Shanicus said:
Gorrath said:
I'm a pro-life atheist myself so the scientific side of things is precisely the angle I argue from. Unfortunately, the arguments men like Hitchens or I might put forth in defense of the pro-life side get drowned out by a sea of religious nonsense. Abortion as a topic is such an emotionally charged one that you practically can't even have a discussion. I'm one to wade into most any topic no matter how controversial and defend my beliefs with the best arguments that can be made but even I clam up when it comes to abortion talks. The people who tend to agree with my point of view don't actually agree with my point of view and the people who disagree with my point of view are often arguing just as emotionally/illogically charged with vitriol and hate as the pro-lifers they despise. A glance around the comments so far in this thread makes me want to duck and cover rather than engage. I picked your comment out because you at least acknowledge that there is a debate to be had that is sensible and based in reality.
Ahhhh... seeing as I'm probably the most hostile person in the thread, I'll apologize a little to you - I get a *little* spicy when the abortion topic comes up, since I've been in the thick of the protests escorting friends and being assaulted for doing so. Being met with hostility 99% of the time I deal with opposition towards abortion doesn't make for very rosy glasses, I gotta say.
That said, I kiiiinda make a distinction between 'Pro-life' and 'Anti-choice'? Granted as it's a (fairly) political charged discussion the stances on it vary wildly and rapidly, but from what I've seen in my experiences the two kinda fall into different philosophies of the same field - 'Pro-life' argues about the sanctity of life (usually from a scientific side) wheras Anti-choice decries... well, the choice of having an abortion, usually from religious grounds. It is, however, entirely possible to be 'Pro-life' and 'Pro-choice' by going 'I disagree based on these grounds but it's their body so it's their choice', focusing on the science of it but not trying to wrangle bodily autonomy from people (like, there's medical conditions that can result in the deaths of both mother and baby without an abortion, which are situations anti-choice kinda go 'well she had a good run').
The entire messy debate would be a hell of a lot easier to have and lines would be much clearer cut if religion wasn't being used as (weak) justification for moral outrages and outright assault, but that could probably be said about a lot of things. I will apologize again if you caught some flak from my... 'heated' responses throughout here.
I will admit I was put off by your other responses so in the spirit of the good will you expressed here let me respond by saying that I appreciate, deeply and sincerely, your willingness to engage me as you did above. Thank you!
The nuance you show above is also appreciated since I fall into some of the category that you describe here. The abortion topic is one that is a junction of science, in understanding when a human is human, philosophy, in how we deal with humans that are incapable of making any decisions for themselves, and rights, in what we are willing to afford to those humans that are in the process of developing their own minds and bodies.
I am one who believes that a person does have a right to bodily autonomy, so much so that I support certain rights for euthanasia. It is the very fact that I support bodily autonomy that I am pro-life (and not anti-choice, as you say. I agree there may be some worthwhile distinction there.) While an unborn human is dependent on its mother for survival, I do not find that a compelling reason to think that the unborn should have no right to its own life and body. It is alive, in every scientific sense and it does have a distinct body, even if it is dependent on the mother's body for survival during development.
Under U.S. law, we DO accord all sorts of rights to unborn humans, such as the right of inheritance. If we accept that an unborn human has a right to inherit property, it seems extraordinary that we would find a way to not grant that human a right to its own life and bodily autonomy.
I think the, "her body, her choice" argument fails to account for the child's body being a distinct being. Again, from a legal perspective, if a man stabs a pregnant woman and kills her unborn child, he can be charged with murder for that slaying. So how do we recognize the child as a murder victim if we accord it no right to life to begin with? An unborn human has the legal right to life in every respect except for this one condition, where the mother's choice is involved.
My position is not blind to circumstances and context though. Should it be found that continuing a pregnancy has a reasonable chance of harming the mother, she should by all means have the right to protect herself from that threat to her life. I think that holds true too if the child would be born with sufficient defect to render the child lacking of any autonomy, such as being born to a permanent vegatative state or having little to no chance of survival once born. I am also open to considering other thoughtful exceptions where the need for an abortion should reasonably over ride the child's right to life.
So that's the basic framework under which I find myself pro-life. I could elaborate more and in greater detail but I think that should give everyone a decent idea of where I stand and why and without any appeal to emotion, religion or grasping at the unreasonable. Thanks again for reaching out. I hope you find my reply worth your time and consideration. Cheers!