Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League

ehcocmeo

Came up on a debate the other day that Restricting abortion means imposing religious morality on others..

Just thought I would share a link to a group that is NOT religious but who also oppose abortion on a Human Rights level.

www.godlessprolifers.org

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/20/are-pro-life-atheist-groups-promoting-sound-science/


Its important that pro-life is not handcuffed to Religious morals.

Onesimus

Pro-life is for everyone.

Gumbi

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Came up on a debate the other day that Restricting abortion means imposing religious morality on others..

Just thought I would share a link to a group that is NOT religious but who also oppose abortion on a Human Rights level.

www.godlessprolifers.org

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/20/are-pro-life-atheist-groups-promoting-sound-science/


Its important that pro-life is not handcuffed to Religious morals.

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

I am presuming that these organisations don't base their anti-abortion beliefs on life being sacred...

ehcocmeo

Gumbi wrote: »

I am presuming that these organisations don't base their anti-abortion beliefs on life being sacred...

Correct.

I met a group this year looking for signatures against Changing Irish Laws on protecting the unborn child. I was sure they were backed by some Church, but they weren't, they were just a human rights organisation who wanted to protect the rights of all Children.

JohnMc1

Gumbi wrote: »

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

I am presuming that these organisations don't base their anti-abortion beliefs on life being sacred...

Life should be considered sacred regardless if you're religious or not.

Gumbi

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

I am presuming that these organisations don't base their anti-abortion beliefs on life being sacred...

Life should be considered sacred regardless if you're religious or not.

Why? Do you know what sacred actually means?

ehcocmeo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Life should be considered sacred regardless if you're religious or not.

Yes, but can we or should we use sacred as an argument? The Hippocratic oath states " I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy" Which dates back to 5BC.

Its not just those who are religious who oppose abortion. And its important to separate religion from pro-life to get a broader debate. Instead of seeing those dumb pro-choice slogans ".. keep your rosary of my ovary"./. which denotes some pro-choice people think its religion that stopping abortion in Ireland.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

Sorry, Gumbi, but this just doesn’t stack up. All moral/ethical claims are incapable of demonstration. You may believe that a woman has a right to choose, but if you can’t demonstrate that – and I don’t see that you can, any more than someone else can demonstrate the sacredness of life - are you justified in calling for civil law to reflect that principle?

muppeteer

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Its important that pro-life is not handcuffed to Religious morals.

It is very true that ethical arguments that affect everyone should be made without being handcuffed to religious morals. The arguments the secular pro-life groups use are actually the most convincing and challenging for that exact reason, but as your second link shows they are still lacking as arguments.



Their main points here for those who haven't followed the links:

1. The fetus is a human being.
2. There is no consistent, objective distinction between a "human being" and a "person."
3. Human beings merit human rights.
4. Bodily integrity is not sufficient to justify most abortions.

Gumbi

Peregrinus wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

Sorry, Gumbi, but this just doesn’t stack up. All moral/ethical claims are incapable of demonstration. You may believe that a woman has a right to choose, but if you can’t demonstrate that – and I don’t see that you can, any more than someone else can demonstrate the sacredness of life - are you justified in calling for civil law to reflect that principle?

I meant unless you can demonstrate the sacredness of life.

I'm not fully with you on your example. I can demonstrate with statistics and such that if a woman were to have such a choice it would lea to a more productive, healthier society.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

I meant unless you can demonstrate the sacredness of life.

Yes, I know.

Gumbi wrote: »

I'm not fully with you on your example. I can demonstrate with statistics and such that if a woman were to have such a choice it would lea to a more productive, healthier society.

Surely the usual pro-choice claim is that a woman has an inherent right to choose, and doesn't have to justify this by showing that affording her a choice would benefit others? Can you demonstrate that a woman has a moral right to choose?

My point is that it's not just religious beliefs which are incapable of demonstration; it all ethical beliefs, whether religiously-based or not. (For example, can you demonstrate that it's wrong to ship Jews to Auschwitz and gas them?) If your argument is that beliefs which cannot be demonstrated have no place in public policy, then you are arguing for a policy which pays no regard to morality or ethics.

muppeteer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know.


Surely the usual pro-choice claim is that a woman has an inherent right to choose, and doesn't have to justify this by showing that affording her a choice would benefit others? Can you demonstrate that a woman has a moral right to choose?

My point is that it's not just religious beliefs which are incapable of demonstration; it all ethical beliefs, whether religiously-based or not. (For example, can you demonstrate that it's wrong to ship Jews to Auschwitz and gas them?) If your argument is that beliefs which cannot be demonstrated have no place in public policy, then you are arguing for a policy which pays no regard to morality or ethics.

Gumbi may have been trying to suggest that secular ethical beliefs may have the benefit of being accessible to everyone, whereas religious ones(sacred) are limited in how they can be justified and demonstrated.

I wouldn't say that all ethical beliefs are incapable of being demonstrated. The axioms we choose (pain is bad) might be beyond demonstration but what we build upon those axioms can certainly be demonstrated (kicking others causes pain) and help shape of our ethics.

Gumbi

Peregrinus wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

I meant unless you can demonstrate the sacredness of life.

Yes, I know.

Gumbi wrote: »

I'm not fully with you on your example. I can demonstrate with statistics and such that if a woman were to have such a choice it would lea to a more productive, healthier society.

Surely the usual pro-choice claim is that a woman has an inherent right to choose, and doesn't have to justify this by showing that affording her a choice would benefit others? Can you demonstrate that a woman has a moral right to choose?

My point is that it's not just religious beliefs which are incapable of demonstration; it all ethical beliefs, whether religiously-based or not. (For example, can you demonstrate that it's wrong to ship Jews to Auschwitz and gas them?) If your argument is that beliefs which cannot be demonstrated have no place in public policy, then you are arguing for a policy which pays no regard to morality or ethics.

Well I'm presuming a baseline morality.

J C

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Came up on a debate the other day that Restricting abortion means imposing religious morality on others..

Just thought I would share a link to a group that is NOT religious but who also oppose abortion on a Human Rights level.

www.godlessprolifers.org

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/20/are-pro-life-atheist-groups-promoting-sound-science/


Its important that pro-life is not handcuffed to Religious morals.

Just like people of all beliefs and none oppose various issues of morality for Human Rights reasons ... it is quite possible that there are (some/many?) Atheists who oppose procured abortion (for Human Rights reasons).

Taken from the above link
"Could it be true? Is there really such a thing as a pro-life atheist? What’s next, Intelligent Design Agnostics? "

There are indeed Agnostics who are ID proponents ... and the issue is succinctly summarised here
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/what_intelligent_design_offers045251.html

Indeed, ID could be classified as a form of Agnosticism as it doesn't attempt to prove who/what was/were the intelligent designer(s) of life ... but concentrates on scientifically researching and proving the intelligent design of life.

... watch this space !!!:D:)
... or more on topic ... watch over here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

Well I'm presuming a baseline morality.

There is a conflict of (secular) rights between the woman's right to choose to not bring her pregnancy to term ... and the right of the foetal Human Being that she is carrying to be born.

Legal rights for foetal young aren't unique or indeed confined to Humans ... for example, there are laws banning the taking of rare birds eggs (to protect the foetal birds therein) ... and if a pregnant woman is assaulted and loses her baby as a result, the accused can be charged with causing the death of the baby as well as the assault on the woman.

Peregrinus

muppeteer wrote: »

Gumbi may have been trying to suggest that secular ethical beliefs may have the benefit of being accessible to everyone, whereas religious ones(sacred) are limited in how they can be justified and demonstrated.

I'm not seeing this. Unless you're talking about mystery relations, which simply won't tell you what they believe unless you are an initiate, religious beliefs are as accessible as any other kind of beliefs. You can examine and understand a religiously-founded ethical belief, and very often even share that belief, without being an adherent of the religion concerned.

muppeteer wrote: »

I wouldn't say that all ethical beliefs are incapable of being demonstrated. The axioms we choose (pain is bad) might be beyond demonstration but what we build upon those axioms can certainly be demonstrated (kicking others causes pain) and help shape of our ethics.

All ethical beliefs ultimately rest on propositions which cannot be demonstrated. I grant you, if you accept one proposition others follows, but I don't see how Gumbi can say that undemonstrated propositions must be excluded from public policy, but deductions and inferences from undemonstrated propositions are just fine.

muppeteer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not seeing this. Unless you're talking about mystery relations, which simply won't tell you what they believe unless you are an initiate, religious beliefs are as accessible as any other kind of beliefs. You can examine and understand a religiously-founded ethical belief, and very often even share that belief, without being an adherent of the religion concerned.

Well that was just my guess, I may have been wrong.
I don't know what a mystery relation is TBH.

You can understand a religiously founded belief but the axioms that these religiously founded beliefs are based upon are not common to everyone, and as such shouldn't try to be applied to everyone. For example pain is bad is pretty much universal to humans but alcohol is bad is only an axiom for certain religions.

All ethical beliefs ultimately rest on propositions which cannot be demonstrated. I grant you, if you accept one proposition others follows, but I don't see how Gumbi can say that undemonstrated propositions must be excluded from public policy, but deductions and inferences from undemonstrated propositions are just fine.

I would guess that she/he meant that exclusively religious axioms should be excluded.
We don't have much choice but to pick which axioms to build upon. Choosing the axioms which are the most basic and universal would seem to be the best way to create a starting point for all peoples to discuss ethics. Would you see a better alternative?


Anyway more on-topic, the groups still seem to be using the same weak arguments attacking straw men analogies (viability=personhood) that pro-life groups do.

philologos

Although it is praiseworthy that an atheist could be pro-life. There's still the huge problem of sin, and rebellion against God. Sin stands between us and God, and He will judge us at the end of time. If we reject Jesus, we still stand guilty before God, irrespective of how pro-life you are. If one is in that position I would strongly urge them to look into Jesus, look into His claims, look into Him, and repent and believe in the Gospel.

JohnMc1

Gumbi wrote: »

Why? Do you know what sacred actually means?

Why not? Should we value life or not?

Gumbi

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Why? Do you know what sacred actually means?

Why not? Should we value life or not?

Ah, now that's a different question. Life being valuable and life being sacred are too different things.

JohnMc1

Gumbi wrote: »

Ah, now that's a different question. Life being valuable and life being sacred are too different things.

I doubt that they are that different when talking about human life.

Gumbi

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Ah, now that's a different question. Life being valuable and life being sacred are too different things.

I doubt that they are that different when talking about human life.

I repeat: describing human life as sacred, and describing it as something to be valued are two different things.

Peregrinus

muppeteer wrote: »

I don't know what a mystery relation is TBH.

My mistake, sorry. I meant to type “mystery religion”, i.e. one whose teachings are not publicly proclaimed, but which claims to have special knowledge available only to initiates. Scientology would be an example.

muppeteer wrote: »

You can understand a religiously founded belief but the axioms that these religiously founded beliefs are based upon are not common to everyone, and as such shouldn't try to be applied to everyone. For example pain is bad is pretty much universal to humans but alcohol is bad is only an axiom for certain religions.

But lots of ethical principles often held on religious grounds are pretty universal – (“Treat others as you would wish them to treat you”), and conversely there are plenty of ethical principles frequently held on non-religious grounds which are very far from universal (e.g. the moral value of racial purity).

In a pluralist democracy, there are going to be a diversity of moral perspectives. The challenge is how to build a sufficient common morality to serve as a foundation for laws and public policy, while respecting this diversity. If you suggest – and on the face of it its not an unreasonable suggestion – that the best way to do this is to work from the moral perspectives which enjoy the widest support in the community, then your criterion for the legitimacy of a particular moral perspective should be popularity, not religiosity or the lack of it. And, if you insist that religious perspectives must be excluded, how are you going to deal with the (very large range of) moral principles which some people hold on religious grounds and others on non-religious grounds?

muppeteer wrote: »

I would guess that she/he meant that exclusively religious axioms should be excluded.
We don't have much choice but to pick which axioms to build upon. Choosing the axioms which are the most basic and universal would seem to be the best way to create a starting point for all peoples to discuss ethics. Would you see a better alternative?

No, I think that’s fair enough. But it’s not consistent with arguing for the exclusion of moral principles which are supported by religious faith, regardless of how widely those moral principles are held.

Gumbi wrote: »

I repeat: describing human life as sacred, and describing it as something to be valued are two different things.

Not very different, when it comes to ethics, since ethics is about what we do, not what we believe. If you and I both agree on the importance of respect for human life, I don’t think it matters greatly that one of uses the word “sacred” and the other “valuable” to express our views. We are both going to agree that, e.g., murder should be illegal. Besides, I'm perfectly happy to use the word "valuable" if it makes you feel more comfortable, so you and I are in agreement, so on what basis are you arguing for the exclusion of my view?

Look at it this way. Suppose I hold, on religious grounds, the view that death penalty is unconscionable, and I therefore campaign to have the death penalty ended throughout the world. Suppose you agree with me, but for non-religious reasons. Are you going to argue that my voice should be excluded or disregarded in public discourse because it reflects my religious beliefs? Are you going to argue that, say, everything Amnesty International says should be disregarded because some of its are motivated in their activism by religious faith? No, didn’t think so.

I think the real reason that you argue for the exlusion of religious pro-life perspectives is not because they’re religious, but because they’re pro-life. You don’t share them; you oppose them.

I think it’s fair enough to oppose them, but you’re going to have to come with a better reason than “they’re religious”. The logic of that position is that public policy should be decided exclusively by that section of society – in Ireland, the distinct minority – whose ethical views are not affected by any religious faith. But you’ve given us no reason why the non-religious should be privileged in this way.

Gumbi

No, there's quite a difference between them. It does matter that one differentiates between sacredness and value. Sacredness has lots of religious baggage attached to it.

It is backed up by faith, perhaps adherence to some holy book.

I would argue that the pro-lifer's views are based on inconsistent beliefs, and are immoral.

Even if we agree, I would still argue with you that your basis for believing as I do is inaccurate/false.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

No, there's quite a difference between them. It does matter that one differentiates between sacredness and value. Sacredness has lots of religious baggage attached to it.

It is backed up by faith, perhaps adherence to some holy book.

I would argue that the pro-lifer's views are based on inconsistent beliefs, and are immoral.

Even if we agree, I would still argue with you that your basis for believing as I do is inaccurate/false.

Sounds like somebody who won't take yes for an answer!

But that's beside the point. You can quibble about my reasons for holding your ethical principles as much as you like, but your still not offering any reasons why society at large, why the state, should privilege your views over mine. All you've really said so far is that you don't share the religious beliefs of religious poeple. You've said nothing at all to support your assertion that religious perspectives should be excluded from public discourse. What it comes down to, so far, is that the people you disagree with should be disregarded because you disagree with them. It's not really a solid foundation for a democratic discourse, is it?

lmaopml

I think it's a little unfair actually to imply that the pro life view in Ireland from a Religious (mainly Catholic Christian) perspective is somehow taboo to mention because the people believe that life is both 'sacred' and 'valuable' - which as a Catholic and as a 'human being' we believe....

....somehow the feeling here is that because one is Catholic that it somehow negates that the same movement has never made scientifically sound points and also argues from the vantage point of a 'human rights' perspective too, and always has done so. They don't just ignore science or ignore the examination of human rights issues from varying perspectives.



Is it not fair enough to say that I would be Pro life, and happen to be a Catholic, and another is Pro life and happens to be an Atheist? One doesn't have to be religious to be Pro life for sure, without a doubt. Certainly not every Catholic Christian Pro Life person fits into the plaqard carrying screaming maniac stereotype that is out there either....and neither does every Atheist fit into the plaqard carrying maniac pro-choice person screaming back.

Gosh, I hate stereotypes so much. Certainly the debate shouldn't be 'handcuffed' to religion - but it never has been, that's just a pervasive lie since there have always been pro life Atheists who are vocal in the public sphere when necessary.

ehcocmeo

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it's a little unfair actually to imply that the pro life view in Ireland from a Religious (mainly Catholic Christian) perspective is somehow taboo to mention because the people believe that life is both 'sacred' and 'valuable' - which as a Catholic and as a 'human being' we believe....

....somehow the feeling here is that because one is Catholic that it somehow negates that the same movement has never made scientifically sound points and also argues from the vantage point of a 'human rights' perspective too, and always has done so. They don't just ignore science or ignore the examination of human rights issues from varying perspectives.



Is it not fair enough to say that I would be Pro life, and happen to be a Catholic, and another is Pro life and happens to be an Atheist? One doesn't have to be religious to be Pro life for sure, without a doubt. Certainly not every Catholic Christian Pro Life person fits into the plaqard carrying screaming maniac stereotype that is out there either....and neither does every Atheist fit into the plaqard carrying maniac pro-choice person screaming back.

Gosh, I hate stereotypes so much. Certainly the debate shouldn't be 'handcuffed' to religion - but it never has been, that's just a pervasive lie since there have always been pro life Atheists who are vocal in the public sphere when necessary.

Exactly. Pro-life is not a movement that only has reglious members, its a movement which has a very wide base.

The catholic church has a moral obligation to oppose the introduction of abortion, but they are only a small part of this.

muppeteer

Peregrinus wrote: »

But lots of ethical principles often held on religious grounds are pretty universal – (“Treat others as you would wish them to treat you”), and conversely there are plenty of ethical principles frequently held on non-religious grounds which are very far from universal (e.g. the moral value of racial purity).

I would have no problem with ethical principles which in effect are equivalent, such as "do unto others" and other secular golden rule formulations. One is god based the other is human reasoning, but they are functionally the same and pretty universal so we can discuss and base our laws on them with no conflict between the religious view point and the secular. I would still think that the initial god based reasoning is flawed but at least they have arrived at the same jumping off point for the discussion.

In a pluralist democracy, there are going to be a diversity of moral perspectives. The challenge is how to build a sufficient common morality to serve as a foundation for laws and public policy, while respecting this diversity. If you suggest – and on the face of it its not an unreasonable suggestion – that the best way to do this is to work from the moral perspectives which enjoy the widest support in the community, then your criterion for the legitimacy of a particular moral perspective should be popularity, not religiosity or the lack of it. And, if you insist that religious perspectives must be excluded, how are you going to deal with the (very large range of) moral principles which some people hold on religious grounds and others on non-religious grounds?

I wouldn't say that ethics should based on popularity, it smacks of 51% majority ethics which I would reject entirely. What I suggest when I say universality is looking for the lowest common denominator axioms. The axioms which are the same for a single individual as for some arbitrary majority. These are the axioms which remain no matter which god a person worships or none.

No, I think that’s fair enough. But it’s not consistent with arguing for the exclusion of moral principles which are supported by religious faith, regardless of how widely those moral principles are held.

I would have thought that it was sufficient to exclude exclusively religious morals from being imposed on everyone no?
Public policy should be formulated in a way that even a minority cannot be dictated to by ethics which are alien to them and in a language/basis which is not shared by them. This affords the best protection for those with true gods, false gods and no gods at all. This also applies to non-religious non-universal morals as well. It excludes the racial purity ethics from public policy just as much as religious ones.

Northclare

Being a spiritual guy I'm all for pro-life and so are most of my friends.
At the end of the day it all comes down to whether you're conscience can handle abortion or not,or how sick in the head people are.

You might get the selfish aul bag who thinks having a kid will ruin her career,and she isn't mature enough or emotionally capable of missing out on the vino and yuppie nights out etc
She just loves her girlies and being taken away by Fred for lavish weekends in Milan...

Then you gets the selfish ex boyfriend who's a control freak who pushes the poor lady into having an abortion,and she is so timid and fcked up from his self obsessed control,she will do anything he says because he scares the bejaysus out of her.
And anyway John needs to get tanked up on beers all weekend,and being a responsible parent will fck up Johns drinking etc

You then get a situation where the mothers life might be in danger if the unborn child puts her life in danger,or won't survive birth...that one is a tough one.

Pro life doesn't come down to religion.

Anyone who loves their own life will do everything to save a life,or help someone out.

Strident knobs,intelligent idiots,and hardcore critical thinker lack certain genes that allows them empathy,I used to read some of their posts on another forum and engage with them,but when they get into their sick resentful rants there's no stopping them.

Sick

Gumbi

Northclare wrote: »

Being a spiritual guy I'm all for pro-life and so are most of my friends.
At the end of the day it all comes down to whether you're conscience can handle abortion or not,or how sick in the head people are.

You might get the selfish aul bag who thinks having a kid will ruin her career,and she isn't mature enough or emotionally capable of missing out on the vino and yuppie nights out etc
She just loves her girlies and being taken away by Fred for lavish weekends in Milan...

Then you gets the selfish ex boyfriend who's a control freak who pushes the poor lady into having an abortion,and she is so timid and fcked up from his self obsessed control,she will do anything he says because he scares the bejaysus out of her.
And anyway John needs to get tanked up on beers all weekend,and being a responsible parent will fck up Johns drinking etc

You then get a situation where the mothers life might be in danger if the unborn child puts her life in danger,or won't survive birth...that one is a tough one.

Pro life doesn't come down to religion.

Anyone who loves their own life will do everything to save a life,or help someone out.

Strident knobs,intelligent idiots,and hardcore critical thinker lack certain genes that allows them empathy,I used to read some of their posts on another forum and engage with them,but when they get into their sick resentful rants there's no stopping them.

Sick

Ah, but you fight as hard for the lives of dogs? Or other animals?

ehcocmeo

Gumbi wrote: »

Ah, but you fight as hard for the lives of dogs? Or other animals?

Its a very Good point!!!! I sometimes get animal welfare coming to door looking for funding. I always say.. the night a Child does not go to bed hungry somewhere in the world is the day I start giving money to saving Dogs.

Its a Crazy world where People end their own pregnancy and abort their own Children and on the other side we spend millions trying to save a rare breed of panda or tundra fox etc..

Are not all men equal? Yet its a fact we spend more money on our Pets in Europe and America that could feed all of Africa's Children for a year.

Gumbi

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Ah, but you fight as hard for the lives of dogs? Or other animals?

Its a very Good point!!!! I sometimes get animal welfare coming to door looking for funding. I always say.. the night a Child does not go to bed hungry somewhere in the world is the day I start giving money to saving Dogs.

Its a Crazy world where People end their own pregnancy and abort their own Children and on the other side we spend millions trying to save a rare breed of panda or tundra fox etc..

Are not all men equal? Yet its a fact we spend more money on our Pets in Europe and America that could feed all of Africa's Children for a year.

Woah. That wasn't exactly the point I was getting at, but what you've said he exposes inconsistencies in your views.

That's like saying why bother helping retarded people when there are children to be helped? Why bother jailing bank robbers when there are murderer to be jailed?

And btw, there is NO WAY we spend more on animals than we do on ourselves. That you would even suggest it is laughable.

Benny_Cake

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Its a Crazy world where People end their own pregnancy and abort their own Children and on the other side we spend millions trying to save a rare breed of panda or tundra fox etc..

Are not all men equal? Yet its a fact we spend more money on our Pets in Europe and America that could feed all of Africa's Children for a year.

I can kind of understand where you're coming from, but it's a crazier world where children starve AND entire species are wiped out because of human greed. I don't think it's an either or question, we can do something about both.

Getting back to the topic, of course atheists can be pro-life, it's ridiculous how people pigeon hole themselves and others.

Northclare

Gumbi wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Being a spiritual guy I'm all for pro-life and so are most of my friends.
At the end of the day it all comes down to whether you're conscience can handle abortion or not,or how sick in the head people are.

You might get the selfish aul bag who thinks having a kid will ruin her career,and she isn't mature enough or emotionally capable of missing out on the vino and yuppie nights out etc
She just loves her girlies and being taken away by Fred for lavish weekends in Milan...

Then you gets the selfish ex boyfriend who's a control freak who pushes the poor lady into having an abortion,and she is so timid and fcked up from his self obsessed control,she will do anything he says because he scares the bejaysus out of her.
And anyway John needs to get tanked up on beers all weekend,and being a responsible parent will fck up Johns drinking etc

You then get a situation where the mothers life might be in danger if the unborn child puts her life in danger,or won't survive birth...that one is a tough one.

Pro life doesn't come down to religion.

Anyone who loves their own life will do everything to save a life,or help someone out.

Strident knobs,intelligent idiots,and hardcore critical thinker lack certain genes that allows them empathy,I used to read some of their posts on another forum and engage with them,but when they get into their sick resentful rants there's no stopping them.

Sick

Ah, but you fight as hard for the lives of dogs? Or other animals?

A 4 foot Tope beached itself after a huge swell washed it onto cobble stones at Doughmore beach Doonbeag today lol

I spent 5 minutes helping her back
into the water I got a right soaking,she will be ok though...

So I saved a fish today,does that count ?

JimiTime

I think abortion is one of the most damning indictments on humanity on so many levels (It highlights our selfishness. It highlights our hard-heartedness, and it highlights our horrid ability to use sophistry to ease our consciences when we desire something. It also happens to reveal that 'rights' is such a bullsh1t political term), and I certainly don't believe you must be a Christian to realise it.

Peregrinus

muppeteer wrote: »

I would have no problem with ethical principles which in effect are equivalent, such as "do unto others" and other secular golden rule formulations. One is god based the other is human reasoning, but they are functionally the same and pretty universal so we can discuss and base our laws on them with no conflict between the religious view point and the secular. I would still think that the initial god based reasoning is flawed but at least they have arrived at the same jumping off point for the discussion.

I think you’re making a false distinction there between “god-based” and “human reasoning”. Religions – the religions that predominate in Ireland, anyway – are insistent that there moral thinking is rational, and indeed that it must be, if it is to be sound.

And I think you are mistaken, too, when you think of a religiously-based ethical rule as being “in effect equivalent” to a parallel secular one. They are not equivalent; they are the same rule.

Suppose I teach my toddler “don’t hit your little brother”. Ethics is about how we act, and the moral rule there is “don’t hit your little brother”. When my toddler is old enough to demand reasons, I may offer a variety of reasons for the rule – because if you hit him you cannot object to his hitting you back, because settling arguments through violence is wrong, because hitting your little brother displeases your parents, because hitting your little brother displeases god, because you have greater strength than he and therefore this is an unfair way of settling a difference, because he is your little brother and has a claim on your protection, or whatever. Most probably I will offer a variety of reasons. Regardless of the reasons that I offer the moral rule remains the same; don’t hit your little brother; it doesn’t suddenly become a different moral rule if, among the range of reasons that I offer, there lurks a theistic reason.

In the context of public discourse, if I urge that a particular moral rule be enshrined in law, and I offer theistic reasons for this, you are at perfect liberty to say that my suggested moral rule doesn’t appeal to you (or doesn’t seem to you the kind of rule that should be enshrined in civil law) and that the reasoning I offer is unconvincing to you. As it happens, the reason you’re not convinced is because you don’t share the theistic assumptions on which my reasoning is based, but that’s irrelevant; I might have offered entirely secular reasoning which you also found unconvincing, and your response would have been exactly the same.

On the other hand, if my suggested moral principle – opposition to the death penalty, say – does appeal to you, you’re not really concerned with my reasons for holding it. You have your own reasons for holding it and, if you’re an atheist, they won’t be theistic reasons.

The lesson, I think, is that if I want to influence public policy in a pluralist society, the more I focus on theistic reasons in my advocacy, the less likely I am to attract broad-based support or assent. And if I choose to advocate for moral positions which can only be held for religious reasons (“everyone should be compelled by law to go to mass on Sundays”) I’m pissing into the wind, basically.

But rejecting a moral principle simply because it can be held on theistic grounds, and many people do hold it on religious grounds is just plain ol’ bigotry. The moral principle may be perfectly sound. The a priori insistence that it’s “god-based” rather than ”human reason” is just an evasion; a way of dismissing it without having to offer a rational reason for dismissing it.

Practically all of the moral principles which underpin laws in most societies, including our own, can be held on religious grounds, and are, by large numbers of people.

On something like the question of abortion, the notion that human life is inherently valuable and is deserving of our respect is obviously a notion that can be held on non-theistic grounds. Indeed it demonstrably is held on non-theistic grounds by many people.

muppeteer wrote: »

I would have thought that it was sufficient to exclude exclusively religious morals from being imposed on everyone no?

Well, I’m not sure that it’s easy to find many exclusively religious morals, beyond trivial things like the obligation to attend mass. And I don’t see much effort to have them enshrined in law.

Gumbi

Northclare wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Being a spiritual guy I'm all for pro-life and so are most of my friends.
At the end of the day it all comes down to whether you're conscience can handle abortion or not,or how sick in the head people are.

You might get the selfish aul bag who thinks having a kid will ruin her career,and she isn't mature enough or emotionally capable of missing out on the vino and yuppie nights out etc
She just loves her girlies and being taken away by Fred for lavish weekends in Milan...

Then you gets the selfish ex boyfriend who's a control freak who pushes the poor lady into having an abortion,and she is so timid and fcked up from his self obsessed control,she will do anything he says because he scares the bejaysus out of her.
And anyway John needs to get tanked up on beers all weekend,and being a responsible parent will fck up Johns drinking etc

You then get a situation where the mothers life might be in danger if the unborn child puts her life in danger,or won't survive birth...that one is a tough one.

Pro life doesn't come down to religion.

Anyone who loves their own life will do everything to save a life,or help someone out.

Strident knobs,intelligent idiots,and hardcore critical thinker lack certain genes that allows them empathy,I used to read some of their posts on another forum and engage with them,but when they get into their sick resentful rants there's no stopping them.

Sick

Ah, but you fight as hard for the lives of dogs? Or other animals?

A 4 foot Tope beached itself after a huge swell washed it onto cobble stones at Doughmore beach Doonbeag today lol

I spent 5 minutes helping her back
into the water I got a right soaking,she will be ok though...

So I saved a fish today,does that count ?

I'm tired and ready to sleep now.

It was a rhetorical question but I forget the point I was trying to get at sorry

Gumbi

Peregrinus: there are people who argue that one must do x because God says so. That's arguing from an exclusively religious viewpoint.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

Peregrinus: there are people who argue that one must do x because God says so. That's arguing from an exclusively religious viewpoint.

Of course. And you're perfectly free to dismiss the argument.

That doesn't mean, though, that one need not do X. The fact that someone has advocated for a moral principle on exclusively religious grounds does not mean that the moral principle is an exclusively religious moral principle.

The early Christians argued, out of their religious convictions, that one must not expose unwanted infants to die. (This was acceptable in the classical world, and regularly practised; Christians were horrified by this. It was one of the big flash-points between emerging Christianity and the dominant culture of the time.)

You, obviously, would reject the theistic reasoning of the Christians. But it doesn't follow that exposing infants to die is morally permissible or that a prohibition on child exposure would be an exclusively religious moral rule, does it?

Gumbi

Peregrinus wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Peregrinus: there are people who argue that one must do x because God says so. That's arguing from an exclusively religious viewpoint.

Of course. And you're perfectly free to dismiss the argument.

That doesn't mean, though, that one need not do X. The fact that someone has advocated for a moral principle on exclusively religious grounds does not mean that the moral principle is an exclusively religious moral principle.

The early Christians argued, out of their religious convictions, that one must not expose unwanted infants to die. (This was acceptable in the classical world, and regularly practised; Christians were horrified by this. It was one of the big flash-points between emerging Christianity and the dominant culture of the time.)

You, obviously, would reject the theistic reasoning of the Christians. But it doesn't follow that exposing infants to die is morally permissible or that a prohibition on child exposure would be an exclusively religious moral rule, does it?

Of course not, but I would still vehemently oppose your reasoning behind it. And for the person basing their claim upon their religious reasoning, it cannot be anything over than a religious moral I their view.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

Of course not, but I would still vehemently oppose your reasoning behind it. And for the person basing their claim upon their religious reasoning, it cannot be anything over than a religious moral I their view.

But if the question is "should we practice child exposure?", you and I agree that the answer is "no". And since ethics is about what we should do, we share the same ethical position.

And likewise, if the question is "should the law forbid child exposure?" we probably hold the same ethical view on that as well. The fact that we arrived at this position by different routes is irrelevant.

It may be true that the fundamental premises from which I arrived at this position are undemonstrated, but that is equally true for the fundamental premises from which you arrived at this position. They are different premises, but they are just as undemonstrated. So if you use the undemonstrated nature of my moral fundamentals to argue that my position should carry no weight in public policy, the implication of yoru argument is that your position should also carry no weight in public policy. So this won't fly.

CerebralCortex

muppeteer wrote: »

It is very true that ethical arguments that affect everyone should be made without being handcuffed to religious morals. The arguments the secular pro-life groups use are actually the most convincing and challenging for that exact reason, but as your second link shows they are still lacking as arguments.



Their main points here for those who haven't followed the links:

1. The fetus is a human being.
2. There is no consistent, objective distinction between a "human being" and a "person."
3. Human beings merit human rights.
4. Bodily integrity is not sufficient to justify most abortions.

Wow! Those arguments are weak sauce!!

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Although it is praiseworthy that an atheist could be pro-life. There's still the huge problem of sin, and rebellion against God. Sin stands between us and God, and He will judge us at the end of time. If we reject Jesus, we still stand guilty before God, irrespective of how pro-life you are. If one is in that position I would strongly urge them to look into Jesus, look into His claims, look into Him, and repent and believe in the Gospel.

Little bit off topic... ...or maybe not for you.

J C

Northclare wrote: »

... So I saved a fish today,does that count ?

I'm having fish and chips at present ... I'll get back to you with the answer, when I'm finished!!!!:):eek:

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

Peregrinus: there are people who argue that one must do x because God says so. That's arguing from an exclusively religious viewpoint.

... and there are people who argue that one must do x because they say so ... I'll take Jesus Christ's view any time!!!:)

muppeteer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you’re making a false distinction there between “god-based” and “human reasoning”. Religions – the religions that predominate in Ireland, anyway – are insistent that there moral thinking is rational, and indeed that it must be, if it is to be sound.

There is a world of difference between secular rational arguments and what theology departments like to spew out.

And I think you are mistaken, too, when you think of a religiously-based ethical rule as being “in effect equivalent” to a parallel secular one. They are not equivalent; they are the same rule.

Suppose I teach my toddler “don’t hit your little brother”. Ethics is about how we act, and the moral rule there is “don’t hit your little brother”. When my toddler is old enough to demand reasons, I may offer a variety of reasons for the rule – because if you hit him you cannot object to his hitting you back, because settling arguments through violence is wrong, because hitting your little brother displeases your parents, because hitting your little brother displeases god, because you have greater strength than he and therefore this is an unfair way of settling a difference, because he is your little brother and has a claim on your protection, or whatever. Most probably I will offer a variety of reasons. Regardless of the reasons that I offer the moral rule remains the same; don’t hit your little brother; it doesn’t suddenly become a different moral rule if, among the range of reasons that I offer, there lurks a theistic reason.

I would indeed see a difference in an ethical rule which is functionally similar but have completely different basis as not exactly the same rule. The ethical rule that we don't kick puppies because it causes suffering is not exactly the same as the ethical rule that we don't kick puppies because the puppy monster will later inflict even greater pain on a puppy the less we kick them.
Both rules result in non kicked puppies, but they are very different in their intent and what other ethical rules we can base on them. Keep in mind as everyone is plucking the initial axioms out of thin air, to build further rules upon earlier rules, each influences each other.

Your toddler has rules asserted to them form authority(which won't be too much of a problem for some around here:)) but when we want to change and modify ethical rules in the public sphere we don't do this for obvious reasons. We must then actually think about the reason why an ethical rule should be modified and how best to do this with a diverse population of humans. That is where our basic axioms become important.

In the context of public discourse, if I urge that a particular moral rule be enshrined in law, and I offer theistic reasons for this, you are at perfect liberty to say that my suggested moral rule doesn’t appeal to you (or doesn’t seem to you the kind of rule that should be enshrined in civil law) and that the reasoning I offer is unconvincing to you. As it happens, the reason you’re not convinced is because you don’t share the theistic assumptions on which my reasoning is based, but that’s irrelevant; I might have offered entirely secular reasoning which you also found unconvincing, and your response would have been exactly the same.

On the other hand, if my suggested moral principle – opposition to the death penalty, say – does appeal to you, you’re not really concerned with my reasons for holding it. You have your own reasons for holding it and, if you’re an atheist, they won’t be theistic reasons.

The lesson, I think, is that if I want to influence public policy in a pluralist society, the more I focus on theistic reasons in my advocacy, the less likely I am to attract broad-based support or assent. And if I choose to advocate for moral positions which can only be held for religious reasons (“everyone should be compelled by law to go to mass on Sundays”) I’m pissing into the wind, basically.

But rejecting a moral principle simply because it can be held on theistic grounds, and many people do hold it on religious grounds is just plain ol’ bigotry. The moral principle may be perfectly sound. The a priori insistence that it’s “god-based” rather than ”human reason” is just an evasion; a way of dismissing it without having to offer a rational reason for dismissing it.

I wouldn't reject an ethical principle simply because it can be held on theistic grounds. I'm not sure how you read that into what I've said previously. Each theistic ethical principle which is put forward into the public discussion must be viewed and weighed on its own merits. Now the reasoning that would appeal to the most people, as you agree above, would be the parts that can be justified and reasoned in the most broad based/universal way. What I reject are the ethical rules which do not follow from a rational examination of the most basic human axioms/ethics. It doesn't matter if they are secular or theistic, if they are non-universal in their reasoning or their initial premises then that reasoning should not be entertained in the public discourse. If by whatever theistic/flawed/non-universal reasoning a group comes to the same conclusion that kicking puppies is bad then that is well for them, but their reasoning must be rejected(puppy monster) even if the rule is kept as public policy.

Practically all of the moral principles which underpin laws in most societies, including our own, can be held on religious grounds, and are, by large numbers of people.

On something like the question of abortion, the notion that human life is inherently valuable and is deserving of our respect is obviously a notion that can be held on non-theistic grounds. Indeed it demonstrably is held on non-theistic grounds by many people.


Well, I’m not sure that it’s easy to find many exclusively religious morals, beyond trivial things like the obligation to attend mass. And I don’t see much effort to have them enshrined in law.

The exclusively religious morals in law are thankfully mostly gone from Irish law but theocracy is an insidious fact for hundred of millions of people around the world unfortunately.

muppeteer

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Wow! Those arguments are weak sauce!!

The problem is that they are the best arguments out there at the moment. On the surface each one(bar the 4th one which is jumping to a conclusion) is actually true. It's only when the 2nd one(the important one) is looked at more deeply that it becomes clear that an "objective" distinction is not necessary and the distinctions we do use can indeed be consistent.

angelfalling

So, the life of an embryo is more sacred than the life of a woman. That's neat.

I'm an atheist, I feel abortion is reasonable with no excuse (that is, a woman doesn't need a reason other than she doesn't want to have a baby) til what is considered late-term... so around 20 weeks where there have been instances of the fetus being able to be supported and survived outside of the womb. This is so so so rare and only ever done when a woman's life is in danger. Most abortions are performed before 8 weeks, when we are talking about something anything from microscopic to less than 1.5 inches in length. If you don't bring religion in to the argument, I find it hard to understand what person using pure scientific fact and reasoning can come to the conclusion that this potential life is more important than the life of the women whose body is prisoner to a baby she doesn't want.

As someone who has had an abortion, and who wouldn't have the life I have today or the two beautiful children I do without it... pro-choice pro-choice pro-choice. Life IS life... women have them too.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

There is a world of difference between secular rational arguments and what theology departments like to spew out.

That is such a loaded statement!!!
There are completely irrational secular arguments, just like there are rational ones!!!
... and ditto for religious ones!!!!:)

J C

angelfalling wrote: »

So, the life of an embryo is more sacred than the life of a woman. That's neat.

... Nobody I know, thinks that an unborn child's life is more important than that of the mother ... and that isn't an argument against abortion.
However, the life of a human foetus is important ... and it is recognised and protected by law in all countries ... including countries that allow abortion.

The life is of an unborn child is logically less important than the life of the mother ... because the mother can survive without the child, but the child cannot survive without the mother ... but that isn't a valid reason (on it's own) to deliberately kill an unborn child.

angelfalling wrote: »

I'm an atheist, I feel abortion is reasonable with no excuse (that is, a woman doesn't need a reason other than she doesn't want to have a baby) til what is considered late-term... so around 20 weeks where there have been instances of the fetus being able to be supported and survived outside of the womb. This is so so so rare and only ever done when a woman's life is in danger. Most abortions are performed before 8 weeks, when we are talking about something anything from microscopic to less than 1.5 inches in length. If you don't bring religion in to the argument,

The size or capacity of a Human Being is a very weak and dangerous basis for deciding whether to deliberately kill them or not. Not wanting a baby doesn't give people the right to kill their born babies ... so it logically follows that not wanting a baby isn't any more valid as a reason to kill an unborn baby either.
If we say it is somehow OK to kill a 1.5 inch baby ... why then would it not be OK to kill a 15 inch baby ... or indeed a 6 foot child?
The strongest arguments against abortion are actually non-religious and scientific ones.

angelfalling wrote: »

I find it hard to understand what person using pure scientific fact and reasoning can come to the conclusion that this potential life is more important than the life of the women whose body is prisoner to a baby she doesn't want.

Firstly it isn't a potential life ... it is an actual Human life.
Secondly, the inconvenience of continuing with a pregnancy versus the deliberate killing of a Human Being is not a logically valid argument for abortion ... except in situations of extremis ... when there is a real and present danger to the life of the mother that cannot be allieviated in any other way ... and most religious people I know have no moral issue with terminating a pregnancy under these (very limited) circumstances either.

angelfalling wrote: »

As someone who has had an abortion, and who wouldn't have the life I have today or the two beautiful children I do without it... pro-choice pro-choice pro-choice. Life IS life... women have them too.

Such an argument wouldn't cut much ice, if somebody had killed a born child ... and it isn't a much better reason for killing an unborn child either.
Could I say that I am not judging you ... let he who is without sin and all that.

Can I also say that your unborn child is likely in Heaven and has also likely forgiven you for what you did ... and Jesus loves you and will also forgive you if you believe on Him to Save you.

Some of the most amazing pro-life people have had abortions themselves ... or performed thousands of abortions as doctors ... and now have reconciled themselves with God and with what they have done.

Get Real

angelfalling wrote: »

As someone who has had an abortion, and who wouldn't have the life I have today or the two beautiful children I do without it... pro-choice pro-choice pro-choice. Life IS life... women have them too.

I am not religious at all and think it's wrong to drag religion into the abortion debate. However I do not believe in pro choice.

I agree abortion should be (and is) legal in special circumstances, but why the need to make it generally legal.

You're pro choice, and have had an abortion, which I completely respect as it worked out for you. My point is general abortion is illegal in Ireland right? But you still managed to have one. People can if they truly want to go to England and get one. That takes time and planning, booking flights etc, and really thinking about it.

If it were made legal here, it becomes easier to get one. A mother may make a hasty decision or be under pressure from other people, and later regret it. I'm not saying that would be a common occurence. But if ONE life is taken and later regretted, is it worth it?

There were 120 legal abortions carried out in Ireland last year (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0904/1224323574371.html)

Also 150 minors travelled to England and Wales for abortions in 2011, and thats not counting the many more over the age of 18. Lets just say abortion was legalised and 400 abortions occured each year, if 10% of those were hastily made decisions, or the woman was pressurised thats 40 babies needlessly aborted.

My point is if you want an abortion you can get one, I understand its also about the right to choose. And that might work for 90% of cases, but if there is any chance at all that 40 abortions a year were needlessly made, is it worth it? I respect those that want to have an abortion but would people not, for the potential sake of 40 babies' (possible pressure, decision that turned out to be mistake in hindsight, young girl not consulting parents,....etc) future lives just leave the law as it is and have one if that suits your personal circumstances (which I have no problem with)