Pro-lifers need Psychiatric help?

[Spiderman]

It seems to me quite the opposite, it is entirely a question of science as to when a new human life arises. Which is easily answered at conception with the formation of its DNA. Anything else follows platitudes or quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo like 'personhood'.

I appreciate that there is a conservative staff at RF!

I was asking if the belief that it is a human being is healthy. Is it healthy to believe?

I couldn't imagine an atheist believing at conception, a human being is in the womb, at that time.

 

[Mister Emu]

I was asking if the belief that it is a human being is healthy. Is it healthy to believe?

My apologies, the one statement stuck out to me and so, I had to respond.

Of course it is, I don't think I've ever read anything in any psychological literature that says otherwise, I'd be happy to be shown incorrect as I have access to PsycNet and a few other repositories.

Given the correlations between pro-life and religiousness and religiosity and mental and emotional well-being, I would suspect that having a pro-life outlook is part of a lifestyle more likely to produce higher levels of health than the obverse. I can't see a way that a more expansive view of humanity is psychological harmful, but I can definitely see how delineating differences between human lives that deserve personhood or rights and those that don't can become extremely harmful and produce negative outcomes in both one's own mental sphere and in the world beyond.

 

[Spiderman]

My apologies, the one statement stuck out to me and so, I had to respond.

Of course it is, I don't think I've ever read anything in any psychological literature that says otherwise, I'd be happy to be shown incorrect as I have access to PsycNet and a few other repositories.

Given the correlations between pro-life and religiousness and religiosity and mental and emotional well-being, I would suspect that having a pro-life outlook is part of a lifestyle more likely to produce higher levels of health than the obverse. I can't see a way that a more expansive view of humanity is psychological harmful, but I can definitely see how delineating differences between human lives that deserve personhood or rights and those that don't can become extremely harmful and produce negative outcomes in both one's own mental sphere and in the world beyond.

Do you know atheists at RF or in real life, who might believe termination of a pregnancy intentionally , less than a week after conception, is one human being killing another?

I just don't think I have met an atheist who would see it that way.

 

[Heyo]

Given the correlations between pro-life and religiousness and religiosity and mental and emotional well-being, I would suspect that having a pro-life outlook is part of a lifestyle more likely to produce higher levels of health than the obverse.

You have heard about the "religious right" in the US, haven't you? And you have read to what the belief in a pro-life position hds driven the OP. Do you think that is healthy? I don't know if a pro-life position leads to detachment from reality or if detachment from reality leads to a pro-life position but the two are clearly correlated. They also seem to be correlated to high religiosity which makes it a minefield to investigate. Since religious delusions are dogmatically not pathological, I wouldn't expect to find many papers on the phenomenon.

 

[stvdv]

Having that kind of unhealthy sex is toxic and not good.

Being malnourished and without protein is very unhealthy.

I have Been in Many Facilities, Where if you go malnourished, it is not helpful, the meat is already paid for, I don't save a life by it going in the trash, no vegetarian alternative is offered, nothing positive is accomplished by throwing the paid for food in the trash, and I hurt myself , because when I go malnourished I have had outbursts of rage and mental emotional illness!

It makes absolutely no sense to hurt your self and not save an animal in the process.

Also, comparing eating nutritious food to harming some one with toxic, unhealthy sex, is a terrible comparison.

I'm all for doing away with slaughter houses and no eating meat. But I don't get to make a difference by damaging myself mentally, emotionally, and physically, and then save no animal life in the process.

It makes absolutely no sense.

This makes absolutely no sense
You totally miss the point here

So I agree to disagree on this

 

[Spiderman]

This makes absolutely no sense
You totally miss the point here

So I agree to disagree on this

How does it not make sense?

It makes perfect sense totally and completely!

It's actually extremely clear! If you're in a facility that has paid for the food, and they are not offering a vegetarian diet, you either eat the food they give you or you suffer malnourishment! Then you hurt yourself! You don't save the life of an animal because the food has already been paid for by the facility!

Also, you don't actually know that God is offended by people eating meat!

If we judge by the Bible, God commands lamb to be eaten, and permits the eating of plenty animals.

But if a facility is serving meat... The facility has bought and paid for it. If it goes in the trash, you are not lessening the demand for meat, because it has already been purchased and cooked.

So all a person is doing is hurting themselves with malnourishment, damaging their health, and they're not saving the lives of any animals, so it doesn't make any sense!

It's actually extremely clear and obvious!

 

[Mister Emu]

You have heard about the "religious right" in the US, haven't you? And you have read to what the belief in a pro-life position hds driven the OP. Do you think that is healthy? I don't know if a pro-life position leads to detachment from reality or if detachment from reality leads to a pro-life position but the two are clearly correlated. They also seem to be correlated to high religiosity which makes it a minefield to investigate. Since religious delusions are dogmatically not pathological, I wouldn't expect to find many papers on the phenomenon.

It's commendable how well you took not just having no rational basis for your statement but being directly in controversy with what does exist.

As for me, I'll stick with that pesky thing called evidence.

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you know atheists at RF or in real life, who might believe termination of a pregnancy intentionally , less than a week after conception, is one human being killing another?

Well that's the whole thing, they deny the metaphysical "being" proposition. It's undeniably human and it's undeniably alive, so that's where the quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo comes in, you have to have the outlet for dehumanization, elsewise recognize yourself the villain.

 

[stvdv]

It's actually extremely clear and obvious!

This makes absolutely no sense
You totally miss the point here

So I agree to disagree on this

 

[Heyo]

It's commendable how well you took not just having no rational basis for your statement but being directly in controversy with what does exist.

As for me, I'll stick with that pesky thing called evidence.

I should flag your post for being very offensive but 1. that's not my thing, 2. you're staff, so it will do nothing and 3. I'll apply Hanlon's razor. It might be that there is nothing behind your eloquent speech.
Let's analyse why your post is offensive:
My post started with two examples I brought up in evidence, the US "religious right" and the OP's behaviour he laid out in the OP.
Your post is free of evidence, just smug condescension. I don't really mind condescension, it can be funny and I do it all the time - but only after I have demonstrated my superiority.
You mention evidence but you don't present any.
I did name my evidence, though I didn't lay out why it is evidence. I did that in a previous post in this thread for the OP's behaviour but you didn't follow the thread, did you? I can also lay out why the behaviour of the "religious right" points to detachment from reality but I think that is common knowledge.

Now, are you going to debate the evidence or are you going to run and bury the evidence?

 

[Mister Emu]

My post started with two examples I brought up in evidence

You have no special insight; your preconceived biases are not evidence, especially when they run counter to the weight of actual evidence, like the studies and surveys I've mentioned before which support the conclusion that the right and the religious are more mentally and emotionally healthy as a population than the left and the nonreligious.

Conservatives are happier than liberals:
https://labsites.rochester.edu/lela...deology-personality-and-life-satisfaction.pdf
White liberals are more than twice as likely to have a mental illness when compared to white conservatives:
White liberals more likely to have a mental health condition
Religious people are happier, more mentally well adjusted, can handle stress better, have less depression and anxiety, etc. etc.
God Help Us? How Religion is Good (And Bad) For Mental Health

Nor can you produce a study which suggests that rejecting metaphysical hocus pocus in favor of biological reality produces any sort of general psychological harm, you brazenly hand waved any obligation you might have for substance with the same aplomb of a young earth creationist; 'of course science isn't going to agree with me, it's rigged!'

I did name my evidence

The existence of the religious right as a population that is happier, healthier with higher levels of mental and emotional well-being when compared to the non-religious left as a population is precisely what I meant when I said you just roll with being in direct controversy with the evidence.

I can also lay out why the behaviour of the "religious right" points to detachment from reality but I think that is common knowledge.

I very much doubt you can produce a single peer reviewed source that suggests there is any relative increase in detachment from reality arising from being religious, right, or a combination of the two. I expect your so-called "knowledge" is only common among the willfully ignorant.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You have no special insight; your preconceived biases are not evidence, especially when they run counter to the weight of actual evidence, like the studies and surveys I've mentioned before which support the conclusion that the right and the religious are more mentally and emotionally healthy as a population than the left and the nonreligious.

Conservatives are happier than liberals:
https://labsites.rochester.edu/lela...deology-personality-and-life-satisfaction.pdf
White liberals are more than twice as likely to have a mental illness when compared to white conservatives:
White liberals more likely to have a mental health condition
Religious people are happier, more mentally well adjusted, can handle stress better, have less depression and anxiety, etc. etc.
God Help Us? How Religion is Good (And Bad) For Mental Health

Nor can you produce a study which suggests that rejecting metaphysical hocus pocus in favor of biological reality produces any sort of general psychological harm, you brazenly hand waved any obligation you might have for substance with the same aplomb of a young earth creationist; 'of course science isn't going to agree with me, it's rigged!'


The existence of the religious right as a population that is happier, healthier with higher levels of mental and emotional well-being when compared to the non-religious left as a population is precisely what I meant when I said you just roll with being in direct controversy with the evidence.


I very much doubt you can produce a single peer reviewed source that suggests there is any relative increase in detachment from reality arising from being religious, right, or a combination of the two. I expect your so-called "knowledge" is only common among the willfully ignorant.

Much of this thread is outside my discussion interests much less agreements but I do feel like I need to point out how harmful 'studies' (specifically the headlines) are, especially to religious conservatives. The studies themselves do not actually say they have less mental illness/anxiety/depression but that they're *reporting* it less. Which, even if being reported honestly, is correlative, not causative. But we have reason to believe it's more complicated than that.
Adobe Acrobat

There is a mental health stigma in conservative communities and people who are suffering are encouraged to 'fake it until they make it' or 'be grateful for what you have.' Meaning they seek treatment less or have strong denial about their symptoms.

Political conservatives more likely to stigmatize mentally ill people, study finds

People who are on assistance have been called lazy or irresponsible, so it's no wonder that people open about their mental health and treatment are more likely to be liberal. Also liberals (especially in the US sense) are more likely to be in support or mental health services accessibility as a basic human right. So openness about needing mental health services would be higher.

So concluding that 'conservatives have better mental health because conservatism is more healthy' is no more evidenced than 'conservatives less empathetic towards people struggling with mental illness, so people who report mental illness and seek treatment more likely to be liberal.'

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well that's the whole thing, they deny the metaphysical "being" proposition. It's undeniably human and it's undeniably alive, so that's where the quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo comes in, you have to have the outlet for dehumanization, elsewise recognize yourself the villain.

I'm pro choice and I actually agree with you that arguments of personhood or status of human is a weak argument and not even relevant, since we terminate humans with full personhood for a number of reasons.

The embryo is a human. It could be an adult, sentient, sapient, fully formed individual for all it matters to my position: The embryos death is acceptable collateral damage to preserve body autonomy. Forcing pregnant people to carry to term is a graver miscarriage (no pun intended) of human rights than legal, accessible abortion.

 

[Mister Emu]

The studies themselves do not actually say they have less mental illness/anxiety/depression but that they're *reporting* it less.

The only way we can tell someone's level of happiness is to ask them. Meanwhile, we also have frontal cortex neurology that provide a physical basis for improved emotional regulation in religious people as well as improved response to therapy for people diagnosed with depression.

It's just not that surprising that communities that have built-in sources of resiliency lead to improved outcomes. Health apt beliefs about community, locus of control, place in society and existence at large, etc. are going to lead to better outcomes.

So concluding that 'conservatives have better mental health because conservatism is more healthy'

I hope you'll note that's not what I said, rather that "given the correlations between pro-life and religiousness and religiosity and mental and emotional well-being, I would suspect that having a pro-life outlook is part of a lifestyle more likely to produce higher levels of health than the obverse."

I only brought up conservatism because someone wanted to bring the "religious right" into it, and only to show that there isn't really any evidence to suppose that either religious people, or right minded people, or a combination are characterized by an enhanced need for professional psychological services.

I'm pro choice and I actually agree with you that arguments of personhood or status of human is a weak argument and not even relevant, since we terminate humans with full personhood for a number of reasons.

I'm incapable of saying that's fine, but it's certainly preferable.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The only way we can tell someone's level of happiness is to ask them. Meanwhile, we also have frontal cortex neurology that provide a physical basis for improved emotional regulation in religious people as well as improved response to therapy for people diagnosed with depression.

It's just not that surprising that communities that have built-in sources of resiliency lead to improved outcomes. Health apt beliefs about community, locus of control, place in society and existence at large, etc. are going to lead to better outcomes.


I hope you'll note that's not what I said, rather that "given the correlations between pro-life and religiousness and religiosity and mental and emotional well-being, I would suspect that having a pro-life outlook is part of a lifestyle more likely to produce higher levels of health than the obverse."

I only brought up conservatism because someone wanted to bring the "religious right" into it, and only to show that there isn't really any evidence to suppose that either religious people, or right minded people, or a combination are characterized by an enhanced need for professional psychological services.


I'm incapable of saying that's fine, but it's certainly preferable.

I agree that most symptoms of mental illness need to be reported on in order to be known by outsiders since they cannot experience their pain. I just also know there are circumstances in which people have reason to report dishonestly or are in denial about their symptoms.

You run across it all the time when people have adhd autism comorbidity because autism comes with a stigma so they prefer their symptoms to align with adhd even if it better fits autism (or both.)

Emotional coping mechanism are nice, but they'll only take you do far with mental illness when you refuse (or don't have access to) treatment.

 

[Heyo]

You have no special insight; your preconceived biases are not evidence, especially when they run counter to the weight of actual evidence, like the studies and surveys I've mentioned before which support the conclusion that the right and the religious are more mentally and emotionally healthy as a population than the left and the nonreligious.

Conservatives are happier than liberals:
https://labsites.rochester.edu/lela...deology-personality-and-life-satisfaction.pdf
White liberals are more than twice as likely to have a mental illness when compared to white conservatives:
White liberals more likely to have a mental health condition
Religious people are happier, more mentally well adjusted, can handle stress better, have less depression and anxiety, etc. etc.
God Help Us? How Religion is Good (And Bad) For Mental Health

Well, I can see how atheists are more depressed and anxious, especially in the US, with all those theists around.
But that has nothing to do with you missing the point. We are not talking about conservatives and liberals nor about religious and irreligious. We are talking about so-called pro-lifers. And we have an example of their behaviour in the OP.

OP tried "to gather signatures for the ballot, so that people can vote "life begins at conception"."

Do we agree that we can deduce or at least reasonable assume that the writer (and distributors) of that petition thought
- people for abortion rights oppose the proposition
- a biological fact can be legislated
- it is a good idea to petition for legislating a biological fact
- that legislating a biological fact would change anything about the discussion about legal abortion?

And if we can, can we deduce that a person with such an agenda is detached from reality?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I remember when I first converted to catholicism, I was doing some political work, to try to gather signatures for the ballot, so that people can vote "life begins at conception".

A biker man approached me and the guy that I was working with, and he looked really happy to see us and be talking to us, eager to see what we were promoting. Then he read what we were trying to get signatures for, and this dark cloud descended on his face , and his facial expression became ridiculous and bizzare!

You should have seen his face! It was hilarious! And he said to us with disgust, "you guys need psychiatric help!"

What is your opinion, do people who believe life begins at conception , need psychiatric help?

The only reason this is in the religious debate section, is because the belief that life begins at conception, is a religious belief, in it's essence and intrinsic nature.

I couldn't fathom how you could be an atheist who believes that life begins at conception.

No. It means you think logically, actually.

 

[Muffled]

I believe my psche is healthy. I don't call it pro-life. I call it anti-murder.

 

[Muffled]

I wouldn’t say phsychologically ill. Though I’ve had the same accusation levied against me for being pro choice. Ironically I am this way because of my religious upbringing. Whether or not life begins at conception doesn’t concern me. You can’t be forced to give a drop of blood to a real life person on their death bed. Why would you force a pregnant person to involuntarily allow another human to use their uterus?
I see the pro life movement as callous and cruel. But that’s just based on their rhetoric which is highly oversimplified, emotional and filled with inaccurate medical information. If you can’t argue your position in a logically consistent manner and even have to lie, well I’m sorry but you’ve lost in my eyes

Also there are pro life atheists, just fyi

I believe you are rational. I don't buy the reasoning though that says it is ok to murder a person because you think your own desires are more important.

 

[Muffled]

Fact: Soul does not enter at conception, but much later
Fact: Animal life also begins at conception

So, if pro-lifers are genuinely concerned about life, then:
1) They better watch their steps as to not kill bugs
2) They should not wear leather shoes, jackets...
3) They must become vegan, to avoid hypocrisy
4) They should not take mebendazol medicines
5) etc. etc.

IF they do the above THEN they maybe have the right to tell others about it

i believe you have false information. Most reincarnations take place at conception. Possession is an exception.