Pleas don’t go into a discussion with that mindset, if you do, neither of us will ever learn or grow. Anyhow, let me be more explicit, abortion should be available to the parents as an option. It is merely a coincidence that the lower class tends to get more abortions, not because they’re corrupt, or evil, or anything else. Abortion IS about family. Too often these days do we forget what abortion is ultimately about in the end, it isn’t about whether or not the baby lives, it’s why should the baby live. If you can come at me with an argument not based on religious or moral reasons, then I’d gladly hear it. Too long have we sought to morally control our fellow man, without addressing the underlying problem. Still though, like I said, abortions enable PLANNED PARENTHOOD, see what that organization is about? Not murdering innocent babies, but about allowing happy, intended families, not burdening an unwilling mother with a child she doesn’t want. Yes, it is adorable to see a new born babe, and yes, the mother could come around and learn to love her child, it IS her child after all. But too many dreams and wishes of the living are sacrificed in the fires of morality. Live for the Living I say, and in conclusion, you must consider the larger picture, as do I. (I’m not crazy and expect to you instantly come around to my way of thinking just because of what I’ve said/presented, but I do hope that you can consider it and see if your position stands.) We should believe there is ultimately a right answer even if we ourselves don’t know what it is, or ever know what it is, there should be a correct answer that’s dependable and defend-able short of an apocalypse or a revelation in the laws of physics.

I’m sorry, but killing an unborn human based on one’s predictions about that child’s future socio-economic status is, in my mind, completely indefensible and morally bankrupt.
I sincerely appreciate your honesty and courtesy in discussing this issue with me, but I think this is a point on which we’re much too far apart to ever agree.
But again, thank you for taking the time to explain your viewpoints. I wish there were more people like you when it comes to politely and thoughtfully discussing topics like this.

I’m not saying that’s what our policy should purely be based on, but those are just the facts. I’m not saying that if a child is likely to grow up mentally retarded, violent, crippled, etc. then we should go ahead and snuff out that life. I’m saying that the parents should have that choice available to them, and what you’re saying, or rather what you’re proposing is subjective is it not?

Sounds like you’re proposing a eugenics-type approach to abortion: if your parent(s) are poor, uneducated, etc. then abortion is okay since the child is less likely to “succeed” in society than a child both in better socio-economic conditions. I’m kind of hoping that I misunderstood, since I have to say that I would fine that type of approach morally repugnant. It would be better if we all tried to improve the life of the poor, uneducated, etc. instead of looking the other way if they abort their “undesirable” children.
Again, my apologies if I’ve misunderstood your point.

Again, I must apologize for my lack of content due to the lateness of the hour here, but just pointing out one thing: We’re been having irresponsible people for time immemorial, we always will continue to have them. So doesn’t the question really come down to: Is it better to have a life snuffed out entirely, or to have a life that will most likely lead to crime, poverty, etc. with a slight chance that they’ll become a hard working and productive/happy member of society?

I would allow abortion in the case where the mother’s life is endanged, where the fetus is so badly deformed it would not survive after birth, and in the case of rape, etc.
HOWEVER, I would also take a more holistic approach to the problem: free access to birth control, comprehensive reproductive education, etc. but most importantly I would pursue policies to promote personal responsibility — modern American society places seems to ignore the fact that “rights” need to be balanced by “responsibilities”. If you knew that you would have to care for a baby for 18 years (and couldn’t simply kill it), you might be more careful in terms of avoiding pregancy. Similarly, if we held fathers equally responsible for the care of the child for all those years (and enforced child support laws seriously), more men might be more careful as well.

Well, in a purely hypothetical world, if you could become the supreme leader of all people’s on this planet, what would the policy be for abortion?

Thank you for the well-stated and well-reasoned reply. At some point an unborn fetus is considered a human being, not some appendage of a woman’s body – obviously we don’t allow women to kill their unborn child while they are in labor, and most places that allow abortion still prohibit it in the last trimester. The problem then becomes: at what point is a fetus a human being (which the pregnant mother does not have the “right” to kill)? Even if we agree on a limit (no abortions after first 6 months, we are essentially saying that one day it’s not a human and the next day it is … a slippery slope.
Again, I think in this case we’ll just have to agree to disagree — I certainly respect your right to hold your views and work to promote them: that’s the way a healthy society should work. The only thing I object to is people who use abortion as a proxy issue for attacking religious belief, and I’m very pleased that you (as an atheist) are not doing that. Hopefully both atheists and religious people can work together to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies (better eduaction, better birth control, etc.) — it’s a worthy goal that we all agree on.
Thanks again.

“So if I oppose abortion because I think it ends a human life (i.e. no different from murder), that’s okay, but if I oppose abortion because my religion tells me it’s morally wrong, that’s not okay? How about theft and murder? My religion tells me those are wrong too, so let’s abolish laws prohibiting stealing and killing, right?”

^This did. Please read my longer replies first.

Now on to the actual abortion aspect of this: (First let me say I intend to expand on this soon, but it’s very late here in California, and I must rest soon.) I wholeheartedly believe that if I was to ever irresponsibly get a woman pregnant, I’d do my best to try and convince her to keep the baby. I believe that I have both the means and the will to provide for a child. Furthermore, I oppose killing a potential future life as a morally abhorrent act. HOWEVER, it is not my place to decide for the woman. It is the WOMAN’S choice to make whatever that may be. It is debatable as to whether or not snuff out a life now and avoid a potentially miserable and criminal/violent/addicted, etc. life or to take the chance and possibly have the next Einstein/Newton/Caesar, come into being. What is NOT debatable is that it is currently legally in the US up to a woman to choose if she wishes to have an abortion. Furthermore, if the legal standpoint of this should ever change, it should be for legal, moral or otherwise secular reasons. Lastly, I must insist that I hold this view, not because of my atheism, but in spite of it, it is just as harmful to be blinded by my faith in atheism as it would be if that faith was in Allah, Jesus, or Zeus.
PS I dearly apologize for my lack of effort in well constructed, well thought out replies, I had forgotten that there are other people on these comment sections who aren’t trolls or simple inquisitors. (people wondering just one or two things that can be simply answered is what context I’m referring to.)