ScepticalPyrrho:
It's you I don't get.

Why would you preserve a "fertilized ovum" to grow up without maternal or parental care, so that it "may" survive?

What good will that do?

okay.
There are surrogates mothers. I've seen one before. She helped another woman carry her baby to term. The child is returned to the family. Some prefer this to adoption. They want the child but don't want or medically can't sustain pregnancy.

PDBonline:

okay.
There are surrogates mothers. I've seen one before. She helped another woman carry her baby to term. The child is returned to the family. Some prefer this to adoption. They want the child but don't want or medically can't sustain pregnancy.

Can you put this in simple language?

Maybe I can learn something new.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Can you put this in simple language?

Maybe I can learn something new.

What I'm trying to say is: instead of abortion just to be free of the burden of pregnancy, the fertilized egg can be allowed to grow outside the biological mother either as "test-tube baby" or in the womb of a consenting woman (surrogate mother). What happens afterwards depends on why the mother gave her up that way.

PDBonline:

What I'm trying to say is: instead of abortion just to be free of the burden of pregnancy, the fertilized egg can be allowed to grow outside the biological mother either as "test-tube baby" or in the womb of a consenting woman (surrogate mother). What happens afterwards depends on why the mother gave her up that way.

I get you.

Apart from the cost of doing either of the above.

Most women who dont want pregnancy are not prepared to have the child. Hence, there is no point to bear the burden of pregnancy, or pay an highly expensive fee to preserve the foetus by any artificial means.

Or would you suggest that the State should begin to preserve all unwanted pregnancies?

It's even worse to think the child would be put through the trauma of growing up to know the mother wasn't willing to have it naturally.

I'm yet to see the good in all the options you've identified.

ScepticalPyrrho:
I get you.

Apart from the cost of doing either of the above.

Most women who dont want pregnancy are not prepared to have the child. Hence, there is no point to bear the burden of pregnancy, or pay an highly expensive fee to preserve the foetus by any artificial means.

That's one reason I wanted to know if we have atheists like that. And I realized that there are those who consider themselves "strong atheists" who are completely against any form of abortion. One even said, "It is very wrong to take another life just to spare yours."

Or would you suggest that the State should begin to preserve all unwanted pregnancies?

It's even worse to think the child would be put through the trauma of growing up to know the mother wasn't willing to have it naturally.

I'm yet to see the good in all the options you've identified.

The ideal is to be proactive and avoid getting pregnant if anyone doesn't want a child. That's more responsible, less traumatic and more cost effective for the woman and child.

But I'm sure that there are those who having missed the first step will rather spare the life of the growing child at any cost, especially when they discovered there are women willing to take up the surrogate parental responsibility.

hopefulLandlord:
I'm torn between opposing or endorsing it

I'm of the opinion that it should be allowed under certain circumstances like pregnancy through rape, inability to take care of the child, health problems, war, famine etc

I'm however against unregulated abortion, a situation where anyone can just keep aborting without cogent reasons as it can lead to using abortion as a means of "Birth Control"

Thanks.
But is that wrong? I mean for someone else who believes in abortion to use it as a form of birth control?

PDBonline:


Thanks.
But is that wrong? I mean for someone else who believes in abortion to use it as a form of birth control?

I believe people are becoming more informed than ever.

Only women in rural areas may still depend on abortion as a birth control measure.

I don't see an unborn child an independent life. It relies on supplies and attachment to a womb to survive.

Unborn child isn't a human person, getting rid of it isn't the same a taking a life.

There are living organisms in all unwanted growth in our body and we get rid of them without a flinch.

We kill mosquitoes everyday. If we follow the argument that assumes the fertilized egg is life to its full implications, the male semen is also life. Therefore use of condoms is a destruction a potential life too. You can further argue that a male who has erection without "releasing" has hindered the possible existence of a child...

An already born child is independent on someone else's freedom and has equal rights to life.

*MyTake*

I am pro-choice, i believe a woman should be given the right to do with her body whatever she seems fit...If she wants to have an abortion, then its should be her right to do so.

ScepticalPyrrho:
I believe people are becoming more informed than ever.

Only women in rural areas may still depend on abortion as a birth control measure.

I don't see an unborn child an independent life. It relies on supplies and attachment to a womb to survive.

Unborn child isn't a human person, getting rid of it isn't the same a taking a life.

There are living organisms in all unwanted growth in our body and we get rid of them without a flinch.

We kill mosquitoes everyday. If we follow the argument that assumes the fertilized egg is life to its full implications, the male semen is also life. Therefore use of condoms is a destruction a potential life too. You can further argue that a male who has erection without "releasing" has hindered the possible existence of a child...

An already born child is independent on someone else's freedom and has equal rights to life.

*MyTake*

It can be argued too that while a fertilized egg grows to become an adult human, neither the egg on its own nor the male release on its own grows to become human. It's the value of human life rather than the presence of life that births such positions.

Someone may also argue that even a newborn left alone will die- absolutely dependent. And while in the womb, it became dependent, in most cases, as a known consequence of the decision of the woman to have sex.

*I don't want this post to become a debate. I was just curious about the possibility that atheists (like people with other views on God) don't necessarily share the same position on abortion.

donnffd:
I am pro-choice, i believe a woman should be given the right to do with her body whatever she seems fit...If she wants to have an abortion, then its should be her right to do so.

Thanks for the reply.