Agnostic.com

34 4

I am Secular Pro-Life. Here are my secular arguments to which I'd like you to respond.

  1. I am an Agnostic. I am Pro-Science, Pro-Contraception and Pro-Women. I naturally support contraception methods and sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I also support further research in contraception solutions that would be better and more accessible than what we have. Maybe a one-time cheap and covered implant that would allow women not to never become pregnant or a chemical solution that would make a male's sperm temporarily infertile. Solutions that would create a world where women could effectively control their bodies with powerful contraception methods and consequently never having to go through unwanted pregnancy nor the choice of having or not having an abortion. Abortion is an unwanted pregnancy and it is not a fun experience and we should prevent it at all cost.

  2. I argue that to value unborn life and regard it as sacred in non-religious terms, would probably foster better pre-natal care and research in preventing fetal abnormalities for they would be regarded as worthy and as humans society lost. Another point is with regards to socioeconomic challenges pregnant women face. To accept abortion as a go-to solution for women usually discriminated in the workplace is to choose not to address the challenges women face in the workplace when they are pregnant. Abortion seems to be a solution that discourages the pursuit of real solutions for women finding themselves in these difficult situations. Abortion freezes progress in other important areas of social justice and science. Some ideas include to encourage businesses through tax-breaks to allow women to work remotely from home or tax property breaks on large companies having nursery on the ground floor of their companies for their employees etc.

  3. I want to address the common comparison we make between human zygote, human fetus and fully developed human. I'd say that all human life exist in what I call a life continuum where fertilized eggs in a viable human womb are meant to become fully developed human beings. The farthest identifiable point in my existence, is at the moment of contraception where most my physical traits identifying me as human today were created. Contraception is sort of my biological birth whereas delivery is my physical birth. You are meant to live tomorrow unless I kill you today. Unborn children are meant to become members of society unless we kill them. From a philosophical standpoint, non-action would result in more people being among us, which is why one may argue that abortion is murder for that it eliminates people from society that would have been here otherwise.

  4. Lastly and more importantly assuming that we are moving toward a world where ectogenesis will allow humans to be gestated outside of a female womb, it will naturally increase the worth of 'unviable' human fetuses. I think at some point women will no longer have abortions, but rather end their pregnancy through early delivery and allow these 'expulsed' human fetuses to be gestated in machines, on their own, in order to become fully viable. Women may object to the right of the fetus to be gestated outside of their womb and want them killed through abortion but that's another issue. In a sense human fetuses would be no different than humans living with respiratory machines. At this point society may have realized that any abortion performed in the past, was murder, since human rights don't come with scientific progress.

What's your take on my 4 points?

Chris90045 5 Oct 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

34 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

22

What you miss is the importance of population reduction. Without abortion, too may children are born into poverty, starvation and crime, which ends their lives prematurely. Die as a zygote or as a 14 year old? You miss the point that some women really don't want a child for reasons of their own and the pregnancy is accidental or through rape. When all the unwanted and abandoned children have been adopted, then your argument will have more value. Besides, I have never met a woman who uses abortion as birth control. If you have ever had an abortion, you would know the havoc this plays with your body and the grief that follows from the sudden hormonal change.

That is why I feel men should be left out of the decision making.

19

I like to keep it simple when it comes to abortion. If you're against it, then don't have one. I know several women who made that difficult choice, and they turned out to live productive lives. Your fourth point is kind of scary.

Whereas if they had been forced to have an unwanted baby then a woman 's life can be ruined because she will then have an even more difficult time in trying to get out of poverty. Unwanted badly timed pregnancy can cripple a family financially and condemn them to an entire lifetime of poverty.

13

I am in agreement with all of your positions and, at heart, am (1) pro-life. So I do not think that it is right to allow abortion, from a (2) moral/ethical perspective. I also think that it is difficult to draw a line in time to mark the point (3) at which a zygote becomes a human being, and am concerned that as medicine advances we will have to face a (4) dilemma about ectogenesis and abortion. However, after a lot of research and dialog I have accepted it, despite my objections, for the following reasons.

a. Research has shown, time and again, that when abortion is outlawed, almost as many abortions get performed, but by untrained people, leading to permanent injuries the death to the mothers. Outlawing it does not stop it from occurring and offers very little to curb it.

b. There are already many unwanted children who often end up populating prisons and causing havoc for society. Of course this argument is a gross generalization and quite cold-hearted, but it is an additional minor factor.

c. Consider the argument: "If you had to make a choice between saving one child or 100 embryos, which would you do?" Yes, it's a fabricated situation and is marginally valid. but it does emphasize that there is indeed a difference between the life of a born and an unborn child.

Given the above arguments, and the factor that there is a core difference of opinion between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, I choose to err on the side of freedom - that I live in the United States where we are only to impose our beliefs on others when it does not compromise their rights.

I am pro life as well, but would have an abortion providing it was during the first trimester, or the fetus was damaged. What you seem to not be aware of, that there are millions of spontaneous abortions that happen naturally during a woman's period. Those are the clots that she finds in her menstrual cycle. Should there be a funeral for this? Of course not. I am pro life which includes the mother's life, first and foremost. Any other argument is based in religious beliefs. Men should have absolutely no say in this, what-so-ever, unless they can bear children. So please, stay out of this. There is no ownership allowed for another human being, except in the bible.

12

I've read your four points. If all of the anti-abortion people, instead of protesting, got together and provided viable alternatives to abortion, such as paying for baby stuff and health care, or counseling, or open adoption, or public education to welcome these babies rather than shaming the mother, your points might become moot. Or not.

It wouldn't be quite so contentious an issue if you Americans had a better social security system. It seems to me that right wingers don't wanna pay for contraception or abortion but they definitely don't wanna pay for food stamps or rent for a poor family!? It makes zero sense!?

10

I would like to address your second point. Banning abortion, and therefore restricting the rights of women to autonomy over their body, will NOT force anyone to advance other women’s rights or family issues. I would argue that if people want to eliminate abortion, that best way to do that is to address the social issues that often lead to abortion - like poverty, lack of access to birth control, and the challenges of providing health care and other basic needs. But people are not “forced to” address those issues to prevent abortion any more than they would be “forced” to address them by banning abortion.
if society actually addressed those issues, abortion could be significantly reduced, and we should make every effort as society to do that. But making abortion illegal doesn’t solve anything - it simply makes it illegal and dangerous to access.

That's my instinct. The truth is that hundreds if not thousands of women died every year through back street abortions and that this is very much an issue of social deprivation and societal norms.
It pains me that right wingers want to make abortion even more difficult to access for frightened young girls and women by making it as difficult and expensive to access as possible.
All this means is that people who can afford it would travel out of state or abroad to have treatment whereas poor women will take what they can get and possibly die or end up infertile.

I find it maddening that the exact same people who want to take away health care from poorer families by limiting Medicare and Medicaid and yet these exact same people don't want to support poorer families through the social security system!?
You would think that fiscal conservatives would support contraception at the very least in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place!?
Sadly I fear that some Americans are simply so racist that they just cannot think of any of their taxes going to help some black man's child. Why should I pay taxes for him to have medical care and schooling when I myself am struggling?
They fail to see that the reason that they are suffering in the 21st century so called gig economy is because the system is entirely designed to supply the needs of wealthy elites and not of the citizens.
I am amazed and distraught on your behalf America at the fact that you have the world's largest economy and yet your people don't even get basic health care!!
I don't know how I would cope thinkng that I might get sick and not be able to see a doctor!? I would be scared shitless tbh!!
Why should people in my country have any more than you guys!?
It has been proven that universal single payer tax funded health care is the most efficient method of coverage.
It's true that the corporate manufacturing world doesn't need us now, we are superfluous to their requirements because we cost too much to employ what with all the medical an employer has to pay for, and so they won't be bringing any jobs back from China. So to link health care and contraception to your having a job is gonna leave your entire population vulnerable.

@OutlawJosie More deaths occur from giving birth than almost anything else. It is far, far more risky than abortions. Making abortions illegal only raise the death rate for women as well as the fetuses.

10

I think there is a lot crammed into your 4 points. 🙂 You talk about things being "meant", however I would argue that there is no "being" or "force" driving things, so nothing is "meant", it just happens. While the concept of having 100% successful birth control is ideal, it doesn't really pertain to where we are now, so doesn't really negate the need for abortion. I also have the sense that you are ignoring some of the reasons women want abortions. Specifically things like rape, not wanting their children to grow up with another family, feeling that the life/death cycle itself is something bad that they don't want to foist upon another person,and a desire not to contribute to over population.

9
  1. Yes, we should continue developing better and better contraception. This does not mean that we should not use the solution of abortion in the meantime as it is currently the best method we have for eliminating unwanted pregnancies. We cannot make policy based off of speculated medical technology only the technology we currently face. Yes, aborting an unwanted fetus isn't fun, but neither is carrying to term an unwanted fetus.

  2. You act as though there is not research and good research going into pre-natal care and how to eliminate birth defects. You also act as though people view abortion as the only way for low SES women to move up in the world, it certainly is not. It is a procedure that would help any woman to not have the major disruption in their life that an undesired child would cause. In no way do people advocating for the woman's right to have an abortion say it would end women's poverty, and that we should not be helping them in other ways.

  3. So? You cannot remember your time in the womb. If a fetus is aborted before it is born it is as if it was never conceived at all. There is no difference. Aside, you better be against Plan B then to be philosophically consistent.

  4. See my first point. We cannot make policy based off of speculated future technology. To force women into conditions that they do not want or chose on the off chance that humans will eventually develop technology to allow for ectogenesis is wrong. It goes against your desire to help women that you stated in point 2.

All together you appear to have the same arguments as many religious folks. You completely ignore women's rights in favor of the rights of a fetus. You prioritize the safety and wellbeing of a lump of cells that is completely dependent on its host, over the host itself.

The nature of a religious argument is dogmatic. Mine is based on science, secularism and moral philosophy. I don't think that I completely ignore women's rights with the way I have addressed this issue. You fail to acknowledge that people see unborn life as human life and that within that logical framework these arguments arguments they may present to you. I don't think I have the same argument as religious folks, if your low intellect can't allow you to differentiate religious arguments from other arguments you probably wasting your time on this forum.

Is there any argument you can think of, that is an argument one could make against abortion but that isn't religious? Just list me one. One argument against abortion you can honestly disagree with that isn't religious according to you. You sound like you just pull those words out of nowhere. I don't prioritize the value of a clump of cell since I made argument in which I suggested that women (one day) could terminate their pregnancy without having to kill the unborn in the future (#4). When somebody makes the effort to have a conversation with women and unborn at heart, you can't throw those easy words at them. I am not convinced by #4. I am not sure how ending a pregnancy through early delivery and ectogenesis to allow the fetus to develop would go a woman's bodily integrity and desire to end a pregnancy. You sound like you want to have an abortion at all cost, although we can think of alternative solutions in the future.

Awwww. Insulting my intelligence. You may not think you do, but this isn't the first time I've heard these arguments and previously, they came from religious people; therefore, they are the "same arguments as many religious folks". #3, in particular, was clearly shaped by religious ideas that life and soul form at conception.

You want a truly secular argument against abortion? Try science. In particular, child psychology. Studies have shown that fetuses can form basic memories and respond to external stimuli within the womb after a certain number of weeks development. One could argue that this is means that the fetus is conscious at some level. Consciousness level usually determines how "alive" we see a person, thus why it is alright to unplug a person from life support when they do not have a chance to regain consciousness. While this would still allow for abortions before memories are able to form it is much better argument than the ones you presented. It is fully secular and backed by science.
I still don't find it convincing.

The rest of your defense appears to be a stream of consciousness, so I'll let the confusing language and sentences structures lay where they are. But for your last sentence, another personal attack: No, I don't want to have an abortion at all costs - but yes I will have one if I ever get pregnant before I planned to - and alternative solutions in the future would be great. I want women to be able to have access to birth control so they do not have a agonize over the decision to have an abortion or not, and if they cannot access abortions then to have to either undergo a dangerous method of abortion or to carry to term an unwanted fetus. The truth is though is that all women do not have access to birth control or birth control does not work 100% of the time, and in those cases, women should have the right to choose if they want to keep the fetus or not. They know what is best for them, their lives, and any potential children, you do not, so keep your nose out of their business and if someone desires an abortion - for whatever reason - then they should be able to get one.

@Nicsnort, your basically proposing that life begins with brain activity, a position I've held for sometime. Same standard for start of life as end of life.

@Nicsnort Men should really butt out of this. It's not their bodies and only makes them look paternalistic. Most of the negative comments come from males. Let them try carrying a kid around for 9 months and then have to nurse it. Maybe some of the programs which teenagers have to carry a doll around and care for it should include boys as well.

Also, regards to the insults I have found hen someone uses this tactic they usually don't have a leg to stand on. It's one to agree to disagree in a civil manner but another to insult. It's childish.

9

Valuing life does not require saving all life. What's important is happy, healthy, useful life. The idea of a "right" to life is academic. We live in a world so severely overpopulated that we are significantly diminishing the prospects for our posterity's civilzation. What does a "right" to life mean when I am more a burden than a blessing to the world, and harm not only contemporary but future people as well?
It is significant to note that the spontaneous abortion rate is believed to be over 50% -- most conceptions do not survive even to the point where the mother is aware of pregnancy. The miscarriage rate is about 10%. Whatever the philosophical considerations of death before birth, it is very, very common. Sure, abortion is murder, but do the unborn care why they die? Usually, it seems, it is because they are too unhealthy to live. We may be squeamish about this, but it is how the world works.
re. point #3: by that argument, contraception and abortion are equally objectionable. Do we value life so much that we want 50 billion of us? does more = better?

8

I am pro-choice. What occurs within a woman's body should be between her and her doctor.

Re point 2, you have written the following:

"To accept abortion as a go-to solution for women usually discriminated in the workplace is to choose not to address the challenges women face in the workplace when they are pregnant. Abortion seems to be a solution that discourages the pursuit of real solutions for women finding themselves in these difficult situations. Abortion freezes progress in other important areas of social justice and science."

While I agree that greater scientific research and policy reform are necessary to better protect pregnant and non-pregnant women in the workplace, I nonetheless say that you are putting the cart before the horse. You are arguing that the existence of abortion as an option is somehow undercutting research into the development of other options. I sincerely doubt it. Please present the evidence that scientific research and/or policy development aren't happening because there aren't enough unwanted babies being born because too many of them are still being aborted. I am quite sure that there's already an overabundance of unwanted babies and disadvantaged pregnant mothers in this country. The research wouldn't happen significantly faster if we got more, but there would be disproportionately more suffering of both women and children. That is a lousy trade-off. No, if you want fewer abortions, then put the horse where it belongs - promote the investment in scientific research and policy reform that would make bearing children into the world less risky for impoverished women.

Re point 3, you twice use the word "contraception" where you mean "conception." This is confusing to your readers to say the least.

You have written: "The farthest identifiable point in my existence, is at the moment of contraception where most my physical traits identifying me as human today were created. Contraception is sort of my biological birth whereas delivery is my physical birth."

In both cases, the word "conception" is the only word that fits.

I note that you haven't discussed pregnancies that occur as a result of rape or incest. If you are going to start to define human life as beginning at conception as you do above, then it would become impossible to make allowances for abortion in the cases of rape or incest because that, too, would have to qualify murder. After all, if fetuses are future people with rights, then it isn't their fault how they were conceived. But forcing a woman to bring a fetus thus conceived to term is extremely cruel.

Conception is what I meant. Thanks for correcting. Not sure why I confused the two words. Not all women see abortion as the ultimate solution even for rape. Women who don't believe in abortion and are raped are one example of people who wouldn't necessary agree with abortion as an absolute choice to their situation. Now, I don't think that the worth of a fetus decreases based on the circumstances of his conception and the moral characters of his father. What's the worth of the lives of those who live among us and whose father was a rapist? When did their lives become valuable?

One thing that I haven't discussed but is challenging is fetal abnormalities. It may make a strong case for abortion in that they are in line with moral arguments made for the euthanasia of already born children with great disability.

@Tyssina
Your spewings feel just like what I used to hear from conservative evangelicals, I think you're a Trojan horse in here just to fuck with us non-believers. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I don't think I am.

8

Personally, I think I shouldn't have anything to say about what women do with their own body. As for human life, I consider sentience as the only proof of humanity, and that only develops after birth, so abortion is a non-issue to me.

MarcO Level 5 Oct 18, 2017
7

Though I can agree with almost all you have said every argument is trumped by one unescapable fact. The planet is now straining to accommodate 7 billion top predators at the expense of nearly every other life form. Our prisons are filled with unwanted children who raised themselves and found "family" in street gangs, orphanages, foster homes, reluctant relatives and other non-nurturing situations. As far as I'm concerned any woman who has the slightest hesitation about having a child should be allowed a publicly funded abortion on demand literally up to the time of birth. The environmental, social and economic costs of forcing reluctant women to go to full term are enormous. As someone who has and never will spawned a child I am sick of paying the costs and receiving as my compensation a diminished planet and society that lives in fear of the anti-social acts perpetrated by alienated offenders.

Harsh but fair.
I too chose to have no children. I came from one of those dysfunctional families you describe. I come from a long line of working class women who got pregnant by age 16 and who ended up as single mothers through abandonment.
Being rather more intelligent and enormously better educated than my forebears , I realised that I could never make a good parent because I had never been in a real family and that the damage and abuse i was subjected to as a child might make me in turn unable to cope and therefore abusive , like my own mother.
My mother got pregnant to escape her own terrible situation and by 18 she had 2 kids whom she resented as having ruined her life.
I always feared that the violence might be contagious and that I might end up doing what she did to me!!
And I could never take that chance.
It isn't so much a thing in recent years when I have begun to link up with female friends from years ago whose kids are now grown but for a long time I had exclusively male friends as other women tended to treat me as though I was either an alien or unable to conceive, therefore either to be feared as different or other or to be pitied as damaged.
Strangely enough it's always been other women who have treated me as though I don't belong to that gender or group; I've never had any issues.eiyh men over it .

6

The idea that anyone is "meant to" become anything is magical thinking. There is no such thing as destiny.

Think about what you're saying... a human zygote's defacto destiny is to be a fully formed human, not a cabbage or a cat.

Or spontaneously aborted (as in about 25% of pregnancies)...or killed in an accident...or...or...

I repeat: there is no such thing as destiny.

6

I can't get past your using "contraception" when you obviously mean "conception"...

Yes, that's what I meant!

Think it was autocorrect but I agree that it makes it that much more difficult to follow the argument.

6

I think this is good but missing things. A fetus gestated outside of a female body, eliminates the pre-delivery bonding that mothers feel toward their babies. Every child, deserves two loving parents. As we know, this doesn't always happen. I would like to see babies only born to committed partners. Partners should be committed to raising their children in a loving home. I don't believe that Zygotes are human. They are potential humans. Fetuses however are human beings. It should never be the right of uninterested parties to determine if an abortion is done. Each partnered human should have that choice, with the emphasis on preventing late term abortion. Women, should ultimately have control of their bodies and partners should be given adequate birth control of their choice to space their children in a manner that works for them.

6

I'm pro-choice. A woman has the right to control her body. If that means ending a life inside her body, then that's within her rights. When science has a solution where that life can be safely removed from her body and allowed to develop naturally outside of her womb, I will support the right to life.

6

You make some valid points. However at present there is less risk to a woman's life to have an abortion than there is to carry to term. So, i think it is up to each woman individually as to whether or not she should take on the rick of carrying to term or not. Even if the risk is small, the risk to the woman's life is still there and should not be forced on anyone.

I am pro life in the sense that I think the life of a woman who has already been born shoudl be valued more than a prospective life, which may or may not be born alive.

As an example, one of my sister's first pregnancies produced a child with "water on the brain". My sister's religion (Mormon) forbade abortion. They knew the baby woudl likely be born dead and if it survibed birth it would not live past infancy. However, she carried ti to term at risk to her own life, because she believed abortion to be wrong. She lived, but the risk to her life was for nothign because the baby was born dead. My sister had insurance, so the costs of prenatal care were affordable to her, but for poor women who can't afford prenatal care, they woudl not know of a problem that the one above, and forcing the woman to risk her life to carry to term, risking the woman's life, for a child she doesn't want, which may nto even live, neglects the risk of life to the woman and her ability to choose whether or not to take on the risk to her own life.

I think we should work to keep abortions safe legal and as rare as possible, via good sex education and widely available birth control. I am not an advocate of abortions so much as i am an advocate for woman to be able to choose whether or not they wish to become mothers and take on the risks of carry to term.

5

until all your ideas[ which are fairly good] are implemented keep abortion as an option. The world does NOT need more children AT ALL

5

What if i just don't feel any major difference between a fetus and someone who wasn't conceived because of a condom being used or that the sex that night didn't lead to impregnation. In both those scenarios imo someone who could have been born or come into this life ended up not joining us. There are lots of things that lead to life that would have joined us ending up not joining us. I don't really feel guilty about the 2nd scenario so i don't see why i would feel guilty about the first.

4

@Tyssina
What do you think about the so called morning after pill which women can take within 72 hours of unprotected sexual contact?
Surely if it were available free from family planning clinics then there would be less abortions? If the government subsidised proper contraception like the coil then it's a cheap reversible operation and doesn't poison the body with bovine hormones like the pill does.
There are some extremist Catholics who think that even a barrier method is wrong though !?
The cost of repealing Roe v Wade is far too high. Why don't Americans fund contraception options?

4

Wow!! There's a lot to unpack there and you have evidently thought long and hard about this and so I feel I should do the same and think about your points and get back to you.

My initial thoughts are - you keep using the word contraception when you mean conception
I'm sure this is down to auto correct but it's confusing so please edit for future readers.

Also, you mention neither capital punishment nor abortion after rape and incest, so where do you stand on this?

4

pro abortion, too many people

3

You can think whatever you please. NOTHING will ever make what any woman chooses to do with her own body, ANY of your business. If you don't believe in abortion, you should never be forced to have one. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what you think. If it's not YOUR body, it's not your life, it's not your decision, and it will never be your business. Ever.

2

Why do you arbitrarily place the beginning of life at conception? Why not before? Why do you devalue human eggs and sperm? Why do you not consider them (non-religiously) sacred? How can you call yourself pro-woman while holding such a low opinion of the quality of life of women? Why do you use inflamitory words like 'murder' (which is a legal term) in an attempt to poison the well?

1

You're scary.. My body, my choice. End of.

1

My take on your submission:

#1: A) Claiming (more then once when reading your replies) your assertions are "Pro-sceince" does not support your argument without references to specific scientific studies that support a detailed component of your claim

#1 B) Claiming that you are "Pro-Women" then rambling on without consideration for the health and rights of a woman makes me seriously question you honesty or understanding of this issue from the perspective of a woman.

  For example:  

A friend of mine told me about her good friend: a woman who was attacked and raped while walking home by a violent man. Because the young woman was a Catholic and a High School Senior, she did not have an abortion. She gave birth and raised (rapist father was usually in jail and wanted nothing to do with her or his boy) the hateful (the unwanted boy was filled with violent behaviour and filled with hate.) The boy horrified the mother as every time she saw the baby, then young boy . . . . he reminded her of her violent assault by the boys father. The boy (surprise surprise) (Nature AND Nurture) is now an unwanted violent young man who has already displayed violent outbursts to classmates and performed delinquent behaviour that has placed him in Juvenal hall. To quote my friend "From the day the mother was raped, her healthy life ended. She is a total wreck and now suffers severe emotional issues that have made her unemployable."

I could go on about the number of other health issues such as spontaneous abortions, or ectopic pregnancies that must be aborted or the mother dies, and other "Pro-science" points you ignorantly or purposefully omitted that contradict your stated "Pro-Woman" stance. By failing to take into consideration any of these or a long list of other women health issues but I think, (ok, I hope) you get the point.

#2 How do you define "Sacred" The dictionary definition of secured is: (religious rather than secular. (of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion) without religion?
and how in the world would this ". . probably foster better pre-natal care and research in preventing fetal abnormalities. . " f a c e p a l m. This entire section looks and smells like a copy and paste from a theistic argument for Pro-Life.

I find your #3 and #4 assertions equally lame. If you wish, I'll expound.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:1634
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.