People tend to automatically assume that pro-life is a religious stance

TheMightyAnonym

-dons flame retardant gear in advance-

So far as I can tell, this doesn't really make sense to me. In fact, pro-life almost seems like it should be a secular stance instead. The Bible is more or less silent on it, and one could argue that abortion is OK, because the baby will go to heaven or something. I'm not sure why this bugs me, but it just does a bit. I always have to explain that I'm pro-life for reasons other than religion, and so on so forth.

Well, I suppose that's politics for ya.

In any case, my reasons are ultimately philosophical.

Myrmidon

It's mainly because most atheists are liberals or libertarians.

Beholderess

There are other reasons to hold such stance, of course. This one thinks that your guess about politics is correct. It is quite unfortunate that many issues are now seen as always coming together due to vocal political activism.

But the correlation between religion and pro-life stance is rather high. It is true that it was not necessary for it to be so, but that's the situation people have, so this one won't call their assumptions entirely unfounded. It is a generalisation, clumsy as they tend to be

It's mainly because most atheists are liberals or libertarians.

Ahem, it is quite possible for atheist to be conservative, and even socially conservative. Although how common is it depends on area, I suppose

Myrmidon

I realize that, and I was mainly talking about the situation in the USA, where only a few conservatives are atheists. I assume that the situation is different in other parts of the world.

TheMightyAnonym

^^The correlation is high, but I wonder if the correlation exists only because children take after their parents? If that were the case (as it may very well be), then religious people could be mostly pro-choice and secular people might be mostly pro-life.

"Ahem, it is quite possible for atheist to be conservative, and even
socially conservative. Although how common is it depends on area, I
suppose"

If I had to guess, I would bet that it is much, much more common outside of America.

^Ninja.

Beholderess

Hmm, do you mean people taking after their parents their religion, or stance concerning abortion?

TheMightyAnonym

Taking after just about everything, really. Children in general will agree with their parents, perhaps considering their parent's beliefs to be the "default" view of things. Thus, they need reason to believe otherwise.

Beholderess

Well, in this case there would be no reason for difference between religious affiliation and stance on abortion to appear if it wasn't common among their parents

Vorpy

pro-life = "Let's give it a chance at least".

Gelzo

I don't see how "X goes to heaven" would be a justification for destroying X, because I think that usually means X has a soul, and that falls under the definition of murder for quite a few people. Here I'm going by the concept that good and evil is something that is dictated by god, and that it'd be wrong to do something that's technically a sin even if it has good results for everyone else involved.

But taking that version of ethics out of the picture for a minute, I'd have to wonder how it'd be more moral to destroy a zygote before it obtained a soul if waiting meant an extra soul in heaven.

And don't unbaptized babies go to hell/purgatory in some faiths?

Vorpy

We do not kill. We cleanse.

Cleansing is necessary to ensure our eternal freedom and security.

Indeed, you fail to understand: there is no death.

Only termination and rebirth.

Each termination brings around the new chance

the possibility to be born a christian.

We merely present this opportunity, make it available to all.

Tnu1138

What the fuck Vorpy? Anyway I’ve seen some decent Pro-life arguments. Ron Paul for example is pretty good about his stance considering he uses actual science and experience to support his stance. I've also seen some pretty bad pro-choice reasoning. Clinton using the Bible to back himself up for example.

Hatter

What we need is a perfect definition of what life is. Then, if a fetus fulfills that definition, abortion is never justifiable. If it doesn't fulfill that definition, then it is justifiable.

Tnu1138

That's actually pretty decent reasoning for a Neocon.

Hatter

You say that like it's a bad thing.

The underlying assumption beneath my pro-life stance is that a fetus is a living being. It reacts to stimuli. It's capable of limited motion. It eventually gets brain wave patterns and a heartbeat. It has a metabolism. By having those properties, I believe that it's alive, and that it's a human being. Not a wholly formed human being, of course, but human. 

I have a problem with this idea that, because the fetus is in the womb, it's the woman's property. It's not an organ or even a growth; it's its own thing, and justifying removing it and killing it by saying, "it can't survive on its own, so it's the woman's property" doesn't hold water. Babies die when they're neglected, too.

So although I don't think abortion is murder, I do think it's rather like killing a kitten. The only possible excuses are that the kitten wouldn't have a good life, or that the kitten was trying to kill you.

Not the best analogy, but you get my idea.

Gelzo

^^...

Tnu1138

the problem is the state telling you what you can do iwth your own body. for property reasons your body is your own property and by extension anything inside it. Anyone having jurisdiction over your own body is nothing short of slavery.

Vivi

Parents have rights over their children's body, to an extent.

Tnu1138

That'skind of unnerving.

Vivi

Why? Excluding harming, killing, neglecting, it's not that big a deal.

Schitzo

My cop-out answer: "It's a potential life either way. You want/ need it dead? Do you really not want it in your life? Go ahead, spare it some neglect and abort it. Keep in mind, you're still killing it."