It's pretty simple really:
Circumcision is an immoral (and unnecessary) act performed against a fully-formed human being fully capable of feeling pain. (Circumcision is already classified as genital mutilation in Sweden, and punishable as such: 15 years).
Abortion (early-term) is not necessarily an immoral act performed against human cells before the brain-stem forms and before the embryo/foetus is capable of feeling pain in a human way, or capable of human suffering.
Thats the atheist viewpoint.
Before the anti-atheist assumptions begin:
Do I think abortion is a good idea...?
Not if the woman will be psychologically damaged by it. If the woman is capable of it (emotionally) and no infliction of human suffering is involved... it's none of my business, so I don't mind what other people choose to do with their own bodies.
Do I agree with late-term or partial birth abortion...?
No. If there is deliberate infliction of human suffering against an innocent human being I find that abhorrent. Similarly, termination of a viable human being is similarly abhorrent to me, even if there is no direct suffering involved (anaesthetic used).
But I also feel the father should have some say in such a decision.
I'm very interested in this debate, but only because I find the pro-life argument so incomprehensible.
Why are the very same people so interested in the right-to-life of microscopic cells (albeit human cells), so willing to send fully grown humans to war...? And so inured... so indifferent to the suffering of their fellow viable human beings?
Just baffles me.
The Luke