Non-religious/secular pro life arguments?

[Solmyr]

Come on … parenting is a a lot more involved than just giving an infant a glass of milk.

Parenting is not the topic of the thread. “Donating” one’s body is the main topic. The point is that there is no law or unwritten requirement that one is obliged to share one’s body with others. Not even to donate blood. Not even one’s dead corpse.

Look, the marriage/divorce issue isn’t even on-topic here…

Then why did you bring it up?

The current, though somewhat off-topic issue was that people can have meaningful relationships without wanting or planning a child. It is possible to build a mutually beneficial relationship which also contains non-procreative sexual acts.

 

[MarcoPolo]

it does not make the fetus desirable

The humanity of a baby is not dependent on another person’s desire for that baby’s existence.

 

[Micosil]

Perhaps ‘fully fledged’ was a bad choice of phrase. The zygote is not a fully developed human being in the physical sense. That can’t be disputed.

Is a prepubescent child not fully developed either because they lack the ability to reproduce? I do understand what you’re saying here, but you see, stage of development isn’t what’s required to have a ‘fully-fledged’ human being or not. Embryology/biology settles that.

It’s not a matter of convincing mothers the zygote is human in nature, it is a matter of convincing them terminating a pregnancy should not be a legal right under any circumstances, other than the situation were it is a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the unborn child. There are situations that are much more complicated than this. Certainly the arguments you have presented would persuade me, but in my case your preaching to the converted.

Well, one of the issues I find with debating pro-choicers is that many of them don’t even believe in the humanity of the fetus. I mean, it isn’t unusual to hear the mantra of “it’s just a clump of cells”.

Revoking any legal right is a serious business. Consider the story I have posted a link to below. I’m not saying I agree with the woman’s decision, but at the time my heart went out to her, I would be reluctant to judge her for the decision, and I would have difficulty arguing she should not have the right to make the decision she did.

belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/abortion-debate-her-baby-had-no-brain-but-northern-irelands-law-forced-her-to-carry-it-29648561.html

There must be a more compassionate way to address circumstances such as these, and saying they don’t happen very often is irrelevant when it comes to law. If it happens once the law cannot ignore it.

These cases are indeed very sensitive, and the utmost care and compassion must be used when addressing these specific circumstances. However, let me ask the question this way: if a brainless child already existed in the outside world, was already born, would we willingly kill it? Remember, brain or not, as long as the baby is alive, embryology and biology settle the question definitively: it is a human being. The trauma this young woman experienced, I can never understand, first of all because I’m male. But is the willingness to avoid that suffering greater than the intrinsic value of the life of the unborn, deformed or not?

Parenting is not the topic of the thread. “Donating” one’s body is the main topic. The point is that there is no law or unwritten requirement that one is obliged to share one’s body with others. Not even to donate blood. Not even one’s dead corpse.

If there’s no such requirement, why do most pro-choicers disagree with very late-term abortions? Late-term or not, at that point, the fetus still is using the mother’s bodily resources.

Then why did you bring it up?

The current, though somewhat off-topic issue was that people can have meaningful relationships without wanting or planning a child. It is possible to build a mutually beneficial relationship which also contains non-procreative sexual acts.

You seemed to be wanting an example of the decay of society, since you seemed incredulous. But you’re right, if it’s off-topic we can continue later in a potential future thread.

The humanity of a baby is not dependent on another person’s desire for that baby’s existence.

 

[Solmyr]

If there’s no such requirement, why do most pro-choicers disagree with very late-term abortions? Late-term or not, at that point, the fetus still is using the mother’s bodily resources.

Emotional reasons - and there is nothing shameful about admitting it. We have emotional reasons not kill a cute kitty or a sweet puppy, but have no problem with stepping on a cockroach or swatting flies. The cats and the dogs are closer to us on the evolutionary scale, and as the old Romans said: “similis simili gaudet” - which is called speciesism in todays parlance. We value our kind more… mostly.

Besides the late term abortion (or any abortion) does not even come up with proper, 100% sure prevention.

 

[minkymurph]

Is a prepubescent child not fully developed either because they lack the ability to reproduce? I do understand what you’re saying here, but you see, stage of development isn’t what’s required to have a ‘fully-fledged’ human being or not. Embryology/biology settles that.

Well, one of the issues I find with debating pro-choicers is that many of them don’t even believe in the humanity of the fetus. I mean, it isn’t unusual to hear the mantra of “it’s just a clump of cells”.

Ok. I see where you are going,

Their perspective is ‘it’s just a clump of cells.’ If someone is determined that is what they want to believe, arguments to the contrary are unlikely to persuade them. So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that in the very early stages of pregnancy it is a clump of cells. Giving them the benefit of the doubt does not mean we agree the zygote is just a clump of cells. It means we are structuring an argument from their perspective.

That clump of cells contains the blue print for a unique individual. That cannot be disputed. If the pregnancy is terminated, the blue print of that unique individual will never come into existence in the sense of being born.

The question then for those who are pro-choice is when and in what circumstances should a woman have the right to determine the blue print of that unique individual should never come into existence in the sense of being born?

These cases are indeed very sensitive, and the utmost care and compassion must be used when addressing these specific circumstances. However, let me ask the question this way: if a brainless child already existed in the outside world, was already born, would we willingly kill it? Remember, brain or not, as long as the baby is alive, embryology and biology settle the question definitively: it is a human being. The trauma this young woman experienced, I can never understand, first of all because I’m male. But is the willingness to avoid that suffering greater than the intrinsic value of the life of the unborn, deformed or not?

I’m glad we agree these cases are very sensitive and must be handled with the utmost care and compassion. I used this example to illustrate that for many women the decision to have an abortion is heartbreaking, and they don’t take the decision lightly.

On the point of willingly killing a brainless child that was born, it depends on your point of view what constitutes ‘willingly killing’ the child. If a brainless child was born, there is every likelihood the medical profession would let nature take it’s course and be disinclined to resuscitate the child if it’s heart stopped. There was a case in the UK where a doctor was charged with manslaughter. In short, he had one incubator and two babies that needed it. One was left to die. He was acquitted. This case is not a one off. Members of the medical profession face these challenges every day, and we can’t romanticize the realities on the ground through the ‘all life is precious’ approach.

The abortion debate is a highly contentious and emotive issue because of how highly we value human life. A model for debate is the right and justified, wrong and unjustifiable, right but unjustifiable, and wrong but justified. The most contentious issues are those that fall into the ‘wrong but justified’ category as there is little consensus as to when something is wrong but justified. What I think is important is attempting to formulate a framework for debate on such issues to facilitate informed and insightful discussion of the topic in the absence of highly charged emotions.

 

[clem456]

Ok. I see where you are going,

Their perspective is ‘it’s just a clump of cells.’ If someone is determined that is what they want to believe, arguments to the contrary are unlikely to persuade them. So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that in the very early stages of pregnancy it is a clump of cells. Giving them the benefit of the doubt does not mean we agree the zygote is just a clump of cells. It means we are structuring an argument from their perspective.

That clump of cells contains the blue print for a unique individual. That cannot be disputed. If the pregnancy is terminated, the blue print of that unique individual will never come into existence in the sense of being born.

The question then for those who are pro-choice is when and in what circumstances should a woman have the right to determine the blue print of that unique individual should never come into existence in the sense of being born?

I’m glad we agree these cases are very sensitive and must be handled with the utmost care and compassion. I used this example to illustrate that for many women the decision to have an abortion is heartbreaking, and they don’t take the decision lightly.

On the point of willingly killing a brainless child that was born, it depends on your point of view what constitutes ‘willingly killing’ the child. If a brainless child was born, there is every likelihood the medical profession would let nature take it’s course and be disinclined to resuscitate the child if it’s heart stopped. There was a case in the UK where a doctor was charged with manslaughter. In short, he had one incubator and two babies that needed it. One was left to die. He was acquitted. This case is not a one off. Members of the medical profession face these challenges every day, and we can’t romanticize the realities on the ground through the ‘all life is precious’ approach.

The abortion debate is a highly contentious and emotive issue because of how highly we value human life. A model for debate is the right and justified, wrong and unjustifiable, right but unjustifiable, and wrong but justified. The most contentious issues are those that fall into the ‘wrong but justified’ category as there is little consensus as to when something is wrong but justified. What I think is important is attempting to formulate a framework for debate on such issues to facilitate informed and insightful discussion of the topic in the absence of highly charged emotions.

In discussion, if you assume human life down to the level of blueprint or abstract idea, you have ceded your case. You have lost it before you started. That is the case. Human life has being. Existence.

Whatever success I have had in this issue is by opening eyes to the obvious ramifications of this thinking.
The unborn child cannot be seen. Simply transferring this kind of thinking to it’s seen and proven consequences can change minds.
IMO, using a wrong assumption as a starting point can only lead to a wrong conclusion.

 

[clem456]

Emotional reasons - and there is nothing shameful about admitting it. We have emotional reasons not kill a cute kitty or a sweet puppy, but have no problem with stepping on a cockroach or swatting flies. The cats and the dogs are closer to us on the evolutionary scale, and as the old Romans said: “similis simili gaudet” - which is called speciesism in todays parlance. We value our kind more… mostly.

Besides the late term abortion (or any abortion) does not even come up with proper, 100% sure prevention.

Emotional reasons only? Surely you don’t believe that all pro-choicers are unthinking bundles of emotion.
Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, that they are thinking human beings.
So, what are they thinking about when they see a late term person is threatened with extinction?

It is good that you recognized this similarity between a later term person and a born person. That is encouraging. Although your equivocating scale measuring persons, dogs, cats, insects, etc…that’s more than a little disturbing.

 

[minkymurph]

In discussion, if you assume human life down to the level of blueprint or abstract idea, you have ceded your case. You have lost it before you started.

Whatever success I have had in this issue is by opening eyes to the obvious ramifications of this thinking.
The unborn child cannot be seen. Simply transferring this kind of thinking to it’s seen and proven consequences can change minds.
IMO, using a wrong assumption as a starting point can only lead to a wrong conclusion.

From your perspective yes as you have said so, but not everyone approaches the matter from your perspective. It cannot be assumed everyone who is pro-choice would interpret what I wrote in the same way. What I proposed is a rung on the ladder of progression in terms of discussion. If our starting position is the opponent must agree entirely with our position we may loose our audience.

Whatever success you have had I congratulate you. I am not saying my arguments are superior, but the issue of abortion is not about winning the argument. There is no great benefit in simply winning an argument. An argument that on the face of it cannot be rebutted does is no guarantee others will follow a different course of action.

 

[clem456]

From your perspective yes as you have said so, but not everyone approaches the matter from your perspective. It cannot be assumed everyone who is pro-choice would interpret what I wrote in the same way. What I proposed is a rung on the ladder of progression in terms of discussion. If our starting position is the opponent must agree entirely with our position we may loose our audience.

Whatever success you have had I congratulate you. I am not saying my arguments are superior, but the issue of abortion is not about winning the argument. There is no great benefit in simply winning an argument. An argument that on the face of it cannot be rebutted does is no guarantee others will follow a different course of action.

We do all have a perspective for sure.
I think it’s good to fully understand perspectives, in fact it’s good to repeat the other perspective back. “Let me see if I understand you…”
It’s good to help others see the logical ramifications of their perspective as well.
“do you realize that if you believe this, then this…”?, essentially taking the other person’s point of view to a logical conclusion that they have probably not seen or been willing to accept.

I think seeing the starkness of the differences can serve to change people’s hearts better than assuming things you don’t fully believe for the sake of agreeable discussion.
There is a radical disagreement. And it’s always good to remember that in this forum, where readers might have never thought through the logical conclusions of what they thought amounted to “health care decisions”, pointing out the stark differences and consequences of a point of view helps those people, even if the poster is unmoved.

Working from the assumption that something is not what it is, but is only potentially what it might be, only makes it easier to accept that it is not what it really is.
In other types of discussions this might work well. I dunno.

 

[minkymurph]

We do all have a perspective for sure.
I think it’s good to fully understand perspectives, in fact it’s good to repeat the other perspective back. “Let me see if I understand you…”
It’s good to help others see the logical ramifications of their perspective as well.
“do you realize that if you believe this, then this…”?, essentially taking the other person’s point of view to a logical conclusion that they have probably not seen or been willing to accept.

I think seeing the starkness of the differences can serve to change people’s hearts better than assuming things you don’t fully believe for the sake of agreeable discussion.
There is a radical disagreement. And it’s always good to remember that in this forum, where readers might have never thought through the logical conclusions of what they thought amounted to “health care decisions”, pointing out the stark differences and consequences of a point of view helps those people, even if the poster is unmoved.

Working from the assumption that something is not what it is, but is only potentially what it might be, only makes it easier to accept that it is not what it really is.
In other types of discussions this might work well. I dunno.

I see your reasoning. As Catholics, we can never accept something is not what we believe it is. It would be wrong to demand we do even if it is accepted only on the basis of believe. We should be free to believe what we wish and no one has the right to judge us for what we believe. The freedom to choose what we believe demands their is no judgement attached to what we believe. In a democracy no one should have to answer to anyone else for what they believe.

That said, in a contemporary democracy problems arise from legislating on the basis of a belief. In a contemporary democracy not everyone shares the same religious belief and thus, laws that are formulated on the basis of a religious belief will be opposed by those who do not share that belief. If acceptance of a law requires embracing a particular religious belief then we have a problem.

What I am saying is if we want to promote a moral norm in society or a law that endorses that norm, it must have an appeal beyond our faith. It is true there is scientific evidence an unborn fetus can feel pain from 12 weeks, and hear sound, bond with the mother, twin, all sorts things prior to the point of living independently (so to speak as a baby is entirely depended on others).

I recently seen an information broadcast . The broadcast was by a young girl who became pregnant at 17 and thought her life was over. She had the child and has gone back to college. She said when she had the child she realized her life was not over. I am a volunteer with an organization called Victim Support. We provide a service for victims of crime and my wee mate had a child when she was 15. She has gone back to college and is doing great work with Victim Support. She told me she feels judged by women at the school gate as her son is 6 and she is 21. I told her she should tell people she is 27 and they will say she looks great for her age.

I think she is so brave and a great mother. We should be telling women DON’T THINK YOUR LIFE IS OVER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY. WE DO NOT LIVE IN THAT KIND OF A SOCIETY ANYMORE AND THANK GOD.

I can talk from experience to an extent. Some time ago I was very ill. I had mental health problems, my husband drank every night with his mates, my life was hell for two years. I had a one night stand with someone I worked with after 5 years of no sex and my husband telling me I was too fat to have sex with. When I got pregnant I so wanted my baby as I thought it would be the only chance I would ever have. There was no one to turn to other than the Catholic Church who run a helpline. I talked to a lovely woman who said she believed everything would be ok. I believed her and it gave me the confidence to tell my husband I would not have an abortion. He told me to get out of the family home, but did not cease to be my friend. When my son was born he was there, and looked after me which was just as well as I lost a lot of blood. We now have two sons, I became Catholic after my eldest son was born, my husband did not object and my two sons went to a Catholic school and have been raised Catholic.

The doctor who delivered my children said, I have heard many a story. Your life does not end as a consequence of an unplanned pregnancy. We need to get that message out. No one has ever had a child and regretted it. I sinned, but as a consequence of sin become truly blessed. I have the most wonderful relationship with my sons Thank God for my eldest son who inadvertently saved our marriage. That is not why he was born. I see him as a gift. Had he not saved my marriage we would have been ok,and my husband and I would have been friends. I wish I could contact Roisin and tell her how things turned out and she was right. My marriage is far from perfect, but thank God I did not abort my child I loved so much from the moment he was in womb in a vain attempt to save that marriage. Thank God I listened to Roisin who said it sounds to me you want the baby, and my Catholic friend who said if you have an abortion do you think it will save your marriage.

 

[minkymurph]

We do all have a perspective for sure.
I think it’s good to fully understand perspectives, in fact it’s good to repeat the other perspective back. “Let me see if I understand you…”
It’s good to help others see the logical ramifications of their perspective as well.
“do you realize that if you believe this, then this…”?, essentially taking the other person’s point of view to a logical conclusion that they have probably not seen or been willing to accept.

I think seeing the starkness of the differences can serve to change people’s hearts better than assuming things you don’t fully believe for the sake of agreeable discussion.
There is a radical disagreement. And it’s always good to remember that in this forum, where readers might have never thought through the logical conclusions of what they thought amounted to “health care decisions”, pointing out the stark differences and consequences of a point of view helps those people, even if the poster is unmoved.

Working from the assumption that something is not what it is, but is only potentially what it might be, only makes it easier to accept that it is not what it really is.
In other types of discussions this might work well. I dunno.

This is a great response Clem. Like I said, seeing things from someone else’s view does not mean you agree with them. Being able to see someone else’s point of view does not mean you agree with them. On the issue of abortion, we can’t say every woman who has an abortion is a murderer. That does not mean we think abortion is ok. It means we are not insensitive to the individual plight and we should not categorize all women who choose to have an abortion the same way.

 

[clem456]

I see your reasoning. As Catholics, we can never accept something is not what we believe it is. It would be wrong to demand we do even if it is accepted only on the basis of believe. We should be free to believe what we wish and no one has the right to judge us for what we believe. The freedom to choose what we believe demands their is no judgement attached to what we believe. In a democracy no one should have to answer to anyone else for what they believe.

That said, in a contemporary democracy problems arise from legislating on the basis of a belief. In a contemporary democracy not everyone shares the same religious belief and thus, laws that are formulated on the basis of a religious belief will be opposed by those who do not share that belief. If acceptance of a law requires embracing a particular religious belief then we have a problem.

What I am saying is if we want to promote a moral norm in society or a law that endorses that norm, it must have an appeal beyond our faith. It is true there is scientific evidence an unborn fetus can feel pain from 12 weeks, and hear sound, bond with the mother, twin, all sorts things prior to the point of living independently (so to speak as a baby is entirely depended on others).

I recently seen an information broadcast . The broadcast was by a young girl who became pregnant at 17 and thought her life was over. She had the child and has gone back to college. She said when she had the child she realized her life was not over. I am a volunteer with an organization called Victim Support. We provide a service for victims of crime and my wee mate had a child when she was 15. She has gone back to college and is doing great work with Victim Support. She told me she feels judged by women at the school gate as her son is 6 and she is 21. I told her she should tell people she is 27 and they will say she looks great for her age.

I think she is so brave and a great mother. We should be telling women DON’T THINK YOUR LIFE IS OVER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY. WE DO NOT LIVE IN THAT KIND OF A SOCIETY ANYMORE AND THANK GOD.

I can talk from experience to an extent. Some time ago I was very ill. I had mental health problems, my husband drank every night with his mates, my life was hell for two years. I had a one night stand with someone I worked with after 5 years of no sex and my husband telling me I was too fat to have sex with. When I got pregnant I so wanted my baby as I thought it would be the only chance I would ever have. There was no one to turn to other than the Catholic Church who run a helpline. I talked to a lovely woman who said she believed everything would be ok. I believed her and it gave me the confidence to tell my husband I would not have an abortion. He told me to get out of the family home, but did not cease to be my friend. When my son was born he was there, and looked after me which was just as well as I lost a lot of blood. We now have two sons, I became Catholic after my eldest son was born, my husband did not object and my two sons went to a Catholic school and have been raised Catholic.

The doctor who delivered my children said, I have heard many a story. Your life does not end as a consequence of an unplanned pregnancy. We need to get that message out. No one has ever had a child and regretted it. I sinned, but as a consequence of sin become truly blessed. I have the most wonderful relationship with my sons Thank God for my eldest son who inadvertently saved our marriage. That is not why he was born. I see him as a gift. Had he not saved my marriage we would have been ok,and my husband and I would have been friends. I wish I could contact Roisin and tell her how things turned out and she was right. My marriage is far from perfect, but thank God I did not abort my child I loved so much from the moment he was in womb in a vain attempt to save that marriage. Thank God I listened to Roisin who said it sounds to me you want the baby, and my Catholic friend who said if you have an abortion do you think it will save your marriage.

Thanks for your witness.
Every child is a gift. It is our perceptions that are distorted into seeing that child as a tragedy.
My daughter was born out of wedlock with a woman I did not marry. She changed my life for the better and began a conversion in me that continues.

I also materially participated in an abortion.
It seems fear is the main reason for abortion.
Lack of support.
Materialism
Utilitarianism

But a denial of the goodness and intrinsic value of human life, and a fear of the commitments nurturing human life entails. I used all the justifications stated in this thread. I find the same attitudes that allowed me to participate in abortion color everything else in my life. These attitudes have wide reaching implications for every person. All you have to do is read the newspapers and history books. Those things shock us. The same natural sense of shock applied to unseen, unheard, and powerless children in the womb does not resonate.

 

[Rau]

Everything what you said is factually correct, but none of them have any bearing on the subject. None of those quotes take into account the enormous quantitative and qualitative changes which happen during the development of the zygote to a newborn.

Are you under the misconception that you just consumed a couple of pieces of Kentucky Fried Chicken when all you had was a few scrambled eggs?

The human being exists in a number of “forms” in the time period between his non-existence (pre-conception) and that future point when he again no longer exists (post his death). Abortion is justified by asserting, or pretending, the point at which he first exists is “sometime later” than conception. Personally, I cannot find any moral distinction among acts of disposing of the human being 1 second after conception, at any other time in the womb, shortly after birth, or at some later time during life outside the womb.

 

[BornInMarch]

Hello all
I was wondering if anyone could provide any non-religious or scientifically based arguments for being pro-life. I feel like every time anyone tries to defend their position that unlimited access to abortion is literally allowing murder, some secular person (usually an atheist and/or feminist) starts going on a rant about the other person "cramming your religion down their throat.’’

Next time that happens, point him to these websites.

prolifehumanists.org/

opposingviews.com/i/religion/you-can-be-atheist-and-still-be-pro-life

lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/

patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/?repeat=w3tc

 

[minkymurph]

Thanks for your witness.
Every child is a gift. It is our perceptions that are distorted into seeing that child as a tragedy.
My daughter was born out of wedlock with a woman I did not marry. She changed my life for the better and began a conversion in me that continues.

I also materially participated in an abortion.
It seems fear is the main reason for abortion.
Lack of support.
Materialism
Utilitarianism

You never said a truer word. We can debate about the character of the fetus all we want in terms of being human or a clump of cells. At the end of the day the question is; do you want this baby and do you want it now?

What a terrible thing for a child to be seen as a tragedy. How this needs to change. I have heard talk about the cost of raising a child. Do we now see children in terms of pounds, shillings and pence? If we are pro-life then we must seriously address the issues of lack of support, materialism and utilitarianism.

But a denial of the goodness and intrinsic value of human life, and a fear of the commitments nurturing human life entails. I used all the justifications stated in this thread. I find the same attitudes that allowed me to participate in abortion color everything else in my life. These attitudes have wide reaching implications for every person. All you have to do is read the newspapers and history books. Those things shock us. The same natural sense of shock applied to unseen, unheard, and powerless children in the womb does not resonate.

We live in a society were human life has little value, and abortion is seen as a right. I see this as problematic. My husband made a comment to me recently about the right to have a child in the sense of adoption and in vitro fertilization. You cannot own a child and should not have the right to. Children are not a commodity. No one has the right ** to a child. The natural parents of a child have no right to it in the sense of ownership. They had a duty, but not an absolute **right in the sense that is tantamount to ownership.