Abortion and abortion-rights is one topic that I (and most people) feel very strongly about. Very few atheists are pro-life, and most pro-lifers are religious—which is why I am strange in this respect, because I am strongly opposed to abortion (and in the spirit of being redundant, an atheist as well).
The way I view it, abortion is one of the most disgusting crimes against humanity that we have ever seen (the mass murder of unborn babies by the millions due to an inconvenience caused very often by a combination of stupidity and promiscuity). What makes it even worse is that many -- especially within the atheist community -- love abortion. They view abortion as a rebellion against the system, against nature, and against religion. Many atheists, when they see the religious strongly oppose an issue, they take the other side, assuming it must be right.
The reality is that -- while their is no known evidence for the existence of a god (or any other of the supernatural claims made by religion) -- this does not automatically mean that all of Christianity's views of what is moral is wrong in of itself (the moral itself, not the believed source). A God not existing does not devalue human life, or the way humans should interact with one another. If anything, human life should be viewed as being even more valuable, and should be preserved with much more intensity (assuming we do have only 1 shot at life, etc.) . If human life is something that is precious (most people value their lives very highly), then how is a human life worthy of destruction due to the inconviences of mother? Isn't such a thought ridiculous?
Most babies are a financial burden on the parents in general, sacrifices must be made. Obviously to allow the murder of this life because the mother would rather have the financial freedom to piss away her money on shoes, etc. is a strange moral priority. Our society places a high value on human-life outside of abortion.
It's silly to think that this issue has anything to do with the woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body. An unborn-baby is not part of the women's body, and no-one should have the right to kill it because it doesn't have the ability to defend itself. No human-life with the ability to speak for itself would rationally desire to not exist.
As far as the argument that a fetus in the first trimester does not have the cognitive abilities of a fully developed human, this is another stupid argument. Does this mean that all human life should be valued based on the cognitive abilities it possess during a particular moment? Such as -- is a human life worthless when it is put to sleep under anesthesia? We know that a very young fetus will develop the cognitive faculties that we all possess (assuming it is healthy and allowed to live). Another example would be a coma patient that is unable to be cognitively aware of its surroundings (as they tend to be) -- is such a life worthless? Even though we know that many coma patients have the potential to be fully or partially functioning humans in the future, at that particular moment, they are not.
We have two outcomes when the question of abortion comes up.
1). Mother gets a doctor to destroy the young life.
2). Assuming the mother does not act on her desire to destroy the life, the baby is born, and develops to be -- in most cases -- a fully functioning, productive member of society.
The mother has to act to put an end to the potential of this life (which she views as a mere piece of flesh), and her motivations are 100% selfish (no human that is of sound mind would choose to not exist as a oppose to living in poor conditions and/or not be loved).
The reality behind this debate is that there are two sides, this is the summary of those two sides:
1.) Pro-life: Strongly value human life and its great potential.
2). Pro-abortion: Women and men that want to have sex without the consequences. They get off by literally cheating nature, and cheapening human life (along with the beautiful process that created it) by destroying the unwanted consequence out of a selfish desire to escape their moral obligation to preserve human life. Women that are pro-abortion seem very immoral (destroying human-life because it is personally convenient to do so immoral). At the college I go to, it is normal for a girl to have already had 1 or more abortions (this one girl that I am aware of has had 4)
Think of all the lives that would exist today if they were not put to death for being a financial inconvenience.
That is another frustrating thing as well is the "financial inconvenience" nonsense (which is a huge justification/motivation) when many couples cannot have babies due to medical problems that would get so much joy out of adopting that baby.
If a women happens to get pregnant because she wants to have reckless intercourse, I see no reason for why seeing the pregnancy through, and putting the baby up for adoption right after is that bad (as oppose to destroying it). Actions have consequences, and when human life is created through an unwanted consequence, that should not create the justification to destroy that existing life.
Well that's enough ranting against abortion today. Even if you are an atheist (or not) that is pro-choice, do some soul-searching about this issue, it is very important. Don't just sheepishly pick a side because your political peers do (*cough* Democrats). Pro-life should be considered a position that most atheists find themselves on; it is very irrational to be pro-abortion (well, irrational if you value human-life).
Check out the Atheist Against Abortion Rights page, and please help support if you agree, thanks :)
The way I view it, abortion is one of the most disgusting crimes against humanity that we have ever seen (the mass murder of unborn babies by the millions due to an inconvenience caused very often by a combination of stupidity and promiscuity). What makes it even worse is that many -- especially within the atheist community -- love abortion. They view abortion as a rebellion against the system, against nature, and against religion. Many atheists, when they see the religious strongly oppose an issue, they take the other side, assuming it must be right.
The reality is that -- while their is no known evidence for the existence of a god (or any other of the supernatural claims made by religion) -- this does not automatically mean that all of Christianity's views of what is moral is wrong in of itself (the moral itself, not the believed source). A God not existing does not devalue human life, or the way humans should interact with one another. If anything, human life should be viewed as being even more valuable, and should be preserved with much more intensity (assuming we do have only 1 shot at life, etc.) . If human life is something that is precious (most people value their lives very highly), then how is a human life worthy of destruction due to the inconviences of mother? Isn't such a thought ridiculous?
Most babies are a financial burden on the parents in general, sacrifices must be made. Obviously to allow the murder of this life because the mother would rather have the financial freedom to piss away her money on shoes, etc. is a strange moral priority. Our society places a high value on human-life outside of abortion.
It's silly to think that this issue has anything to do with the woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body. An unborn-baby is not part of the women's body, and no-one should have the right to kill it because it doesn't have the ability to defend itself. No human-life with the ability to speak for itself would rationally desire to not exist.
As far as the argument that a fetus in the first trimester does not have the cognitive abilities of a fully developed human, this is another stupid argument. Does this mean that all human life should be valued based on the cognitive abilities it possess during a particular moment? Such as -- is a human life worthless when it is put to sleep under anesthesia? We know that a very young fetus will develop the cognitive faculties that we all possess (assuming it is healthy and allowed to live). Another example would be a coma patient that is unable to be cognitively aware of its surroundings (as they tend to be) -- is such a life worthless? Even though we know that many coma patients have the potential to be fully or partially functioning humans in the future, at that particular moment, they are not.
We have two outcomes when the question of abortion comes up.
1). Mother gets a doctor to destroy the young life.
2). Assuming the mother does not act on her desire to destroy the life, the baby is born, and develops to be -- in most cases -- a fully functioning, productive member of society.
The mother has to act to put an end to the potential of this life (which she views as a mere piece of flesh), and her motivations are 100% selfish (no human that is of sound mind would choose to not exist as a oppose to living in poor conditions and/or not be loved).
The reality behind this debate is that there are two sides, this is the summary of those two sides:
1.) Pro-life: Strongly value human life and its great potential.
2). Pro-abortion: Women and men that want to have sex without the consequences. They get off by literally cheating nature, and cheapening human life (along with the beautiful process that created it) by destroying the unwanted consequence out of a selfish desire to escape their moral obligation to preserve human life. Women that are pro-abortion seem very immoral (destroying human-life because it is personally convenient to do so immoral). At the college I go to, it is normal for a girl to have already had 1 or more abortions (this one girl that I am aware of has had 4)
Think of all the lives that would exist today if they were not put to death for being a financial inconvenience.
That is another frustrating thing as well is the "financial inconvenience" nonsense (which is a huge justification/motivation) when many couples cannot have babies due to medical problems that would get so much joy out of adopting that baby.
If a women happens to get pregnant because she wants to have reckless intercourse, I see no reason for why seeing the pregnancy through, and putting the baby up for adoption right after is that bad (as oppose to destroying it). Actions have consequences, and when human life is created through an unwanted consequence, that should not create the justification to destroy that existing life.
Well that's enough ranting against abortion today. Even if you are an atheist (or not) that is pro-choice, do some soul-searching about this issue, it is very important. Don't just sheepishly pick a side because your political peers do (*cough* Democrats). Pro-life should be considered a position that most atheists find themselves on; it is very irrational to be pro-abortion (well, irrational if you value human-life).
Check out the Atheist Against Abortion Rights page, and please help support if you agree, thanks :)
No comments:
Post a Comment