Can An Atheist Be Pro-Life?

[TripleB]

The real question is, does the mother's "right" to be more comfortable for nine months than she would otherwise be trump the baby's right to be alive?

On the surface, that seems like a reasonable question to ask. However, in defense of pregnant women, I don't believe it's a pure comfort thing. If there's any women reading this who have experience with pregnancy can chime in, I'd appreciate it. In my mind, carrying an unwanted baby for nine months can cause:

• Increased budgetary expense for food because "you're eating for two"
• Increased budgetary expense for medical visits to ensure the health of the future unwanted baby
• Missed work/employment
• Inability to perform certain tasks during work/employment, which may result in reduced compensation
• Putting on significant body fat that is incredibly difficult to take off after the pregnancy, and like it or not, a woman is judged largely on her weight and physical appearance in the Western World, which will result in reduced wages, reduced dating opportunities, etc
• Alienating potential suitors who are disinterested in a pregnant woman, even on first sight. For a guy, imagine I said every girl you met for most of a year would be immediately sexually disinterested in you on first sight (well first you might have to imagine that some girls are sexually interested in you for this analogy to work 
• Giving up drinking alcohol for a year
• Giving up smoking for a year
• Waking up sick, vomitting frequently
• Inability to sleep
• The pain of childbirth which amounts to a man pushing through a giant kidney stone for a few hours
• Biologically UNCONTROLLABLE/UNAVOIDABLE emotional attachment to the infant that you know you can't keep for whatever person reason led you to giving the kid up for adoption (whether it be financial or other)
• Living the rest of your life wondering whether the kid is OK/wondering whether the kid will track you down and what you will say.

Keep in mind, the pregnancy may arise as the result of a rape or in spite of using multiple forms of birth control simultaneously. It's unreasonable to tell a woman simply "abstain from sex." A women who's taking birth control pills while using an IUD and requiring the man to use a condom has done everything reasonable to avoid pregnancy by far and you can't call her a slut or say she had it coming if she gets pregnant.

Personally, I think it's not fair to say a woman would just be a little uncomfortable for 9 months if she took the baby to term and gave it up for adoption.

[RuralEngineer]

On the surface, that seems like a reasonable question to ask. However, in defense of pregnant women, I don't believe it's a pure comfort thing. If there's any women reading this who have experience with pregnancy can chime in, I'd appreciate it. In my mind, carrying an unwanted baby for nine months can cause:

• Increased budgetary expense for food because "you're eating for two"
• Increased budgetary expense for medical visits to ensure the health of the future unwanted baby
• Missed work/employment
• Inability to perform certain tasks during work/employment, which may result in reduced compensation
• Putting on significant body fat that is incredibly difficult to take off after the pregnancy, and like it or not, a woman is judged largely on her weight and physical appearance in the Western World, which will result in reduced wages, reduced dating opportunities, etc
• Alienating potential suitors who are disinterested in a pregnant woman, even on first sight. For a guy, imagine I said every girl you met for most of a year would be immediately sexually disinterested in you on first sight (well first you might have to imagine that some girls are sexually interested in you for this analogy to work 
• Giving up drinking alcohol for a year
• Giving up smoking for a year
• Waking up sick, vomitting frequently
• Inability to sleep
• The pain of childbirth which amounts to a man pushing through a giant kidney stone for a few hours
• Biologically UNCONTROLLABLE/UNAVOIDABLE emotional attachment to the infant that you know you can't keep for whatever person reason led you to giving the kid up for adoption (whether it be financial or other)
• Living the rest of your life wondering whether the kid is OK/wondering whether the kid will track you down and what you will say.

Keep in mind, the pregnancy may arise as the result of a rape or in spite of using multiple forms of birth control simultaneously. It's unreasonable to tell a woman simply "abstain from sex." A women who's taking birth control pills while using an IUD and requiring the man to use a condom has done everything reasonable to avoid pregnancy by far and you can't call her a slut or say she had it coming if she gets pregnant.

Personally, I think it's not fair to say a woman would just be a little uncomfortable for 9 months if she took the baby to term and gave it up for adoption.

TripleB,

If you wake up and find an infant crawling around your house, you don't have the legal right to shoot it, intruder or not.  Even if it's an adult, my understanding is there still has to be a threat or the risk of threat for killing to be justifiable.  This isn't usually an issue because dead intruders have trouble arguing they didn't present a threat.  With an unborn child determination of threat is reasonably simple.

Also, if you assume the fetus is in fact a living human being, do any of the reasons you've listed here make abortion justifiable?  One could apply many of these to children after birth, yet termination at that point is murder.

All pro-choice arguments come down to either the fetus is not alive or it is alive but is not a human being.  All other arguments clash with existing social norms and laws.

[Storm]

Now that we have that out of the way, I think you have a bizarre idea of what constitutes "life".  By your definition fish, plants, and your brain aren't alive either, because if you take the fish out of the water and the plant out of the ground and your brain out of your skull and put them on a table, they'll all die.  I hope we can all agree that's an illogical definition of "life".

I tried to say this before.  I get the impression that when he says "alive,"  he really means "sentient."  Virtually nobody (including all biologists everywhere) defines "life" to exclude any of those things.

I don't think he means that at all.  He is saying life begins when you are able to sustain yourself in your natural environment without another life form supporting you.  For fish that would be in water.

You can draw the line very clearly at self sustenance.  If an organism can only survive momentarily without leeching nutrition from another organism, it lives and dies at the mercy of it's host.  Nobody should feel bad about terminating a zygote that relies on it's host for sustenance, any more than you would feel bad about terminating a parasitic worm or other such life form.

If you were told by your doctor, tomorrow, that you had a tapeworm living in your stomach, wouldn't it be crazy if someone told you that you weren't allowed to make the choice to terminate it, because it was a living being and deserved a fair chance at life?

Call it extreme if you want, but any parasite lives or dies at the mercy of it's host.  It is the hosts inalienable right to terminate any parasite receiving sustenance from it.  Anything else is barbaric and imposes on the freedom of the host.

[Storm]

If you wake up and find an infant crawling around your house, you don't have the legal right to shoot it, intruder or not.  Even if it's an adult, my understanding is there still has to be a threat or the risk of threat for killing to be justifiable.  This isn't usually an issue because dead intruders have trouble arguing they didn't present a threat.  With an unborn child determination of threat is reasonably simple.

What does that have to do with anything?  Your analogy is terrible.  A more apt analogy would be what if a fetus moves into your house, says "I'm going to be here for 9 months (possibly 18 years) and you'll have to feed me and pay for my healthcare.  I'll make you throw up every morning - you'll be sick the entire time I'm here.  You won't be able to date anyone because I'll be kicking you in the stomach 24 hours a day, and I don't allow alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs.  In fact, you have to abstain from everything for the next 9 months even if you're not at home with me.  You can't ask me to leave; the only option you have is to kill me or let me change your life in the ways I just mentioned."

In that case, wouldn't it be well within your right (as a free person) to kill the unwanted parasite?

[Pointedstick]

Call it extreme if you want, but any parasite lives or dies at the mercy of it's host.  It is the hosts inalienable right to terminate any parasite receiving sustenance from it.  Anything else is barbaric and imposes on the freedom of the host.

Right, but what if that parasite is a growing human rather than a worm? Don't you think the morality of it changes if we're talking about a human that (at some point, at least) will receive legal protection, versus an animal that humans indiscriminately kill and may eat?

What about newborn babies? Are they not parasites too? Parasites ought not all be considered equall, IMHO.

[Storm]

Call it extreme if you want, but any parasite lives or dies at the mercy of it's host.  It is the hosts inalienable right to terminate any parasite receiving sustenance from it.  Anything else is barbaric and imposes on the freedom of the host.

Right, but what if that parasite is a growing human rather than a worm? Don't you think the morality of it changes if we're talking about a human that (at some point, at least) will receive legal protection, versus an animal that humans indiscriminately kill and may eat?

It's only that way because of our emotional attachment to babies.  I still think like a libertarian on this - it's the host's right to decide when a parasite is acceptable and when it needs to be terminated.  If the parasite could survive outside the host on it's own, then I say that decision is made too late.  So, I would perhaps be willing to draw the line at whatever # of weeks an infant can survive inside an ICU.

[Pointedstick]

But what's the difference in terms of your argument between an ICU and a mother's breast? If pulling the plug on an ICU and failing to feed your baby would both result in death, isn't it still a parasite, dependent on others for care? Or does the morality of the issue change when the parasite is no longer internal?

[Storm]

But what's the difference in terms of your argument between an ICU and a mother's breast? If pulling the plug on an ICU and failing to feed your baby would both result in death, isn't it still a parasite, dependent on others for care? Or does the morality of the issue change when the parasite is no longer internal?

Yes, the morality basically changes when the parasite is no longer internal.  If a mother doesn't wish to feed her baby, she can give it up for adoption or someone else can take care of it.  My line is basically before that point.

[edsanville]

I don't think he means that at all.  He is saying life begins when you are able to sustain yourself in your natural environment without another life form supporting you.  For fish that would be in water.

OK, but there is already a definition of the word "life,"  and that's NOT what it means.  Even a single cell in your adult body is "alive."  So, he is arbitrarily redefining the word "alive" to make his point.  I don't think "alive" is the word he wants here.

EDIT:  OK, you convinced me.  I'm going to call up all the biologists I know and tell them to stop studying embryos and fetuses because they're not alive, (and the study of biology is the study of Life). 

[RuralEngineer]

If you wake up and find an infant crawling around your house, you don't have the legal right to shoot it, intruder or not.  Even if it's an adult, my understanding is there still has to be a threat or the risk of threat for killing to be justifiable.  This isn't usually an issue because dead intruders have trouble arguing they didn't present a threat.  With an unborn child determination of threat is reasonably simple.

What does that have to do with anything?  Your analogy is terrible.  A more apt analogy would be what if a fetus moves into your house, says "I'm going to be here for 9 months (possibly 18 years) and you'll have to feed me and pay for my healthcare.  I'll make you throw up every morning - you'll be sick the entire time I'm here.  You won't be able to date anyone because I'll be kicking you in the stomach 24 hours a day, and I don't allow alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs.  In fact, you have to abstain from everything for the next 9 months even if you're not at home with me.  You can't ask me to leave; the only option you have is to kill me or let me change your life in the ways I just mentioned."

In that case, wouldn't it be well within your right (as a free person) to kill the unwanted parasite?

You fail to read this thread apparently.  I'm not the one who introduced the intruder metaphor.  I was pointing out how flawed it is to describe an unwanted pregnancy.

PS raises valid points that you are basically twisting and writhing for any justification for abortion at this point.  You submit the fetus' dependence on the mother's resources as grounds that it's a parasite, but then introduce this arbitrary locational requirement such that it's only parasitic if it's both dependent on the mother's resources AND still in the womb.  Either a child that is completely dependent on the mother is a parasite or its not.  It's location in space is irrelevant.

Your line in the sand allows abortion up to full term at which point the ONLY difference between a "fetus" and an infant is moving about 12 inches.

[Storm]

My line in the sand is when the fetus can survive outside of the mother, assisted or not.

[brick-house]

TripleB and Storm:  Did you have a bad babysitting experience?