24 votes

I don't understand...

I don't understand why being atheist, anarchist, and/or protector of liberty you stand on the positive for the killing of infants through abortion.

I am pro choice too. You can choose to have the baby or give the baby up for adoption.

Sick of it.

Edit: Because people seem to be talking about this (I am glad; I didn't expect anyone, just was ranting), I am going to propose my argument against abortion as an anarchist and atheist.

The quick and dirty version (probably out of order haven't fleshed all this out):
P: Property rights are to be respected.
P: Your body is property that you own.
P: You own your body because you grow your body.
P: The mother helps you grow your body like watering a plant.
P: The mother is holding on to your property until you become sentient enough to take ownership of it.
P: The mother cannot destroy what is rightfully yours.
P: Profit?? LOL
C: Abortion is not permissible.

I know this is not in the correct format or whatever. I'm not an expert on logic or philosophy. I think you can understand what I am getting out here though. I haven't heard it anywhere else and I thought of it on my own (Was really proud of myself haha).

Do you like my the rough draft of my argument?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Argument is wrong

Mother is forced into watering a plant is tyranny.

You are the affect of your parents actions. When labor is mixed with resources, property ownership is established. In the these terms you are as much the property of your parents as you are of yourself.

Just for the record, I believe killing babies is abhorrent. I am just trying to point out the logic fail in your argument.

Lastly, more abortions are caused by state intervention then by conscious decision and legal authority. If you doubt me, look at the abortion rates in NYC vs that of Podunk Kansas. If you care about the kids, you would be trying to fight the welfare state before trying to make abortion illegal.



Bump for life, for non-aggression, for natural rights, for protecting the mist vulnerable of all people - the unborn.

Edward Moran

Excellent Reasoning!

+ 1
Being pro life is necessary to defend liberty - Ron Paul
It is wrong to make this issue an exclusively religious one. It's about non-aggression; it's about natural rights, it's about liberty. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. The videos and sonograms available today reveal the truth of the personhood of the unborn and the horrors of abortion. We must resist the eugenics and depopulation agenda of the statists. Great work, bro. Please check out my poem, "Sinking Fast." Thank you.

Edward Moran

as an agnostic

I don't believe in abortion, however I also don't think I have the right to force another to do something. If a woman wants an abortion that's something that she is going to have to deal with the rest of her life. I think the focus should be on counseling young women not from a religious point of view, but from a moral one and from a "what could be" in choosing life. If we choose the other the only end is death and despair.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

In Arkansas

they recently decided that there should be no abortion after 12 weeks or when a fetus starts to "breathe" I find partial birth abortions to be nothing short of absolute murder. I will however eat a chicken egg that has been fertilized as long as it is only a simple spot inside the egg. You decide. I don't know what to think about this subject. It is complicated isn't it? I think however that the idea of abortion has been made out to be a trivial thing in the eyes of the public when it should be a decision that takes a lot of soul searching on the part of the women dealing with it. Unfortunately the youth of today has been raised to not believe in marriage, the importance of family, the sanctity of sex, commitment to anyone, or any other form of giving. Abortion is not the issue. Caring and GIVING is. Abortion is a side affect of not having morals often in these days. IMO.


Is it at all possible to reduce/eliminate Abortions

without the Gov't?

Like the War on Drugs, if there is a Market for something, like eliminating an unwanted pregnancy, then there will be one.

It can be made illegal, driven into the Black Market, and then we can start jailing immature and uneducated teenage girls for attempted Abortion or Premeditated Abortion. How many years should the girls get, 18? Perhaps we should publicly stone them to death?

How about the father? Is he an accomplice? If she has to serve 18 years, shouldn't he?

Personally I don't give a hoot. People talk about how much they care for the unwanted fetus, so much that they want it to complete development and be born, but what about afterwards. Do they give two hoots whether it has Two Parents to raise it to Independence? Perhaps they have heard there are people who can't have children so, they are the natural choice for the new mother to give that child to.

How about this? Let's tie Abortion to all the other ills the United States faces (Federal Reserve, Usurped Power, constant Warring, Domesticated Americans, etc) and make sure that none of them can be resolved without the Gov't forcing it into the Black Market.

Or, Let's start improving our Communities through Subsidiarity (bringing Gov't Power & Services as close to the Individual as possible), a Local Education that helps parents prepare their children for Independence, and then working with Educated young adults to prevent Unwanted Pregnancies.

Gov't will NEVER eliminate Abortion, but it will use it to maintain a MONOPOLY over what Liberties it will allow the People to have. It will maintain that Gov't is the ONLY solution, and NEVER resolve it while whittling away the Freedoms of the Born.

I'm also pro life

but these 2 comments made me wonder:
Brigger said, "In the case of life, you are not allowed to take/harm someone else's life."

Wistfulthinker said, "But if a pregnancy threatened my life, I'd weigh the odds and choose."

What about self defense? Everyone pretty much agrees that if someone is about to shoot you, you have a right to protect yourself and kill your would-be killer.

In the case of a pregnancy that would jeopardize a mother's life, doesn't the mother have the right to protect herself from inevitable death against the known assailant? This is something I've never thought of in this way before and really look forward to responses.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

that's the scenario

That's the scenario that happened to my sister and why I'm "pro-life, with exceptions".

A tool isn't good or bad, a poison is also a cure.

Excellent sentence:

I am pro choice too. You can choose to have the baby or give the baby up for adoption.

Liberty and justice for ALL - especially those who are too young to defend themselves.

My daughter is studying to be a nurse - saw her first live birth last week. She's hooked - wants to work in OB. Truly a miracle.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Declaration of Sentiments

I think we end up talking risk.

I'm quite pro-life. But if a pregnancy threatened my life, I'd weigh the odds and choose. The odds I'd weigh are different now that I have children and feel the need to be around for their development. I know that the pro-life camp likes to talk about the extreme rarity of such a choice, but they're part of the mix.

Who gets to decide what odds are moral? For me, that's the question.

Frankly, I don't trust women. Neither do I trust government.

I don't trust women because we seem pretty eager to abrogate one of the few inherent power positions we have -- the power over our small children and fetuses. We demand protection from those who are typically stronger than us -- men -- while refusing to demand of ourselves the same moral code. It reminds me of one of the grievances listed in the Women's Declaration of Sentiments: He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

If men cannot morally or legally harm or kill those who are weaker and dependent on them, how do women get to do so? (The analogy may be stretched, but how many of the cases of lethal domestic violence includes evidence that the woman didn't leave because she felt dependent -- didn't know how she and her children would get by without him. And how is this so different from a fetus who can't get by without the stronger body of its mother.)

I fear a whole bunch of women are failing to live up the ideals of their own declaration of independence. We don't get to throw out the life-and-death power we hold simply because we're the weaker sex. As the Declaration of Sentiments states, "...we insist that [women] have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States." That means we demand the right to the legal admission of our sex's power to kill and the moral equality to be judged by law accordingly.

Drat, wish I had time to work this our more. Dinner's ready. I'll try to come back to it. I'd appreciate other women's perspective on this line of reasoning, however halfbaked.

Okay, here's my thoughts.

First, as stated below, property rights should be adhered to. So the fetus possibly could have them at some designated point. According to Dr. Paul, the fetus is a life at conception when it comes to him as a doctor injuring the fetus or anyone injuring the mom and the fetus are in double trouble. The law recognizes the fetus at conception in all instances except abortion.

So that should be easy. There should be a defining point in time that classifies the fetus as a human life.

But, in the case of abortion and property rights there is some complication for the fetus' right to life. The women also has a right to her property - her body. The fetus is basically a parasite. So that is the dilemma. Not only does she have to acquire food for two, she has to abstain from unhealthy or treacherous activities, she will most likely miss work and consequently money, she will endure horrendous pain, and she will have to rehabilitate her body (which will never recover fully). These are the consequences even if she decides to put the baby up for adoption. We all know that far more is required if she keeps the baby. Besides the 18 years of child care there are other factors. If the women is exceptionally young she would have to endure ostracism at school. Her entire life may be effected if she cannot afford to go to college and raise the child. Her family may disown her for having sex too young. Those are a just a few consequences. And they do not touch upon the affects the baby may have to endure in an unwanted birth situation.

So, with two sets of rights at stake I understand why the courts are not so clear on when life begins. I think at this point the only way to solve it is to give the women a grace period on the conception date. And maybe this is what the courts do. Perhaps by the end of the first trimester the women should have her decision done.

So timmy, that is the way I see it from an atheistic anarchic worldview.

Can you have a Right to something that you cannot

procure/sustain yourself?

Rights are actions/behaviors that one does not need Permission to act/behave.

Privileges are actions/behaviors that Require Permission to act/behave.

One might say a fetus has an assumed Privilege to a completed Pregnancy, but we run into a conundrum with WHO grants that Privilege/Permission. Can the mother rescind Consent/Permission? If so, at what point?

Can the Gov't grant permission/privilege to a woman's body? Can they then also deny it? If a woman is pregnant, does the Gov't own her body and decisions? If the Gov't owns/controls the Mother, then they sure as Hades own the baby.

Perhaps when the Life is viable without the aid of the Mother? As you point out with the First trimester, but I'd think it would be later for viability.

dducks, I really appreciate

I really appreciate your thoughtful approach here.

I'm just going to follow up on your last train of thought -- the notion of a grace period after conception.

A woman knows that she could get pregnant if she has sex. (Even if she uses birth control, all of which have a failure rate.) By engaging in sex when she is not willing to at least birth the baby, she's already taken the chance -- refused the grace that would protect her from making a life/death decision. By definition, she's been willing to take the chance of killing another life. Perhaps this would be analogous to having one too many at a party and driving home. Chances are you'll be okay and everyone you pass on the highway will be okay. But you decided to take the chance. Should we remove tell you it's all okay because you didn't mean to if you hit my child on your way home?

So we push that grace period back, lets say to the morning-after sort of high dosage of birth control bills. In this case, the woman kills a zygote, a new life, but one that hasn't attached to her body and sent chemicals into her bloodstream. She doesn't know if she's pregnant. Neither medical tests nor the government knows if she's pregnant. Everyone involved can claim gray because ending the zygote's ability to implant and actually make a pregnancy is caught forever in that gray. A lot of zygotes -- maybe 30 percent -- never do implant. So we're more okay with this. We never have to say we killed a growing baby because we don't know what would have happened. I'm suspicious of a moral or legal code built upon choosing gray. I mean think about it; if the fact that you don't know if a life is growing in you is the moral foundation of being able to kill that life, your knowing or not knowing is then the hinge upon which your morality swings. I'm uncomfortable with not-knowing being a foundation. In the case of pregnancy, you'll know in a few days. After which, your choose isn't a duck, it's not built on not knowing; but a real choice -- a moral choice.

Goodness, I'm going on and I mean to be short and to the point.

I guess I mean to say that giving people extra-biological grace periods typically doesn't lead to more responsible behavior. Biology has given women grace periods. We can not engage in sex when we're not willing to bear the consequences. We can double and triple contraception when we wish to role the dice. I'm not sure that divorcing ourselves from the real and biological consequences of our actions, however personally detrimental those consequences are, does anything real for human morality or success. I'm not sure that we should embrace grace periods for our behavior. Where does that lead? You get a grace period for driving drunk? For pilfering just a few dollars from your employer? For lying to a friend? As an atheist, I'm assuming your moral positions stem from the notion that natural consequences form the backbone of our moral code. That natural consequence of sex produces a baby, eventually. It may feel all magnanimous to remove the consequence by annotating the definition of protected human life to get women off the hook. But we do so by only by making women less morally able and, therefore, culpable.

We all have our moral crosses to bare. To attempt to remove one group's cross, is to deny that group full entrance into the moral morass that we all contend with -- whether atheist or god-fearing in all its incarnations.

You do not appreciate my response.

You did not even read it. If you think a women succumbing to a passionate encounter, being raped, or fulfilling her often unfortunate wifely duties and driving drunk are analogous than we have nothing more to debate.

I wish you luck in life.

It's quite obvious from my

It's quite obvious from my post that I read thoughts carefully and that I appreciated them. In fact, enough to prompt my own thinking about the point you raised.

I get that you have nothing more to debate with me, but that in no way means that I have not cogitated on your thoughts and found them useful for my own though processes.

I find it odd that you would not find a woman "succumbing to passion" when it could result in killing a growing life, at least a moral concern. How is this succumbing so much different than succumbing to a passion for drink or for power or money? You realize that succumbing means to give into temptation or bow down to forces that promise disastrous results?

My comment pointed out that there are two

sets of property rights in conflict. You never mention the women's. I laid out a long list of the women's rights that are impeded upon by having a baby. No comment on those? And again in your quest to condemn a murderer you forgot to mention that two humans are necessary to create the baby. The man is apparently free from guilt in your world.

I do not find any reason for guilt in having a drink, loving power, or money. As long as the NAP is being observed. If the above interferes with the NAP than I would feel guilt.

I also do not know that life begins at conception. I do not have memories before I was three. I never met someone that did. You seem to know full well exactly when life begins.

In an ideal world we could save all fetuses, whenever they become one. But the world is not yet ideal in that respect. Soon technology will most likely eliminate this problem.

I find it ironic that the majority of the staunch anti-abortion crowd are generally men. It is ironic because men are nearly always the more sexually obsessed, the pursuers of sexual affairs, the consumers of 90% (guess) of porn, 95% (guess) of prostitutes, and in my experience in want (or need as they tell me) of sex 24/7. Now do not think I am making a judgement by that statement. It is merely a generic observation. As long as they are not violating NAP I am fine with it. But the fact that this thread will have only a couple brave women on it is proof. Just like the lovely jrd below me, she is far more intelligent than I for simply "giving me a nod of solidarity", and then scramming. Ya gotta love her for that! She is very clever. THANKS, jrd. The point being, here, is that I wished men would look at this in a more complicated way, instead of just blaming the women for it. And if you read below, besides the kewl jrd's comment, the women is always to blame. I even saw women blaming women for having sex below.

I hate abortion. But for now there are two sets of rights involved in this very complicated situation so I can only try to put myself in the shoes of someone that wants one. Which in many cases are men.

And, btw, women don't innately know where babies come from. I am sure there are lots of cases where young ladies were either forced or participated in something they knew nothing about. Those are the very people my comment was about. And after that, it again would not be innate knowledge that an early term abortion is murder. Most young ladies in this situation would have absolutely no idea except for the ones with parents that believe that. When their parents and boyfriend all say, "just get an abortion, it's all right", how are they supposed to know anything but that???

Right, I wrote that I

Right, I wrote that I appreciated your whole post but would focus on the grace period aspect as this is one of the areas I'm been mulling more recently.

On the right to your own body and the two conflicting property rights at play here, I agree that pregnancy is pretty sticky and even unique. As a mother, I have a difference sense of the property of my body when it comes to a baby in my womb than I did before I was a mother. Oddly, perhaps, my feelings about abortion have become less black and white since having a baby. I'm still against elective abortions, but my gut reaction is far more wiggly on this one than before I procreated.

I've also done some studying of the subject of abortion in cultures that live(d) on the margins of survival -- not because I researching abortion but for my day job. A couple such cultures, and I only studied a few, practiced things like infanticide, routine killing of one twin, and early abortions. At least the anthropologists I've read suggest that such practices were survivalist. These groups lived closed to the edge, and loosing a woman in her procreative years was more devastating to the group than a baby, which would have required years of care before it could contribute to group survival. I suspect this more wiggly feeling I have harkens back to a time -- not so distant -- when a pregnancy at the wrong time of year or in lean years could threaten not just a woman's life but a group's survival.

All that to say why I didn't focus on the bulk of your first post, which stuck in your craw. All that is not the stuff I'm contending with presently, which is the grace period idea you brought up.

You seem to be attacking me for know when life begins. It's not me; biology has had a definition for quite some time now. In fact, the gametes -- sperm and egg -- only fail one of the tests of life: They can't reproduce. Once those two get together, however, all the definitions of life are met. That's called conception because it's the point we have a thing that meets all the five, (I think it's five) biological criteria of life. A blood cell you lose when you cut yourself also meets those criteria. The abortion debate is not about whether the zygote, fetus, or baby is alive -- or life. It's about when we give it this living collection of human cells Constitutional protection.

I'm struggling to figure out if I think we should allow a grace period of the sort a morning after pill would allow. I gave my best thoughts for where I'm thinking right now, after having read and digested your points.

That was very enlightening.

I see where you are coming from now. I have no idea that science had made a determination on when life starts I am all for the morning after pill but still think the mother needs more time to think, hopefully to keep the baby. But there are certain circumstances that may need more time, even a few weeks, would suffice. The problem than becomes when do they realize they are pregnant? I could be a month or two after the conception, That is why I drew the line at the first trimester. I read some awful infanticide history stories as well. Pretty creepy.

......Sorry for attaching.....

: )

Thank you for the exchange.

Thank you for the exchange. I enjoy discussions that get me thinking about others' ideas and give me a chance to flesh out my thoughts by writing them down.

jrd3820's picture


I usually avoid these threads, but I logged in to give you a head nod of solidarity.

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss


Classic! Thanks for the nod! I was bored and am at times a glutton for punishment.

I have to get back over to the peaceful and mellow jrd jammin' thread.

Go by Principles...

I live by the principles of life, liberty and property. In the case of life, you are not allowed to take/harm someone else's life. So instead of deciding if abortion is okay or not, use principles do decide how it should be handled.

Simply decide what a human life is. Determine when a person is a person. Or when a human is a human. Once this has been decided, scientifically, then the rest is irrelevant.

From my understanding, the Supreme Court decided that life begins at the third or second trimester, and thus abortions cannot be done at that point.

Forget feelings, look at facts.

I know that is hard, this is highly emotionally charged.
I do not like abortion, but, the reality is if I wanted to have one, I know exactly how to do it so that no one would ever know I was even pregnant.
How will you enforce laws? This is outside the reach of government, it is up to the Creator to handle this one.
We have outlawed abortion before, it did not stop it. We have tried legal abortions, it promotes immorality. We need to stop trying to fix this with men's laws and hand it over to God. If we could do that, the elite would lose one of the very best "divide and conquer" tactics they ever devised.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

if you want to go out and

if you want to go out and murder someone without anybody else finding out, that is between you and your God. the same thing with abortion: just because the law can't prove it doesn't mean karma and the like will not affect you.


God is the ONLY one who can judge... so lets stop asking to government to get in the middle of moral / medical issues that they CAN NOT enforce.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

They say "It's my body", but No

duhh. You're not killing yourself. Touchy subject. When people women get really really rabid, maybe it's because the have had abortions and maybe it's too hard to approach the subject. I think I figured that out after just discussing the subject with a friend. We can't go back. Shame on the schools for promoting abortion. We need to stop this. It has to stop. We need God's law on planet earth- "Thou Shall Not Murder".


"If government will not protect innocent life wherever it may be found, then who will?" Ron Paul

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

To me it boils down to societal hypocrisy

If every life is sacred, no matter what, then:

No wars except in clear cut defense
No abortions
No death penalty

Otherwise, it's crap - total crap.

Cyril's picture

Well, looks to me that... you NAILED IT.

Well, looks to me that...


At least in the moral dimension, anyway.

As for making this practical, I maintain my claims:

we won't make people more moral until basic economic itself hasn't got back to morality. Starting with bringing sound money back (still absent, and for long already).

Fire the planners, who want to plan about everything : labor, resources, life, and even, death.

That's not even a plan.

It is merely OUR ACTION OF DUTY if we want liberty and justice be back in some future.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Ok, it's been awhile since logic 101,

but here is what I boiled it down to:

If K = W and A =  K, then A = W.  

So: If killing humans is wrong (K = W) and abortion kills humans (A = K), then abortion is wrong (A = W).

I guess the fundamental point of contention is: DOES (A = K)?