Why does being pro-life tend to be associated with being religious?

[anotherneil]

It seems like there's this perception or stereotype that being pro-life is a religious thing & I'm interested in trying to find out why this is.

I don't have specific examples, but it seems to be like a popular & standard media narrative.

There are plenty of religious folks who are for abortion rights, but I'm not sure if the notion is that those who are pro-life are just a subset of those who are religious.

I'm not religious, and lean towards being pro-life - or used to be, anyways & the reason I say this is because as a libertarian, I believe that people have the right to consume whatever they want. If a woman decides that she want to take a so-called "abortion pill", or drink some sort of herbal concoction that induces miscarriages, that shouldn't be a crime.

I used to take a radical pro-life position of being opposed to any intentional harm to an unborn child, whether it's through an abortion procedure at a facility involving an abortionist, or the so-called "abortion pill." I have to admit this is a stance I took from when I used to be religious, so perhaps there is some sort of association in a practical sense.

However, I don't think my change in position has anything to do with my move away from being religious; I changed my position because of a self-evaluation as a libertarian regarding my adherence to libertarian principles.

I don't take the position that life begins at conception; life began millions of years ago and has been an ongoing, continuous process. What does happen at conception is simply a new generation of life.

An abortion involves 2 things, not just one - termination of a pregnancy and termination of the life of the unborn child. If the goal of an abortion were to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and not to slaughter the unborn child (by removing it without harming it and placing it in an incubator, or perhaps transplanting it in a surrogate mother in a late part of fetal stage (not that the technology exists, yet - I'm just being hypothetical, here), then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It would a win-win situation, except for those who have some sort of bloodlust obsession with slaughtering unborn children & I don't care if they don't get their way.

When a pregnant woman takes the so-called "abortion pill," I don't see the difference between ending a pregnancy this way, and any other miscarriage. To me that's just another miscarriage. One might want to argue that the difference is that they know what the effect will be, so it's intentional. So what if it's intentional? How can it be determined when any miscarriage is the result of an intentional act or not? Who decides that?

To me, the libertarian principle that a person has the right to consume whatever they want makes it irrelevant whether or not there's any intent involved.

Another difference between consuming something that can or does induce a miscarriage and going to a facility to get an abortion is that there's a separate actor involved in an abortion procedure. In the case of a miscarriage, that's actually the mother's body that jettisons the fetus, regardless of whether or not the mother wishes to have a miscarriage. On the other hand, the abortionist is using tools and equipment to actively destroy and remove the fetus.

Anyhow, the reason I went through this is because if being pro-life only has to do with being religious, then it begs the question regarding why we have laws against murder and manslaughter (of adults, or anyone after they're born); do these laws exist only because religious folks are opposed to murder & manslaughter, and they created them?

If someone were to say "yes, and that's also a reason for repealing such laws along with laws banning abortion," then at least they'd be consistent; I think people would quickly realize, though, that there's a big problem with doing that.

Bottom line: is being against killing innocent human beings only a religious stance? To me, the answer is no.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Because it's certain religious groups who scream about it most, call it an affront to the will of their deity, and have a looooooong history of religious based sexism and blatant disregard for civil rights.

 

[anotherneil]

Because it's certain religious groups who scream about it most, call it an affront to the will of their deity, and have a looooooong history of religious based sexism and blatant disregard for civil rights.

Screaming about something the most doesn't correspond to dominant representation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are some atheist members here that are pro-life. Perhaps some of them will respond here. If I can remember the username of one I could tag him for you.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Screaming about something the most doesn't correspond to dominant representation.

Lemme remind you, that you asked a question pertaining to why pro life is associated so heavily with religion, you got an answer. You did not ask why people who held more moderate political beliefs, and why atheists are pro-life.

And you already knew that the vast majority of pro-lifers don't adhere to logic. They vehemently reject sound medical diagnosis from doctors. They have shown little to no compassion for victims of rape and incest, citing that it was the will of their God. They tried to imprison women who suffered miscarriages and let woman bleed out in the parking lots of hospitals.

They wage war on affordable contraception, comprehensive sex education, rape pregnancy prevention and health and safetynet services designed to help impoverished families, because their religion says sex is a filthy sin, and those women must be shamed for enjoying sex.

That's the harsh reality and they've never bothered to conceal their religious bias, or their contempt of women, or their complete and utter lack of compassion. Zealots never give two craps about anything but controlling people.

 

[sun rise]

The problem with the term "pro-life" is that it's become a synonym for anti-abortion and linked to theology.

 

[viole]

Bottom line: is being against killing innocent human beings only a religious stance? To me, the answer is no.

Of course not. Actually, if Christians were logically consistent in their belief, they should welcome the premature termination of innocents.

But in general it is easy to prove that what you call "human beings" is a bit loaded. We all know that a two hours old blastocyst does not have the same moral charge as a two years old girl. Anyone would rather protect the little girl, than a human blastocyst on a Petri dish, then confronted with a choice.

The same with old people. If a 90 years old person, and a one year old girl, both get a disease that can be cured by a medicine that costs one million dollars, and you have to choose, what would you do? Throw the dice, and let fate to decide who bites the dust? Of course not, because you know that the one year old girl has priority.

And, therefore, the term "pro-life" is a bit too general. It does not have the appropriate resolution. And should be graded according to the age of the phenotype under consideration.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tamino]

It seems like there's this perception or stereotype that being pro-life is a religious thing & I'm interested in trying to find out why this is.

I guess you'll need to trace back the history of the pro-life movement then.

I don't take the position that life begins at conception; life began millions of years ago and has been an ongoing, continuous process. What does happen at conception is simply a new generation of life.

True. And death is always the other side of life. To be sure: the entire way that our ecosystems and evolution works... they are pretty much built on the premises that only a certain percentage of embryos and newborns survive to adulthood.
How far can and should humans distance themselves from nature?

I mean, where would you draw the line of what is the new generation? Men have huge numbers of sperm that all carry the potentials of forming a new human being, even women have many thousands of eggs, all with their own unique combination of chromosomes and mutations. Only a tiny minority of all that genetic potential will ever actually develop into a new human being.

An abortion involves 2 things, not just one - termination of a pregnancy and termination of the life of the unborn child.

Is it? At what point is a fetus a being that exists independently of it's mother?

If the goal of an abortion were to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and not to slaughter the unborn child (by removing it without harming it and placing it in an incubator, or perhaps transplanting it in a surrogate mother in a late part of fetal stage (not that the technology exists, yet - I'm just being hypothetical, here),

So let's be hypothetical. If a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy, and there were technology available to extract the fetus and grow it in some kind of incubator. Who would have the right to decide if that artificial gestation should be done or not? The woman, because the fetus is still a part of her body? Or society, because they would accept the fetus a a citizen with independent rights?

Another difference between consuming something that can or does induce a miscarriage and going to a facility to get an abortion is that there's a separate actor involved in an abortion procedure. In the case of a miscarriage, that's actually the mother's body that jettisons the fetus, regardless of whether or not the mother wishes to have a miscarriage. On the other hand, the abortionist is using tools and equipment to actively destroy and remove the fetus.

I don't see an ethical difference. A woman should be offered the procedure which is safest, from a medical point of view. She has the right to receive medical assistance.

Anyhow, the reason I went through this is because if being pro-life only has to do with being religious, then it begs the question regarding why we have laws against murder and manslaughter (of adults, or anyone after they're born); do these laws exist only because religious folks are opposed to murder & manslaughter, and they created them?

No. Rules about the killing of people and under which circumstances it is or is not acceptable are a very basic element of every human society. They often have, but do not require, a religious reasoning.

Bottom line: is being against killing innocent human beings only a religious stance? To me, the answer is no.

No, I don't think that's a religious stance.
But in the case of abortion, the question is not whether killing innocent humans is ok or not. The question is: what's a human being?

There have been cultures that accepted a baby as a member of their society only after it was either officially accepted or named... if it died or was killed before that, it would not have been regarded as murder.
The other extreme would be cultures that regard a fertilized egg as equivalent to a fully formed human.

I personally think that we must acknowledge that a human being develops bit by bit and there is not a single clear moment that says "now it is a baby".
Abortion is always an individual decision in an individual case. And the final decision must be given to the fully formed human being whose body is intimately involved in the process. I am pro-choice all the way.

 

[anotherneil]

Lemme remind you, that you asked a question pertaining to why pro life is associated so heavily with religion, you got an answer.

Thank you for the reminder, but since you wish to dwell on this, I'll also mention that this perception of them screaming the most about it could actually just be the result of a popular & standard media narrative, which I brought up in the 2nd sentence of the OP; in other words, it could just be spin - something that the media has essentially fabricated by blowing things way out of proportion to make it appear that only religious zealots are pro-life, when in reality that might not be the truth.

You did not ask why people who held more moderate political beliefs,

I don't understand what you're saying, here; you seem to have left out part of what you were trying to say. Please go ahead & fix or revise this; I would like to know what you were trying to say.

and why atheists are pro-life.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude - I don't think you mean all atheists are pro-life, do you?

My experience is that atheists tend not to be pro-life - or, in other words, for abortion rights.

If you were asking where an atheist would be pro-life, I think the answer to that would be basically the same reason that I lean towards being pro-life. For that reason, I don't see the need to ask such a question.

And you already knew that the vast majority of pro-lifers don't adhere to logic.

I don't think I already knew this, and I still don't know this.

BTW this thread isn't about me; I don't matter.

They vehemently reject sound medical diagnosis from doctors.

I don't know about this; where do you get this idea from?

Also - I don't see this as relevent to the thread topic, at this point.

They have shown little to no compassion for victims of rape and incest, citing that it was the will of their God.

Although I don't see this as relevent to the thread topic, at this point, I do happen to hold some common ground with you about this sort of issue & it's one reason I'm not religious.

They tried to imprison women who suffered miscarriages and let woman bleed out in the parking lots of hospitals.

It's this sort of thing that I find concerning & disturbing, and has prompted me to create this thread.

I happen to work for a healthcare organization that runs hospitals & although I'm in a non-clinical role, I do interact with staff, providers, patients, etc. in those hospitals, and that's not my idea of healthcare.

They wage war on affordable contraception, comprehensive sex education, rape pregnancy prevention and health and safety services designed to help impoverished families, because their religion says sex is a filthy sin, and those women must be shamed for enjoying sex.

That's the harsh reality and they've never bothered to conceal their religious bias, or their contempt of women, or their complete and utter lack of compassion. Zealots never give two craps about anything but controlling people.

That being the case, as someone who isn't religious and leans towards being pro-life, I have a problem with the way the media spins and generalizes those who are pro-life as all just being a bunch of religious zealot extremists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bottom line: is being against killing innocent human beings only a religious stance? To me, the answer is no.

I'm still not sure what your position would have been based on. I've never come across a rational secular argument for an abortion ban.

Every valid (note: not sound, but valid) anti-choice argument I've ever seen has relied on some sort of religious premise... e.g. something about what God has commanded or prohibited.

Secular anti-abortion arguments tend to be personal, not anything that would apply to others: personal distaste at the idea of abortion, for instance... or personal values about one's own fetus... or simply wanting to have a child. Not anything that would justify stopping someone else from getting an abortion that they wanted.

Now... there are certainly irrational non-religious people, so I see non-religious anti-choice arguments occasionally. Still, I find that - in general - people who put a lot of thought into the issue of abortion end up pro-choice unless they're constantly hearing anti-choice messaging, which usually comes from their religion.

 

[anotherneil]

I guess you'll need to trace back the history of the pro-life movement then.

Well, I don't have the motivation to do something like this, nor do I see the need. Perhaps if I perceived it to be a social anomaly or something to that effect, I'd be curious, but I don't see it as a social anomaly at all.

True. And death is always the other side of life.

Interesting that you bring this up, because one of the things I'm curious about is what do people who think is going on between conception and birth; do they think that a fetus is a growing dead thing?

Once something has died (and I don't mean just medically declared dead - I mean a biological organism reaching a point where it has fully ceased to function and is decomposing), it doesn't come back to life.

It seems like folks who don't think that a fetus is a living human being have some sort of idea that things are going back and forth between being dead and alive, but that's not what's happening at all.

Ironically, this issue might apply to the idea of taking the bible literally, particularly in terms of breath of life from God upon birth - if that's the way it's interpreted. This appears to be a conflict or inconsistency with being pro-life and religious.

To be sure: the entire way that our ecosystems and evolution works... they are pretty much built on the premises that only a certain percentage of embryos and newborns survive to adulthood.
How far can and should humans distance themselves from nature?

None at all; we're part of nature & that happens to be consistent with another thread I just posted, which covers what I consider to be an example of humans trying to somehow distance themselves from nature:

question for those who reject biological evolution

One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses. Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic...

www.religiousforums.com

I mean, where would you draw the line of what is the new generation?

It's right there in the segment you're responding to - I stated that the line is at conception. It makes no sense at all to me to draw the line anywhere else in the generational cycle of life. Prior to conception, there's only genetic material from the mother and father in separate packages (egg & sperm). After conception has been achieved, there's a new generation with its own genetic identity distinct from mother and father. This is a threshold and contrast that's as easy to distinguish as one stairwell step from the next step.

Men have huge numbers of sperm that all carry the potentials of forming a new human being, even women have many thousands of eggs, all with their own unique combination of chromosomes and mutations. Only a tiny minority of all that genetic potential will ever actually develop into a new human being.

Not sure if you meant to make a point, but thank you for the biology lesson.

Is it?

Yes.

At what point is a fetus a being that exists independently of it's mother?

A fetus - by definition - is not & never independent of the mother, since it's a human or other mammal in the prenatal development stage. What's the point or relevance? It's a semantic label like magma and lava; one's underground and the other's above the surface of the ground, but they're both the same molten rock matter.

Does whatever argument or point you wish to make or pursue here extend to a child - after it's born - continuing to not be independent from its mother as an infant (such as needing to be breastfed), along with needing to be cared for in other ways & the longer term dependency by a child on its parents until adulthood?

So let's be hypothetical. If a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy, and there were technology available to extract the fetus and grow it in some kind of incubator. Who would have the right to decide if that artificial gestation should be done or not? The woman, because the fetus is still a part of her body? Or society, because they would accept the fetus a a citizen with independent rights?

These are certainly very good questions, and I myself have pondered similar things about this.

One of the things I've pondered about is whether it ought to be considered permissible (legal) for an abortionist to remove a fetus from a womb - without harming it or causing injury by cutting it up or dismembering it, and then just plopping it into some specimen collection tray or pan to perhaps be left there to die. This isn't the sort of thing I enjoy envisioning, but it's something we can't just ignore either; one way or another a legal or policy decision has to be made about this issue.

Within part of this thought process, I thought to myself that perhaps the hard-core pro-life advocates can take over responsibility for the care of the removed fetus - instead of being plopped in some specimen collection tray or pan, it can simply be turned over to them just like a church receiving abandoned babies and caring for them in orphanages; such babies at the time probably would've succumbed to abandonment to the elements had it not been for such churches/orphanages.

Some of what you bring up may be a trivial matter of coming up with a not-so-controversial agreement in society on what the policy ought to be and sticking to it, such as where we already do with more conventional parental rights.

Since there are plenty of individuals out there who wish to adopt children, perhaps they could provide the financial support; in this case they could be the ones with the rights.

It could fall back to the existing concept of general welfare by the state or the same premise for state involvement in caring for orphaned children; the basic template & infrastructure is already there.

Personally I am an advocate for a dividend-based UBI - one in which the payout amounts are a function of how well the economy performs; I know this is semi-off topic, but the point is that I'm not personally opposed to some degree of involvement in social programs or welfare from conception through adulthood & beyond.

I don't see an ethical difference. A woman should be offered the procedure which is safest, from a medical point of view. She has the right to receive medical assistance.

Well then let me ask you this, so I can understand your perspective: do you see an ethical difference between someone who dies from - say - an accidental drowning, poisoning, or falling incident, and someone who gets killed by a drunk driver or someone breaking into their home and stabbing them to death?

No. Rules about the killing of people and under which circumstances it is or is not acceptable are a very basic element of every human society. They often have, but do not require, a religious reasoning.

What is the underlying criteria for determining which circumstances are acceptable? What is the non-religious reasoning?

No, I don't think that's a religious stance.
But in the case of abortion, the question is not whether killing innocent humans is ok or not. The question is: what's a human being?

There have been cultures that accepted a baby as a member of their society only after it was either officially accepted or named... if it died or was killed before that, it would not have been regarded as murder.
The other extreme would be cultures that regard a fertilized egg as equivalent to a fully formed human.

I personally think that we must acknowledge that a human being develops bit by bit and there is not a single clear moment that says "now it is a baby".
Abortion is always an individual decision in an individual case. And the final decision must be given to the fully formed human being whose body is intimately involved in the process.

At what stage of the generational cycle are human organisms not human, and who decides? A human fetus is still human; fetus is not a reference to species, it's a reference to stage of development. A dog fetus is still a dog as a species. A cat fetus is still a cat as a species. A human child is still human as a species; an elderly human is still human as a species.

I am pro-choice all the way.

Well, what do you mean by that?

I too am pro-choice; I'm for people having the right to choose whether or not to procreate or have sex, and I'm opposed to the state imposing any ban or mandates pertaining to that, one-child policies, forced abortions, etc. That doesn't mean I'm for slaughtering children.

 

[Audie]

It seems like there's this perception or stereotype that being pro-life is a religious thing & I'm interested in trying to find out why this is.

I don't have specific examples, but it seems to be like a popular & standard media narrative.

There are plenty of religious folks who are for abortion rights, but I'm not sure if the notion is that those who are pro-life are just a subset of those who are religious.

I'm not religious, and lean towards being pro-life - or used to be, anyways & the reason I say this is because as a libertarian, I believe that people have the right to consume whatever they want. If a woman decides that she want to take a so-called "abortion pill", or drink some sort of herbal concoction that induces miscarriages, that shouldn't be a crime.

I used to take a radical pro-life position of being opposed to any intentional harm to an unborn child, whether it's through an abortion procedure at a facility involving an abortionist, or the so-called "abortion pill." I have to admit this is a stance I took from when I used to be religious, so perhaps there is some sort of association in a practical sense.

However, I don't think my change in position has anything to do with my move away from being religious; I changed my position because of a self-evaluation as a libertarian regarding my adherence to libertarian principles.

I don't take the position that life begins at conception; life began millions of years ago and has been an ongoing, continuous process. What does happen at conception is simply a new generation of life.

An abortion involves 2 things, not just one - termination of a pregnancy and termination of the life of the unborn child. If the goal of an abortion were to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and not to slaughter the unborn child (by removing it without harming it and placing it in an incubator, or perhaps transplanting it in a surrogate mother in a late part of fetal stage (not that the technology exists, yet - I'm just being hypothetical, here), then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It would a win-win situation, except for those who have some sort of bloodlust obsession with slaughtering unborn children & I don't care if they don't get their way.

When a pregnant woman takes the so-called "abortion pill," I don't see the difference between ending a pregnancy this way, and any other miscarriage. To me that's just another miscarriage. One might want to argue that the difference is that they know what the effect will be, so it's intentional. So what if it's intentional? How can it be determined when any miscarriage is the result of an intentional act or not? Who decides that?

To me, the libertarian principle that a person has the right to consume whatever they want makes it irrelevant whether or not there's any intent involved.

Another difference between consuming something that can or does induce a miscarriage and going to a facility to get an abortion is that there's a separate actor involved in an abortion procedure. In the case of a miscarriage, that's actually the mother's body that jettisons the fetus, regardless of whether or not the mother wishes to have a miscarriage. On the other hand, the abortionist is using tools and equipment to actively destroy and remove the fetus.

Anyhow, the reason I went through this is because if being pro-life only has to do with being religious, then it begs the question regarding why we have laws against murder and manslaughter (of adults, or anyone after they're born); do these laws exist only because religious folks are opposed to murder & manslaughter, and they created them?

If someone were to say "yes, and that's also a reason for repealing such laws along with laws banning abortion," then at least they'd be consistent; I think people would quickly realize, though, that there's a big problem with doing that.

Bottom line: is being against killing innocent human beings only a religious stance? To me, the answer is no.

Most people are religious.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Probably because most pro-lifers are religious and most atheists are pro-choice. But that doesn't mean that the reverse doesn't happen. You don't need to use religious arguments to defend the right to life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you for the reminder, but since you wish to dwell on this,...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most people are religious.

And many of those who are not tend to be religiously areligious.

 

[anotherneil]

I'm still not sure what your position would have been based on.

I don't know what you mean by my position. I'm making reference to the position that there exist non-religious individuals out there who oppose the killing of innocent human beings.

For example, imagine a murder trial involving someone who murdered an innocent neighbor, and half the jury consists of religious individuals, and the other half are non-religious individuals; it's just as possible for those non-religious jurors to consider such an act as unacceptable as the religious individuals. It's not as if the non-religious jurors are going to say that they don't believe in the concept or existence of murder because they're not religious and murder is only a religious concept, belief, or notion.

I've never come across a rational secular

I assume that by "secular" you mean non-religious?

argument for an abortion ban.

What's the "rational secular" argument for a murder ban (of an adult or child after it's born), or a ban on armed robbery - or rape - or arson - or fraud, or anything at all? One can simply apply whatever that is for a ban on slaughtering unborn children.

Every valid (note: not sound, but valid) anti-choice argument I've ever seen has relied on some sort of religious premise... e.g. something about what God has commanded or prohibited.

I'm not sure what you mean or are referring to with "anti-choice", but ok. Personally as someone who isn't religious, the notion of "religious premises" is meaningless to me; it's very easy to make valid arguments based on meaningless premises.

Secular anti-abortion arguments tend to be personal, not anything that would apply to others: personal distaste at the idea of abortion, for instance... or personal values about one's own fetus... or simply wanting to have a child. Not anything that would justify stopping someone else from getting an abortion that they wanted.

Now... there are certainly irrational non-religious people, so I see non-religious anti-choice arguments occasionally. Still, I find that - in general - people who put a lot of thought into the issue of abortion end up pro-choice unless they're constantly hearing anti-choice messaging, which usually comes from their religion.

Ok.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting that you bring this up, because one of the things I'm curious about is what do people who think is going on between conception and birth; do they think that a fetus is a growing dead thing?

Once something has died (and I don't mean just medically declared dead - I mean a biological organism reaching a point where it has fully ceased to function and is decomposing), it doesn't come back to life.

It seems like folks who don't think that a fetus is a living human being have some sort of idea that things are going back and forth between being dead and alive, but that's not what's happening at all.

Ironically, this issue might apply to the idea of taking the bible literally, particularly in terms of breath of life from God upon birth - if that's the way it's interpreted. This appears to be a conflict or inconsistency with being pro-life and religious.

An embryo is alive, as were the unfertilized egg and sperm separately, which even rabid anti-choicers generally assign no rights to at all.

... but what you're saying here gives the impression that you aren't familiar with the bodily autonomy argument. Is this a correct assumption?

 

[anotherneil]

An embryo is alive, as were the unfertilized egg and sperm separately, which even rabid anti-choicers generally assign no rights to at all.

... but what you're saying here gives the impression that you aren't familiar with the bodily autonomy argument. Is this a correct assumption?

Maybe not by that name/description, but do I need to be familiar with it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what you mean by my position.

You said that you used to be "radically pro-life" and opposed all forms of abortion. That position.

I'm making reference to the position that there exist non-religious individuals out there who oppose the killing of innocent human beings.

Sure, but what does this have to do with abortion?

I assume that by "secular" you mean non-religious?

I mean not based on or reliant on religion.

A secular position is one available to religious or non-religious people.

What's the "rational secular" argument for a murder ban (of an adult or child after it's born), or a ban on armed robbery - or rape - or arson - or fraud, or anything at all? One can simply apply whatever that is for a ban on slaughtering unborn children.

I'm not following you.

I'm not sure what you mean or are referring to with "anti-choice", but ok.

"Anti-choice" means "in favour of abortion being banned legally."

"Pro-life" and "anti-abortion" are the euphemisms that are often used, but both terms generally paint a false picture, so I don't use either one to describe people who are fighting for abortion bans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe not by that name/description, but do I need to be familiar with it?

Yes, I think everyone should be familiar with it.

Bodily autonomy is the idea that your consent is required for any infringement of your bodily integrity. It includes positions like:

- you have the right to refuse to have sex
- surgery on your body requires your consent
- organ and tissue donation requires your consent
- generally, any use of your body by another requires your consent

It's relevant to the abortion discussion because it implies a right to not be pregnant.

Edit: I'm a 40-something adult, clearly conscious and clearly able to express my desire to live. Despite this, my mother is not obligated to provide her kidney, bone marrow, blood, or even a hair off her head to help me, even if I would surely die without it. To argue that an embryo or fetus should be entitled to these things from the person it resides in would need an argument for why an embryo or fetus is entitled to rights far beyond what we grant to an actual person.