MovieChat Forums > Lake of Fire (2007) Discussion > Any Pro-Life Atheists/Agnostics?

Any Pro-Life Atheists/Agnostics?

posted 17 years ago by incrediblechuck2000
44 replies | jump to latest

I would like to hear arguments with the scripture manipulation remaved. It's unfortunate that the issue exist but as a man I can't even begun to understand the fear & confusion that some women feel when they discover they are pregnant. Therefore my arguement for or against is a moot(sp?) point to those women. As an agnostic I don't use any scripture to decide what is right or wrong.
I am Pro-Choice but feel that abortion is unfortunately used as a post-coital birth control by too many. It's unrealistic to teach just abstinence. The question to carry the birth to full term is a result of other events not just a root cause of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice argument. Preventing abortion requires prevention of these events that lead to the question, all of these events not just sex: teach abstinence, teach the use of the pill, the use of profalactics (sp?)and education about adoption options. Unfortunately even with this education the choice must, in my agnostic male opinion, be protected. The argument can go on forever. It is ultimately a moral issue. And morality should not be legislated.
I think back to the difficulties my mother had raising 3 kids essentially alone I'm glad she was strong enough to due so. Had I, the youngest of her kids, been aborted perhaps she would've had an easier time. Either way I'm glad she had the choice.
incrediblechuck2000 at yahoo

[–] Ceriph 17 years ago

I'm currently a pro-life atheist, but I haven't made up my mind a 100%. Was hoping some movies about the subject would help. I'm only 17 though.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jonathansd1 17 years ago

I am agnostic (and white and male for those who care), and I am, in all honesty, both pro-life and pro-choice. It hurts my heart to thinking of persons having an abortion, and I would never asked a woman (on my behalf) to have an abortion. Oddly, I hate the idea of banning abortion in this country. It also makes my heart hurt to think about a woman who, in a very desperate move, tries to give herself an abortion or go to a back alley doctor. I think that an abortion is between a woman, her doctor, and her god. If she can continue to live her life with little or no regret, then who am I to say otherwise? Similarly, who says the government has the right to tell someone if they can or cannot have a procedure that is so personal, so intimate? It is a personal choice and should remain that way.

I guess I am a man of contradictions... but when push comes to shove, I will gladly stand with the pro-choice activists in front of the clinic.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slateofmind 16 years ago

I agree, very well stated. I hold a view similar to yours, but I can't help but wonder how it might justify other things. Such as, it hurts me when I hear of a young kid, in a desperate situation, turning to drugs to ease his pain and ending up with a bad fix that kills him. If only there was a safe market of drugs that the kid could have gone to. If you really think hard about it, why should the government decide what substances I can or can't put into my body? It's my body, right?

Where does this way of thinking end? Just some food for thought.

[–] Passta 11 years ago

Actually, I know you were being ironic, but that is my exact position on drugs.
The only adult human behavior governments should regulate is the one that results in harm (or in some cases hurt) being inflicted on others. If an adult individual chooses to use drugs (even if it's bad for them) - by all means, let them! Of course, if this individual has a child, for example, and as a result of their drug-use is inflicting harm on that child - than they should be prosecuted for that behavior and not for the drug-use in and of itself.

People will never stop using drugs, same as they will never stop using alcohol. Most drug use is recreational and will not lead to addiction or serious consequences. Just as many people gamble from time-to-time and only a small percentage of those become gamblers (or a small percentage of those using alcohol become alcoholics), only a small percentage of drug users become junkies. Some people (a minority) are biologically and psychologically more prone to addictions than others.

And of course, there are drugs (heroin for e.g.) that are much more addictive than others (and whose usage leads to much more detrimental consequences) and those should (maybe) be banned.

In an ideal world, where most (if not all) drugs would be legal for adults, this is what would happen:
- Massive drug-trade related criminal structures across the globe would collapse, and the insane amount of profit coming from drug-trade would become taxed and regulated (transparent) instead of being used to fund black ops and dirty campaigns and armament of criminal/terrorist groups and alike...
- Drug-use would become less glamorized and appealing (especially to teenagers) because it would seem more everyday and less "cool"
- The quality and pureness of the drugs would be guaranteed and there would be no bad-quality-drug related deaths that you mention.
- The fact that drug use would be legal, does not mean it would be encouraged. Look at cigarets, for example. They are legal, but their usage is restricted and more and more people across the globe are choosing to quit (or never start) smoking. All that tax money being used to fund "war on drugs" and similar epic failures, could be used to educate the people about drugs and the dangers of drug-use.
etc, etc.

[–] blahdyblahdyblah 17 years ago

I'm an agnostic and pro-life. I'm also against the death penalty and war, and I'm a vegetarian. I think that my morals and ideas all fit together, as I believe that for one human to take another human's life is wrong. I don't think it should be up to the government to say when it's ok to kill. It shouldn't be a circumstancial decision.

I also believe in personal responsibility. The parents had a choice. They chose to have sex. Whether you're raised with abstinence only education or not, you're still informed that sex leads to pregnancy and STDs. Besides, unless you're completely cut off from the media, facts about safe sex are all over TV, in magazines, and on the internet. Ignorance is not a legit excuse. It even tells you on a pack of condoms that they're not 100% effective. Ultimately, the choice to have sex, with the exception of rape, was in the hands of the man and the woman. But even if the child was a product of rape, it's still not the fault of the child and it shouldn't be deprived life because of it. The mother could give that child up for adoption and some families are willing to pay for all their medical expenses.

[–] DisturbedPixie 17 years ago

is the family going to give this woman back her 9 months of life that was painful and exhausting did nothing to better her own life. Damaged her body and could possibly kill her.

All these things are forced upon a woman raped without a choice.

You are assuming we all agree that the parasite is a child. A child doesn't need a mom, and fetus/embro/etc needs a woman to feed off of, and not all woman care to be fed off of.

I hate how IMDb signatures look like part of the post.

[–] blahdyblahdyblah 16 years ago

Women who don't care to be fed off of shouldn't engage in the types of activities that create life. Sex is a responsibility. People shouldn't have it unless they're ready and willing to deal with the consequences.

So sad, nine months of a woman's life that she can't get back. Nine months is nothing to an entire lifetime that a potential child will never get to experience at all.

Referring to a fetus as a parasite is disgusting.

[–] PunchB 17 years ago

I'm an atheist. I think the abortion issue is pretty tough. I don't buy the argument that it's a woman's body, therefore it's her choice. It may be her body, but certainly from the point when the embryo/fetus is alive, her body has another body inside it, another living being.

But I do believe that before a certain time in her pregnancy, a woman should be able to have an abortion. That time should be pretty early though. The development of life is gradual, there is no "magic" point in time when it's a "person" or a living being. Since I don't believe in a soul, I think it's ridiculous to consider conseption this "magic time," or birth for that matter. But we as a society have to decide on this point in time and have laws to govern it.

So I think abortion should be allowed, but should be pretty rare. Giving the child up for adoption is almost always a better option if it's not so early in the pregnancy that it's just a blob of cells. There are plenty of people who can't concieve.

[–] wintermonk 16 years ago

"But we as a society have to decide on this point in time and have laws to govern it. "

How can we decide on that point in time? Once a heart is beating? Once it has fully developed fingers and toes? It seems like we would be coming up with this moment in time rather arbitrarily.

[–] PunchB 16 years ago

We already have decided though. Different countries have different laws about how far into a pregnancy you can have an abortion. Yes, of course these dates are set rather arbitrarily. But you have to set them somewhere. It's like all laws that deal with amounts of things (whether it be days, money, meters, pounds etc.)

[–] wintermonk 16 years ago

"Yes, of course these dates are set rather arbitrarily. But you have to set them somewhere. It's like all laws that deal with amounts of things (whether it be days, money, meters, pounds etc.) "

Yes, we have to put it somewhere. Since we are talking about human life, the only safe place to put it is at conception. Otherwise we begin to consider what makes a person fully human things like a heartbeat, fully-formed limbs, things like that. Of course, then that would seem to suggest that if a person loses his limbs he has become less human, which of course isn't true. I think people should consider that from conception a unique individual human has been created. It is not developed yet, but it is a unique human who can never exist again. And if aborted, it's robbing humanity of somebody who can never be again. Of course, the person could grow up to be a criminal, that is rarely the case. In most instances, people grow up to contribute to society in some ways. We are robbing a person a chance to develop and have the life that we all enjoy. I don't see how this can be considered anything but immoral.

[–] PunchB 16 years ago

You can't think like that - thinking of a fertilized egg as a "potential human". That's just one step from thinking about a sperm cell as a potential human. It's the area of Catholisism and "every sperm is sacred". Spilling your seed is robbing humanity of somebody (or several somebodies) who can never be again. Crazy talk.

There is no one point in time when the fertilized egg or embryo is "fully human". It's all gradual. Just like the differences between animals and humans. It's just different species. But because we are humans we have to give special rights to humans (all humans), more rights than we give to animals. We also give more rights to smarter animals like dogs and horses, than we give to rats, who in turn have more rights than insects. There are all kinds of animals of varying complexity and intelligence etc, and which animals we place in each "category" is in essence arbitrary. But we have to do it like that. We can't give all animals the same rights (from a flea to a monkey), nor can we give them the same rights as humans. But we can't give all animals no rights either. We just have to make distinctions.

[–] wintermonk 16 years ago

After conception, I see it as a human. Not a potential human.

" That's just one step from thinking about a sperm cell as a potential human."

Slippery slope fallacy.

"There is no one point in time when the fertilized egg or embryo is "fully human". "

I see no evidence of logical reasoning to accept this as a true statement. At conception it is fully human. I see no reason to see it as otherwise.

"It's all gradual. Just like the differences between animals and humans."

I dont' see anything gradual about the differences between animals and humans. It's very obvious.

"We also give more rights to smarter animals like dogs and horses, than we give to rats,"

We do this, but that doesn't prove anything. It's an irrelevant sidenote. And not everybody lives according to this ethic with animals. Some people treat insects as just as precious/sacred as other animals.

[–] PunchB 16 years ago

Some people treat insects as just as precious/sacred as other animals.
Yes, and that's crazy. So is treating animals as just as "sacred" as humans.

You haven't really presented any arguments, you've just said that you don't see and reason why any of my arguments are correct. I can of course say the same thing about your statements, but at least I presented arguments, even though I didn't present any proof as it were.

PHYSICALLY the difference between an egg cell and a sperm cell, and a fertilized egg cell, is just a chemical process, or rather the start of one. Unless you believe in the soul flying into the egg cell at conception, the difference between a fertilized egg cell and a newborn baby is vastly greater.

The difference in complexity of physicallity and emotion and status as a sentient being is also much greater between a fully grown monkey and a human embryo than between the aforementioned two cells and a fertilized human egg cell. And a fully grown monkey is more complex and has more emotion and brain activity than a human embryo.

These are physical facts. Unless you bring religion into this, they can't be disputed. If you do bring religion into this, we're done.

[–] wintermonk 16 years ago

"The difference in complexity of physicallity and emotion and status as a sentient being is also much greater between a fully grown monkey and a human embryo than between the aforementioned two cells and a fertilized human egg cell."

If we begin to define humanity by complexity and ability to think, then it is logical to assume that, according to this definition, people who suffer severe brain damaage and are left mentally crippled have become less human than the rest of the "normal" population. If we say, "Well, the fetus doesn't even have limbs yet", then are we going to say that a person loses some of their humanity if they lose an arm or a leg (or both).

TO be safe, protect life from conception. Genetically, it is a unique human being that, if killed, can never, ever come again. I cannot see how that should be considered anything but tragic.

[–] PunchB 16 years ago

I just discovered that I'd never replied to this. Sorry to reply so late.

This uniqueness you bring up is really irrelevant. Monozygotic (identical) twins are not unique genetically. That doesn't mean that it's more ok if one of them is killed, than if a genetically unique person is killed.

Also, you're focusing on potential human beings and whether they will exist or not exist. Choosing to use contraceptives, or choosing not to have sex, is robbing the world of a potential human being too, one that could have been but now will never be - who could grow up to be this and that blah blah. It's just not a valid argument.

You talk of protecting life from conception "to be safe". This is my point with the human/animal analogy. We hopefully agree that we have to give monkeys more rights than rats, and rats more rights than insects. Humans are a species of primates, but we have to give humans the most rights of all animals. What rights should we give to each of the other species of animals though? "To be safe" we would have to give each of them, from flee to chimpansee, the same rights as humans.

I do agree we have to treat humans as a special case, meaning all humans as equal, and that means all humans, no matter how damaged physically or mentally. Bear in mind that this kind of thinking is fairly modern. Not that long ago it was normal to think of people like this as inferior. You see that all this is very culturally dependent.

Technically people who are handicapped are inferior in some way, but for obvious reasons modern society has realized that this kind of thinking is wrong in that it leads to cruelty. I think that it's actually the modern realization that there is no magic line between a mentally handicapped person and a person of normal intelligence that has lead to the realization that we can't treat such people as anything less than human. As it's also the realization that there is no magic line between human and animal that has lead to the realization that animals shouldn't be mistreated.

Practically, we can't make abortion totally illegal like you want. People will have abortions anyway, just much less safely, endangering their healths and lives. Society's laws always have to weight practicality against moral theory. (And by that I don't mean that it's immoral to have an abortion from day 1.)

[–] Streetballa 16 years ago

"Giving the child up for adoption is almost always a better option if it's not so early in the pregnancy that it's just a blob of cells"

No it isn't. We already have millions of children in foster care. Once the pro-life people adopt them all out, then we can start talking about that.

[–] Jake3988 16 years ago

I'm an atheist, and don't like the thought of abortion either.

But trying to ban it is like trying to ban guns or remove illegals from the U.S. It ain't gonna happen.

In abortion's case I go sole by the facts.

They are telling too:
A) Regardless of whether a country has abortion legal or illegal, the percentage of women getting one is IDENTICAL.
B) However, the number of 'back alley' abortions (otherwise known as unsafe abortions) is 15% in countries where its legal. It's 50% in countries where it's illegal. Which basically means instead of just the babies dying, it's the mothers too.

Also, the frightening far far right evangelical christian whackos who want to make abortion illegal even if the girl/woman was raped or is in serious danger make me want to scream.

[–] twelvecolonies 16 years ago

You say abortion "is ultimately a moral issue". Since morality requires a religious framework to define what is "right" and what is "wrong" you might have a touch time finding an atheist who would agree with you. As someone who is an atheist (and a male if that's at all relevant here) I don't believe in the concepts of "right" and "wrong". I do think that a person's body is theirs to do with as they wish. In the case of a pregnant woman, I think that she has an intrinsic right to abort a pregnancy at any time - and yes, I mean at any point. Is an abortion at seven months ideal? Obviously not. However, a woman is not an incubator, and if for whatever reason she decides that she no longer wishes to have another life form occupying her body, that is her decision. Telling other people what they should and should not do, what they can and can not do, is what religious people do. As an atheist I will not do that.

If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.