No God—And No Abortions

Pro-life atheist, eh? As an atheist, I find this perplexing. I can be an atheist and pro-life. But they are separate in their meanings. Without a caveat or comma separating the two words, the term implies that the typical atheist is not pro-life, but it's reciprocal, pro-death, which is wrong. Conversely, religious people cannot truely consider themselve pro-life if they suppport any kind of war or death penalty. I would say that for almost all atheists are more concerned about being told what they can and can't do with their bodies and their own idea about the moment life begins, especially when religious beliefs are behind it.

Humans = poop. USA = poop.

I don't follow the logic that atheists would have voted as a block for Obama. Ayn Rand was an atheist, yet her beliefs are polar opposites of Obama's.

I could see the argument that the very religious voted against Obama, but I don't see why the atheists would vote for him.

Hitchens is absolutely correct in that the discussion has not focused on the empirical, scientific and medical realities of conception and human development, including viability, which would yank the entire debate into different but very clear dimension. There is a denial of the humanity of unborn life on the part of abortion rights advocates; the fetus if left to its natural development becomes a baby. No, it isn't a polyp. Focusing on the medical facts would help to frame the situation differently and help everyone, religious or not to see another dimension of the argument -- the civil rights of the human beings in their earliest stages of development. The difference between a fetus and a human adult is a temporal one. We don't need to bring in the religious argument for civil rights, although religious people do see a religious reason for respecting the basic human rights of all people. What do we have against the human race?

What is most dreary about this article is it repeats the same moronic assumption of the media that all atheists are the sorts of histrionic big mouths as Hitchins. Atheism is far more nuanced than the peurile "you're a doody God is stupid" nonsense of the new atheists. That life is an intrinsic good is of course not tied to any particular rigid notions of God or gods. The legality of abortion is quite, and importantly, separate from the morality of abortion. Though most Americans accept the reality of legalized abortion far fewer accept the morality of abortion, including nuanced atheists and nut-case atheists and theists.

The fact that an atheist would find abortion morally reprehensible is intriguing. If "God" to them is merely a figure of the imagination, then what of their abortion stance? Does not a moral code have a basis in something, or some one? Kudos to any atheist who sees the light on this issue. Some who have indeed "seen the Light", know it's wrong and, unfortunately, do not care.

The fact that an atheist would find abortion morally reprehensible seems to undercut their belief that "God" is a figure of the imagination. What would make an atheist feel that way?? Unless their angst toward abortion is merely that: an imaginative one.

No person has a right to kill another person. It's that simple. That's why abortion proponents will try to muddy the waters with the "difficult" cases such as rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Those are difficult cases, but name any law intended for the maintenance of civil society that doesn't have difficult cases? Take taxes, for example: taxes have put hard working people in positions where they can't keep their home, loose their children, go bank and go to jail. Should we allow the choice to pay taxes to be between a person and their bank? Should we abolish the duty to pay taxes just like we abolish the duty to care for unborn children just because it puts some people in "difficult" situations? I say NO. Murder is murder, and the worst type is murder for convenience, which abortion is in an overwhelming number of cases.

briggsley, you must be kidding. There is no, non government, group on earth taht feeds more poor or takes care of more children than the Catholic Church. Catholic Hospitals provide tons of free medical care, soup kitchens feed millions and Catholic Family Services provide millions of foster homes. I would say thats a pretty good record for the pro-life side walking the walk. I wonder how many children NOW or Planned Parenthood cloth and feed.

D.Smith you say that reasonable people can disagree about when life starts. That is interesting but also totally nuts. I am sure that reasonable people can disagree about the best way to do lots of stuff that they dont have any idea about. I am no doctor but could certainly offer an opinion about how best to treat cancer. It would not be wise to follow my advice since I dont know anything about cancer but I am a reasonable guy and I have an opinion. Likewise the opinion of reasonable but uninformed persons should have no weight in determining when life begins and when it should be protected. It is a matter of science and law. Once there exists a person then they should be protected by law. The USSC has errored here on at least two occasions. First in Dredd Scott they concluded that blacks were not fully persons who deserved protection under the law and then they determined that unborn persons are not entitled to protection. That is what happens when judges rather than scientists try and define human-ness.. .

Hitchens says it is an unsolvable problem. That is true because reasonable people disagree on when life begins and when it should be protected. That is why each woman has to make that decison for herself and not have the government make it for her. What happened to the republican idea of individual responsibility. We all agree about murder, stealing etc. This is not a debate about what is fundamentally right and wrong except by those that want to make a very complex difficult issue black and white. Those that say a morning after pill is murder are just as extreme as those that say partial birth abortion is okay in any but the the most extreme situations.

Hitchens says it is an unsolvable problem. That is true because reasonable people disagree on when life begins and when it should be protected. That is why each woman has to make that decison for herself and not have the government make it for her. What happened to the republican idea of individual responsibility. We all agree about murder, stealing etc. This is not a debate about what is fundamentally right and wrong except by those that want to make a very complex difficult issue black and white. Those that say a morning after pill is murder are just as extreme as those that say partial birth abortion is okay in any but the the most extreme situations.

maybe I am a simpleton. A lot worse has been said about me for sure. I am confused about how it is thet a person can conclude that human life, absent creation by god, has any value greater than any other beast of the forest. If we are nothing more than the fastest evolving creature of the lot then we should not be constained by the concepts of murder. We in fact have a duty to fullfil our role in natural selection by killing the weak, born or unborn, to procreate by force if need be, and to reap whatever material wealth we can. We could no longer be constrained by laws that arbitrarily make some things right and some things wrong. I would personnally find it liberating to know I can snuff out some of those pompus lefties without remorse or eternal damnation. That would be great wouldnt it.

The question, other than being derived from an imaginary scenario, implies that the fetus wouldn't also be someone dying. You would more correctly ask "Would we favor letting someone live over someone dying who needs someone else dying to live?" Calling the unborn person a fetus doesn't dehumanize it, therefore cannot be morally justifiable to kill the one that another may live.

the harder question... would we favor a fetus over someone dying who needs that fetus to live?

the harder question... would we favor a fetus over someone dying who needs that fetus to live?

And I really don't really see the need for such patronizing comments JChelper, all they do is upset and offend people. if you really have that much disdain for religious people's intellects then maybe you should find a more relevant forum considering the gist of the article is about finding common ground. I might suggest an angry blog rant that you and any like-minded friends could self-satisfyingly nod your heads at.

And I really don't really see the need for such patronizing comments JChelper, all they do is upset and offend people. if you really have that much disdain for religious people's intellects then maybe you should find a more relevant forum considering the gist of the article is about finding common ground. I might suggest an angry blog rant that you and any like-minded friends could self-satisfyingly nod your heads at.