JP - it appears to have escaped your attention that 'the rapist' isn't listening to you or to god either. Your argument actually reinforces the idea that morals come from individuals and not that they are absolutes or given to us by god.

"...if atheism is correct."

I don't understand this statement either. It is not about whether atheism is 'correct'. Atheists are not providing an alternative dogma they merely dismiss the supernatural without further evidence as snake alluded above. Why is the burden of proof on the non-believer.

Abortion is not an atheist issue - many Christian and Islamic women have had abortions, particularly when the alternative is to be stoned or shunned in extreme communities.

I am an atheist and have never had an abortion and probably never would but I am not going to dictate to other women what they should decide. There are many different reasons why women might choose an abortion.

While there is no shame, many women find they do have mixed feelings and great sorrow after abortion, some regretting the decision later. It would be, I imagine a highly personal and intimate decision. Perhaps because of this, I do have some uneasiness about the blogging and twittering aspect, even though I get the intention is to shake off the 'shame' stigma and the author has the right to share her view.

It does seem a bit of a contradiction to call oneself a children's activist though while speaking about abortion, when there are many people who consider the embryo the start of life even if "it" is not a person yet. It would be a bit like the management of Gunn's Pulp Mill calling themselves environmentalists.

Good on you Angie.

You do what ever is the right thing for you, now. There is no need for justification to any body.

Then forget it. Dont try to second guess yourself at a later date. The different person you will be then can have no bearing on who you are today.

excellent article, brilliant public action, thank you very much.

Pelican

Not a good analogy:

<<< It does seem a bit of a contradiction to call oneself a children's activist though while speaking about abortion, when there are many people who consider the embryo the start of life even if "it" is not a person yet. It would be a bit like the management of Gunn's Pulp Mill calling themselves environmentalists. >>>

An abortion is a personal decision - one can be a children's activist without having children. Whereas Gunns are straight out dishonest and their decisions effect us all - devastating the ecosystem.

Also the people who would ban women from determining their lives, never worry too much about the welfare of children once they have been born. I can see how Angie can very easily be a children's activist.

That's just being obtuse, Houellebecq.

>>He sees the embrio as a person, who has been murdered. He's sticking up for the rights of what he sees as a person. I don't happen to agree, but the stance is understandable.<<

That stance is indeed the traditional one for Christians. However, JP did not make that point, instead decided to give us a sermon on abortion's parallels with rape, paedophilia and torture.

That's not sticking up for rights. That's sanctimony.

Isn't that right, JP?

>>But why should the rapist, etc listen to what you have to say? You might not like harming other people , but who are you to say what other people should do<<

Where did I claim to "say what other people should do"?

That is the task you have given yourself.

I prefer to rely upon innate good sense, responsible upbringing and societal influence to inform people's behaviours.

Any one of these three is sufficient to show that rape is bad. Put all three together, and you have an impregnable moral position.

The glaring omission in your catalogue of atheistic horrors, is that in our society, the only group that appears to forgive paedophile priests, and go on from there to absolve them from taking responsibility for their crimes, are other priests.

If only they had a properly working moral code to sustain them.