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

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Slight clarification question...
Do you see 'abortion with some level of restriction' in the same light as anti-abortion arguments, in terms of religious foundations?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Slight clarification question...
Do you see 'abortion with some level of restriction' in the same light as anti-abortion arguments, in terms of religious foundations?

No - I think they're generally based on gut feelings and discomfort.

 

[Audie]

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.

I see it as that a sex act is signing a contract.

 

[soulsurvivor]

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.

Maybe I am wrong, because I don't know that many pro-life people. However, I believe that most pro-life people adopt that position because they believe that 'God' would want them to do so, not because they believe in the 'sanctity of life'. In fact, most 'pro-life' people are pro-capital punishment. I think pro-life people believe that being pro-life is their ticket to heaven, they believe that when they are at the pearly gates all they have to do is to say they are 'pro-life' and they will be let in.

 

[Quintessence]

Depends on what one means by "religious."

In the broadest sense, "religious" simply means holding to a particular practice or creed with a strong level of devotion. Arguably, anyone with a very strong opinion about this issue holds a "religious" (deeply held) conviction regarding it.

In the narrower sense, what "religious" looks like varies dramatically depending on what religion we're talking about. At the end of the day, it's all a construct established by (sub)cultural and linguistic convention so the pie can be sliced however you want to slice it. That is, the answer is simultaneously yes, no, neither, and both. In no small part because of that, it becomes important to specify what one means by religion and which religions, specifically. Folks are often so gods awful at actually naming names and instead take a shotgun approach to using the term that catches those not aligned with what they're talking about in the spray.

 

[F1fan]

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

What a shame all souls born are already sinners. No wonder God has no problem with chilfren being born with defects and genes for cancers, and refuses to intervene to cure them.

 

[The Hammer]

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

No, but the squeaky wheel.tends to get the grease.

 

[Eli G]

You don't need the acceptance of a mother or father to give a little child the right to live, just because he can't defend himself. A fetus is like a small child, and its life is a right that it has had since its tiny body had the opportunity to exist.

No one has the right to take the life of another. It is even discussed whether the overpopulation of the planet should be counteracted by the elimination of certain human populations... It is horrible what humans can think when they do not have the fear of God and think that they can decide matters like these for themselves.

When God condemned the inhabitants of Canaan to extinction for their horrible practices, He waited the necessary time until their guilt became sufficient to annihilate them. He told the Israelites that they had to wait to occupy the land, because they were not yet guilty enough to deserve the divine death sentence. So not even God himself, with all the right He has as the Creator of humanity, makes this type of decision lightly.

According to Moses law when a life is taken, the person who took it acquires "bloodguilt"... This happens even when one person dies through the carelessness of another.

 

[F1fan]

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

Most atheists are humanists. They don't believe in any gods after careful consideration of religious claims. And part of this consideration is about human rights and dignity. This includes that society should value living people, and should extend rights that includes healthcare access even if the citizen is poor. That is pro-life. Yet we see many conservatives who are anti-abortion claim to be pro-life but refuse to consider healthcare to be a human right. They tend to see it as a service that must be paid for.

Frankly many conservatives who claim to be pro-life are quite hostile to health and well being. Their hostility towards reguklations that keep citizens safe is not pro-life, it's pro-busness. It's a serious flaw in their whole perspective, and suggests they are more political than religious, but use religion as window dressing when they claim moral superiority. Such hypocricy and irony.

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

This is correct when "pro-life" is a narrow definition that means anti-abortion only. Let's be clear that atheists don't like abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that is morally dubious. The arguments for abortion access are largely about the rights of women to make decisions for themselves, their body, their lives, their health.

Let's note that when a person is born they are issued a birth certificate and it's historically that this is when their rights begin, at birth. This is why some states have tried to pass personhood laws that recognize fetuses as persons with rights. This way the law can be applied to any medical intervention that terminates a zygote or fetus.

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.

As an atheist myself I find abortion a difficult issue. The earlier the abortion the easier to accept. This reflects the Roe v Wade decision as it broke up the access to abortion by trimester. The later the trimester the less access was granted if law dictated. In the end abortion is a decision for women, and their partners.

 

[ppp]

In my experience pro-lifers tend not to be pro life or even pro birth. They are merely pro forced gestation.

 

[Eli G]

An atheist does not act out of fear of God or obedience to altruistic divine principles, and although he may be interested in some aspects of the common well-being, his main focus is his own and that of his family when he has one.

An atheist, especially in modern times when many altruistic principles have disappeared, is not inclined to respect any principle when his own personal interests are at stake.

Atheists believe that humans are animals and that they are governed by the same jungle principle that the strongest are those who survive, so an atheist wouldn't mind being empathetic when it comes to his personal benefit.

However, there are some exceptions

 

[ppp]

An atheist does not act out of fear of God or obedience to altruistic divine principles, and although he may be interested in some aspects of the common well-being, his main focus is his own and that of his family when he has one.

An atheist, especially in modern times when many altruistic principles have disappeared, is not inclined to respect any principle when his own personal interests are at stake.

Atheists believe that humans are animals and that they are governed by the same jungle principle that the strongest are those who survive, so an atheist wouldn't mind being empathetic when it comes to his personal benefit.

However, there are some exceptions

That is certainly your self serving opinion.

 

[Heyo]

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.

You called?
I am pro life, probably more so than many of the religious people who call themselves pro-life. I'm against capital punishment, and I'm against starting wars with other nations. I'm against "shoot first, ask questions later" policing.
All that comes from secular and rational values of the Enlightenment, most basically the Golden Rule (as formulated by Kant).
No need for a god, who values life, just my personal preference to be alive and stay alive (at least for now).
And that value, to do what I like as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's will, is also why I think that abortions after ~24 weeks of pregnancy should be only performed in cases of danger to the life of the pregnant person or deformations of the fetus that are incompatible with a worthwhile life. At that stage of pregnancy, the fetus has the ability to suffer (as far as we know) and the woman had time enough to make up her mind.

 

[Eli G]

That is certainly your self serving opinion.

I am realistic and I speak from what I see.

The participation of atheists in forums like this has helped me a lot to know what they have inside and how they think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's note that when a person is born they are issued a birth certificate and it's historically that this is when their rights begin, at birth. This is why some states have tried to pass personhood laws that recognize fetuses as persons with rights. This way the law can be applied to any medical intervention that terminates a zygote or fetus.

Only certain rights, though. A fetus still doesn't have the inheritance rights that a day-old newborn would have, and can't be named as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. A fetus certainly doesn't get citizenship rights.

The anti-choicers seem to only be interested in granting rights that can be weaponized against pregnant people, not ones that could actually result in anyone's benefit.

 

[Heyo]

I am realistic and I speak from what I see.

The participation of atheists in forums like this has helped me a lot to know what they have inside and how they think.

Could it be that you have a very biased perception, or is it simply your very narrow sample size?
Most atheists (and other non-believers) here have less of a "might makes right" world view than some of the believers.

We could start a poll to settle that question. Deal?

 

[Eli G]

Well, I have read many atheists saying that human beings are animals. That's not very flattering. What humanism can be expected from people who think that?

 

[F1fan]

I am realistic and I speak from what I see.

The participation of atheists in forums like this has helped me a lot to know what they have inside and how they think.

Yup, you have learned that atheists have excellent reasoning skill, and solid moral and ethical foundations.

Well, I have read many atheists saying that human beings are animals.

Correct, humans are part of the broad collection of evolved animals. We are a species of animal.

That's not very flattering.

Are your feelings hurt by nature? Why not just accept nature as what your idea of God created?

What humanism can be expected from people who think that?

The ethics that values human life, and the well-being of the planet. Humanists are dedicated to safety, health, happiness, and fulfillment.

 

[Heyo]

Well, I have read many atheists saying that human beings are animals.

That's not a thing special to atheists, all people knowledgable of cladistics say that. I wager there are more believers who accept that humans are animals than there are atheists.

That's not very flattering.

That's simply a fact.

What humanism can be expected from people who think that?

Probably more than from people who oppose it. An indication that someone has been educated in biology raises the chance that they have been in educated in philosophy also.

 

[Eli G]

I am not an atheist. I think different. Is that a problem for you?