No God—And No Abortions

Perhaps the most famous atheist pro-lifer is Nat Hentoff, civil libertarian who wrote for decades for The Village Voice. He has written many articles about it, and he is unequivocally pro-life unlike Hitchens. Hentoff is an endorser of Consistent Life - http://www.consistent-life.org/

What is it about America that makes people like Christopher Hitchens sudden experts on all things? What, in the name of all that is sensiblel, are his credentials? He is a writer. So am I, yet no one knows that, or cares what I think. Further, Hitchens is an atheist writing about matters of faith. What is up with that? (Or, as the online community says - "WTF???"

Growing up, my family subscribed to both Time and Newsweek. As I became politically conscious, Time seemed the Right Wing magazine, Newsweek the leftwing magazine. But at least Newsweek had sensibility.

When did that sensibility disappear from the magazine?.Further, Hitchens, politically INcorrect? I guess if you call blasting away at anything non-Hitchensian (isn't that what he wants his legacy to be? The important words and values of Christopher Hitchens?) politically INcorrect. I call it self inflated exaggerated importance run amok .

If Newsweek wants to continue attacking Christianity and Judaism, please get writers who are qualified to do so. Don't send clowns who self righteously parade their disdain, by trumpeting their own atheism, for that which others would gladly give their lives to protect. Atheists writing about religion is like virgins doin' it for chastity. Newsweek should be above that.

I think the biggest problem is that pro-life religious stances tend to be anti-birth control as well. It's an uncompromising pipe dream with delusions of theocracy.

I am a devout atheist who opposes abortion and I came to this assertion all by myself. I am also very in love with a woman who is a devout christian. We have a very good life.

The Bilble hasn't changed. It's society that has changed. Back in the days of Abraham Lincoln, armies fought on horseback with swords and cannons. Less than 100 years late, in WWII, armies fought with airplanes, tanks and atomic bombs. Today, we have jet fighters, Apache helecopters, smart and hydrogen bombs. We have satellites and techology making our lives easier, telescopes, satellites and rocket ships exploring the heavens. We have new gadgets invented, almost daily, to advance society. We've built roads, dams, skyscrapers, buildings of all kinds, building after building. We are always building something. Society is building a modern day tower of babel. A society without God. A Godless society. We're so occupied on building the tower that we don't realize that God doesn't approve. We shouldn't provoke God lest he tear down the tower and scatter us. Let's tear down the tower of confusion. Instead, let's build a God centered society with a biblical foundation and the bricks of traditional marriage. (see Genesis 11:1-8, Exodus 32:1-4, Matthew 19:8&9, Ephesians 4:17-20,23&24, Matthew 19:16&17)

Phone: 1-888-212-7323
Cell:210-491-5100 or 210-442-6397

timtolin, any idea when he's coming? This knowledge will affect my plans.

Lets just say for argument sake we have to violate the rights of one of the 2 people involved in an abortion...
What are the results of violating the womans...?
What are the results of violating the childs...?
Such and easy question to answer... this is called logic.
Of course a real threat to the womans life would mean saving a life either way and a logical abortion choice, yet i believe many women would give their own life for their childs...

In a previous article you wrote, you mentioned a website "raptureready.com". Thank you for that!! Since then I have visited the website, and it's a great website for us believers who know Christ is soon to return!!!

We the human animals are overpopulating the planet and in this race we are destroying other species day by day until one day perhaps we will be the only specie, supposing that we would survive to this which I really do not think. So if abortion would help againts that then from this point of view abortion is also pro-life, isn't it?

So 40% of Religious folks are TOTALLY AGAINST Abortion
and 40% of Non-Religious are TOTALLY FOR its legality

Do some math here: that means that 60% of Christians believe it should be legal in some / all circumstances, and 60% of non-religious believe that it should be supported.

Let's not forget, also, that within the 60% on both sides COULD BE a 40% that supports the opposition. (i.e. there could be 40% of Religious folks that are TOTALLY FOR its legality -- the author had omitted that detail in favor of presenting a misleading statistics.)

I think the real telling statistic here should be some statistics on how many abortions were actually PERFORMED on people with and without religious conviction. What's the percentage of religious folks that have actually HAD abortions (in spite of being against it) and what percentage of non-religious folks have really done it?

It's one thing to be for the RIGHT to choose, it's another thing to actually make the choice. And that's really all that matters. I have a son; and a baby on the way. We had considered abortion initially, because our financial circumstances weren't the best -- we CONSIDERED it, but decided against it because we felt the potential for human life was more important. (My wife and I are both atheists) I think you'll find that many Atheist parents share similar sentiments -- Pro-CHOICE but likely anti-abortion.

People accept the pleasure of sex but hate the joy of responsibility. This is the very root of the problem.
Abortion is appropriate only for those women whose life is in danger as medically diagnosed. Science plays a great role on this issue. On the other hand, being religious is not a guaranty to stop abortion. Philippines is the only Christian country in Asia but you can hear in the news fetuses being thrown along with the garbages.

Framing the abortion issue in religious terms is essentially a left wing conceit which is intended to depict those not willing to countenance unrestricted abortion and infanticide as religious zealots.In fact,the proscription against murder, is found in all secular societies for obvious reasons despite the fact it is an integral part of most religious doctrines.Perhaps there is a project for the ACLU there.

Abortion policy must be completely secular. In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The U.S. statutes against abortion have a nonsectarian history. They were put on the books when Catholics were a politically insignificant minority. Even the Protestant clergy were not a major factor in these laws. Rather, the laws were the achievement of the American Medical Association.

From early in the 19th century, Americans - even lay people - were exposed to enough information about embryology to enable them to make a critical and ethically significant distinction between contraception and abortion: the former practice did not terminate a new human life, but the latter one did. In 1827, Von Baer determined fertilization to be the starting point of individual life. By the 1850s, medical communities were advocating legislation to protect the unborn. In 1859, the American Medical Association protested legislation which only protected the unborn after "quickening."

A rational secular case thus exists for the rights of preborn humans. Individual human life is a continuum from fertilization until death. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent, etc. are all stages of development. To destroy that life at any stage of development is to destroy that individual. The real question in the whole abortion debate is not the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to legally protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties. And the right to privacy is not absolute. If parents are abusing an already born child, for example, government "intrusion" is warranted -- children have rights.

Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and our choices and requires a change in our personal lifestyle - the abolition of (human) slavery is a good example of this. A 1964 New Jersey court ruling required a pregnant woman to undergo blood transfusions, even if her religion forbade it, for the sake of her unborn child. One could argue, therefore, apart from religion, that recognizing the rights of the unborn, like the rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays, children, animals and the environment, is a sign of secular social progress. Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who once served as head of the Wisconsin ACLU, wrote: "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the arguments used in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide." The Left is divided over abortion.