My discussion with some atheists on the subject of abortion...

[cynatnite]

I joined a discussion group some months ago focusing on atheism since I'm an atheist. I've been getting a little tired of it there recently because it seems like most posts focus on bashing christians. I don't mind that because on occasion I joined in, but it's been getting rather boring. I thought there would be more talking about atheism.

Well, someone posted 'Ron Paul: A candidate for atheists'. A few brought up why he shouldn't be one and the focus turned to abortion.

Now, for some strange reason I thought that would turn most off...silly me. Most claimed to be pro-choice, but it should be left up to the states. They believe that fighting it at the state level is the answer despite the fact that the state level is filled with RW nutjobs for the most part. Even explaining at how detrimental that would be in areas like the south and other overtly conservative places didn't change any minds. They were totally set in the belief that the national policy of legal abortion was wrong. They were saying 'I'm pro-choice, but...' and you get the idea.

Then it got weirder. I was told that folks like me who support Roe V. Wade were antagonizing the anti-choicers. It was the biggest :wtf: moment I ever had in all my history of being online.

Get this...we're antagonizing the anti-choicers despite the fact that they live to overturn Roe V Wade, despite the fact that some in their group have killed and bombed clinics. We're antagonizing them even though they carry around signs of dead babies, scare the hell out of already frightened pregnant women who chose abortion and scream prayers up to their big guy like rabid fundies do.

My head is still spinning. :crazy:

on edit: Fortunately, most atheists I know aren't like this. I'm still in shock.

[Quantess]

1. How did you find this group?

This is an online group?

[cynatnite]

2. Yep...

I also found a few with the same line of thinking at Dawkins' forum as well. I left that one and already left this one. Think I'll stick with the atheists here :)

[Quantess]

3. There's no shortage of atheists here.

Also a lot of non-religious / agnostics, like me. :)

[cynatnite]

4. Yes, which is why I'm staying put here after this experience...

:)

[orleans]

7. that'll teach ya for wandering off for other online communities. n/t

[Mythsaje]

5. One doesn't have to be religious to be a kook, that's for sure...n/t

[ConsAreLiars]

6. Look for humanist groups.

People who self-define primarily as atheists (and I am one, although I regard it as a secondary matter) often still see things in the context of belief systems and worry about conversions. By contrast, humanists (and I am one, primarily) concern themselves with building a better world and reducing human suffering. Finding common ground with others who believe in some fiction about some afterlife, ghosts, Gaia, or reincarnation or whatever is not really a problem, because whatever serves the common good is worthy. But don't be surprised if you find a few flakes (I am also one of those on occasion) in those groups also. See DU for a case in point. But the humanists define themselves in terms of what they are for rather than against, so that is a plus.

[Selatius]

8. I believe you've run into the phenomenon of regionalism coming into play, as an aside.

I'm not gonna hit on the contradictions of being pro-choice but anti-Roe v. Wade, but I will say this.

When I say regionalism, I mean that people would prefer the issue be addressed at the state or local level, as opposed to the national or federal level. I'm starting to see more and more people preferring to basically disengage from other regions of the country and simply concentrate on their own regions. For example, a person who is pro-choice but would rather let states like Texas ban abortion because he or she lives in Massachusetts, that's regionalism in play because it's an inconsistent application of principles based upon geography. It becomes more apparent whenever you see people scapegoating other regions or states for their own regional problems.

Water is one big issue. Hurricanes and brush fires are another. When people around here in Mississippi begin to say that we shouldn't help those folks who live up in those hills and canyons in California where wildfires erupt because they were dumb enough to build there, they often forget that just as many folks in other parts of the country are calling them dumb for living in the way of hurricanes and that we shouldn't pay for the cost of Katrina reconstruction.

[sss1977]

9. It's funny you bring this up

I too am an atheist and this same conversation came up in a libertarian forum recently. I was shocked to discover so many libertarians that are blatantly anti-abortion or indirectly so by as you say supporting states' own decisions. I mean seriously, we all know many of the states would choose to not follow Roe vs Wade if given the choice, especially in the bible belt. So how can one say they are all about personal liberty and free-choice and yet when it comes to abortion be completely against those values without even realizing it?

[zbdent]

10. wait a minute ... the atheists are concerned that you were upsetting people who

want to force religion down the throats of the people on the board?

What strange, if you can call it, logic ... :silly: