you could say "the child is paying" for those mistakes.

I know that it's a sad statistic. Adoption is not a good system and I agree it's not a solution to the abortion problem.

Then why bring it up as if it is?

So what you're saying is that we should allow abortions because the child might turn out to be a serial killer? But what if the child turned out to invent the cure for cancer? Neither possibility is likely, but you can't justify killing anybody because of something they might or might not do. Why not just kill me now just incase I end up killing somebody in the future, is that what you're saying?
And by the way, I know people who have had pretty bad lives and have turned out to be perfectly nice people.

GhK.

What I'm saying is that sometimes it would be better to have an abortion. It was in reference to the argument that letting the child live is always better than not. It is an argument not brought up in the last few posts, but that has been brought up before, and BalanceFX's post reminded me of it. There are times when the situation the kid will be brought into is worse than death, and that story is an example of one.

 

[Willamena]

I think I can safely say that it is pretty easy not to have unprotected sex.

It's simplicity isn't the issue, as I see it. Even the unavailability of condoms in some areas (which impacts "ease") wouldn't be the issue. It is entirely unreasonable to ask that risk be avoided every time sex is performed, i.e. that every single wilful non-procreation act engage a condom. I think it's unreasonable to ask because how they choose to do it is none of anyone's business. But maybe that's just me.

But you're saying that because it doesn't have anything to do with me I can't argue my point? So anybody who is not in the situation cannot have an view? The only people that can really participate in this debate are pregnant women?

You are participating in a debate, expressing your view, so obviously that's not the case. The question wasn't designed to require to you to cease; I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was genuinely curious why the issue would prompt that question from you.

You are also right, it is her baby and not mine. But then why is abortion at 8 months not acceptable? Or is it?

Depends on what you mean by "acceptable". Personally I don't find it acceptable at any point in the pregnancy.

 

[Magic Man]

When do you consider to be the instant that abortion becomes unacceptable?

GhK.

When the baby could live on its own.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

It was an analogy. The point was that if you do it early, then it's not a big deal, but if you wait a long time, it can be. As in, if you get an abortion early, you're not hurting a child, just a potential one. If you wait several months, then you could say "the child is paying" for those mistakes

I guess I can't really argue with that. We just have different views and I consider abortion to be wrong and obviously you think it's ok.

Depends on what you mean by "acceptable". Personally I don't find it acceptable at any point in the pregnancy.

I agree... This post makes me a little confused as to your view...I thought you were pro-choice. Can you clarify?

I think it's unreasonable to ask because how they choose to do it is none of anyone's business. But maybe that's just me.

And I think it's unreasonable to have an abortion. Guess that's the 2 options you have when debating this issue. In virtually every other situation I advocate pro-choice, but when another person is involved, especially one that cannot have a say, then I am totally against it.

Obviously this is not the same but consider that you were deaf-blind or severly paralysed. I know it's a horrible situation, but consider that you wanted to live. What if your carer/parent found that it was just too much work for them to have you around anymore so you were killed because they thought it was the best thing to do. Is this ok?

GhK.