"Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them" - Really..? REALLY???
The title of this post (on The Friendly Atheist blog, March 11th, 2014) is offensive, misleading and downright ignorant. The post was written by a guest author, not Hemant Mehta (the host of the blog), however that doesn't excuse him from allowing such a flawed, flimsy, emotional and downright ridiculous article such as this to be posted on his site.
In my experience (and abortion is a topic I've discussed with a good number of non-believers/atheists/agnostics) I've found the VAST majority are, "pro-life." To be clear I don't mean that in the Right Wing, picket sign toting, abortion clinic bombing, "Jesus loves the little children" sense of the word. I mean it in an objective, literal sense. Humanism and atheism go hand in hand in many cases, and the folks I've spoken to tend to agree that life is valuable and precious. (Which makes perfect sense considering the fact that this is the only moment in all of time that we'll have consciousness and non-believers reject the notion of an afterlife.) However, that does not mean that atheists/non-believers don't support a woman's right to choose, nor do they deny the fact that there are many instances when abortion is medically necessary or otherwise justifiable, such as in cases of rape or incest for example.
The label of "pro-life" is misused in my opinion, that should be the term "we" (non-believers) use to describe our stance. In most cases (again speaking from my experience) atheist/non-believers value life, human and non-human, but we consider the big picture when it comes to abortion. Will the child be born into poverty, drug addiction/abuse or physically, mentally/emotionally or sexually abusive environment(s)? Can the mother/family care for the child, can they feed and clothe the child and otherwise care for him/her? Is there a birth defect that will render the child unable to experience or enjoy life, or worse, will the child suffer unnecessarily and then die a wretched death fed through tubes and kept alive through artificial means? All of these examples and many more are moral considerations that one should take into account when considering "life" in a holistic context.
The religious movement that has labeled itself "pro-life" would be more correctly labeled, "pro-birth." They give no consideration to the actual life of the child or it's mother/father whatsoever, and I find such cruel indifference to suffering and misery disturbing. Although I suppose suffering and misery are sort of the stock and trade of most major religions though, aren't they? The Catholic Church made Mother Teresa a "Saint" for her "work with the poor" after all. Forgetting that in reality she was a friend of poverty and an advocate of suffering, she regarded women as little more than cattle-like vessels for birthing children destined to suffer in abject poverty the same way their parents had. She predicated these vile notions on the belief that suffering in this life led to a reward in the afterlife.
I've gotten off on a tangent, the point is the author of this post not only fails to support any of the arguments their trying make. But they also accused the majority of atheists of being utterly indifferent to human life, and that is not only offensive, it's outright ridiculous. I can only hope that the backlash this article has received from the atheist community inspires the author to revisit their ideas on the subject and will attempt to undo the damage they've done by publishing something so offensive, blatantly illogical and full of holes.
Click here to view the original article on, "The Friendly Atheist."
"nor do they deny the fact that there are many instances when abortion is medically necessary"
ReplyDeleteectopic pregnancy is the only instance, and that only results in an abortion as a side effective of the surgery.
"Will the child be born into poverty, drug addiction/abuse or physically, mentally/emotionally or sexually abusive environment(s)? Can the mother/family care for the child, can they feed and clothe the child and otherwise care for him/her? Is there a birth defect that will render the child unable to experience or enjoy life, or worse, will the child suffer unnecessarily and then die a wretched death fed through tubes and kept alive through artificial means?"
Aside from the eugenics overtones here, I take it you would ban all abortions to wealthy, middle and upper class women using abortion as a means of birth control? Great!
"The religious movement that has labeled itself "pro-life" would be more correctly labeled, "pro-birth." They give no consideration to the actual life of the child or it's mother/father whatsoever, and I find such cruel indifference to suffering and misery disturbing."
Right...because religious people never adopt, never give money to their neighbors, never run huge charities, never have third world operations to life people out of poverty, never help drug addicts, etc. etc. It doesn't help your supposedly "rational" perspective to say such obviously absurd things.
"The Catholic Church made Mother Teresa a "Saint" for her "work with the poor" after all. Forgetting that in reality she was a friend of poverty and an advocate of suffering, she regarded women as little more than cattle-like vessels for birthing children destined to suffer in abject poverty the same way their parents had. She predicated these vile notions on the belief that suffering in this life led to a reward in the afterlife."
Again, I'm just gonna assume that you know you're being ridiculous (and simple taking Christopher Hitchen's movie as, o whats the word, divine revelation?) and move on. Also, feel free to head over to Calcutta and help those people. Or just sit aside and let Mother Teresas order continue to do all the heavy lifting.
"I've gotten off on a tangent, the point is the author of this post not only fails to support any of the arguments their trying make."
Just gonna say, you actually didn't support any of yours...
There's a good example of that Cognitive Dissonance I'm always talking about!
ReplyDeleteYour response regarding religious people adopting, working in third world countries, etc... that is what's known as a "red herring." You missed the point, and the fact that "religious people" do in fact do the things you listed does not negate a total lack of consideration of the lives affected by the birth of a child. The fact remains, at least in regards to the popular Christian perspective on abortion, their stance is "pro-birth" rather than pro-life.
Back to the list of things "religious people" do (adoption, missions, "help drug addicts," give to charity, etc). There are very frequently ulterior motives involved, and often as much (or more) harm is done than good. Religious people target vulnerable people because they believe they can offer them, "hope." However, bibles and bronze age fairy tales don't feed starving people, they don't help neglected children, they don't help addicts get clean and they certainly don't help impoverished people climb the socioeconomic ladder. In fact it (religion, bibles, bronze age bullshit, etc) does the opposite....
To assert that I didn't support my arguments is pretty asinine Simply because you either (A) don't agree or (B) are unable to comprehend the points I made doesn't mean I didn't support my argument(s). Ironically, you actually cited some of the support I offered in your comments.
Additionally, you should brush up on your medical facts, there are a multitude of other reasons (other than ectopic/tubal pregnancy) when an abortion may be medically necessary or advisable. Once again, I cited those reasons, you ignored them. .
PS - I wasn't aware that Christopher Hitchens made any movies.