Why pro-choice atheists are irrelevant

I am a pro-life advocate, but I am not an atheism advocate. The reason is that atheism is a lack of belief, but being pro-life is an actual belief that life is relevant, true, and good. Usually atheists believe that their life on earth is the only one they get. This means that they should think twice before killing anything. The fact that those claiming to be atheists are mostly pro-choice seems impossible to me. Something is wrong.

If atheism was an actual belief system, it could be checked for validity. Instead, I have the challenge of watching individual people who claim to be atheists. Do their words match their actions? Are they truly freethinkers or do they make the mistake of siding with popular opinion?

I understand why some theists might be pro-choice if they have been convinced that murder is God’s will, but for atheists, it is a whole different story. Since atheists don’t have a God telling them what to do, they have the potential to do things that theists can’t do. Some of these things are good and others are bad.

I am disappointed to see that relativism has infected both theists and atheists. The key difference for the atheist is that they don’t have a God to blame their actions on when they do something wrong. This makes them MORE responsible for all their actions. This is something I remember in everything I do.

I think of morality as being something that is based in reality. The Golden Rule is the standard I go by. The reason is because not only is it nice, but also because it is the only thing that makes sense!

If I consider the life of other people to be as relevant as my own, then I don’t kill them. If I kill myself, I don’t live long enough to kill someone else. I don’t understand those who kill other people and then themselves. If they would just start with themselves, then no one’s choice is violated.

Aside from the Golden Rule, there is another rule that I live by. If an action is one that can’t be undone, I should either NOT do it, or I need to have a REALLY GOOD REASON for it. Some things can be reversed and others can’t.

When someone steals something, it is bad, but if they can give it back, then the damage is reversed. If they lie, they will lose trust, but they may be able to tell the truth before more damage is done. In those cases, the damage is reversible. When someone kills someone, they have no way of bringing them back to life. This means that killing is the ULTIMATE irreversible act.

The entire point of being an atheist is that it does not actually define who I am. It only defines what I am not. It strips away all presuppositions so that I can find meaning in my life without needing other sources to tell me what it is.

Not all information is useful and there are motivations for deceiving people. Atheists who hold the pro-choice position on abortion need to stop their hypocrisy. Being pro-choice about things involving life and death means that life does not matter enough to you. If life does not mean anything, then you might as well let the world be run over by those annoying theists who force their God on you.

Avoid the relativism that says that it does not matter what you believe or do. It tells us to be so “tolerant” that we stop asking questions or thinking about things that matter. If this is the only life that we have, then pretending that all truth is relative to an individual means that truth exists only in the minds of the living and then dies. This is why I care about standards that apply equally to life everywhere.

I do not want to let fear control my life anymore. For me, being an atheist means that no God, scientist, philosopher, or king has the right to stop me from telling the truth. They can stop me by killing me, but in the end, they would only be showing their weakness. I find great humor in the way that every time someone comes along and tells people not to kill people, it isn’t long before somebody kills them.

I am convinced that protecting life is the most rational thing that anyone can do. This applies to atheists even more because they can’t expect God to resurrect everyone and make everything right. Many atheists protect their own lives at any cost, but deny the relevance of other people when they see them as a threat. This is mostly based on fear. I want to bridge the gap between theists and atheists.

To help theists understand why I have my own problems with the majority of the atheists, I need to explain that atheists also have “gods” that dictate to them what is right or wrong. Whatever they place their trust in is what they will defend in the same way that theists defend their gods.

If they are trusting in money, then everything becomes about getting money. If this means killing, lying, or stealing, then they WILL do it at the first chance. This can lead to the destruction of many lives. The worst part is that all the work people do at earning money will be completely irrelevant when they die. This is the greatest tragedy of all.

With the knowledge that money does not exist, but life does, it only makes sense to be pro-life rather than pro-money. A pro-money position usually becomes a pro-death position.

As far as whether a creator named God exists, I will let other people fight about that. In daily life, I do not see God, but every day I see the words “In God we trust” . It is written on the paper and metal people refer to as money. There seems to be a relevance between God and money.

When humans choose to murder other humans or other animals. They often say “It is okay to kill because: money.” or “It is okay to kill because: God.”. What then is the difference between God and money? What is it that people put their “trust” in.

The fact that I am not 100 percent sure that God or money exist outside of human brains means that I cannot trust in either. I cannot serve God or money. What then do I serve?

I serve relevance over irrelevance, truth over falsehood, good over bad, life over death.

I trust in what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and touched with my own hands.

By these rules I have chosen, I am convinced that even if I don’t stay an atheist, I will stay pro-life.


Author: chandlerklebs

I have unusual thoughts on almost every subject. I am as Pro-Life as I can possibly be. I am strongly opposed to violence of any type. That includes rape, war, and (obviously) abortion. Everything I think, speak, and write must be filtered by the effect it could have on the lives of others. If I am in any way promoting violence accidentally, please let me know.

15 thoughts on “Why pro-choice atheists are irrelevant”

  1. What you personally decide for yourself is totally up to you. I will not tell you (or your girlfriend) to abort, so… Who cares? But of course, that’s not the problem. If it was just a person thing, nobody would care. Get one child, get thousand. But most forced-birthers try to impose their personal belief onto others and that’s where the problems start.

    Unfortunately, you don’t really present any meaningful argument here. You make some vague references to life, murder, etc. without starting to grasp reality. For example, you obviously want to imply that a fetus is a person – which is just wrong. If every killing is wrong, then you should stop breathing now, because lumps of cells are dying inside you every second, insects are probably killed every day by your actions and even as a vegan, you are probably indirectly killing bigger animals.

    You claim to be an atheist, but you sound like a believer – claiming that everyone who doesn’t share your opinion is wrong and doesn’t think, etc.etc.etc. This is especially childish as you don’t even present ONE SINGLE counter-argument against the ACTUAL philosophical arguments made for pro-choice. Please, read them. And then see if you can actually add something worthwhile to the discussion. By just claiming to have found the truth and everyone else must be a hypocrite – and proving that you don’t even KNOW what other people think – you just make a fool out of yourself. You should really try to at least start reading actual pro-choice arguments instead of assuming nonsense. You could start here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abortion – And no, this is NOT a place to end your inquiry, just a place to START it.

    Shame on you. I have seen religious zealots presenting better arguments than you just did.

    1. This post was not meant to counter philosophical arguments in favor of abortion. I have read many of the pro-abortion arguments but they don’t make any sense.

      Also, I don’t know why I sound like a believer. A believer in what?

      And I happen to agree with some religious zealots about abortion even though I think they are wrong about many other things. I happen to admire some Catholics.

      1. Ok, you ARE a believer. Just not in a god. The same irrational dismissal of anything that contradicts your belief. I have seen the same thing with Vegans, for example. Irrationality doesn’t always mean “religion”.

      2. Alright. I’ll go with that. I think that most people are a believer in something. I can bet that you are also dismissing what I said because it contradicts your beliefs.

      3. No, I am dismissing what you said, because you brought up no real argument. You ranted against pro-choice atheists, but you didn’t discuss the topic. My personal views on this topic have been built on reading up various arguments and weighting them against each other. As long as you don’t either counter some of the arguments I consider important nor bring new arguments into the discussion, why should I listen to you? It may feel nice to vent your feelings into the world – but in the end, to convince people, you’ll have to start with arguments.

      4. What kind of argument are you looking for? What personal interest do you have on the subject of abortion that motivates you to read the blog of a stranger like me?

      5. To answer that later first: You tagged it “Atheism”, I read it and found it to be pretty badly written, so I commented on it.

        Personally, I would prefer new arguments, as I know the old ones already. As I have already given you a starting point where to search, I assume you’ll succeed perfectly fine in ignoring it without me.

      6. I know that I won’t be able to ignore pro-abortion arguments forever. I have books and podcasts on the subject so that I can learn to respond to them if I need to.

        If you hadn’t commented, I would not have even known that my post was considered by someone as badly written. I made a terrible Christian and I may be a terrible atheist now, but I am sure that it will become clear in the future where I belong.

  2. I don’t agree with you but I did learn something. I’ve often wondered about the perspective of a pro-life atheist. I’m not saying that a person can’t rationally come to the determination that abortion is bad, I’m just unfamiliar with the reasoning behind it. If your writing is an indication, then it’s largely a question of emotion and where you place your empathy.

    If you’re pro-life, you’re asserting that life itself is the highest goal. If you’re breathing, you’re ahead of the game, and your goal should be to help as many others as possible to continue breathing. Mere existence is the thing, without regard to what type of existence that would be. Homeless, starving, diseased, deformed, it doesn’t matter as long as you’re breathing. This might sound harsh (it does to me) but that’s what I get from your writing.

    1. Actually, since being homeless, starving, diseased, or deformed can easily lead to death, those are things I fight as well.

      And you are correct in noticing that it is very much a matter of emotion. Often there is no rational reason to do something but the reason people do it is emotional.

      I don’t think that emotion can be ignored because it often does make a difference in our lives. I have mental reasons for doing what I do too but without empathy I would lack the motivation.

      1. Well then, two things:

        1. Your emotions are no basis for declaring the rest of us wrong, hypocritical or irrelevant. Attempts to persuade from emotion (like this post) are frankly on par with the arguments for god made by the religious.
        2. If you fight to eradicate abortion before all of those other things, you’re putting the cart before the horse. As long as we have disease and poverty, abortion will remain a necessary evil.

      2. 1. You may be right that my emotional reasoning is very similar to the way theists use god. I am sure that you have no other reason to read or comment on my post other than your emotions. Emotions ARE the basis for many decisions whether they should be or not.

        2. All the evils of the world need to be eradicated. We can all do our part on those that we have the ability to. The fact that you refer to abortion as a necessary evil shows me that you are in agreement that it is evil.

  3. Chandler, I wrote an article on LTI that you responded to, could I suggest looking at the websites of pro-life humanists and secular pro-life. They will have some great resources for someone with your world-view. I wouldn’t worry too much about the commenter above, I don’t think what you wrote was poorly written,

    We seem to have taken opposite journeys, me from atheism to Christian theism and you the other 😉

    Keep up the writing!

    1. It so happens that I already know about pro-life humanists and secular pro-life. They are pretty awesome. Thanks for the comment. I am also interested in talking to you further about what led you to Christian theism. There must be reasons for why people travel different directions. Either way, pro-life people are my pals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s