Are there any atheists against abortion?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Are there any atheists against abortion?

Any one you know or you?

 

I'm curious my friend says it's exclusivly a religious issue. 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:There is something

EXC wrote:

There is something Orwellian about paying massive taxes for social services for other people's kids. Why is reproductive freedom sacred while economic freedom is not? We can let the tax man come in and invade everyone's private life to pay for the children of men and women that want to have as many kids as they please. We can tell people their responsible for other people's kids but I have no say in who gets to be born? Then leave me the fuck alone if you want me to leave you alone to have as many kids as you want.

I don't like the current situation any more than you do. BUT, the problem (in this country, USA) is with government policy. The more kids you have the more 'free' benefits the government dishes out. Solution? Eliminate rewards for procreating like friggin rabbits. I would much prefer my tax $$ go to abortions and birth control than go to supporting another generation of free-loaders.

Quote:
Do you serious think the government shouldn't stop the Octomon and the deadbeat dads? We already have laws to quarantine people if they have an infectous disease and mandate they get treated, for the good of the whole society. So how would mandatory birth control be different?
'Mandatory birth control' is not something I want the government in control of. Period. BUT, what I would like to see is an end to the government supporting those deadbeats with money better spent elsewhere. I think the reason a lot of people have more kids than they actually want is because our government makes it profitable to do so. Eliminate the perks and hand out free birth control  (not 'mandatory') and you will be well on your way to eliminating the problem. I really don't think we in the US have an over-population problem. The problem is that those who are having the majority of kids can't afford to keep them up. So, it's not the number of births that's the problem, it's a lack of money to raise them properly in a responsible way. The problem is 'the system'.

Quote:
I never said I wanted to limit birth restriction to the poor. But the wealth usually don't have large families, a big part of the reason they are wealthy. Perhaps people could pay a tax or prove they can take care of more that 2 kids.
Um, do you have statistics proving that the wealthy are wealthy because they have fewer kids? Didn't think so. Wealthy parents are guilty of neglect, too and those raised in poverty have been known to rise above their birth status. Like I said before, the problem is that the government rewards irresponsibility and multiple pregnancies. Eliminate the rewards and you eliminate the problem.

I'll give you an example: Illegals coming here from Mexico. When our economy took a nose dive and jobs became scarce, the number of those crossing the border dropped, too. If you've got rats coming into your barn, it makes more sense to eliminate what's attracting them rather than kill them off one at a time and ignore what they are coming there for.

Quote:
What are you talking about?

So what has worked? We do nothing and watch the country and the world continually suffer, is that your idea? Just let Malthusian catastrophes continually ruin lives?

I'm talking about forced sterilization in this country. Though it was based on eugenics, your proposition isn't very far from the same thing:

1927

In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.     http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Forced-Sterilization-History.htm

The idea popped up in 1849 and the last forced sterilization occurred in 1981. The organization is now known as Planned Parenthood.

As far as I can see, it served no beneficial purpose for our society as a whole.

I'm not saying, 'do nothing'. On the contrary, there is plenty that can be done but, anything 'mandatory' enforced by any government makes my skin crawl.

As a matter of fact, the worlds population rates have been declining since 1963...with the exception of China, India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Yeah but with a $250,000

Yeah but with a $250,000 policy or even if I could get a $500,000 policy, hs surgeries are that much or more per surgery. He would exhaust every policy with the first surgery.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson wrote:I

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I agree with exc here but I'm not sure to what extent. As I've stated previously, I have a son with severe special needs. He has severe scholiosis and his chest wall is too small for his lungs to have room for growth. He has to be on medicaid because no insurance companies will allow me to have a policy for him. 

Sorry to hear that.

But a question. If the government said we'll give everyone guaranteed medical coverage, but in exchange people must abort if the child will have huge medical costs, would you prefer just to be on your own and then poor people would go without any expensive medical treatments?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:rebecca.williamson

EXC wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I agree with exc here but I'm not sure to what extent. As I've stated previously, I have a son with severe special needs. He has severe scholiosis and his chest wall is too small for his lungs to have room for growth. He has to be on medicaid because no insurance companies will allow me to have a policy for him. 

Sorry to hear that.

But a question. If the government said we'll give everyone guaranteed medical coverage, but in exchange people must abort if the child will have huge medical costs, would you prefer just to be on your own and then poor people would go without any expensive medical treatments?

None of my business but, that's a pretty harsh question to ask a woman who has a child with a disability, imo.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
EXC

EXC wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I agree with exc here but I'm not sure to what extent. As I've stated previously, I have a son with severe special needs. He has severe scholiosis and his chest wall is too small for his lungs to have room for growth. He has to be on medicaid because no insurance companies will allow me to have a policy for him. 

Sorry to hear that.

But a question. If the government said we'll give everyone guaranteed medical coverage, but in exchange people must abort if the child will have huge medical costs, would you prefer just to be on your own and then poor people would go without any expensive medical treatments?

Well since I've already had him, I can't say that I agree on aborting just because of huge medical issues and bills. I think if the chance of that child dying is very highly likely, I really don't see the point of bringing that child into a life of misery, constant pain and no life outside of the hospital.

In my sons case, he has suffered a great deal but at almost 7 he is doing much better and about to start public school. He will have more set backs and there is no gaurantee he will make it. It looks better than the grim story I was told 6 years ago " take him home, love him and take care of him then get ready to make funeral arrangements because there's nothing that can be done".

I actually have thousands of dollars in medical bills on my credit now because insurance didn't cover everything. It's just part of what comes with it. Of course most people don't know that their baby is going to hqve medical problems until they are born. I knew some but they were minor compared to what it actually was. But I also haven't had any more kids or gotten pregnant again either.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:  Um, do

Sandycane wrote:

 Um, do you have statistics proving that the wealthy are wealthy because they have fewer kids? Didn't think so.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf

"Aside
from women with family incomes
of less than $10,000 in the past
year, lower fertility rates were generally
found among women with
higher levels of family income.
Women with a family income of
$10,000 to $14,999 in the past
year had a fertility rate of 90 births
per 1,000, while women with family
incomes of $200,000 or more
had a fertility rate of about 46
births per 1,000."

"The fertility rate for women with a

family income at or below poverty

level was 91 births per 1,000"

Also if you compare the birth rates in wealth nations vs. poor nations, you'll see the same thing. Poverty causes high birth rates and vise-versa, all part of the cycle of poverty.

 

There is a high correlation between the two. I know this doesn't necessary prove cause and effect. But obviously
if you don't have many kids, you have more time and money to pursue eduation, carrer and investment. Ask anyone
you know if they think they'd have more money if they didn't have kids?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:  Sandycane

EXC wrote:

 

 

Sandycane wrote:

 Um, do you have statistics proving that the wealthy are wealthy because they have fewer kids? Didn't think so.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf

"Aside
from women with family incomes
of less than $10,000 in the past
year, lower fertility rates were generally
found among women with
higher levels of family income.
Women with a family income of
$10,000 to $14,999 in the past
year had a fertility rate of 90 births
per 1,000, while women with family
incomes of $200,000 or more
had a fertility rate of about 46
births per 1,000."

"The fertility rate for women with a

family income at or below poverty

level was 91 births per 1,000"

Also if you compare the birth rates in wealth nations vs. poor nations, you'll see the same thing. Poverty causes high birth rates and vise-versa, all part of the cycle of poverty.

 

There is a high correlation between the two. I know this doesn't necessary prove cause and effect. But obviously
if you don't have many kids, you have more time and money to pursue eduation, carrer and investment. Ask anyone
you know if they think they'd have more money if they didn't have kids?

I wasn't really disagreeing with the fact that wealthy parents tend to have fewer kids but, rather with your're implying that the wealthy are wealthy because they have fewer kids. Obviously, the wealthy tend to be better educated than the poor and understand the consequences and responsibilities of raising kids better than the poor do - generally speaking.

Do you understand my concern about the government being in charge of mandatory birth control???

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:
Yeah but with a $250,000 policy or even if I could get a $500,000 policy, hs surgeries are that much or more per surgery. He would exhaust every policy with the first surgery.

 

The reform bill also also eliminates lifetime caps on coverage.  You might want to talk to a insurance broker sometime, just to work the numbers.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I believe in rolling

I believe in rolling rights.  The woman is a life-support system for the fetus.  The more developed it is, the more rights it has until the point where it could live outside the mom.  So, by 23 weeks, mom's rights are on equal footing with the fetus/baby.  I work in an NICU so I'm fairly comfortable with the 23 week mark.  Now, if the kid is anencephalic or hydranencephalic.....that's a whole different story, because in that case they will never have a functioning brain.

I don't like the argument that people make that the woman made her choice when she decided to have sex.  That sounds an awful lot like people are wanting to punish the woman by forcing her to raise this child and won't that teach her for being a slut.

Additionally, many women have a hard time giving up their babies - they go into the system for adoption after they've been neglected, abused and sometimes irreparably damaged and so much more difficult to adopt. 

It is so very complex and the easiest thing (IMO) is to base it upon survivability outside the womb. 

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I view abortion like I

  I view abortion like I view suicide.  Both are repugnant and yet either may become necessary. 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
PDW

I recognize that avatar.  When I was a kid, I thought the show was really, really, creepy.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.