How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kkerwin1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that’s a pretty tiny percentage of atheists, just like claiming there are Catholics who support a woman’s right to choose abortion if she doesn’t want a baby. They exist, but there’s not much point in making a big deal about it.

I’m pretty sure there are more religious people in the states who are FOR abortion, than atheists who are against it.

The chart at

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-atheists-are-more-pro-life-than-pro-choice

seems to show that 38% of Catholics are pro-choice, while just 19% of non-religious are pro-life. I didn’t actually research the video, but it says it’s from a Gallup poll, I believe.

news.gallup.com

In U.S., Nonreligious, Postgrads Are Highly "Pro-Choice"

Large majorities of Americans with postgraduate education as well as non-Christians continue to identify as "pro-choice" rather than "pro-life" on abortion, even as Americans' overall support for the pro-choice position has declined.
news.gallup.com news.gallup.com

this seems to show that the population overall is moving toward Pro-life rather than pro-choice. That fits with a GOP win and general disgust with Clinton I think. It seems mainly highly-educated people are still heavily pro-choice. But that’s probably because if they weren’t, some of them wouldn’t have been able to finish college.
 
Last edited:
Pamsan said:
You do know that there are atheist groups that are pro life right? Good try though :roll_eyes: you are funny.
Click to expand...
???

Never said there weren’t.
benjamin1973 said:
I think that’s a pretty tiny percentage of atheists,
Click to expand...
It probably is. But they wouldn’t label it as an “atheist argument”. They’d call it a “secular argument”.

Either way, bit of a red herring.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Either way, bit of a red herring.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t call it a red herring, really. Atheists can be more moral than some religious people. I know several people who claim to be atheist who care deeply about the life of the unborn.

Edit: This is not meant to condone atheism. I don’t condone that or a lack of morality. Just an observation that atheism does not rule out morality or a genuine caring for the unborn.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t seen any connection between supposed adherence to a religious tradition and superior morality at all. I’ve seen plenty of Christians do all kinds of selfish and ungodly things, then go to Church on Sunday, and sleep like babies because Jesus has washed away all their sins.

Then they do all that same stuff again the following week. Rinse and repeat. It’s sickening, actually. I’m pretty sure that gaming the Lord’s forgiveness is not moral.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Then they do all that same stuff again the following week. Rinse and repeat. It’s sickening, actually. I’m pretty sure that gaming the Lord’s forgiveness is not moral.
Click to expand...
Not sickening at all, that’s human nature. If man didn’t sin, we wouldn’t need a Savior… Further, not everyone has the same amount of faith and commitment. Expecting Christians or anyone else to be perfect, its just not realistic.
 
Forgiveness for sin is a privilege that should be begged for, not something that should be assumed before one commits a sin.

“I shouldn’t sleep with this prostitute. . . but luckily I already know that God will forgive me, so where’s that bank machine?” I consider this a horrible abuse of the contract between Man and God, and I very much disbelieve that God will truly forgive based on presence in Church and words alone, so long as there is no truly (and I mean really and TRULY) repentant heart to go along with it.

Secular humanists, at least, don’t have this moral free pass. They act morally because it is in their nature to, and because they have philosophical ideas about the greater good in which they truly believe.
 
Last edited:
You won’t find an argument from us that presumption is a terrible sin, which makes a mockery of justice and mercy alike. That said, secular humanists lack a basis for their moral standard. Without an absolute standard applying to everyone, always and everywhere, they have no authoritative basis on which to judge morality.
 
You don’t need an authoritative basis. You need social consensus. Nobody wants kids raped, so we can pretty easily arrive at the idea that raping kids is bad. No commandments or liturgy required.

I don’t like having things I’ve worked for taken away from me by trick or by force, and so there are laws against theft and robbery. Again, nobody needs a perfect objective standard by which to establish that doing harm to others is wrong.

Is there wiggle room? Sure. But there’s also a great deal of wiggle room in interpretation of scripture. Murder is bad-- but righteous Crusade killings against dirty nasty Muslims-- well, now you’re just doing God’s work. Send 'em to Hell where they belong!

This is my problem with religions on the whole: there’s too much chance to twist goodness into evil, and then demand that others take up the same evil because it is supposedly done in God’s name. How many Christian rulers are there who actually attempt to emulate the kindness, forgiveness, and generosity of Christ?

Secular humanists, not having this same appeal to an absolute authority, have no real means by which to corrupt so much power.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
You don’t need an authoritative basis. You need social consensus. Nobody wants kids raped, so we can pretty easily arrive at the idea that raping kids is bad. No commandments or liturgy required.
Click to expand...
But that begs the question: “Why do we inherently know it’s bad for kids - or anyone - to be raped?” Why do we know it’s morally wrong to torture, steal, lie, abort babies, etc.? We know these things even when very young, before we are - hopefully - taught by our parents. God’s moral compass resides in all of us; atheists just don’t acknowledge it. Nevertheless, some atheists are morally superior to some religious persons.
 
Last edited:
Acts don’t have to be inherently bad for us to agree that we dislike them, and to agree upon rules against them.

I don’t need to establish an objective basis for the wrongness of child rape. I just have to know that the idea is abhorrent to me, and discover through speech that it’s abhorrent to almost everyone I know. Then we, together, will decide exactly how we will limit incidences of child rape-- building prisons to hold rapists, killing them, castrating them, or whatever.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Acts don’t have to be inherently bad for us to agree that we dislike them, and to agree upon rules against them.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to establish an objective base, but if you don’t, someone could say it’s inherently evil to use ant traps inside or outside their home. There are people in other cultures who believe things like slavery and child labor and a wife being absolutely obedient to and dependent upon her husband are okay. There are many people who believe abortion is fine, at least a part of them does. Morality does have an objective center, whether that center is acknowledged or not.
 
People can say whatever they want, and if enough people agree with them, it will be part of the social convention.

This is why a lot of things we consider highly immoral today were accepted in the past-- slavery being an obvious case. We can’t really see through their eyes anymore, because after a couple centuries of interactions and social relationships with black people, our feelings about them have changed, our understanding has improved, and this has been integrated into our moral code.

Today a similar thing is happening with homosexuality. The Biblical position on it is pretty darned clear IMO, but gay people are more conspicuous, and we’ve become more used to them, and that has affected the way people treat them.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Today a similar thing is happening with homosexuality. The Biblical position on it is pretty darned clear IMO, but gay people are more conspicuous, and we’ve become more used to them, and that has affected the way people treat them.
Click to expand...
When I was a young man, homosexuality wasn’t considered in such high regard as it is today. Do you think that the fact that homosexuality is now considered to be respectable, more people are adopting the lifestyle?
 
I have yet to see where being pro-choice is mandatory for earning a degree.

Wow…I work in a “trade,” not an academic career, and see daily the degradation of liberal arts education, college, and even basic intellectually curiosity among my colleagues and especially “superiors.”

One of reasons I “converted” to Catholicism was bc of the respect for education, intellect…etc…good thing I love my parish or I’d really being feeling duped right now.
 
Not sure what you’re talking about. Nobody, ever, said being pro-choice is mandatory for earning a degree.
 
Firstly I’m British so the complexities of Roe vs Wade are somewhat outside of my understanding, and secondly I’m a pro choice atheist. I’m going to outline a hypothetical question and I’m curious to know what your response would be.

Let’s assume that abortion was outlawed tomorrow, and that there were no ‘back street’ abortionists. What would you personally be prepared to do to support the increase in the number of children born that are unwanted? Would you adopt? Would you foster? If not would you be prepared to pay increased taxes to support the my much larger children’s services department that would be needed? Or would it be something else?
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Let’s assume that abortion was outlawed tomorrow, and that there were no ‘back street’ abortionists. What would you personally be prepared to do to support the increase in the number of children born that are unwanted? Would you adopt? Would you foster? If not would you be prepared to pay increased taxes to support the my much larger children’s services department that would be needed? Or would it be something else?
Click to expand...
I’d be willing to pay a “somewhat” increase in tax, not a huge one, but I’d want stricter controls on the money and who it goes to than are now in place in the US. I don’t mind paying my fair share, but I do want it to be fair. I’d also want the tax loopholes closed for the super-wealthy. Until those two things would be done, I wouldn’t be willing to do anything more than volunteer in a homeless shelter, which I do now. I don’t think many people would be willing to do much, hence the lack of answers to your question.

I should add that while I’m opposed to abortion personally, I believe the American Constitution is written so as to make abortion legal.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Today a similar thing is happening with homosexuality. The Biblical position on it is pretty darned clear IMO, but gay people are more conspicuous, and we’ve become more used to them, and that has affected the way people treat them.
Click to expand...
But you, yourself, just said we have to consider the changing culture. The Bible was written centuries ago. Incest was considered fine and dandy in parts of the Bible, and it certainly isn’t today. Even Pope Francis does not seem to condemn homosexuality or consider it a choice, and I feel sure he seeks to follow God’s will in all things.


 
Last edited:
Inquisitor85 said:
Let’s assume that abortion was outlawed tomorrow, and that there were no ‘back street’ abortionists. What would you personally be prepared to do to support the increase in the number of children born that are unwanted? Would you adopt? Would you foster? If not would you be prepared to pay increased taxes to support the my much larger children’s services department that would be needed? Or would it be something else?
Click to expand...
This is often used as a red herring in these debates. The implication is that, unless the individual pro-life person having the discussion is willing to—right there and then—commit to raising scores of unwanted children and putting them through college, then the person isn’t really pro-life and their arguments can be ignored. Ultimately, though, that has no bearing on whether or not abortion is immoral from a logical perspective.

I just preface my post with that because it’s a tactic I see used a lot. I’m assuming you are just generally curious, and so I will answer accordingly. 🙂

Me personally, I don’t think I would adopt or have foster children simply because my hands are quite full with a special needs child already. Abortion being legal or illegal has no bearing on that choice. I would certainly support any legislation that would be needed to help support poor mothers, again, whether abortion was illegal or not. And I’d do anything else that I could. If it were shown that certain services needed to be expanded in light of abortion being illegal, then I’d support expanding those services.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top