UPDATE: EJ totally owned my argument and his argument makes more sense than mine. Therefore, I would have to withdraw my current conclusion that I reached and go with his, located here: http://www.slayerment.com/blog/question-my-atheist-friends#comment-656

Why are you for abortions and not God?

Atheists should be the first people against abortions since they don't believe in something until there is evidence for it. They don't believe in God because he can't be proven (or so they say) so they can't believe in abortions because it can't be proven when life starts. There is too much gray area for an atheist.

I know, most atheists will say, "I don't believe in God, I can still believe in abortions". Not if you ask WHY they don't believe in God and WHY they do believe in abortions. They don't believe in God because there isn't evidence for God. They do believe in abortion because there ...IS... evidence when life begins? What? Where is the evidence for when life begins? And believe me, the evidence I have found does not point to the actual birth, it points to when the sperm meets the egg. The 2 answers contradict, and atheists HATE contradictions.

So why is it then that most atheists support abortions? I think the answer is obvious. They aren't as logical as they think they are. There is a clear contradiction of logic here and it's funny how convenience always finds its way to the forefront. I hope all atheists that are pro-choice realize they really aren't.

 Filed under: Spiritual, Life, God, Health

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

El Paso, Texas

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...

More

17 Comments

j.randomizer: Why? Prolepsis.

Of course, you're committing a category error in assuming that all atheists are pro-choice. Not all are.

To the question. It's a simple question of realizing that committing the fallacy of prolepsis. Here's what Mirriam-Webster has to say concerning the word:

a : the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished.

You are making a false assumption that an a still developing fetus is worth as much - or more! - than a full, actual human being. This is obviously untrue.

Further, until the fetus is survivable outside of the womb, it is just as much a part of the woman's body as it its own. You are again committing the fallacy of prolepsis by not giving the woman her right to determine what happens with her body.

Third, as long as women can be forced into pregnancy, abortion must remain an option available to them. It must be kept confidential, and it must be safe and relatively simple to achieve. There's even a term for this particular brand of evil: Biological Slavery.

Simply put, no matter how abhorrent you consider abortion to be, it is up to a woman to determine when and how she chooses to start (or continue) a family. It is her right to choose the time and place for procreation, anything else is immoral.

Quinton Figueroa: Yes, I am assuming all
@j.randomizer (view comment)

Yes, I am assuming all atheists are pro-choice and you are right in saying not all of them are. My point is every atheist I have ever talked with is and I'd estimate at least 90% probably are and that is who I propose these points to.

Your word prolepsis is interesting and I don't see how this applies here. You are basically saying that something in the future is not in the present and therefore we can't believe it in, we can't trust it and we can't make anything of it? If that is what this is saying I find that completely odd. Upon verification I will go into this further.

You are making a false assumption that an a still developing fetus is worth as much - or more! - than a full, actual human being. This is obviously untrue.

No evidence to support this, a leap of FAITH on your part.

Further, until the fetus is survivable outside of the womb, it is just as much a part of the woman's body as it its own.

That would depend on the correct definition of what a living person is and until we reach on consensus this is yet another leap of FAITH on your part.

Third, as long as women can be forced into pregnancy, abortion must remain an option available to them.

I would agree with this, however according to the facts only 1% of abortions in the United States are due to this reason, leaving the other 99% subject to my argument.

j.randomizer: Not Quite.

"You are basically saying that something in the future is not in the present and therefore we can't believe it in, we can't trust it and we can't make anything of it?"

Close, but not quite. The basic idea is that a potential something is worth intrinsically less than an actual something. It's a logical fallacy to conflate the two.

Exempli Gratia: A peach and a peach-pit have very different values as food. A peach has actual nutritive value, whereas a peach-pit has potential nutritive value (and actually has negative nutritive value because it is poisonous, but that's an aside).

Likewise, a person has actual worth, whereas a fetus only has potential. That's why I said that "[y]ou are making a false assumption that a still developing fetus is worth as much - or more! - than a full, actual human being."

However, I can see that some people might disagree, and that's fine. I choose to place the life, health and emotional well-being of the mother first in all things. It is her fundamental right to choose when, where and with whom to conceive a child and I don't feel that it is moral to interfere with that. That others choose to place a potential human on equal footing with a woman carrying that potential is OK with me and they have a valid argument.

But, saying that the two opinions are somehow unequal is wrong. The choice to decide in favor of the mother or in favor of the fetus is one that can only come from within, and both decisions are equal.

With regards to the 1%, 99% split... you run into problems based upon the concepts inherent in the US legal system. Let's say that you legislate that abortion is only legal when a woman's right to determine when she starts a family has been violated (rapine, sexual slavery, whatever). OK, so far so good. The problem is that you run right up against the legal idea that it is better to let 100 lawbreakers go free than it is to put 1 innocent man behind bars. You put a truly atrocious burden of proof on the legal system, because you have now just legislated a thought-crime. There is simply no objective way of determining whether or not a thought-crime has been committed.

I would rather that 100 potential lives be lost than one woman be forced by the state to carry one fetus to term because an imperfect legal system couldn't decide whether her right to self-determination had been violated.

I, personally, am vehemently against abortion, but I see the need for it to be an option, and as long as that need is there, I will fight for it, because it's the right thing to do.

Anonymous: Pathetic.

Assuming they are all pro-choice is a pathetic way to think my friend.

Jesus isnt real by the way.
and your a jesus loving queer. haha

10010110110110010011101101011001101101100110011010101101101011000000010110110101101001000000101100011001101111100001001110001001100100011111000011010100100101100010001010100111000111000111010100001001011111110100000011000011001101010111100101111010010101011000111000110101011001100110001100011001101011111111101011000110011100011001100101100101110011011110011001110001101100101110011011100110110010110010110010

Quinton Figueroa: You are right, they aren't
@Anonymous (view comment)

You are right, they aren't all pro-choice but must are, including you. Tell me where I am wrong and I will listen.

sirtee: There's pretty strong

There's pretty strong evidence showing that getting pregnant leads to giving birth.

It's not a leap of faith to say that having an abortion will prevent birth.

Anonymous: It's not about believing in

It's not about believing in abortions, or condoning them - it's about allowing individuals to make the best choice for themselves. This post reveals that you have blinding ignorance to what an atheist is or is not.
Was it alright for Christians to murder innocent Muslims in their quest for the Holy Land? Was it ok in the eyes of God for Irish Extremists to kill the families of their opponents? I don't understand how you can question our morality when bible-thumpers have being murdering people for two thousand years for reasons far less important then pro-choice.

"The 2 answers contradict, and atheists HATE contradictions."
I can name off the top of my head at least two dozen examples of contradiction in the bible, so this is incredibly hypocritical to say. When was the last time you heard of an atheist blowing up a bus of innocent by-standers? Or heard about an atheist burning down clinics? You don't - because we hate people for real reasons, like being stupid, instead of petty things like which direction you pray in the morning or if you eat pork or not.

"They aren't as logical as they think they are"
I love this statement. So it's logical that an omnipotent God exists, and that he created the world, and yet no one created him? How is that any different then believing that the universe just exists and that no one created it, just as God apparently exists?

To attempt to stereo-type atheists really goes to show your ignorance. Atheism is not about following some set-in-stone beliefs that unites us, it's simply about choosing not to believe in God, and each atheist does that in different ways. I don't judge you because you believe in God, so I'd really appreciate it if you hate-mongers stopped judging me because I don't.

Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "God Is Not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything". It's important in any debate that you understand the other teams stance and why they don't think the way you do, and it's blatantly obvious that you'd rather follow BS rhetoric then to come up with real arguments instead of propaganda. If I can read the bible, Koran, and Torah to build a base for my not wanting to believe in God, you can at least have the courteous try the same.

Anonymous: A person who does not

A person who does not believe in something unless there is evidence is a skeptic, not an atheist. Skeptics are not necessarily atheists and atheists are not necessarily skeptics. There may be a lot of overlap, but one does not imply the other.

I am very confused by the notion of not believing in abortion. What does it mean to not believe in abortion? Does a person who does not believe in abortion not believe abortions are real? Or do you mean that a person who "believes in abortion" is pro-choice and a person who does not believe in abortion is pro-life?

Dan Black: hrmmm...

I've read a few of your posts now. You have some interesting perspectives. I'm not exactly an atheist because although I don't believe in the religion I was brought up with (Catholicism) I do feel there is something beyond the rational which binds us (I tend to tell people that I'm 'basically atheist' because I feel closer to it than agnosticism: I've decided there could be a god but I function on the assumption that I cannot know). That said, rationality is often the best working answer I find myself turning to, and your point on abortion is surprisingly poignant. It summarizes how I feel about the issue fairly well, and after reading a lot of your somewhat skewed opinions (such as the idea that most people would say it is justified to kill for war; that doesn't seem to be the case amongst most people I know) I've got to say that I'm surprised, and I'm glad you have some interesting opinions with rational thinking behind it. So thanks, you've given me some things to think about.

DKong: You are ridiculous

I agree completely with the person who said "it's not about believing, it's about condoning". That's more or less all the argument about abortion boils down to.

As for believing if it's actually taking a life- I don't think that's what matters to atheists. What matters is that people have freedom of choice to do what they feel is right.

"I hope all atheists that are pro-choice realize they really aren't."
That is completely ridiculous. If someone is pro-letting-a-woman-do-what-she-wants-with-her-fetus, then they are pro-choice.

Then again....there's always this option:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive
(I'm kidding)

Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the comment.
@DKong (view comment)

Thanks for the comment.

As for believing if it's actually taking a life- I don't think that's what matters to atheists. What matters is that people have freedom of choice to do what they feel is right.

So is it okay for somebody to freely kill random people on the street because they feel this is right?

Clearly there are certain bounds which are fairly self-evident are there not?

BTW, I LOVE Maddox. He is my hero and I read all his posts.

Anonymous: ok, fine

Well, you're right that the extent of what is right and wrong has to be drawn somewhere.
How about "What matters is that people have freedom of choice to do what they feel is right"...AND legal. :)

Quinton Figueroa: Very true, but then it all
@Anonymous (view comment)

Very true, but then it all starts again with the question, how do you determine what is legal?

EJ: Where to start....

I just wanted to say that this is a totally illogical argument. Not only do you spend 3 paragraphs bringing up the same point (that there is no evidence for God or abortion) but the topic itself makes no sense!

First off, who gives a damn what they believe and don't believe.

That aside, the logic is totally off. (Most) Atheists don't believe in God because they need proof, I agree there...but I don't know how you pulled the "every atheist is for abortion" thing out of your ass.

But for the sake of argument we will say that you are correct, and all atheists ARE for abortion, I honestly am not able to make any connection that says its because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). You are saying that because there is no proof of when life begins, that means they should not believe in abortion. Personally, I think its the exact opposite. They don't believe in what there is no proof for, therefor if there is no proof of life, they don't believe it exists. If life doesn't exist then why wouldn't they be for abortion? Certainly there is nothing wrong with abortion when there is no life.

Quinton Figueroa: Good point, you are right

First off, who gives a damn what they believe and don't believe.

I do, as well as others. If their beliefs have effects on what I hold to be true, then it creates a problem. Just as they give a damn that Christians believe in God.

I say all because pretty much every atheist I have ever talked with is for abortion, however, it is very fair to say that some are against it, I just have yet to meet one.

As for your argument on abortion I would have to agree with you. It makes good sense and you have changed my opinion on this issue.

Thanks!

The Barefoot Bum: Neither atheism, skepticism

Neither atheism, skepticism or naturalism entails being pro choice, but it's a pretty strong generalization that most atheists, skeptics and naturalists are indeed pro-choice. It's important to understand that atheism is a belief about a matter of truth; no specific normative statements follow logically from atheism. Atheism most often follows from naturalism, which is a fundamentally epistemic position: That our knowledge is necessarily connected to (but not necessarily derived from) our experience. And therein lies your explanation.

What can be known in connection to experience are ideas such as sentience (the ability to experience suffering and well-being, a characteristic of most animals with more than the most simplistic nervous system) and sapience (self-awareness). And most naturalists' ethical beliefs concern these empirically demonstrable characteristics.

It is relatively uncontroversial that a first-trimester blastocyst or embryo has an insufficient nervous system to experience pain. It is absolutely uncontroversial that the mother is typically not only sentient but sapient. Abortion occurs only when the interests of the mother conflict with that of the embryo. Since more value is given to a sapient being (the mother) than a non-sentient being (the embryo), the tendency is to come down on the side of the mother.

Most naturalists also give some ethical value to "humanity" defined in the genetic sense, which is why they place value on non-sapient born children. However, the interests of born children do not conflict with the interests of sapient humans (2-3+ years) in the same way that the interests of the embryo necessarily conflict with those of the mother.

Because naturalists are pretty much unconcerned with supernatural or unfalsifiable claims, any ethical belief that follows from the notion of the "soul" or some magical value of genetic humanity will typically receive short shrift.

The Barefoot Bum: kudos
@The Barefoot Bum (view comment)

Kudos, BTW, on your willingness to admit that you made a poor argument. One learns most quickly by making, and then acknowledging, mistakes.

Add new comment