Atheism & Abortion

Scofflaw

Stepping for a moment out of the boundless vigour of the Death of Religion thread, I notice at least a couple of atheist posters have asserted their opposition to abortion. I'm interested - what's your reasoning? Emotive or logical?

I'll accept extensive argument from those who feel their position is justifiable, and a brief note from those who accept that their position is entirely emotional.

For the record, I am pro-choice, and voted that way in every Irish referendum on the question, so I am your opponent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

My position:

http://therereallyisaspoon.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html

Written during the Miss D row, I am pro-choice but I would like to hear the positions of atheists who are opposed to choice.

aidan24326

I think it's impossible to give a conclusive argument on the subject either way, as it's very difficult to define at what moment someone is 'alive'. If it's ok to kill a 3 month old foetus but not a 6 monther, then why exactly? I don't think the issue will ever be resolved, it will always divide people as there are some tricky questions there that aren't going to be answered any time soon.

Overall I'd put myself more in the pro-choice camp. I would not favour abortion in every possible situation though, such as aborting a near-full-term foetus, however I can't really give a solid explanation as to why the 3 month foetus would be less deserving of my sympathy. Carl Sagan suggested the following: Allow it in the first trimester, only in special circumstances(to be defined) during the second trimester and never allow it thereafter. The lines drawn may be somewhat arbitrary but unfortunately we have to draw a line somewhere, one way or the other.

EDIT just read hivemind's blog. You make some interesting points, but while I usually tend to be a cold rationalist sort myself, I think you are maybe going at it too dispassionately. Even if the foetus can be seen as a parasite of sorts, we all were one of those parasites once upon a time. While I'm in favour of pro-choice I don't think it's as cut and dried as all that.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote: »

Overall I'd put myself more in the pro-choice camp. I would not favour abortion in every possible situation though, such as aborting a near-full-term foetus, however I can't really give a solid explanation as to why the 3 month foetus would be less deserving of my sympathy. Carl Sagan suggested the following: Allow it in the first trimester, only in special circumstances(to be defined) during the second trimester and never allow it thereafter. The lines drawn may be somewhat arbitrary but unfortunately we have to draw a line somewhere, one way or the other.

Yes I read something similar in his "billions and billions" book.
I thought he said the cut off was when the heart had formed.

Beruthiel

I am also very much in the pro-choice camp.

Tim Robbins

Beruthiel wrote: »

I am also very much in the pro-choice camp.

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

aidan24326

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes I read something similar in his "billions and billions" book.
I thought he said the cut off was when the heart had formed.

I forget now, he may have said that. But I think he drew the lines more or less as I've said. Not saying I agree or disagree with him but it was just an example of the type of guidline we could have rather than all the fuzzy thinking that surrounds the subject.

daveharnett

I would reluctantly be in the pro-choice camp.
It seems to me in most situations, adoption would be a better option for all parties/organisims/whatever.
I also think that as a guy, my opinion on the matter is pretty much bollocks.

Rev Hellfire

I would be anti-abortion in any case except where medically necessary for the survival of the mother. I'd accept that a week or two feotus is not a qualified human, but I'd veto it on the simple principle of not killing your own kind for trivial reasons.
As for when dealing with issues of disability I'm less certain in my position but would side to the pro-life side on that matter.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

Interesting question.

At 8.5 months a foetus is capable of taking responsibility for its own continued survival. If it does so then no one else has the right to interfere with that.

However.

While the foetus is still within the womb it is not taking responsibility for its continued survival and is relying on the mother (host) to provide for its every need (nourishment, oxygen, excretion etc). The question is, how does one approach this scenario in terms of whether it is right to terminate.

Personally, I think if a mother has reached the point that the foetus can survive externally and autonomically then it should be given the chance to do so either by cesarian or inducement. The mother (former host) is under no obligation to provide for that organism (child) since the connective tissue (umbilical cord) is severed and the organism (formerly parasitic) is unable to draw sustainance. This implies that the mother is entitled to choose whether to continue to support the infant or not.

At this point there are options such as adoption.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

I think that's fair, and I imagine most of us draw the line somewhere. I'd draw a dotted line at the point where the foetus is naturally viable independent of the mother.

However, I don't want this initially to become an argument over where the line should be drawn. I'm interested in the reasons for opposition at the stage where the foetus is clearly dependent on the mother.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think people should qualify what choices they are in favour of.
Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

Tim, I think you should listen first.

To clarify up front, I know many who are against it, I am pro choice.
However, my discomfort with the issue is that the focus should be on supporting the individual to make the correct choice for their situation. I guess I have not yet resolved the stance I have that each instance should be treated on a case by case basis. And each case will be different.

Scofflaw

daveharnett wrote: »

I would reluctantly be in the pro-choice camp.
It seems to me in most situations, adoption would be a better option for all parties/organisims/whatever.
I also think that as a guy, my opinion on the matter is pretty much bollocks.

Not really. As a guy, you still get to be a parent, both genetically and materially.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Seeing how there are many 'sciencey people':) here, and the question really being, 'when does life begin I suppose, Is there a scientific answer to when life begins?

stevejazzx

I can't see any logic that contradicts being pro choice but IMO it should be an issue of circumstance. I mean people getting and pregant and aborting in restless cycles just can't be a good idea. I'd propose a fairly straighforward system of assesment and advice for each woman who found herself contemplating the issue with ultimately the decision being made by that woman but not before consultation - and in some cases giving the power of intervention to the authority involved for example where issues of mental health or self harm are evident. So basically a pro choice system where women involved have a professional organisation offering consultation and advice and ultimately, if the woman choses, the procedure itself. The organisation can in some cases refuse the prodcedure but only on strong grounds....somthing like that.

Beruthiel

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do they think abortion is ok after 8.5 months for example?

Hell no.
imo this is something you should have thought out well before hand.
What I mean by that is, don't wait until you are pregnant to make such a big decision, have half a clue what you would do under certain circumstances should they occur.
Within a month the vast majority of women know they are pregnant, defo by 6 weeks unless they are paying no attention whatsoever to their bodies. Therefore it shouldn't take 8.5 months to decide.
If you haven't made your decision by 12 weeks or so, then you are way too undecided and should probably keep the baby.
This is not an easy decision to come to, therefore if you are not very sure of it, it will come back to haunt you.
If, on the other hand you know yourself well and what it is that you want, the time later will be easier to take. If that makes sense to you.
That's my opinion for myself though, for other women, I would not deem to have the nerve to make that decision on their behalf. Their life, they are the ones to live with it and pretty much none of my business.

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

Seeing how there are many 'sciencey people':) here, and the question really being, 'when does life begin I suppose, Is there a scientific answer to when life begins?

Depends on the qualification for "life". A virus is kind of alive since it contains nucleic acids and has a life cycle.

Dinxminx

I'm pro-choice. Each situation is unique.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

Seeing how there are many 'sciencey people':) here, and the question really being, 'when does life begin I suppose, Is there a scientific answer to when life begins?

In the case of reproduction, there's no point at which it ceases. A living sperm and egg fuse to make a living zygote, which grows into a living foetus, etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really. As a guy, you still get to be a parent, both genetically and materially.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lol, when you have carried a couple of bowling balls around in your belly for nine months losing emotional stability, melanin and bladder control in the process then say you have as much right

Sangre

I don't know what my stance is and I doubt I will ever truly know until I am faced with it as an option in reality.

Previously I would have said that I would be against abortion as once the zygote is formed it will form into a human and there is no logical reason to decide a cut off point at 4 weeks or 24 weeks. Unless stopped this thing will become a fully functioning human being. Once we decide human life has an intrinsic value then I couldn't find a logical reason to distinguish between a foetus 2 months before birth or 2 months after. Both will die without the care of others so the fact that the foetus draws life from the mother is irrelevant.

Of course, as I've grown older I've become less sure of my ideas.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Lol, when you have carried a couple of bowling balls around in your belly for nine months losing emotional stability, melanin and bladder control in the process then say you have as much right

Ha! When you've supported emotionally and physically someone carrying the bowling balls through their carriage and removal, taken over the entire running of the household in order to support a deranged new mother, waded through just as many nappies and sleepless nights, and continued to support everyone financially through that time, then you've earned your rights. And I haven't even mentioned perineal massage.

Pregnancy and birth turns out to be a very small part of having a child.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote: »

I don't know what my stance is and I doubt I will ever truly know until I am faced with it as an option in reality.

Previously I would have said that I would be against abortion as once the zygote is formed it will form into a human and there is no logical reason to decide a cut off point at 4 weeks or 24 weeks. Unless stopped this thing will become a fully functioning human being. Once we decide human life has an intrinsic value then I couldn't find a logical reason to distinguish between a foetus 2 months before birth or 2 months after. Both will die without the care of others so the fact that the foetus draws life from the mother is irrelevant.

Of course, as I've grown older I've become less sure of my ideas.

I specifically draw issue with that. The vast majority of pregnancies are aborted by the female body and flsuhed often without the woman even being aware of it. You also have myriad other issues such as massive defects that call into question whether being human is a state of mind or simply one of genetic material.

I also have issues with the "intrinsic value" of human life argument.

I can see your logic and certainly if one assumes life to have "intrinsic value" then it is nearly impossible to draw the line. Until you take that out of the equation as an abstract concept and you look at it objectively, then you wind up with the sometimes disturbing conclusions I have drawn.

Calibos

I'd probably be in the emotively against abortion camp. I just find it distasteful. slicing and dicing and hoovering out a little potential human. I'd be pro abortion in the very early stages of gestation and in some other limited circumstances.

ie. To show you how arbitrary my reasoning is. I'd be against abortion after the eyes and fingers and toes have formed. Maybe thats strangely linked to my attidue to food. I can't eat anything that looks like it did when it was alive. I can eat a steak but not a crab etc. Once the fetus starts to look human I start to get grossed out at the thoughts of aborting it......or eating it

I'd be pro-abortion later in gestation in the case of severe disability where the fetus/baby/child would have no quality of live or would not live long after birth. I would be against the abortion of Downs Syndrome fetus' for instance but would be for the abortion of a fetus that might live a year or two after birth but would spend its short life hooked up to tubes in a hospital in pain etc

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ha! When you've supported emotionally and physically someone carrying the bowling balls through their carriage and removal, taken over the entire running of the household in order to support a deranged new mother, waded through just as many nappies and sleepless nights, and continued to support everyone financially through that time, then you've earned your rights. And I haven't even mentioned perineal massage.

Pregnancy and birth turns out to be a very small part of having a child.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ooooh yeah. I forgot about the nappies

Rev Hellfire

Calibos wrote: »

I'd be pro-abortion later in gestation in the case of severe disability where the fetus/baby/child would have no quality of live or would not live long after birth.

Out of curiosity how would you define 'quality of life' and at what point would you need to reach to make it unacceptable.

coffee_cake

Very much pro-choice.

Dades

I'm somewhat abnostic.

However if it came to the crunch I would probably be pre-choice. But I would really hate to see it become a form of contraceptive for ignorant teens. Especially knowing personally good people who have had difficulty conceiving.

Dave!

I'm pro-choice, but I'm not really sure of the 'cut-off point'.

As a general point, I will say that I don't consider it to be a human life at the point of fertilisation, nor implantation. But at 9 months it is of course a human life. So at some point between implantation and birth, this collection of cells becomes a human deserving of the same respect and rights as you or I.

I don't know enough about pregnancy to place a cut-off point for abortion, but since prior to 4 weeks I do not consider it to be more than a bunch of cells, I'll say that I'm pro-choice. Once you get further into the pregnancy, then it gets more tricky.

Dades wrote: »

abnostic

Dades strikes again! Nice

JimiTime

What is the difference between killing a baby when its in the womb, and killing a baby when its out of the womb?

humanji

Personally, I'm against abortion unless medically necessary, but I'm all for other people to have the choice. It's just not for me. I'm not fully sure why I'm against it. I think it might just be that I think it's a waste of potential. Plus, the way I live my life, I'm going to need plenty of organ donors.