WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE PRO-LIFE?

prolifeinfo.org ^ | Anonymous

[rhema]

Well, there actually is an Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League.

[widowithfoursons]

Well, this is an interesting take. But it sounds like a quagmire of moral relativism. This person doesn't make the case for atheistic answers to the abortion question. Methinks this is a hoax from a good Christian trying to pose a thesis to convince fence riders.

[valkyrieanne]

Not necessarily. New York liberal columnist Nat Hentoff is publicly atheist and also publicly pro-life. It's not inconsistent. That the unborn child is human (rather than some other species like a pig or goat) is indisputable. If the unborn child wasn't a human being, then the issue would be different. But there's no rational way to argue that what lives in the womb is in fact alive (if it weren't alive, why is it necessary to kill it?) and human (if not human, what species, then?)

Every (mentally normal) person wants to live and doesn't want someone else to kill him. Nor does any sane person want another person to harm a child, or sleeping person - or office worker in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, either - or anyone else helpless and unaware of the danger about to befall him. This is a matter of natural common sense; to preserve one's life, and to preserve as best as possible the life of someone else.

The anti-abortion argument is *not* dependent on one's belief in God.

[widowithfoursons]

You make a much better case than the writer of the article.

[nickcarraway]

No, there are actually atheist pro-lifers. Nat Hentoff is definitely the most famous. He wasn't always pro-life, he changed around 1980, because he felt he was being logically inconsistent, not being pro-life. I've heard Christopher Hitchens is a pro-life atheists, but I've never seen him state that. After all, why shouldn't they be, given that it's largely a medical issue.

[kcar]

Dedending a right to life is not moral relativism, and not necessarily a principle owned exclusively by religion. How to apply the principle in complex situations is the hard part. There are questions about when sentient life begins and how we'd know, but to my mind once that is "established" abortion is akin to murdering an invited guest to leave your plane at 20,000 feet.

[jlogajan]

It is clearly a question when meaningful human life begins. Humans are distinct from all other animals by their mental capacities. Hence, meaningful human life does not begin until the brain starts to function in a significantly meaningful way.

Hence there is some uncertainty about the exact date, but it is in the later portion of the pregnancy -- not the first 5-6 months.

[Dimensio]

How can you say such a thing?



How can you look at that and deny that it is a human being!?

[BfloGuy]

Yeah, this isn't a hard question.

If we can destroy the life of the unborn, then how far behind is the destruction of the born (we're starting to see).

The religious do not have a monopoly on morality. Conscious thought outweighs the unthinking fear of hell's fire.

[Gumlegs]

There's a talent agency on the right side of that picture? Forgive me; I just don't see it.

[hoosierskypilot]

To whom it may concern:

Medical authorities determine a person to be “alive” if there is either a detectable heartbeat or brain-wave activity.

Many people, however, do not realize that unborn children have detectable heartbeats at eighteen days (two and one-half weeks) after conception and detectable brain-wave activity forty days (a little over five and one-half
weeks) after conception.

However, essentially 100 percent of all abortions occur after the seventh week of pregnancy.

[07055]

Some people think that unless you believe in God, or more specifically, a God that will punish you in Hell if you do something wrong, then you cannot be made to behave. They apparently believe that atheists must be criminals.

Or, as many Islamics believe, if you kill lots and lots of infidels, you go straight to paradise for non-stop copulatation with virgins.

[Aunt Polgara]

Hence, meaningful human life does not begin until the brain starts to function in a significantly meaningful way. Hence there is some uncertainty about the exact date, but it is in the later portion of the pregnancy -- not the first 5-6 months.

Actually, the brain doesn't start to function in a significantly meaningful way until the kid moves out of the house.

[Aunt Polgara]

Bump to *Abortion_list

[jlogajan]

Medical authorities determine a person to be “alive” if there is either a detectable heartbeat or brain-wave activity.

But a beating heart doesn't a person make (otherwise horses would be human too.)

[sayfer bullets]

Personally, I take issue with the unspoken premise of the original question. Why single out atheists?

I think everyone should be "pro-life".

That being said...I don't see how this truthful statement :

Humans are distinct from all other animals by their mental capacities

...justifies killing of a human fetus. I don't think you necessarily mean to promote such a thing, but everyone begins to nitpick over weeks, days, cell division, etc.

Moral decisions and standards don't need to be parsed. There is usually a clear-cut truth. The difficulty is in accepting where IT is and living with the occasional discomfort or challenge when faced by sticking to it.

People of faith...cannot fairly exclude the non-religious from having the ability to make such distinctions. However, it is often from the non, or anti-religious camp that such arguments are forwarded, so I can see why someone who has an axe to grind might make the quick connection.

How many churchgoing kiddos quietly "take care of" their problems when they get into trouble? don't know, but I'll bet it happens.

Nobody has a monopoly on "good", except the one we praise and worship. It's not necessary for you to accept our belief to be right for different reasons.

But lets not find reasons to excuse the killing of the innocent, what do you say?

[hoosierskypilot]

But just because a horse has a beating heart, which doesn't make it human, does not mean that a human with a beating heart is not human.

[Snuffington]

Medical authorities determine a person to be “alive” if there is either a detectable heartbeat or brain-wave activity.

To be intellectually honest, you should note that this is part of an effort within medical history decide upon a logical end to life. Not a logical beginning.

The difference is significant.

When a formerly functioning brain stops functioning, it is terribly unlikely to ever begin again, regardless of medical intervention. Hence it is a reasonable standard after which to assign medical death.

When an early gestational brain is not yet functioning, it is VERY likely to begin functioning in the near future. Hence this would be an unreasonable standard upon which to assign "sub-humanness" or some other similarly nonsensical designation.

Human beings have medically known stages of development. Provided a human is functioning as it should considering its stage of development there is no medical reason it should be considered as anything other than a living human.

Those who wish to delve into more mystical realms to devise an excuse for killing the unborn will doubtless be undisuaded. Nevertheless, once one resolves upon a right to human life, the unborn fetus has excellent ground upon which to stand.

[jlogajan]

When an early gestational brain is not yet functioning, it is VERY likely to begin functioning in the near future.

If it is aborted, it is very likely NOT to begin functioning in the near future.