Todays questions comes from Francesca who asks….
Do you believe abortion is wrong? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Wow Francesca, you’ve picked a controversial topic here haven’t you? I’ll do my best to answer.
First things first. Since atheists don’t have any tenants or rules to follow, what I’m about to tell you is my opinion and my opinion only. Just like theists, there are atheists who are pro abortion rights, and there are atheists who are anti abortion rights. The only thing that one atheist must have in common with another is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That’s it. Now with that out of the way….
My personal opinion on the subject is in 2 parts. The first part is that I believe that every person has a right to decide what happens with their body. I don’t believe in forced organ donation, or forced blood donation. I don’t believe that anyone has the right to tell another person what he or she should put into their body. I believe that this right extends in to death and that a person should have the right to decide what happens to their body when they are dead. I also believe that a person has the right to decide when he or she reproduces. No ones right supersedes the individuals right to control their own body. This is why if my kidney fails, I don’t have the right to take yours.
The second part is simple. I don’t have a uterus. Since I will never be faced with the decision of aborting a fetus, I don’t think that I have the right to tell someone who does, what she should do with her body, unless I am asked. If a woman becomes pregnant because of me, then I believe that I gave up my reproductive rights the moment I decided to have unprotected sex.
That’s pretty much it for my opinion on the subject. The main thing I want to reiterate, since this is Ask The Atheist, is that the only thing that one atheist must have in common with another is their lack of belief in a god or gods and that any opinion an atheist has on the subject of reproductive rights is theirs and theirs alone. If you have further questions feel free to ask in the reply section below.
Hi Francesca, I’ll offer you another opinion. (Like Jake said, atheists aren’t told what to believe on any subjects so there is no consensus among us.)
—
To start with, I don’t think abortion is necessarilly a religious issue. By this I mean religion doesn’t ultimately decide whether a person is against abortion. I think it more is related to how a person is defined. The problem is, that this definition is decided internally, and not by whatever definition is proven or widely accepted.
—
I think we can agree for the most part that humans try to preserve and protect the life of other human persons. This isn’t something that only theists or atheists do, this is something we all do. So the question with abortion (aside from the letting people have sovereignty over their own bodies, which I think is secondary honestly) is: are we killing a person when we abort? And this is where all of those internal definitions of what a person is start to come into play. Is it a person only when it is born? Is it a person the first time the heart beats? Is it a person when it is viable? is it a person when there is brain activity? Is it a person when conceived? I’ve seen all of these opinions. Based on when you believe a sperm+egg turn into a person, you will probably choose your viewpoint on abortion. Religion only comes into play with the concept of a soul (a soul making a person), and those believing a soul is given the moment the sperm and the egg meet.
—
Personally, I’m closer to the “when it is born it is a person” mentality myself, although I admit that it is a hugely cloudy area and the different definitions of person-ness are somewhat arbitrary. But for me, it goes beyond a moral issue, and touches on a social and global issue. Socially, I think it is unacceptable to bring children into the world that you, yourself, cannot properly raise and support. Globally, I see no need to add to the overpopulation problem by popping out babies just because they are conceived (are you aware that there have been 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe vs Wade? I think that huge jump in population would have us in an even more horrible economic situation than we are now as a nation). I feel humans are already acting as a disease to the planet, destroying nature, exterminating entire species, and consuming resources at an unsustainable rate. I see abortion as one of the good ways that we are controlling our own population, and thus, I’m actually pro abortion. I encourage people to abort if they don’t think they can adequately care for or raise a child.
—
Again, these are just my views. Most atheists (to my knowledge) are not PRO ABORTION. Many are PRO CHOICE, which is entirely different.
I’d say that abortion is not an atheism topic per se … but it is more of a science vs. religion topic. And since most atheists take succor in fact and science one could say that, indirectly, abortion is an atheism vs. theism topic.
My sentiments on abortion and general childbearing seem to match Adam’s very closely.
Also, as far as I am concerned, as long as the fetus is not developed enough, it is not fully human in the sense of being an actual person.
I recall reading in one of Carl Sagan’s books that it’s probably only after 6 months of pregnancy that the fetus can be called human and said to have some rudimentary consciousness. I forget which book of his I read this in. To me then, scientifically speaking, aborting before the 6th month (as long as its not risky to the mother) is fine. Aborting after the 6th month raises scientific issues and probably some moral issues. I’d be ready to revise my thinking if it my facts above are incorrect.
But no amount of “gift of god” and “abode of the soul” arguments matter to me. And people who say abortion is the same as killing a human being/ baby are wrong on their facts for the most part. Silliness like this leads to sad cases like the death of a pregnant woman in Ireland a few months ago (they could have saved her life if they allowed her an abortion) which subsequently made the country allow abortion in “threat to life” cases, I think.
Hey. I agree. A woman has the right to do whatever she feels like with her body. But it looks to me like she is messing with someone else’s body.
The rights of potential life do not trump the rights of the individual to control their reproductive rights. It goes back to my kidney analogy. Do I have the right to harvest your kidney without your permission to save my life? Personal autonomy (the rights of the individual) are important.
Neither do you have the right to take the life of the unborn baby without his/her permission. The rights of this individual are also very important.
First, I’m not a woman.
Second, until it can survive without using or potentially harming the woman’s life, it is not an individual. If you make the argument that it is, then I would ask you at what point does it become one? At conception? If yes, then since the average sexually active woman naturally discharges a zygote about two times a year during her menstrual cycle, then I would claim that nature is the biggest abortionist there is.
Francesca, I also believe that a baby has the priority to live, and it isn’t right to let a baby die. But I don’t believe that a 2 month old mass of cells in a woman’s uterus is a baby, or even a person. Like I said above, and like Jake/Erick said just recently, when you think it becomes a person/individual is a very important point.
—
Personally I see it as the difference between a potential person, and a person. I also see sperm as potential people as well though. I don’t see any need to be desperate/insistent about saving potential people. If our species was going extinct, that’d be another story.
I’d like to add … UK abortion law of 1967 as modified by the 1990 human fertilization and embryology act (1990) allows abortion up to 24 weeks (around 6 months). After that it’s illegal.
Apparently the test used to arrive at the 24 weeks period was similar to what Jake/ Erick says – is the mass of cells capable of surviving on its own outside a woman’s body? If not, then its not considered an individual and abortion is allowed.
For your information, at 2 months, the baby’s facial features continue to develop. Each ear begins as a little fold of skin at the side of the head. Tiny buds that eventually grow into arms and legs are forming. Fingers, toes, and eyes are also forming in the second month of pregnancy.
The neural tube (brain, spinal cord, and other neural tissue of the central nervous system) is well formed. The digestive tract and sensory organs begin to develop. Bone starts to replace cartilage. The embryo begins to move, although the mother cannot yet feel it.
What does that have to do with anything I’ve said? The fact that it grows appendages and neural activity has nothing to do with the person whose body it inhabits should have the right to control it’s reproduction. Taking away that right is the same as me saying that because I need a new kidney that I have the right to take yours. Either a person has autonomy or they don’t. Which is it?
Just because abortion is not illegal doesn’t make it right.
Who decides what’s right then?
A mother’s womb is supposed to be a safe place where the baby can grow and develop. But now, the womb is the most dangerous places for a baby to be. It is amazing how many people actually condone the murder of these little innocent babies.
You still haven’t answered my question. When is it a human? Are you okay with nature (or a god) being the biggest abortionist there is?
It is a human at conception. I don’t have a problem with miscarriages.I do have a problem with deliberate murder.
So it’s okay if nature or a god murders the baby, but not if the woman makes an informed decision? Seems like a double standard to me. Either murder is wrong or it isn’t?
Francesca,
—
So you believe a zygote is an individual. I suppose to you a soul has entered a zygote giving it a special status among living creatures? What I fail to see is how a zygote, which is just a fusion of a sperm and an egg, is so much more significant than sperm itself or the egg itself. I mean, if 250 million sperm are ejaculated, that means about 250 million of them die as well per ejaculation. Why not mourn the sperm? I don’t get why the zygote is special to you. Especially if it isn’t YOUR zygote.
—
Is it because of a soul? You think the zygote has a soul? That’s the only reason I’m imaging that could make sense.
Oh, and appealing to emotion in order to win an argument is a logical fallacy. Try making an actual argument.
I have a question. When do you think life begins and why?
Define life.
When do you think an unborn baby becomes a person?
When it isn’t dependent upon it’s hosts resources.
You seem to be avoiding questions that you know show the flaws in your argument….
“So it’s okay if nature or a god murders the baby, but not if the woman makes an informed decision? ”
“Define life”
“Who decides who’s right then?”
“Either a person has autonomy or they don’t. Which is it?”
It’s been my experience that people only do this when they want to avoid cognitive dissonance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
It is okay if God takes what is His. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional… God, the author if life, decides what is right. Of course a person has autonomy.
So god can take what is his but a woman can’t yet you claim she has autonomy. Do you not see the contradiction? Is this a case of do what god says but not as he does?
I get the impression that u don’t understand what I am saying. God owns everything/ everyone. Children belong to God. He gives them to parents. If a woman kills herself, she terminates her own life at her own risk. If a woman takes the life of an unborn baby, she terminates the life of someone else.
I understand exactly what you are saying, you’re just contradicting yourself. I think it’s you that doesn’t understand the word “autonomy”…
au·ton·o·my [aw-ton-uh-mee]
noun, plural au·ton·o·mies.
1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one’s actions: the autonomy of the individual.
2. the state or condition of having independence or freedom, or of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government: The rebels demanded autonomy from Spain.
On one hand you say a woman has autonomy, and then you claim that she is a possession that is owned by your god. Clearly someone who has no freedom (is owned) can not have autonomy. Either the woman has the right to control her body, or she doesn’t. Either she can follow the example of your god, who would be the worlds largest abortionist, or she can’t follow his example. If you claim that she can not control her own body then she can not have autonomy. If you claim she can not do as your god does, then you have a “do as I say not as I do” god whose example should not be followed.
The problem with your thinking is that you are making an appeal to the rights of the unborn rather then to the rights of the woman. I am making the claim that the woman should have the right to control her own body rather then the unborn having the right to control the womans body. By using the example of your god you take away the woman’s right of autonomy and then claim that she should not follow the example of your god. One might also argue that if he didn’t want to allow the woman to control her own body, he wouldn’t have allowed her to get pregnant in the first place (knowing full well she would chose to abort). Your god gives her free will, but then says that she can not use that free will to control her own body if he decides to allow her to get pregnant. This is why I asked you over and over if the woman has autonomy? You said she does, but then give examples where she doesn’t. This is a contradiction.
U really don’t understand what I am saying. A woman has her own autonomy. She has the choice to do whatever she wants to do with her own body. But, yes, she is owned by God. She will have to answer to God one day, so she had better be careful with how she uses her body. An unborn baby is not part of her body. He is a separate entity. He has his own DNA, blood type, etc. God gives women babies to love and to take care of, not to kill.
I understand exactly what you are saying,what you don’t understand is the inherent contradiction in what you are saying. To make it easier let me break down your last reply for you….
“A woman has her own autonomy. She has the choice to do whatever she wants to do with her own body. But, yes, she is owned by God.”
This is a contradiction. Someone who is owned can not have autonomy. This is why I gave you the definition of the word in my last reply to you. Ownership is the exact opposite of autonomy. (Also, the word “but” implies a contrary position to the one before it.)
“She will have to answer to God one day, so she had better be careful with how she uses her body. ”
You mean the same god that not only allowed her to get pregnant, but did so knowing full well that she would choose to abort it? What is the difference between that and (excuse the strong analogy) me giving a child to a pedophile? If I knew that the pedophile was going to rape the child, why would I, a caring, compassionate, individual, give said child to him/her?
“An unborn baby is not part of her body.”
You’re correct to a point. It would be closer to a parasite.
par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
“He is a separate entity”
No, it is dependent on the hosts resources until such time it can survive without them.
“He has his own DNA, blood type, etc.”
No, it has at least half of the dna of it’s host, and it’s blood type is determined by the dna which half is supplied by the host.
“God gives women babies to love and to take care of, not to kill.”
Then he needs to learn to give them to the right women and not to women that he KNOWS will abort them. Otherwise he’s just as bad as one who gives children to pedophiles.
Francesca, I understand how this can be emotional for you and I don’t see how it’s possible for you to accept abortion given what you believe. If you truly believe a zygote is a person, an individual, and a gift from god, then yes abortion would be an absolutely terrible thing. If I believed that, I would be anti-abortion as well. However, I don’t believe that a zygote, or even a fetus is a person, and that’s the dividing line in my eyes.
—
With a topic like this, there is rarely any opinion changing in a debate. I completely understand what you are saying on your end, and that aligns with your view of the world. But do you understand that from my perspective, and perhaps Erick’s, that there is no god, and a zygote is not a person/individual?
—
I understand why you have your views about abortion, but are you understanding why I have my views or why Erick has his views?
Adam, of course I know why u believe in abortion. Because u don’t believe in God. U know, I wish we cud have this conversation face to face or at least hear each others voices, because it is kinda hard for me to be always talking to u guys online.
I mean y u believe it is right
To be fair though, there are many believers who are pro-choice, and there are several non-believers who are against abortion. Just believing or not believing in a god isn’t the basis of all of this, but can be a component.
We could always arrange a Google Hangout.
Thank you for taking a stand for what is right. Not enough people are that brave, but they should be!
I mean Francesca.