How do non-deists frame opinions about abortion vs. women's choice?

Wouldn't a super-majority of responsible adults oppose terminating an unborn child who is capable of surviving separation from the mother? Don't we also owe women a choice in dealing with an unexpected pregnancy, up to a point?

Somewhere between the unknowable moment of conception and the independent viability of an unborn child is a line to be drawn. How do secular and religious communities collaborate to resolve this issue reasonably?

It seems to me that giving a woman four or five weeks to make a decision after noticing a missed menstrual cycle is appropriate and adequate. That means before the 10th week (1st trimester).

Is this controversy driven by deists who insist on theocratic laws, or others who claim the right to procrastinate until it hurts?

I think WOMEN should be making that decision and don't think that 4 or 5 weeks after a missed cycle is a good method. I was FOUR months pregnant before I stopped having periods. I knew I was pregnant, and my doctor watched very closely, but I didn't miss a cycle until then.

The decision should be between the woman, her doctor, and her partner IF she chooses to share with said partner.

I find it interesting that the very people who are pushing to control my vagina are more afraid of vaginas than guns. They want to regulate MY body, but not the guns that could kill that body.

tmarie64 wrote:The decision should be between the woman, her doctor, and her partner IF she chooses to share with said partner.

So do you think that pregnant women should have absolute discretion over when or if their unborn is imbued with rights as an individual citizen? Do you support abortion rights up to and during delivery?

Prudence6 wrote:

tmarie64 wrote:The decision should be between the woman, her doctor, and her partner IF she chooses to share with said partner.

So do you think that pregnant women should have absolute discretion over when or if their unborn is imbued with rights as an individual citizen? Do you support abortion rights up to and during delivery?

I'm going to echo tmarie. The decision should be between the woman, her doctor, and her partner. More than that, it should be one of personal responsibility. There are way to many cases where the state and the rest of society wants to delve into legislating responsibility. We are starting at the wrong end. If you want to affect change, get people to agree with you, don't force them at the point of a sword, or lawsuit.

I agree with the others. I also believe that whether or not heroic measures are taken are up to the people involved.

I hope someone will be interested in addressing my question directly:

At what point, if ever, does the right of the unborn to live take precedence over the right of adults to choose?

Prudence6 wrote:I hope someone will be interested in addressing my question directly:

At what point, if ever, does the right of the unborn to live take precedence over the right of adults to choose?

Q: At what point, if ever, does the right of anyone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness take precedence over the right of another to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

A: When that person threatens the right of the other to have or pursue those rights. If a mugger, burglar, or mass shooter were threatening any of those rights we would be justified in defending ourselves and or property with lethal force without bothering to determine if it was necessity that dictated their actions or not.

What is life? What is liberty? What is the pursuit of happiness? What does it mean to threaten these? These are the terms upon which we must base this discussion if we are going to have it.

I for one am not ready to dictate the course that one sets to best pursue happiness, to hold liberty, and what is life. I'll be honest, it is for selfish reasons. It is because I am not ready to have another dictate it to me. No matter how much I may disagree with the course that their actions take, or even their reasoning behind undertaking those actions. As long as it does not interfere with my pursuit of the same, may they go on and answer to whatever gods they may believe in.

The unborn has no precedence over the mother and her doctor's opinion until the baby is able to live on its own without - what do they call it? - heroic measures, IMO. Life is not black/white all the time. Sometimes one must do the best for the mother rather than the unborn child.

I thought that was what we were all saying?

Of course the OP isn't really asking anyone but atheists is s/he? Maybe she doesn't mind that people who do follow gods answer though.

actually, to answer the initial question, I think it is neither. This discussion is driven by politicians that use it as a talking point so they never have to address their true agendas, and don't plan on doing anything at all.

gillyflower wrote:Of course the OP isn't really asking anyone but atheists is s/he? Maybe she doesn't mind that people who do follow gods answer though.

In my dealings with those that follow Christian theology (whether they believe in it or not actually) they usually don't understand that there is a distinction between those that follow the Christian deity, those that follow other deities, and those that don't follow any deities. Until it is pointed out to them that is. Some are pretty stubborn on this point.....

I see "Prudence" has more pressing issues elsewhere now. Wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that I answered her?

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:I see "Prudence" has more pressing issues elsewhere now. Wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that I answered her?

Sorry to be AWOL; I appreciate all the considered responses to my query. To be honest, it's nice weather here and I went out on the porch to read a chapter or two of Hitchens' "god is not Great."

Am I missing something or did allthegood decide to change the question? In any event, I do value the reminder of the Constitutional basis for making such decisions (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

It sounds like the consensus here is to defer to the rule of (wo)man, rather than the rule of law. I am not interested in impinging on rights or controlling vaginas. However, I think it best serves society to have the stability of clearly defined law, especially in such sensitive matters, rather than the fluid interpretations of individuals. If the rule is "heroic measures" I haven't seen a definition for that.

My OP was intended as an exploration into how to codify a reasonable compromise between "right to choose" and "right to life" that comes from reason, compassion and ethical behavior rather than religious dogma.

I have found during my life that no clearly defined law covers every situation. Black/white is not real life. So often our choices are shades of gray.

I see no reason to change the law. There will always be people who do what other people think are bad things.

There will always be people who try to do what they feel is right in a bad situation. That is, I believe, by far the majority of people. I wouldn't want to take that choice away from them.

Prudence6 wrote:
Am I missing something or did allthegood decide to change the question? In any event, I do value the reminder of the Constitutional basis for making such decisions (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

I have a tendency to do that. I pursue to answer questions in the interest of clarity and not loaded questions that seem bent on getting the questionee to give a specific answer.

Prudence6 wrote:
It sounds like the consensus here is to defer to the rule of (wo)man, rather than the rule of law.

It sounds like you are making a distinction that I do not. IE, what is "law" if not the "rule of (wo)man"?

Prudence6 wrote:
My OP was intended as an exploration into how to codify a reasonable compromise between "right to choose" and "right to life" that comes from reason, compassion and ethical behavior rather than religious dogma.

It is my understanding that on this and other hot topic issues, the sides involved have become so polarized that there can be no such thing as "reasonable compromise". When one group abhors the idea of abortion, and will allow no exceptions, every step in the direction of "compromise" is one step closer to their goal.

gillyflower wrote:I have found during my life that no clearly defined law covers every situation. Black/white is not real life. So often our choices are shades of gray.

At some level this is true. But without an attempt to establish the back and white of law, if we project this philosophy out to all areas of the social contract, we get nothing but the gray of anarchy.

As to the law on pregnancy termination, I was of the understanding that it is very different from state to state. Is that not so?

It seems to me we need to face the hard questions that require a specific answer and help those who adhere to theocratic policies to see that it is unreasonable to attempt to impose religion on everyone.

To do that, it is incumbent upon everyone to commit to overcome the polarity that politicians impose on us and achieve reasonable compromise.

As I understand it:

Rule of man (or woman) means whomever is in power makes the law. This a recipe for social instability at best.

Rule of law means that everyone understands the rules because they are clearly defined and do not change whenever leadership changes.

I favor rule of law.

So you favor a dictatorship, or monarchy?

Prudence6 wrote:

gillyflower wrote:I have found during my life that no clearly defined law covers every situation. Black/white is not real life. So often our choices are shades of gray.

At some level this is true. But without an attempt to establish the back and white of law, if we project this philosophy out to all areas of the social contract, we get nothing but the gray of anarchy.

As to the law on pregnancy termination, I was of the understanding that it is very different from state to state. Is that not so?

There are laws in place now.

Yes, different from state to state. Why do they all have to be the same?

Maybe the current controversy is not a problem - a misconception on my part. I guess we're done. Thanks for the exchange.

If it is something you want to talk about, go ahead.

I support abortion WHEN THE WOMAN WANTS IT. What I THINK is irrelevant. What part of MY vagina, MY uterus, MY choice... is not clear? That "MY" applies to EVERY woman, not just me.

I take it you believe that YOU have a right to make choices for people other than yourself. Why? What qualifies you to make decisions for people you have never, and will never, meet? Are you willing to pay for the children who are born because some morons decided that every zygote should be carried until it HAPPENS to be born? Are you willing to accept responsibility for the dramatic increase in childhood deaths due to murder? Are you going to be one of those assholes who bitches and moans about single mothers on welfare?

Bottom line... If you don't think abortions should happen... DON'T HAVE ONE.