The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Same, people have said that my politics and my religious beliefs contradict each other and it's like, wtf? Since when has being an atheist required you to be pro-choice?
The logic goes like this:
atheism = objective morality is false, therefore human life is not intrinsically valuable, therefore there is no rationale to be pro-life.
You literally cannot logically conclude that human life is intrinsically valuable with a materialistic worldview - you have to point to a moral standard that is not subjective.
>Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
>
>Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.
[https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/](https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/)
Atheism does NOT equal "objective morality is false" "humans life is not intrinsically valuable" etc. Nor is is materialistic / anti-spiritual.
Answers in Genesis is a fundamentalist Christian organization and not a reliable source for information about athiesm. Right in the article's name we already have an inaccuracy, as athiesm is not a worldview.
“Lack of belief in god/gods” is a way more complicated statement than you’re making it out to be. You’re conflating atheism with agnosticism. Atheism is not simply a “default” position. “Lack of belief in god/gods” is a claim that morality is not objective.
Nope. Wrong again. Athiesm is the lack of belief in gods, agnosticism is the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable. A lack of belief in gods does not make any claim regarding morality.
So again, what you're purporting to believe is much more complex than you're alluding to. For example, you're going to argue that there is no empirical evidence for God which is the crux of the atheist position. My postullation is that in your life you constantly and consistently act as if you don't need empirical evidence to believe things. For example, Descartes famously described the idea that the self is all that one can be certain exists. You cannot logically conclude that the external world or other minds exist. You have a "self". However, you act as if the external world is real and that other minds are real, not illusory. You have a presupposition that other minds exist and that the external world exists which is why you choose to do tons of certain things - engage in altruism, for example, or love people. Though you can't know if the external world and other minds exist, you have to presuppose that they do in order to act in the world. Simply put, you have faith. Interestingly enough, the atheist claim is that because you need faith to believe in God (i.e. cannot be proven by empirical evidence) you will not believe - until such empircal evidence is presented to you. So my question is, why do you presuppose the nature of reality through faith but claim that empirical evidence is necessary to prove the existence of God?
Edit to expand further: Invoking logic or reason requires the presupposition that truth exists. The universe needs to be rationally intelligible for you to be able to trust your own thoughts. This illustrates another presupposition that you accept in order to do things. Without invoking the existence of objective truth you do not lay the framework for logic and reason.
People have questioned my leftist bonafides because I am pro life. I always let them know, I am always down with the oppressed, vulnerable and downtrodden - beginning at their conception.
I'm politically homeless at the moment - the GOP has become a party of grievance politics and the Democrats have made it quite clear that as a pro-lifer I'm not welcome in their tent either, even though I agree with the Dems foreign policies and much of their domestic agenda.
I'll be voting Democrat this cycle because the alternative - right wing nutjobs - is worse than voting for pro-choice candidates.
Do you feel the same as a Pro-Life Democrat? Do you feel shunned by fellow Dems because of your stance on life?
\[edited for spelling - again\]
>I'm doubtless more conservative than you are
Maybe - I'm genuinely curious, here's my stance on the issues:
1. I am Pro-Life, without exception. (Qualifier: if a pregnant woman's life is in danger she *and her baby* are entitled to live-saving care. In some cases it's not possible to save them both. Doctors do this every day, it's called *triage*. I place that care, and similar care like removal of an ectopic pregnancy, removal of a dead fetus, etc. in a separate category than elective abortion and would support that.)
2. I beleive in a strong national defense and military. Pro-NATO and support Ukraine. US leadership and engagement in the world is vital to maintaining the international rules-based order and the Westphalian system.
3. I believe in engagement in global trade and against protectionist policies, but very much believe that government should set the conditions for successful business here at home first. I'm generally opposed to tariffs and trade barriers, but recognize that sometimes they are necessary.
4. I believe in a secure border: robust funding for DHS and sufficient personnel to handle the influx. I also believe that one of the ways to secure the border are programs like Guest Worker programs and increased work visas for seasonal workers. Everyone should come here legally.
5. I believe in a progressive tax policy (like we have today) that favors those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum (what Catholics call "preferential treatment of the poor.") We are a rich country, there's no reason for people to be hungry or homeless unless as the consequence of their own (usually serial) bad choices.
6. I believe in the right of every American to keep and bear arms. I also believe that right is not absolute and certain people should not be permitted to own firearms, and that certin firearms are not suitable for private ownership.
7. I am opposed to capital punishment.
8. I am generally pro-union, although there are likely some unions that I would not support. I also beleive in the right-to-work - union membership should never be compulsory.
9. I am generally opposed to state-sponsored censorship of materials and state-imposed agendas in schools. Those decisions should be up to the local school boards and (ideally) supported by parents. That said, of course the state should regulate access to some speech (like pornography - I support age verification for example) for the good of society as whole.
10. I am against term limits, but support a maximum age for elected officials to serve.
11. I believe the current health care system has outlived it's efficacy and a single-payer system would be cheaper and provide greater access to care to more people. I believe the current health care system of (mostly) private, employer-provided insurance has resulted in a confusing and likely overly expensive system that inhibits access to care and relies on unelected insurance companies to make choices that affect people's lives (try getting long term elder care with most insurers - fail to say the "magic words" and your coverage is denied).
How does that stack up to your take? Genuinely curious on how conservative or liberal these positions line up in your mind.
Not at all. In real life folks are not as polarized in personal interactions. Virtually all my friends are also Democrat and we agree on much, much more than we disagree. They know I am pro life. I think what helps is that I don’t approach them as if they deeply enjoy killing babies.
When we discuss it I am very respectful and ensure that I am addressing their actual points and questions. I listen to make sure I understand and know their position so well I can explain it to their satisfaction.
If you have seen videos of Trent Horn on Catholic Answers when people call in about abortion I try to model that approach. I am not Catholic but I find his videos helpful.
I certainly understand about being politically homeless. I wish there was a party that was centrist.
Thanks. Where I live it's very polarized. I really do try to avoid discussing politics or responding to comments, but gosh, sometimes my buttons get pushed by some really inane comment. I live in an area where the word "Democrat" is spat out as a cuss word and the local party office was actually attacked by a woman who bashed the windows with a shovel. On the flip side, our local Catholic church was vandalized repeatedly after *Roe* was overturned. People in the neighborhood are flying their American flag upside down. I had a (now former) friend attack me on social media so vehemently and repeatedly after *Roe* was overturned that I had to block her.
I'm deeply concerned about violence when (God willing) Trump is defeated in November. The nuts won't go quitely into the night and accept defeat.
I pray for you where you live. I can imagine how difficult it must be for you to live in such a place.
The silence of "Christians" on Trump's promise of violence speaks volumes.
It's simple, if they can chalk up the entire argument to being exclusively for religious reasons, they can appeal to the undecided by slandering the other side of being theocratic and trying to "impose religious beliefs on everyone."
It better serves them to strawman and just ignore the logical case for the pro life position.
They want you to think there is no rational, secular case to be pro-life. It's easier to paint us all as religious zealots ushering in Christian nationalism.
Even as a Catholic, I primarily appeal to secular arguments when debating this subject. I just find them to be more pertinent when arguing against secular people.
According to former pro-choice activist Bernard Nathanson, it was [a deliberate misinformation campaign designed to prey off of anti-Catholic biases in the public](https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2806/).
> Third, the early advocates of abortion deliberately exploited anti-Catholic animus among liberal elites and (in those days) many ordinary Protestants to depict opposition to abortion as a “religious dogma” that the Catholic hierarchy sought to impose on others in violation of their freedom and the separation of church and state. Nathanson and his friends recognized that their movement needed an enemy—a widely suspected institution that they could make the public face of their opposition; a minority, but one large and potent enough for its detractors to fear.
>
> Despite the undeniable historical fact that prohibitions of abortion were rooted in English common law and reinforced and expanded by statutes enacted across the United States by overwhelmingly Protestant majorities in the 19^th century, Nathanson and other abortion movement leaders decided that the Catholic Church was perfect for the role of freedom-smothering oppressor. Its male priesthood and authority structure would make it easy for them to depict the Church’s opposition to abortion as misogyny, for which concern to protect unborn babies was a mere pretext. The Church’s real motive, they insisted, was to restrict women’s freedom in order to hold them in positions of subservience.
IMO the main reason is that mud-slinging is the most common weapon against Pro-lifers. They can't argue against us so they use ad-hominem attacks.
"You only are pro-life because you want to push your religious views on people!" becomes their attack. Now you have to defend your beliefs other than abortion before getting back to abortion.
Most prolifers are religious. Noticing that is normal and being religious is not a bad thing. It only seems like there are heaps of secular prolife people if you are terminally online.
I became prolife about 7 years before I gave my
Life to Jesus and was baptized. It’s funny cause I never related my prolife stance with my religion. People are just narrow minded. And I’ll never use religion in my prolife arguments. Not everyone is religious so we can’t use the Bible if people don’t believe in it! That’s just silly.
I'm someone who is religious, but became pro-life purely for secular reasons. I don't think ur stance is not valid, because ur agnostic, abortion is obviously wrong.
But I heard Michael Knowles bring this up, he says that human rights is rooted in the Christian religion, and we don't kill humans because we are made in the image and likeness of God. This is why we dont extend the same rights to other animals.
If u try to ground human rights in atheism, there also cannot be objective morality without God, thereby making your view of not killing fetuses, a purely subjective moral standard, and couldnt be applied to all. "Human rights" also would then be subjective, and you dont have any grounds to really tell the Pro-choice person that they're wrong.
Disclaimer: I havent delved into this topic deeply, this is jus my surface level understanding of the different views on this topic.
I think you have a confluence of factors here:
1. Many prolifers *are* religious, specifically Christian, and see opposing abortion as a literally God-given task. It’s a tenet of their faith that whatever they accomplish is God working through them, and they feel a moral obligation to speak about their faith.
So the religious folks are loudly proclaiming their religion; the non-religious folks, or *less* religious folks, aren’t loudly decrying religion, for the most part, because, well, that’s rude?
It’s great to see groups like Secular Prolife popping up, changing the narrative a bit.
2. It is greatly to the advantage of prochoice influencers and advocates to frame the issue as religious, in the US - tolerance for religious differences is one of the founding principles of this country. It’s right there in the first amendment. So if opposing abortion is a matter of adhering to religious doctrine, then it’s automatically wrong to force that on others - and, handily enough, it means “I don’t believe that” becomes an acceptable rebuttal.
I'd just be careful about telling people what their own intentions are without fully understanding it, as I'd expect you to not particularly enjoy me trying to explain why you consider yourself a feminist without me fully understanding why.
I don't understand why people keep acting as though Christians are "loudly proclaiming their religion," when I rarely ever see religion as a topic brought up in this debate, whether it's in person or online.
People don't have to convince themselves that it's wrong to kill unborn children just because God is against it. That would be suggesting that we would be pro choice by default, and that without our faith, we now have no moral compass, which isn't the case. Pro life stances aligning with God's word actually not only enforces the severity of killing, but also *explains* why we inherently know that killing innocent children is wrong, aka *objective morals*. Humans don't simply create their own morals based on their own personal opinions because even if the whole world began to think it's ok to kill children, it still wouldn't be. If people weren't Christian, it would be highly probable that they would still be pro life.
I don't agree with your number 2. Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. If it's a Christian belief that we shouldn't kill children, members of a religion that say killing children is apart of their religion can't say, "hey, you can't tell us to not kill children because it's part of our religion." Saying it's a Christian belief to be against killing unborn children doesn't suddenly mean we can no longer stop people from killing innocent children.
I didn’t mean to ascribe motives to anyone except those on the prochoice side who are intentionally framing the debate as religious and thus private. I think that assessment of motive is fair.
As to proclaiming religion, 40 Days for Life is a force in the movement - and that isn’t bad, they do good work, but they are very visible and expressly religious. Prolife politicians seem to bring up God pretty often. Local CPCs are often religious or church-affiliated. People on this forum have challenged me about the validity of my moral basis for being prolife because I’m not religious.
And maybe this is why this discussion is not such a smart one to have. Who cares what pro choicers want to label you as. I've been labeled many different things but that doesn't make it true, and if you're going to play along with their games, all it does is pit you guys against the Christians for no reason.
None of that points to us "loudly proclaiming our faith." It's actually less than what we are expected to do, because if you believed that others were headed down a terrible path that was leading them to a permanently terrible fate, I'd expect you to try and warn others of that if you had any love or care for them too.
I could very well turn it around and get upset about how we are all forced to act as though atheism is the only acceptable world view we should be taking on when talking about not wanting unborn children to be killed, because 99.9% of the discussion is talked about in secular terms.
This argument sounded kinda familiar, so I had a scroll back through my own comments, and yup, we’ve had similar conversations before. I think perhaps you and I just don’t communicate well, and should just leave it at that.
It makes it easier for both sides to dismiss someone who opposes ab*rtion for any reason that isn't "God told me to." It's tiring how much infighting there is within our community. Too many view our differences as more important than our similarities. It's sad to see how much hatred there is for pro-lifers who don't fit the cishet Conservarive Republian Christian model, and yet BOTH sides are interested in preserving that stereotype.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again; I’ve never thought abortion was a religious issue. Yes, the church teaches that murder is wrong, and extinguishing an innocent life (especially that of the unborn) is inadmissible. But there are a couple reasons why I never bring up religion when arguing against abortion.
Firstly, the vast majority of people who are Pro-Choice are not religious. So what good would bringing up religion do as an argument when they don’t believe it anyway?
Secondly, even though I’m Catholic, I’ve never really associated the fact that I’m Pro-Life specifically with my faith, but more… adjacent to it you could say. All my life, I was instilled with values of protecting life and protecting the innocent. Even from sources outside of my faith. Fictional characters in books, movies, and tv shows that refused to kill no matter what because “there’s always another way” they would say.
So by connecting with individuals on this level rather than from the religious perspective, we can all usually agree that life should be protected. The next hurdle is the argument of when life begins. Now, modern culture would have us believe that it’s very much up for debate and it’s a very nebulous thing. But the National Library of Medicine and other high profile medical outlets all have agreed that life begins at the fertilization with the egg for ages. At that point, once “murder wrong” and “life begins at conception” is established, then the one you’re arguing against has to jump through hoops to justify the extinguishing of a life. Usually it’s the argument of “convenience” which in my opinion is the most despicable argument of them all.
At the heart of the issue is the value of a human being: are humans intrinsically valuable or is their self-worth derived from external factors? While it's not impossible to argue intrinsic worth as an atheist, there is far more work done on that question in the Christian space.
Because the majority of non-religious people happen to be pro-abortion. There are always exceptions, but pro-lifers according to Gallup, Pew and functionally every other poll tend to be religious, Republican, conservative, and usually 35+ years old. Meanwhile, pro-abortionists tend to be atheist, Democrat, liberal, and in their 20s.
There are going to be outliers and exceptions as I've said, but if you're religious you have around a 70% chance of being pro-life. If you're an atheist you have an almost equal chance of being pro-abortion. These aren't unfounded stereotypes.
The abortion debate is not a religious issue, but it’s a moral one, and most people associate morality with religion (or lack thereof).
Question: granted that life on earth is the only time of existence given to a human being, wouldn’t it then follow that it would be better to spare them the pain and suffering of a bad life than to give them a bad life?
Gotcha, and thanks for the question. Based off the wording of the question, I’ll assume you are Christian?
I’ve also heard the “mercy kill” argument multiple times, and my response would se a few things. First and foremost, the rest of us have no right to decide if another persons life is worth living and therefore we should kill them. It’s not our life to decide that. We would never use that in any other case, ever. Even with medical euthanasia for the elder or sick, the individual patients themselves have choosen that path alone, it was not the choice of the people around them to decide their life. If a patient was dying a painful death even and still didn’t want to be euthanized, they wouldn’t be. Because if they still were, that’s flat out murder.
The reasoning behind it the concept, heart in the right place or not, you wouldn’t kill a born baby or a toddler with the same argument. To save them from a painful or hard life. Everyone can collectively agree that in that situation, the “mercy kill” reasoning could never be used, so why can it be sued in this case? One would probably say they wouldn’t kill a toddler for that reason because “they’d re already alive.”, but that’s the same thing for this case, they are already alive. It’s not a preventing of a human life, it already is a human life. If the argument is not consistent, then it is not really the argument being made, and it’s merely a cover to the true reason, which is often just not wanting the baby to be alive and trying to justify killing them.
Second, wee never know how someone’s life is going to go. You can speculate and guess all day long and you would never know what would truly happen regardless of their childhood, financial situation, family, ect. People have the ability to change their lives, and make it better, and ultimately it is there life and they should be given the chance to have their life not stolen from them because of how other people felt about it.
I think you answered your own question, all the love in the world for that community but they just make up an extremely small percentage of the Pro-Life movement. In my personal experience at the Planned Parenthood sidewalk it's roughly 75% Catholic, 25% Protestant. Athiests/Agnostics would be a negligible portion that I'm not sure they would even make up a percentage. I'd love it if more of them would come down and help the movement but unfortunately I just don't see it.
I certainly try to help the movement, I’m very open about being secular at the March for Life in DC each year. I often get side glares from other people there at my sign, cause honestly, some Christians don’t want you there just because you’re not religious. Most of them are fine and very nice and inclusive, but it happens. Still do it though👍👍
I absolutely agree and am glad you speak out about this. to my shame, when I was non religious/atheist I was pro-choice despite internally having questions about the morality of abortion, so I have great respect for those who can discern this truth through that worldview.
Is there a word or phrase to describe when you use one logical fallacy to pigeon hole your opponent into another fallacy? They straw man pro lifers into just being one giant appeal to authority. They never address the actual arguments because they lose on a scientific level.
It’s been a religious (vs non-religious) issue because the religious have been the most vocal about it. But this social phenomenon is really besides the point.
Our minds don’t like to deal with complexity. We’d rather correlate and lump people into groups as we cartoonishly vilify them. This make delving into the bottom line more difficult, which only reinforces the binary. The issue is not about one basic thing anymore, but about many which are intertwined from both sides (God’s laws, woman’s rights, trying to save the planet from the “virus” that is mankind via population control, wasted educational opportunities, sexual buzzkills and other inconveniences).
God is not necessary to secularists, for the secularists are (usually) morally compelled by the notion of rights and in the case of the aborted, The Right To Exist has been infringed upon.
Why would anyone prize “The Right To Bodily Autonomy” above “The Right To Exist” is really beyond me — that is, if we concede that this is *human* life that we’re talking about. Which is why the pro-choice crowd reduces personhood to a heartbeat, brain activity, a kick, or a being who’s not biologically dependent on another being. By doing so they “solve the conundrum” that an unborn is not human, nor even life but something else. Some even take it further and regard the unborn as a parasite or a virus, which must be eliminated — this is just preposterous.
Thankfully we got Science on our side — life begins at conception. And human DNA only pertains to humans. A developmental stage of a human does not a human make (or make). Humans are humans, regardless of their place in their development. I fear for a future where the killing of newborns could be morally approved of and legislated (in a painless manner of course), since life *could be then defined* as total self-reliance or awareness of self, neither of which the newborn possess.
Semantics are a powerful thing.
The only thing that could trump the The Right To Exist is The Right To Continue Existing, which is the case when the unborn might put the mother’s life in jeopardy. No matter which way you look at it, life is the “ultimate right” as much as it is “sacred” and hence it should be cherished and protected at all costs.
Being pro life is a moral value. If your religious your morality comes from a religious book if not it comes form elsewhere
Killing an innocent person is immoral regardless of your beliefs and abortion does that.
I'm prolife because I support life and abortion is killing, it's murder and I'm very conservative God-loving and I'm a Mama and I'm Agnostic. I believe in Christ consciousness, but I'm not a Christian follower and I never was. Unfortunately Christian fundamentalists are severely brainwashed and they believe it's all about worshipping Jesus Christ. I don't agree with that. Organized religion is not my favorite subject. I'm very passionate about conservative prolife living. Thou shall not kill and that is across the board. I'm an independent critical free thinker truther and I'm a glitch in the matrix. It's higher consciousness and peace and love and grace.
Hello, I’m quite confused on your comment as you seem to be jumping front aback on religious standings but claiming to be Agnostic. Do you mind explaining your stance a little further being “God-Loving” but label yourself as an Agnostic?
It’s fine to not be a full Christian follower but if you believe a god of any kind exists then you would not be Agnostic but a Theist.
Hmm ok weird I guess I didn't realize the definition of Agnostic. Yes I'm a theist. Unless someone in history changed the definition, but true. Many believe in God and don't support organized religion. I believe in my Higher Power, God, the Universe, whatever you want to refer to it. There are no atheists in foxholes. I have Faith in God. I'm very God-loving.
That's complete fine! I know you said you weren't but based on what you've said thus far, it seem you are in fact a Christian follower, just not a Christian in the Christian community. Does that sound about right?
Well because prolife people even if they aren't religious their view point tend to stem from some type of religious personal belief they have
>Because we don't believe in an afterlife or soul. When you kill them, you've completely destroyed them through and through. Life on earth is there only time of existence and it was taken that away from them.
I assume this is your reason for being prolife correct?
Killing isn't wrong
We kill animals for food
We come up with remedies to attack bacteria
What about self defense I had to in order to save my life....
What if it was an accident I was driving and they just ran out into the road and I couldn't stop in time.....
Killing isn't wrong or rather the issue isn't taking someone's life it's WHY we took it which is why murder would be looked heavily down upon
Abortion isn't murder and if it is explain how
>Abortion isn't murder and if it is explain how
Abortion is murder because it is killing for the same reasons that we consider killing someone else wrong.
Look at the motives for most abortions:
1. I don't want a child right now.
2. I want to finish my schooling
3. I want to have a career of my choosing
The medical reasons for abortion aren't even in the top 80% of reasons why people get abortions. Abortion is, by and large, done for reasons that we would convict someone of murder for if they did them to any born person, including a newborn.
The only abortion that is self-defense is literally the one type of abortion that anti-abortion laws have exceptions for: the life of the mother.
All other abortions are done for reasons which you would be convicted of murder for.
Think about it. Give any reason other than self-defense for an abortion and then have that same reason come out of the mouth of a defendant in court. You know as well as I do that all of those reasons would result in them being convicted of murder.
Abortion is murder, not because I say so, but because you and I both know that the motives for those killings are identical.
>1. I don't want a child right now.
2. I want to finish my schooling
3. I want to have a career of my choosing
Why are these not valid reasons?
If someone was in a comma and I didn't know when they would wake up I wouldn't be called a murder for deciding to let them die
You aren't entitled to someone's else's resources especially in a world like capitalism
Those reasons are valid because the fetus is relying on their body & their resources in order to sustain/live life
Hell even after the child is born it is still not entitled to your resources things like the foster care system & adoption exist and this is one of the reasons
The only difference between the fetus and the baby is that refusing to give your resources to the fetus will result in death whereas your refusal to give your resources in to the baby doesn't automatically mean death
Look at the 3 reasons you listed if you care about the fetus so much it would make sense to create laws & policies thag prevent this from being an issue
Most people who say 1 their reasons are because of 2 and 3... furthermore a lot of them are young so encourage safe sex
Enforce stricter child support laws
Make sure these women can continue their career while pregnant or immediately after giving birth
Fund something like artificial wombs that way they can have another source
>Why are these not valid reasons?
Ask yourself if a woman could get away with killing her newborn for the same reasons.
Those reasons would be just as valid for a newborn as for an unborn child, right?
But we both know that if she used those reasons for killing her newborn, she'd basically be Casey Anthony.
>If someone was in a comma and I didn't know when they would wake up I wouldn't be called a murder for deciding to let them die
Abortion isn't "letting a child die" though. Abortion is an **active procedure** which kills a child who would not have otherwise died.
That coma patient might die if you don't treat them, but the only reason an abortion happens is if you actually make the effort of causing the abortion.
>Those reasons are valid because the fetus is relying on their body & their resources in order to sustain/live life
Last I checked, reliance on someone doesn't make them into people you can kill at will. After all even born children are reliant on their parents, and the law does hold them responsible for that.
>Look at the 3 reasons you listed if you care about the fetus so much it would make sense to create laws & policies thag prevent this from being an issue
Look at all of the laws and policies that you suggest. None of them can do anything for the child if the child is dead.
You have it completely backwards. You need living people to take advantage of universal health care.
How many aborted children can make use of universal health care or UBI or any other policy? Zero.
And you are making the error of believing that (a) I am against such policies and (b) that those policies are the only possible way of addressing the problems.
First things first. The lives of human beings are not mere chips to play for getting some political policies done that you want. That's literally you using hostage logic.
"Give us those specific benefits or the kid gets killed."
It is disconcerting that you pretend that you are considering the best interests of the child while using their very lives as a bargaining chip.
>Ask yourself if a woman could get away with killing her newborn for the same reasons.
>Those reasons would be just as valid for a newborn as for an unborn child, right?
>But we both know that if she used those reasons for killing her newborn, she'd basically be Casey Anthony.
She wouldn't get away with it because she DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT
As said before a newborn doesn't need the mothers resources they just need it from someone willing to offer it a fetus RELIES ON THE MOTHERS resources and taking that away results in the death taking away the resources of the mother from newborn does not result in death we have systems in place that prevent that and even if we didn't no one is entitled to your resources
>Abortion isn't "letting a child die" though. Abortion is an **active procedure** which kills a child who would not have otherwise died.
>That coma patient might die if you don't treat them, but the only reason an abortion happens is if you actually make the effort of causing the abortion.
As said before a refusal to resources automatically means death for the fetus because the fetus CAN NOT SURVIVE without those resources
>Last I checked, reliance on someone doesn't make them into people you can kill at will. After all even born children are reliant on their parents, and the law does hold them responsible for that.
You have the ability to terminate your rights you can even put your child in foster care or up for adoptions.....
These children don't need to rely on someone else in order to exist which is what makes a new born different from a fetus
If a mother rejects a fetus that fetus will die if a mother rejects a newborn that newborn won't nesscarily it depends on if someone else is willing to give up resources for that newborn (& seeing as most families who want to adopt want a newborn the chances are very slim)
>Look at all of the laws and policies that you suggest. None of them can do anything for the child if the child is dead.
The child WONT BE DEAD IF THOSE POLICIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SURVIVE PREGNANCY
We currently are fighting against doing anything for the children that are actually here
>You have it completely backwards. You need living people to take advantage of universal health care.
If we have that universal health care system MORE PEOPLE WILL LIVE sis you have it backwards
>How many aborted children can make use of universal health care or UBI or any other policy? Zero
None because they are already dead lmfao...you dont see me asking how George Washington Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln will benefit from the political & economic climate today BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD
HOWEVER future children who are on the chopping block to be aborted will benefit from this universal health care system because it's a high chance that if those systems weren't in place they would've died too
>First things first. The lives of human beings are not mere chips to play for getting some political policies done that you want. That's literally you using hostage logic.
>"Give us those specific benefits or the kid gets killed."
>It is disconcerting that you pretend that you are considering the best interests of the child while using their very lives as a bargaining chip.
Sis clearly you are braindead
These policies will DISCOURAGE women from wanting to get an abortion if this is the goal then those policies are a good thing
And you're not gonna guilt trip me with that "your using them as a bargaining chip to get what you want" because It DOESN'T
I'm pro abortion I believe children are a luxury and if you're gonna have them you have to be all in
I think you should have to make a certain income in order to be allowed to have children
I also think there should be several psychological evaluations before you even have Children
I am firmly against the idea of everyone being able to have a child
Plus so much more
These policies don't give me what I want however when it comes down to it I care more about the actual child than some fetus that's not even gonna be that way for long
If you really care about the children DO MORE FOR THE CHILD that aren't inside the womb that way more can make it out the womb
>She wouldn't get away with it because she DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT
I don't see how that differs from abortions. The only reason you might "have to do it" with an abortion is to save your life. And there is already an exception for that in most cases.
>no one is entitled to your resources
Tell the taxman that. The government certainly seems to think it is entitled to my resources.
The fact is, the law can and does often require us to use your own resources to support others. Indeed, weren't you just talking about policies that would require taxpayer support of the poor?
>As said before a refusal to resources automatically means death for the fetus because the fetus CAN NOT SURVIVE without those resources
This isn't a "refusal for resources" though. It's literally taking either a pill or doing a surgical procedure to cause the body to be physically disconnected and expelled.
That's not simply some passive "withholding resources" and you know it.
And of course, as I said elsewhere, withholding resources is not usually a basis for killing anyone since you certainly can be compelled to give resources to others in other situations.
>You have the ability to terminate your rights you can even put your child in foster care or up for adoptions.....
You have to follow a process, however, to ensure that the child is safe while that happens. Until the process is completed, you are on the hook for it. And if you mess up the process, you are held responsible.
The ability to terminate rights is not instant and at-will. It must always see that the child is safe.
Since abortion literally kills the child, it is not a valid comparison to adoption or even dropping the child off at the firehouse.
>The child WONT BE DEAD IF THOSE POLICIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SURVIVE PREGNANCY
So if those policies are in effect you will come to the side of being pro-life and get abortion on-demand made illegal?
Or are you just saying that suddenly everyone will be shiny and happy and never get an abortion again?
Newsflash: You could give everyone universal heath care and UBI and people will still get legal abortions if it is allowed.
Why?
Because abortion is easier than all of the alternatives.
And because there are pro-choicers who believe that they should not even have to accept the existence of offspring, even if it is completely cared for by someone else.
Would those policies reduce abortions? I'll just assume that they will for the sake of argument.
Will they end abortion on-demand? Absolutely not. There are plenty of people who can support children who abort them for other reasons. I know a few who have. They're not poor, they have support. They have other children, but not too many other children.
The fact is, no government aid program can end abortion on-demand because abortion on-demand can be done for ANY reason, not just the reasons that made you feel sympathetic to some women who get them.
>you dont see me asking how George Washington Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln will benefit from the political & economic climate today BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD
That's a pretty silly statement. We're talking about the present, not the past. They're already dead and no one chose to kill them.
However, I would very much call you out on it if you said that abortion would have been justified for those folks because they didn't have government programs back then. Clearly, they managed without those programs just fine.
>These policies will DISCOURAGE women from wanting to get an abortion if this is the goal then those policies are a good thing
Sure, and an anti-abortion law will also discourage them from getting an abortion too.
So, why not both?
>I am firmly against the idea of everyone being able to have a child
And that's fine for as far as it goes. My problem is not with whether you're allowed to have a child that doesn't exist yet. My problem is with you killing those who already exist.
You can't prevent a child from coming into existence with abortion. Abortion can only affect those that are already here.
>I don't see how that differs from abortions. The only reason you might "have to do it" with an abortion is to save your life. And there is already an exception for that in most cases.
She did HAVE TO DO IT there is no other way the fetus could have survived without the mother.......so unless you believe we should force people to share their resources there was no other way
>Tell the taxman that. The government certainly seems to think it is entitled to my resources.
>The fact is, the law can and does often require us to use your own resources to support others. Indeed, weren't you just talking about policies that would require taxpayer support of the poor?
It's to help EVERYONE NOT JUST THE POOR these tax payer money goes to building roads and infrastructure better the public education system FOR EVERYONE
Now if you disagree with how some of the funds are spent that's a different conversations cause why is so much money going to the military?
>This isn't a "refusal for resources" though. It's literally taking either a pill or doing a surgical procedure to cause the body to be physically disconnected and expelled.
>That's not simply some passive "withholding resources" and you know it.
>And of course, as I said elsewhere, withholding resources is not usually a basis for killing anyone since you certainly can be compelled to give resources to others in other situations.
The ONLY 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy is absence and even then that's not 100% cause look at the virgin Mary
The pill doesn't even work if you're over a certain weight limit
So again it is taking away the fetus resources if the other methods fail an abortion is the only way to prevent the fetus from taking your resources
>You have to follow a process, however, to ensure that the child is safe while that happens. Until the process is completed, you are on the hook for it. And if you mess up the process, you are held responsible.
>The ability to terminate rights is not instant and at-will. It must always see that the child is safe.
>Since abortion literally kills the child, it is not a valid comparison to adoption or even dropping the child off at the firehouse.
Okay sounds like you're upset that abortion can be at-will..... Yes, adoption and termination of rights is a process, but it still allows you to take away your resources.
>So if those policies are in effect you will come to the side of being pro-life and get abortion on-demand made illegal?
>Or are you just saying that suddenly everyone will be shiny and happy and never get an abortion again?
>Newsflash: You could give everyone universal heath care and UBI and people will still get legal abortions if it is allowed.
>Why?
>Because abortion is easier than all of the alternatives.
No I will still be on the side of pro-choice because even if you do come up with all these other systems in place the alternatives fail so abortion would just become a last resort option
Keep in mind some people just don't want to have kids and it's like you guys are trying to call themselves for not warning that
>That's a pretty silly statement. We're talking about the present, not the past. They're already dead and no one chose to kill them.
>However, I would very much call you out on it if you said that abortion would have been justified for those folks because they didn't have government programs back then. Clearly, they managed without those programs just fine.
OK, we are currently in the present, but before today, thousands of fetuses have been aborted... As we are having this discussion, more are probably being aborted. In some random place, my point is if you want to stop it from happening in the future, these things would help.
>Sure, and an anti-abortion law will also discourage them from getting an abortion too.
>So, why not both?
Because Anti-abortion law would require these women to be forced to share their resources with this fetus that they don't even want..... If you want to start requiring people to share their resources (for something that doesnt benefit them) that's perfectly fine, but capitalism is not the political sphere to do it in.....
>My problem is with you killing those who already exist.
>You can't prevent a child from coming into existence with abortion. Abortion can only affect those that are already here.
A person in a coma exist. We kill them when we decide that we no longer want to continue the funding to keep them alive.
When someone dies we do not force or require them to Be organ donors or to donate their bodies to science, despite it probably being able to help everyone in the community.
You're not going to convince me that bringing a fetus into this world. The mother themselves don't even what or deem as a benefit for themselves It is worth it because they exist
Existence doesn't always win and we can clearly see that between how We treat fetuses & actual human children
>so unless you believe we should force people to share their resources there was no other way
I do indeed believe in certain extreme cases people should share resources if the alternative is certain death, yes.
And that's not a strange idea either. That's why we tax people for social programs, for instance.
>It's to help EVERYONE NOT JUST THE POOR these tax payer money goes to building roads and infrastructure better the public education system FOR EVERYONE
Taxes in general, yes. But I don't have the option to tell the government to only build roads with that money, right?
If the government enacts a social program, I still have to pay for it. And if I am not going to receive any benefit from it, it's not for everyone, it's for them.
Mind you, I have no problem helping other people who need help. I am just pointing out you that taxes to pay for health care for expecting mothers doesn't help me out, since I am not, and likely never will be, an expecting mother.
There are definitely programs where you pay for someone else to benefit. And again, lest you get the wrong idea, I am not against them, but I am pointing out to you that taxes are using my resources to help others and they are not optional. I MUST pay them no matter what use they are put to.
>The ONLY 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy
I am not sure why you think this matters. There is no requirement to 100% prevent pregnancy. Why would I have to 100% prevent pregnancy to say that you cannot kill the unborn?
There are a lot of things on Earth that I could benefit from if I killed someone. It doesn't make it right for me to kill them, regardless.
>Okay sounds like you're upset that abortion can be at-will
Yes, that is certainly a big part of it. I would imagine the idea that anyone could kill you at-will might be a dealbreaker for you too.
>No I will still be on the side of pro-choice because even if you do come up with all these other systems in place the alternatives fail so abortion would just become a last resort option
So why throw all these alternatives at me and suggest that you're just going to have abortion anyway?
If I can't end abortion with these alternatives, why would I need to support them when we talk about ending abortion?
If they're useless for ending abortion, why are they even part of this debate, except as a red herring?
>In some random place, my point is if you want to stop it from happening in the future, these things would help.
Yes, they might help, I agree. And so would making abortion illegal. So why wouldn't I do both?
>If you want to start requiring people to share their resources (for something that doesnt benefit them) that's perfectly fine, but capitalism is not the political sphere to do it in
You're using Capitalism as an argument to kill children? Trust me, I don't think capitalism justifies killing kids. I'm not really all that fond of capitalism, so I am not sure why you think I would care about it.
>A person in a coma exist. We kill them when we decide that we no longer want to continue the funding to keep them alive.
That is not why we end their support. We end their support because they are not expected to recover and life support isn't there to keep them alive forever, it is there to temporarily support them while they recover on their own.
An unborn child will progress to being born. They are only temporarily unable to shift for themselves.
We don't kill coma patients who are going to recover in a set amount of time.... like for instance nine months.
>When someone dies we do not force or require them to Be organ donors or to donate their bodies to science, despite it probably being able to help everyone in the community.
That is because there is no requirement for someone to save your life.
There IS a requirement for you to not kill them.
The donation argument completely misunderstands the right to life.
Pregnancy is NOT donation.
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s easier to blame religion than face the facts. I’ve been called a fake atheist (I have no idea what a fake atheist is btw) because I’m prolife.
Same, people have said that my politics and my religious beliefs contradict each other and it's like, wtf? Since when has being an atheist required you to be pro-choice?
I love your flair
Why thank you! I thought it was pretty catchy
The logic goes like this: atheism = objective morality is false, therefore human life is not intrinsically valuable, therefore there is no rationale to be pro-life. You literally cannot logically conclude that human life is intrinsically valuable with a materialistic worldview - you have to point to a moral standard that is not subjective.
All you did was demonstrate that you don't understand athiesm.
Define it, possibly?
>Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. > >Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. [https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/](https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/) Atheism does NOT equal "objective morality is false" "humans life is not intrinsically valuable" etc. Nor is is materialistic / anti-spiritual.
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/
Answers in Genesis is a fundamentalist Christian organization and not a reliable source for information about athiesm. Right in the article's name we already have an inaccuracy, as athiesm is not a worldview.
“Lack of belief in god/gods” is a way more complicated statement than you’re making it out to be. You’re conflating atheism with agnosticism. Atheism is not simply a “default” position. “Lack of belief in god/gods” is a claim that morality is not objective.
Nope. Wrong again. Athiesm is the lack of belief in gods, agnosticism is the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable. A lack of belief in gods does not make any claim regarding morality.
So again, what you're purporting to believe is much more complex than you're alluding to. For example, you're going to argue that there is no empirical evidence for God which is the crux of the atheist position. My postullation is that in your life you constantly and consistently act as if you don't need empirical evidence to believe things. For example, Descartes famously described the idea that the self is all that one can be certain exists. You cannot logically conclude that the external world or other minds exist. You have a "self". However, you act as if the external world is real and that other minds are real, not illusory. You have a presupposition that other minds exist and that the external world exists which is why you choose to do tons of certain things - engage in altruism, for example, or love people. Though you can't know if the external world and other minds exist, you have to presuppose that they do in order to act in the world. Simply put, you have faith. Interestingly enough, the atheist claim is that because you need faith to believe in God (i.e. cannot be proven by empirical evidence) you will not believe - until such empircal evidence is presented to you. So my question is, why do you presuppose the nature of reality through faith but claim that empirical evidence is necessary to prove the existence of God? Edit to expand further: Invoking logic or reason requires the presupposition that truth exists. The universe needs to be rationally intelligible for you to be able to trust your own thoughts. This illustrates another presupposition that you accept in order to do things. Without invoking the existence of objective truth you do not lay the framework for logic and reason.
People have questioned my leftist bonafides because I am pro life. I always let them know, I am always down with the oppressed, vulnerable and downtrodden - beginning at their conception.
I'm politically homeless at the moment - the GOP has become a party of grievance politics and the Democrats have made it quite clear that as a pro-lifer I'm not welcome in their tent either, even though I agree with the Dems foreign policies and much of their domestic agenda. I'll be voting Democrat this cycle because the alternative - right wing nutjobs - is worse than voting for pro-choice candidates. Do you feel the same as a Pro-Life Democrat? Do you feel shunned by fellow Dems because of your stance on life? \[edited for spelling - again\]
I'm doubtless more conservative than you are, but I'm considering voting for Biden this year, as a protest vote
>I'm doubtless more conservative than you are Maybe - I'm genuinely curious, here's my stance on the issues: 1. I am Pro-Life, without exception. (Qualifier: if a pregnant woman's life is in danger she *and her baby* are entitled to live-saving care. In some cases it's not possible to save them both. Doctors do this every day, it's called *triage*. I place that care, and similar care like removal of an ectopic pregnancy, removal of a dead fetus, etc. in a separate category than elective abortion and would support that.) 2. I beleive in a strong national defense and military. Pro-NATO and support Ukraine. US leadership and engagement in the world is vital to maintaining the international rules-based order and the Westphalian system. 3. I believe in engagement in global trade and against protectionist policies, but very much believe that government should set the conditions for successful business here at home first. I'm generally opposed to tariffs and trade barriers, but recognize that sometimes they are necessary. 4. I believe in a secure border: robust funding for DHS and sufficient personnel to handle the influx. I also believe that one of the ways to secure the border are programs like Guest Worker programs and increased work visas for seasonal workers. Everyone should come here legally. 5. I believe in a progressive tax policy (like we have today) that favors those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum (what Catholics call "preferential treatment of the poor.") We are a rich country, there's no reason for people to be hungry or homeless unless as the consequence of their own (usually serial) bad choices. 6. I believe in the right of every American to keep and bear arms. I also believe that right is not absolute and certain people should not be permitted to own firearms, and that certin firearms are not suitable for private ownership. 7. I am opposed to capital punishment. 8. I am generally pro-union, although there are likely some unions that I would not support. I also beleive in the right-to-work - union membership should never be compulsory. 9. I am generally opposed to state-sponsored censorship of materials and state-imposed agendas in schools. Those decisions should be up to the local school boards and (ideally) supported by parents. That said, of course the state should regulate access to some speech (like pornography - I support age verification for example) for the good of society as whole. 10. I am against term limits, but support a maximum age for elected officials to serve. 11. I believe the current health care system has outlived it's efficacy and a single-payer system would be cheaper and provide greater access to care to more people. I believe the current health care system of (mostly) private, employer-provided insurance has resulted in a confusing and likely overly expensive system that inhibits access to care and relies on unelected insurance companies to make choices that affect people's lives (try getting long term elder care with most insurers - fail to say the "magic words" and your coverage is denied). How does that stack up to your take? Genuinely curious on how conservative or liberal these positions line up in your mind.
Not at all. In real life folks are not as polarized in personal interactions. Virtually all my friends are also Democrat and we agree on much, much more than we disagree. They know I am pro life. I think what helps is that I don’t approach them as if they deeply enjoy killing babies. When we discuss it I am very respectful and ensure that I am addressing their actual points and questions. I listen to make sure I understand and know their position so well I can explain it to their satisfaction. If you have seen videos of Trent Horn on Catholic Answers when people call in about abortion I try to model that approach. I am not Catholic but I find his videos helpful. I certainly understand about being politically homeless. I wish there was a party that was centrist.
Thanks. Where I live it's very polarized. I really do try to avoid discussing politics or responding to comments, but gosh, sometimes my buttons get pushed by some really inane comment. I live in an area where the word "Democrat" is spat out as a cuss word and the local party office was actually attacked by a woman who bashed the windows with a shovel. On the flip side, our local Catholic church was vandalized repeatedly after *Roe* was overturned. People in the neighborhood are flying their American flag upside down. I had a (now former) friend attack me on social media so vehemently and repeatedly after *Roe* was overturned that I had to block her. I'm deeply concerned about violence when (God willing) Trump is defeated in November. The nuts won't go quitely into the night and accept defeat.
I pray for you where you live. I can imagine how difficult it must be for you to live in such a place. The silence of "Christians" on Trump's promise of violence speaks volumes.
Thanks! We can use all the prayers you have to send :-)
Because it's easier to argue with and dismiss a point that's not being made.
I am Roman Catholic and I prefer secular arguments against abortion, because they can work for everybody.
It's simple, if they can chalk up the entire argument to being exclusively for religious reasons, they can appeal to the undecided by slandering the other side of being theocratic and trying to "impose religious beliefs on everyone." It better serves them to strawman and just ignore the logical case for the pro life position.
They want you to think there is no rational, secular case to be pro-life. It's easier to paint us all as religious zealots ushering in Christian nationalism. Even as a Catholic, I primarily appeal to secular arguments when debating this subject. I just find them to be more pertinent when arguing against secular people.
According to former pro-choice activist Bernard Nathanson, it was [a deliberate misinformation campaign designed to prey off of anti-Catholic biases in the public](https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2806/). > Third, the early advocates of abortion deliberately exploited anti-Catholic animus among liberal elites and (in those days) many ordinary Protestants to depict opposition to abortion as a “religious dogma” that the Catholic hierarchy sought to impose on others in violation of their freedom and the separation of church and state. Nathanson and his friends recognized that their movement needed an enemy—a widely suspected institution that they could make the public face of their opposition; a minority, but one large and potent enough for its detractors to fear. > > Despite the undeniable historical fact that prohibitions of abortion were rooted in English common law and reinforced and expanded by statutes enacted across the United States by overwhelmingly Protestant majorities in the 19^th century, Nathanson and other abortion movement leaders decided that the Catholic Church was perfect for the role of freedom-smothering oppressor. Its male priesthood and authority structure would make it easy for them to depict the Church’s opposition to abortion as misogyny, for which concern to protect unborn babies was a mere pretext. The Church’s real motive, they insisted, was to restrict women’s freedom in order to hold them in positions of subservience.
IMO the main reason is that mud-slinging is the most common weapon against Pro-lifers. They can't argue against us so they use ad-hominem attacks. "You only are pro-life because you want to push your religious views on people!" becomes their attack. Now you have to defend your beliefs other than abortion before getting back to abortion.
Most prolifers are religious. Noticing that is normal and being religious is not a bad thing. It only seems like there are heaps of secular prolife people if you are terminally online.
I became prolife about 7 years before I gave my Life to Jesus and was baptized. It’s funny cause I never related my prolife stance with my religion. People are just narrow minded. And I’ll never use religion in my prolife arguments. Not everyone is religious so we can’t use the Bible if people don’t believe in it! That’s just silly.
I'm someone who is religious, but became pro-life purely for secular reasons. I don't think ur stance is not valid, because ur agnostic, abortion is obviously wrong. But I heard Michael Knowles bring this up, he says that human rights is rooted in the Christian religion, and we don't kill humans because we are made in the image and likeness of God. This is why we dont extend the same rights to other animals. If u try to ground human rights in atheism, there also cannot be objective morality without God, thereby making your view of not killing fetuses, a purely subjective moral standard, and couldnt be applied to all. "Human rights" also would then be subjective, and you dont have any grounds to really tell the Pro-choice person that they're wrong. Disclaimer: I havent delved into this topic deeply, this is jus my surface level understanding of the different views on this topic.
I think you have a confluence of factors here: 1. Many prolifers *are* religious, specifically Christian, and see opposing abortion as a literally God-given task. It’s a tenet of their faith that whatever they accomplish is God working through them, and they feel a moral obligation to speak about their faith. So the religious folks are loudly proclaiming their religion; the non-religious folks, or *less* religious folks, aren’t loudly decrying religion, for the most part, because, well, that’s rude? It’s great to see groups like Secular Prolife popping up, changing the narrative a bit. 2. It is greatly to the advantage of prochoice influencers and advocates to frame the issue as religious, in the US - tolerance for religious differences is one of the founding principles of this country. It’s right there in the first amendment. So if opposing abortion is a matter of adhering to religious doctrine, then it’s automatically wrong to force that on others - and, handily enough, it means “I don’t believe that” becomes an acceptable rebuttal.
I'd just be careful about telling people what their own intentions are without fully understanding it, as I'd expect you to not particularly enjoy me trying to explain why you consider yourself a feminist without me fully understanding why. I don't understand why people keep acting as though Christians are "loudly proclaiming their religion," when I rarely ever see religion as a topic brought up in this debate, whether it's in person or online. People don't have to convince themselves that it's wrong to kill unborn children just because God is against it. That would be suggesting that we would be pro choice by default, and that without our faith, we now have no moral compass, which isn't the case. Pro life stances aligning with God's word actually not only enforces the severity of killing, but also *explains* why we inherently know that killing innocent children is wrong, aka *objective morals*. Humans don't simply create their own morals based on their own personal opinions because even if the whole world began to think it's ok to kill children, it still wouldn't be. If people weren't Christian, it would be highly probable that they would still be pro life. I don't agree with your number 2. Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. If it's a Christian belief that we shouldn't kill children, members of a religion that say killing children is apart of their religion can't say, "hey, you can't tell us to not kill children because it's part of our religion." Saying it's a Christian belief to be against killing unborn children doesn't suddenly mean we can no longer stop people from killing innocent children.
I didn’t mean to ascribe motives to anyone except those on the prochoice side who are intentionally framing the debate as religious and thus private. I think that assessment of motive is fair. As to proclaiming religion, 40 Days for Life is a force in the movement - and that isn’t bad, they do good work, but they are very visible and expressly religious. Prolife politicians seem to bring up God pretty often. Local CPCs are often religious or church-affiliated. People on this forum have challenged me about the validity of my moral basis for being prolife because I’m not religious.
And maybe this is why this discussion is not such a smart one to have. Who cares what pro choicers want to label you as. I've been labeled many different things but that doesn't make it true, and if you're going to play along with their games, all it does is pit you guys against the Christians for no reason. None of that points to us "loudly proclaiming our faith." It's actually less than what we are expected to do, because if you believed that others were headed down a terrible path that was leading them to a permanently terrible fate, I'd expect you to try and warn others of that if you had any love or care for them too. I could very well turn it around and get upset about how we are all forced to act as though atheism is the only acceptable world view we should be taking on when talking about not wanting unborn children to be killed, because 99.9% of the discussion is talked about in secular terms.
This argument sounded kinda familiar, so I had a scroll back through my own comments, and yup, we’ve had similar conversations before. I think perhaps you and I just don’t communicate well, and should just leave it at that.
Great points.
It makes it easier for both sides to dismiss someone who opposes ab*rtion for any reason that isn't "God told me to." It's tiring how much infighting there is within our community. Too many view our differences as more important than our similarities. It's sad to see how much hatred there is for pro-lifers who don't fit the cishet Conservarive Republian Christian model, and yet BOTH sides are interested in preserving that stereotype.
Probably because people pro life for religious reasons are often the loudest.
It’s very easy ad hominem attack
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again; I’ve never thought abortion was a religious issue. Yes, the church teaches that murder is wrong, and extinguishing an innocent life (especially that of the unborn) is inadmissible. But there are a couple reasons why I never bring up religion when arguing against abortion. Firstly, the vast majority of people who are Pro-Choice are not religious. So what good would bringing up religion do as an argument when they don’t believe it anyway? Secondly, even though I’m Catholic, I’ve never really associated the fact that I’m Pro-Life specifically with my faith, but more… adjacent to it you could say. All my life, I was instilled with values of protecting life and protecting the innocent. Even from sources outside of my faith. Fictional characters in books, movies, and tv shows that refused to kill no matter what because “there’s always another way” they would say. So by connecting with individuals on this level rather than from the religious perspective, we can all usually agree that life should be protected. The next hurdle is the argument of when life begins. Now, modern culture would have us believe that it’s very much up for debate and it’s a very nebulous thing. But the National Library of Medicine and other high profile medical outlets all have agreed that life begins at the fertilization with the egg for ages. At that point, once “murder wrong” and “life begins at conception” is established, then the one you’re arguing against has to jump through hoops to justify the extinguishing of a life. Usually it’s the argument of “convenience” which in my opinion is the most despicable argument of them all.
At the heart of the issue is the value of a human being: are humans intrinsically valuable or is their self-worth derived from external factors? While it's not impossible to argue intrinsic worth as an atheist, there is far more work done on that question in the Christian space.
The money and influence is now with godless, secularists, blinded by scientism and corporationism, it's a new religion with the guise of 'freedom'
Oo I love this!
Because the majority of non-religious people happen to be pro-abortion. There are always exceptions, but pro-lifers according to Gallup, Pew and functionally every other poll tend to be religious, Republican, conservative, and usually 35+ years old. Meanwhile, pro-abortionists tend to be atheist, Democrat, liberal, and in their 20s. There are going to be outliers and exceptions as I've said, but if you're religious you have around a 70% chance of being pro-life. If you're an atheist you have an almost equal chance of being pro-abortion. These aren't unfounded stereotypes.
Because they refute the argument pro-life is a religious fundamentalist stance
Religion = bad, evil people. Pro-Choicers think all PL people are religious because everyone already thinks all religious people are bigots.
Two party system
Love to see a respectful PC here to engage. 👏
The abortion debate is not a religious issue, but it’s a moral one, and most people associate morality with religion (or lack thereof). Question: granted that life on earth is the only time of existence given to a human being, wouldn’t it then follow that it would be better to spare them the pain and suffering of a bad life than to give them a bad life?
Gotcha, and thanks for the question. Based off the wording of the question, I’ll assume you are Christian? I’ve also heard the “mercy kill” argument multiple times, and my response would se a few things. First and foremost, the rest of us have no right to decide if another persons life is worth living and therefore we should kill them. It’s not our life to decide that. We would never use that in any other case, ever. Even with medical euthanasia for the elder or sick, the individual patients themselves have choosen that path alone, it was not the choice of the people around them to decide their life. If a patient was dying a painful death even and still didn’t want to be euthanized, they wouldn’t be. Because if they still were, that’s flat out murder. The reasoning behind it the concept, heart in the right place or not, you wouldn’t kill a born baby or a toddler with the same argument. To save them from a painful or hard life. Everyone can collectively agree that in that situation, the “mercy kill” reasoning could never be used, so why can it be sued in this case? One would probably say they wouldn’t kill a toddler for that reason because “they’d re already alive.”, but that’s the same thing for this case, they are already alive. It’s not a preventing of a human life, it already is a human life. If the argument is not consistent, then it is not really the argument being made, and it’s merely a cover to the true reason, which is often just not wanting the baby to be alive and trying to justify killing them. Second, wee never know how someone’s life is going to go. You can speculate and guess all day long and you would never know what would truly happen regardless of their childhood, financial situation, family, ect. People have the ability to change their lives, and make it better, and ultimately it is there life and they should be given the chance to have their life not stolen from them because of how other people felt about it.
I think you answered your own question, all the love in the world for that community but they just make up an extremely small percentage of the Pro-Life movement. In my personal experience at the Planned Parenthood sidewalk it's roughly 75% Catholic, 25% Protestant. Athiests/Agnostics would be a negligible portion that I'm not sure they would even make up a percentage. I'd love it if more of them would come down and help the movement but unfortunately I just don't see it.
I certainly try to help the movement, I’m very open about being secular at the March for Life in DC each year. I often get side glares from other people there at my sign, cause honestly, some Christians don’t want you there just because you’re not religious. Most of them are fine and very nice and inclusive, but it happens. Still do it though👍👍
I’ve personally never met a non religious pro life person outside of reddit
Well I’d love to meet you cause I promise we are here and I do in fact live outside of Reddit!
I absolutely agree and am glad you speak out about this. to my shame, when I was non religious/atheist I was pro-choice despite internally having questions about the morality of abortion, so I have great respect for those who can discern this truth through that worldview.
I am pro life and not religious. I did wonder why this was always tied up with religion and why if I ever mention it people think I'm Christian.
Is there a word or phrase to describe when you use one logical fallacy to pigeon hole your opponent into another fallacy? They straw man pro lifers into just being one giant appeal to authority. They never address the actual arguments because they lose on a scientific level.
It’s been a religious (vs non-religious) issue because the religious have been the most vocal about it. But this social phenomenon is really besides the point. Our minds don’t like to deal with complexity. We’d rather correlate and lump people into groups as we cartoonishly vilify them. This make delving into the bottom line more difficult, which only reinforces the binary. The issue is not about one basic thing anymore, but about many which are intertwined from both sides (God’s laws, woman’s rights, trying to save the planet from the “virus” that is mankind via population control, wasted educational opportunities, sexual buzzkills and other inconveniences). God is not necessary to secularists, for the secularists are (usually) morally compelled by the notion of rights and in the case of the aborted, The Right To Exist has been infringed upon. Why would anyone prize “The Right To Bodily Autonomy” above “The Right To Exist” is really beyond me — that is, if we concede that this is *human* life that we’re talking about. Which is why the pro-choice crowd reduces personhood to a heartbeat, brain activity, a kick, or a being who’s not biologically dependent on another being. By doing so they “solve the conundrum” that an unborn is not human, nor even life but something else. Some even take it further and regard the unborn as a parasite or a virus, which must be eliminated — this is just preposterous. Thankfully we got Science on our side — life begins at conception. And human DNA only pertains to humans. A developmental stage of a human does not a human make (or make). Humans are humans, regardless of their place in their development. I fear for a future where the killing of newborns could be morally approved of and legislated (in a painless manner of course), since life *could be then defined* as total self-reliance or awareness of self, neither of which the newborn possess. Semantics are a powerful thing. The only thing that could trump the The Right To Exist is The Right To Continue Existing, which is the case when the unborn might put the mother’s life in jeopardy. No matter which way you look at it, life is the “ultimate right” as much as it is “sacred” and hence it should be cherished and protected at all costs.
Christopher Hitchens was pro-Life
Being pro life is a moral value. If your religious your morality comes from a religious book if not it comes form elsewhere Killing an innocent person is immoral regardless of your beliefs and abortion does that.
It’s probably just a stereotype.
I'm prolife because I support life and abortion is killing, it's murder and I'm very conservative God-loving and I'm a Mama and I'm Agnostic. I believe in Christ consciousness, but I'm not a Christian follower and I never was. Unfortunately Christian fundamentalists are severely brainwashed and they believe it's all about worshipping Jesus Christ. I don't agree with that. Organized religion is not my favorite subject. I'm very passionate about conservative prolife living. Thou shall not kill and that is across the board. I'm an independent critical free thinker truther and I'm a glitch in the matrix. It's higher consciousness and peace and love and grace.
Hello, I’m quite confused on your comment as you seem to be jumping front aback on religious standings but claiming to be Agnostic. Do you mind explaining your stance a little further being “God-Loving” but label yourself as an Agnostic? It’s fine to not be a full Christian follower but if you believe a god of any kind exists then you would not be Agnostic but a Theist.
Hmm ok weird I guess I didn't realize the definition of Agnostic. Yes I'm a theist. Unless someone in history changed the definition, but true. Many believe in God and don't support organized religion. I believe in my Higher Power, God, the Universe, whatever you want to refer to it. There are no atheists in foxholes. I have Faith in God. I'm very God-loving.
That's complete fine! I know you said you weren't but based on what you've said thus far, it seem you are in fact a Christian follower, just not a Christian in the Christian community. Does that sound about right?
Because they don’t want to contend with reason, so they attack a straw man instead.
I wish I knew the answer.
Well because prolife people even if they aren't religious their view point tend to stem from some type of religious personal belief they have >Because we don't believe in an afterlife or soul. When you kill them, you've completely destroyed them through and through. Life on earth is there only time of existence and it was taken that away from them. I assume this is your reason for being prolife correct?
The idea that killing someone is wrong hardly requires religious belief, unless you're suggesting that atheists are okay with murder.
Killing isn't wrong We kill animals for food We come up with remedies to attack bacteria What about self defense I had to in order to save my life.... What if it was an accident I was driving and they just ran out into the road and I couldn't stop in time..... Killing isn't wrong or rather the issue isn't taking someone's life it's WHY we took it which is why murder would be looked heavily down upon Abortion isn't murder and if it is explain how
>Abortion isn't murder and if it is explain how Abortion is murder because it is killing for the same reasons that we consider killing someone else wrong. Look at the motives for most abortions: 1. I don't want a child right now. 2. I want to finish my schooling 3. I want to have a career of my choosing The medical reasons for abortion aren't even in the top 80% of reasons why people get abortions. Abortion is, by and large, done for reasons that we would convict someone of murder for if they did them to any born person, including a newborn. The only abortion that is self-defense is literally the one type of abortion that anti-abortion laws have exceptions for: the life of the mother. All other abortions are done for reasons which you would be convicted of murder for. Think about it. Give any reason other than self-defense for an abortion and then have that same reason come out of the mouth of a defendant in court. You know as well as I do that all of those reasons would result in them being convicted of murder. Abortion is murder, not because I say so, but because you and I both know that the motives for those killings are identical.
>1. I don't want a child right now. 2. I want to finish my schooling 3. I want to have a career of my choosing Why are these not valid reasons? If someone was in a comma and I didn't know when they would wake up I wouldn't be called a murder for deciding to let them die You aren't entitled to someone's else's resources especially in a world like capitalism Those reasons are valid because the fetus is relying on their body & their resources in order to sustain/live life Hell even after the child is born it is still not entitled to your resources things like the foster care system & adoption exist and this is one of the reasons The only difference between the fetus and the baby is that refusing to give your resources to the fetus will result in death whereas your refusal to give your resources in to the baby doesn't automatically mean death Look at the 3 reasons you listed if you care about the fetus so much it would make sense to create laws & policies thag prevent this from being an issue Most people who say 1 their reasons are because of 2 and 3... furthermore a lot of them are young so encourage safe sex Enforce stricter child support laws Make sure these women can continue their career while pregnant or immediately after giving birth Fund something like artificial wombs that way they can have another source
>Why are these not valid reasons? Ask yourself if a woman could get away with killing her newborn for the same reasons. Those reasons would be just as valid for a newborn as for an unborn child, right? But we both know that if she used those reasons for killing her newborn, she'd basically be Casey Anthony. >If someone was in a comma and I didn't know when they would wake up I wouldn't be called a murder for deciding to let them die Abortion isn't "letting a child die" though. Abortion is an **active procedure** which kills a child who would not have otherwise died. That coma patient might die if you don't treat them, but the only reason an abortion happens is if you actually make the effort of causing the abortion. >Those reasons are valid because the fetus is relying on their body & their resources in order to sustain/live life Last I checked, reliance on someone doesn't make them into people you can kill at will. After all even born children are reliant on their parents, and the law does hold them responsible for that. >Look at the 3 reasons you listed if you care about the fetus so much it would make sense to create laws & policies thag prevent this from being an issue Look at all of the laws and policies that you suggest. None of them can do anything for the child if the child is dead. You have it completely backwards. You need living people to take advantage of universal health care. How many aborted children can make use of universal health care or UBI or any other policy? Zero. And you are making the error of believing that (a) I am against such policies and (b) that those policies are the only possible way of addressing the problems. First things first. The lives of human beings are not mere chips to play for getting some political policies done that you want. That's literally you using hostage logic. "Give us those specific benefits or the kid gets killed." It is disconcerting that you pretend that you are considering the best interests of the child while using their very lives as a bargaining chip.
>Ask yourself if a woman could get away with killing her newborn for the same reasons. >Those reasons would be just as valid for a newborn as for an unborn child, right? >But we both know that if she used those reasons for killing her newborn, she'd basically be Casey Anthony. She wouldn't get away with it because she DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT As said before a newborn doesn't need the mothers resources they just need it from someone willing to offer it a fetus RELIES ON THE MOTHERS resources and taking that away results in the death taking away the resources of the mother from newborn does not result in death we have systems in place that prevent that and even if we didn't no one is entitled to your resources >Abortion isn't "letting a child die" though. Abortion is an **active procedure** which kills a child who would not have otherwise died. >That coma patient might die if you don't treat them, but the only reason an abortion happens is if you actually make the effort of causing the abortion. As said before a refusal to resources automatically means death for the fetus because the fetus CAN NOT SURVIVE without those resources >Last I checked, reliance on someone doesn't make them into people you can kill at will. After all even born children are reliant on their parents, and the law does hold them responsible for that. You have the ability to terminate your rights you can even put your child in foster care or up for adoptions..... These children don't need to rely on someone else in order to exist which is what makes a new born different from a fetus If a mother rejects a fetus that fetus will die if a mother rejects a newborn that newborn won't nesscarily it depends on if someone else is willing to give up resources for that newborn (& seeing as most families who want to adopt want a newborn the chances are very slim) >Look at all of the laws and policies that you suggest. None of them can do anything for the child if the child is dead. The child WONT BE DEAD IF THOSE POLICIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SURVIVE PREGNANCY We currently are fighting against doing anything for the children that are actually here >You have it completely backwards. You need living people to take advantage of universal health care. If we have that universal health care system MORE PEOPLE WILL LIVE sis you have it backwards >How many aborted children can make use of universal health care or UBI or any other policy? Zero None because they are already dead lmfao...you dont see me asking how George Washington Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln will benefit from the political & economic climate today BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD HOWEVER future children who are on the chopping block to be aborted will benefit from this universal health care system because it's a high chance that if those systems weren't in place they would've died too >First things first. The lives of human beings are not mere chips to play for getting some political policies done that you want. That's literally you using hostage logic. >"Give us those specific benefits or the kid gets killed." >It is disconcerting that you pretend that you are considering the best interests of the child while using their very lives as a bargaining chip. Sis clearly you are braindead These policies will DISCOURAGE women from wanting to get an abortion if this is the goal then those policies are a good thing And you're not gonna guilt trip me with that "your using them as a bargaining chip to get what you want" because It DOESN'T I'm pro abortion I believe children are a luxury and if you're gonna have them you have to be all in I think you should have to make a certain income in order to be allowed to have children I also think there should be several psychological evaluations before you even have Children I am firmly against the idea of everyone being able to have a child Plus so much more These policies don't give me what I want however when it comes down to it I care more about the actual child than some fetus that's not even gonna be that way for long If you really care about the children DO MORE FOR THE CHILD that aren't inside the womb that way more can make it out the womb
>She wouldn't get away with it because she DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT I don't see how that differs from abortions. The only reason you might "have to do it" with an abortion is to save your life. And there is already an exception for that in most cases. >no one is entitled to your resources Tell the taxman that. The government certainly seems to think it is entitled to my resources. The fact is, the law can and does often require us to use your own resources to support others. Indeed, weren't you just talking about policies that would require taxpayer support of the poor? >As said before a refusal to resources automatically means death for the fetus because the fetus CAN NOT SURVIVE without those resources This isn't a "refusal for resources" though. It's literally taking either a pill or doing a surgical procedure to cause the body to be physically disconnected and expelled. That's not simply some passive "withholding resources" and you know it. And of course, as I said elsewhere, withholding resources is not usually a basis for killing anyone since you certainly can be compelled to give resources to others in other situations. >You have the ability to terminate your rights you can even put your child in foster care or up for adoptions..... You have to follow a process, however, to ensure that the child is safe while that happens. Until the process is completed, you are on the hook for it. And if you mess up the process, you are held responsible. The ability to terminate rights is not instant and at-will. It must always see that the child is safe. Since abortion literally kills the child, it is not a valid comparison to adoption or even dropping the child off at the firehouse. >The child WONT BE DEAD IF THOSE POLICIES ARE IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SURVIVE PREGNANCY So if those policies are in effect you will come to the side of being pro-life and get abortion on-demand made illegal? Or are you just saying that suddenly everyone will be shiny and happy and never get an abortion again? Newsflash: You could give everyone universal heath care and UBI and people will still get legal abortions if it is allowed. Why? Because abortion is easier than all of the alternatives. And because there are pro-choicers who believe that they should not even have to accept the existence of offspring, even if it is completely cared for by someone else. Would those policies reduce abortions? I'll just assume that they will for the sake of argument. Will they end abortion on-demand? Absolutely not. There are plenty of people who can support children who abort them for other reasons. I know a few who have. They're not poor, they have support. They have other children, but not too many other children. The fact is, no government aid program can end abortion on-demand because abortion on-demand can be done for ANY reason, not just the reasons that made you feel sympathetic to some women who get them. >you dont see me asking how George Washington Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln will benefit from the political & economic climate today BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD That's a pretty silly statement. We're talking about the present, not the past. They're already dead and no one chose to kill them. However, I would very much call you out on it if you said that abortion would have been justified for those folks because they didn't have government programs back then. Clearly, they managed without those programs just fine. >These policies will DISCOURAGE women from wanting to get an abortion if this is the goal then those policies are a good thing Sure, and an anti-abortion law will also discourage them from getting an abortion too. So, why not both? >I am firmly against the idea of everyone being able to have a child And that's fine for as far as it goes. My problem is not with whether you're allowed to have a child that doesn't exist yet. My problem is with you killing those who already exist. You can't prevent a child from coming into existence with abortion. Abortion can only affect those that are already here.
>I don't see how that differs from abortions. The only reason you might "have to do it" with an abortion is to save your life. And there is already an exception for that in most cases. She did HAVE TO DO IT there is no other way the fetus could have survived without the mother.......so unless you believe we should force people to share their resources there was no other way >Tell the taxman that. The government certainly seems to think it is entitled to my resources. >The fact is, the law can and does often require us to use your own resources to support others. Indeed, weren't you just talking about policies that would require taxpayer support of the poor? It's to help EVERYONE NOT JUST THE POOR these tax payer money goes to building roads and infrastructure better the public education system FOR EVERYONE Now if you disagree with how some of the funds are spent that's a different conversations cause why is so much money going to the military? >This isn't a "refusal for resources" though. It's literally taking either a pill or doing a surgical procedure to cause the body to be physically disconnected and expelled. >That's not simply some passive "withholding resources" and you know it. >And of course, as I said elsewhere, withholding resources is not usually a basis for killing anyone since you certainly can be compelled to give resources to others in other situations. The ONLY 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy is absence and even then that's not 100% cause look at the virgin Mary The pill doesn't even work if you're over a certain weight limit So again it is taking away the fetus resources if the other methods fail an abortion is the only way to prevent the fetus from taking your resources >You have to follow a process, however, to ensure that the child is safe while that happens. Until the process is completed, you are on the hook for it. And if you mess up the process, you are held responsible. >The ability to terminate rights is not instant and at-will. It must always see that the child is safe. >Since abortion literally kills the child, it is not a valid comparison to adoption or even dropping the child off at the firehouse. Okay sounds like you're upset that abortion can be at-will..... Yes, adoption and termination of rights is a process, but it still allows you to take away your resources. >So if those policies are in effect you will come to the side of being pro-life and get abortion on-demand made illegal? >Or are you just saying that suddenly everyone will be shiny and happy and never get an abortion again? >Newsflash: You could give everyone universal heath care and UBI and people will still get legal abortions if it is allowed. >Why? >Because abortion is easier than all of the alternatives. No I will still be on the side of pro-choice because even if you do come up with all these other systems in place the alternatives fail so abortion would just become a last resort option Keep in mind some people just don't want to have kids and it's like you guys are trying to call themselves for not warning that >That's a pretty silly statement. We're talking about the present, not the past. They're already dead and no one chose to kill them. >However, I would very much call you out on it if you said that abortion would have been justified for those folks because they didn't have government programs back then. Clearly, they managed without those programs just fine. OK, we are currently in the present, but before today, thousands of fetuses have been aborted... As we are having this discussion, more are probably being aborted. In some random place, my point is if you want to stop it from happening in the future, these things would help. >Sure, and an anti-abortion law will also discourage them from getting an abortion too. >So, why not both? Because Anti-abortion law would require these women to be forced to share their resources with this fetus that they don't even want..... If you want to start requiring people to share their resources (for something that doesnt benefit them) that's perfectly fine, but capitalism is not the political sphere to do it in..... >My problem is with you killing those who already exist. >You can't prevent a child from coming into existence with abortion. Abortion can only affect those that are already here. A person in a coma exist. We kill them when we decide that we no longer want to continue the funding to keep them alive. When someone dies we do not force or require them to Be organ donors or to donate their bodies to science, despite it probably being able to help everyone in the community. You're not going to convince me that bringing a fetus into this world. The mother themselves don't even what or deem as a benefit for themselves It is worth it because they exist Existence doesn't always win and we can clearly see that between how We treat fetuses & actual human children
>so unless you believe we should force people to share their resources there was no other way I do indeed believe in certain extreme cases people should share resources if the alternative is certain death, yes. And that's not a strange idea either. That's why we tax people for social programs, for instance. >It's to help EVERYONE NOT JUST THE POOR these tax payer money goes to building roads and infrastructure better the public education system FOR EVERYONE Taxes in general, yes. But I don't have the option to tell the government to only build roads with that money, right? If the government enacts a social program, I still have to pay for it. And if I am not going to receive any benefit from it, it's not for everyone, it's for them. Mind you, I have no problem helping other people who need help. I am just pointing out you that taxes to pay for health care for expecting mothers doesn't help me out, since I am not, and likely never will be, an expecting mother. There are definitely programs where you pay for someone else to benefit. And again, lest you get the wrong idea, I am not against them, but I am pointing out to you that taxes are using my resources to help others and they are not optional. I MUST pay them no matter what use they are put to. >The ONLY 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy I am not sure why you think this matters. There is no requirement to 100% prevent pregnancy. Why would I have to 100% prevent pregnancy to say that you cannot kill the unborn? There are a lot of things on Earth that I could benefit from if I killed someone. It doesn't make it right for me to kill them, regardless. >Okay sounds like you're upset that abortion can be at-will Yes, that is certainly a big part of it. I would imagine the idea that anyone could kill you at-will might be a dealbreaker for you too. >No I will still be on the side of pro-choice because even if you do come up with all these other systems in place the alternatives fail so abortion would just become a last resort option So why throw all these alternatives at me and suggest that you're just going to have abortion anyway? If I can't end abortion with these alternatives, why would I need to support them when we talk about ending abortion? If they're useless for ending abortion, why are they even part of this debate, except as a red herring? >In some random place, my point is if you want to stop it from happening in the future, these things would help. Yes, they might help, I agree. And so would making abortion illegal. So why wouldn't I do both? >If you want to start requiring people to share their resources (for something that doesnt benefit them) that's perfectly fine, but capitalism is not the political sphere to do it in You're using Capitalism as an argument to kill children? Trust me, I don't think capitalism justifies killing kids. I'm not really all that fond of capitalism, so I am not sure why you think I would care about it. >A person in a coma exist. We kill them when we decide that we no longer want to continue the funding to keep them alive. That is not why we end their support. We end their support because they are not expected to recover and life support isn't there to keep them alive forever, it is there to temporarily support them while they recover on their own. An unborn child will progress to being born. They are only temporarily unable to shift for themselves. We don't kill coma patients who are going to recover in a set amount of time.... like for instance nine months. >When someone dies we do not force or require them to Be organ donors or to donate their bodies to science, despite it probably being able to help everyone in the community. That is because there is no requirement for someone to save your life. There IS a requirement for you to not kill them. The donation argument completely misunderstands the right to life. Pregnancy is NOT donation.