Secular Arguement Against Abortion

[Marc_Anthony]

How do you create a solely secular arguement against abortion?

One person I debated/discussed with (it was definitely a friendly debate) pointed out that as a society we judged human value, for lack of a better word, on consciousness…for example, when a person in a coma is deemed brain dead, they are considered dead. When I brought up that sleeping people are also unconscious they pointed out that you could in fact observe brain function, making it different from being brain dead.

They then pointed out that in the early stages of pregnancy, babies do not have brain function, and can therefore be aborted without guilt, since they aren’t actually alive yet.

Now, from a religious perspective, it’s easy to respond. But from a secular perspective, I must admit that I was at a loss.

How do you create a good arguement against abortion from a secular perspective.

 

[JohnDamian]

They are equivocating to avoid the critical flaw in their argument.

Firstly; being unconscious nessecarily implies a lack of consciousness - if “brain function” is the determinant of livelyhood; then coma patient’s are still alive because they have the nessecary brain functions to continue breathing; digesting and so forth.

A coma patient is idential to a sleeping person in every sense except the predictability of their emergence; a sleeping person is relatively easy to predict how and if they will wake; wheras this is not the case with a coma patient. Both have general brain functions; allowing the continuance of breathing, heart and so forth. Whilst both lack a *critical *awareness of their surroundings; even though some coma patients; and sleeping people display some reactions to external changes (temperature etc.) these awarenesses are not critical or consicous. Being asleep is identical to being in a coma in all senses except uniformity in the length.

Likewise; a baby might lack brain functions that permit critical consciousness; but it is demonstrably so that many animals and young post-birth children lack (full) awarnesses of their arroundings in a critical rather than an instinctive sense.

A baby; therein; is identical to a sleeping person, or a coma person in that - all three lack critical consciousness. All three have general sustainability; circulation etc;

Whilst it is true that the child is dependant; so is a coma patient or an elderly person; the only difference being the child is dependant upon a single, specific person (mother) wheras an elderly person; a newborn; a coma patient, an injured person; a cripple and so forth are dependant upon nonspecific people. The lack of nonspecificity in the dependance does not equate to the right of determinance for murder. If I found a disabled person whilst walking in the woods; I would be morally obligated to help them; not “even” if I am the only one; but specifically WHEN I am the only one. The same is true for children unborn.

 

[JW10631]

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America is the document that established our nation. In it, one can read that all men are created equal, with rights endowed by the Creator, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To me, not even the Constitution, nor a bunch of stupid judges supporting Roe v. Wade, which was obtained under false pretenses, can overrule the Declaration and the rights therein. Roe v. Wade goes against the Declaration and is invalid. Abortion is a violation of the Declaration’s right of life and as thus cannot be permitted.

If I were President, I would make this case and overturn abortion by executive order - and dare any court to defy me.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America is the document that established our nation. In it, one can read that all men are created equal, with rights endowed by the Creator, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To me, not even the Constitution, nor a bunch of stupid judges supporting Roe v. Wade, which was obtained under false pretenses, can overrule the Declaration and the rights therein. Roe v. Wade goes against the Declaration and is invalid. Abortion is a violation of the Declaration’s right of life and as thus cannot be permitted.

If I were President, I would make this case and overturn abortion by executive order - and dare any court to defy me.

2 problems with this:

1. The person I was talking may not have even been American (I have no idea what country they were from).
2. The Declaration of Independence carries absolutely no executive weight, and anyway people are at perfect liberty to disagree with what the Declaration says about inalienable rights-and many do.

 

[vera_dicere]

Brain waves are measurable in the embryo at 6 weeks post conception.

One cannot use “consciousness” or “sentience” as a determination for justification of abortion, a human being doesn’t really develop sentience until they are about 2 years, some earlier, some older, therefore, if abortion of an 8 week old foetus is justified because they are not “sentient” or “conscious” then murder of a new born, or even a toddler is justified by the same argument. Even that hack Richard Dawkins said that new borns should be legally snuffed by their parents if the parents desire as the newborn is not a “person” or “sentient”.

A secular argument against abortion is logical. Simply ask the question is the human uterine entity human? Yes, of course it is. She is a human being in a particular stage of development. None of us would be here today if it wasn’t for the fact we were once a small bundle of cells floating down our mother’s fallopian tube, or if we weren’t a 8 week old foetus. The zygote/embryo/foetus is designed and programmed with millions of years of evolutationary DNA to grow within her mother’s womb. This is normal. This is natural. Everyone of us has done this.

The arguments for abortion are asinine and dangerous, they can be applied to almost any human outside the womb.

The pro-abortion argument in particular of “keep your laws offa my body” bla bla bla, is also faulty, the govt. has LOTS of laws that determine the use of your body, and sometimes against yoru will. When you can join the army, smoke, have sex and with whom, how and where, when and where you can drink, when you can get a tattoo, even paying taxes is the govt. using your body for their benefit. Heck, you can’t even decide to have your legs amputated on a whim, well, why not? They’re non-sentient, they won’t survive without you, they are just a cluster of cells, sure, they may have human DNA but they are not human, right? Your body, your choice? Or is it?

The ZEF is not some cheeky invader that crawled under a woman’s door one night and entered her body against her will. She engaged in an activity who’s sole biological purpose is to produce a ZEF. The mother, and by extension father, of the ZEF need to take responsiblity for their actions and NOT kill the human being they created.

Which of course leads to the point of why a woman aborts? She usually has no support mechanisms, she may be stressed by family and friends and father to abort, she may have a bad boss or be in secondary school.

How many of those 1.2 million children killed in teh USA each year were killd simply becuase the woman couldn’t afford them, because she couldn’t continue her schooling, or her boss wouldn’t give her maternity leave? The majority of those children were killed for reasons we as a society can fix, if we want too.

No mention of God, no mention of the “baby” having a soul. Hey presto, secular rant against abortion.

 

[Rascalking]

Google Nat Hentoff. A pro-life agnostic,brilliant thinker, and wonderful jazz clinic.

He does great work.

Christopher Hitchens (surprise!) also has some good thoughts on abortion.

Also, google, “Pro-life atheists”.

Just some tho0ughts.

 

[Apryl]

How do you create a solely secular arguement against abortion?

For starters, in this day and age, with all the media alerts, technology and the information sharing sources like the internet, there is no good reason for a person to get pregnant that isn’t TRYING to

So, from a SECULAR standpoint, if a person isn’t trying to make a baby, that person, if he or she is old enough to have sexual intercourse, is old enough to not make a baby that they are not trying to make.

Not to mention, with STDS as severe as HIV/AIDs, not to mention Chlamydia, Herpes, Syphallas, and things I can’t even begin to try to spell and may make part that you want or could want to use later fall off (Ok, jest… but you get my point)

With those things, there should be preventative measures which would work to prevent the pregnancy taken.

If, otoh, and pregnancy does take place, ending the pregnancy before natural birth is dangerous. Not just for the unborn child, but also for the mother. There are many issues for mothers to be concerned with. There are threats of infection from the abortion itself. Then there is an increased risk of breast cancer for women who terminate their first pregnancies (sorry, I don’t have a link, but I got this from a source that is NOT anti-abortion). Some women, even if they don’t have issues today with ending the pregnancy, could have issues with it later and that guilt can affect her leading to things such as depression, which could lead to acts of self mutilation and even suicide.

The fathers are excluded. Even if the man says he’s ok with the woman making the choice, men tend to be territorial. Men, even those who don’t want to have children, often speak of their ‘seed’ when discussing the fluid that is necessary for procreation. If the mother terminates the pregnancy without his consent, many men will feel violated; their seed was taken from them. If it is with his consent, many men will feel guilt that they damaged their seed. There have been instances of men having ‘atonement dreams’ where they have dreams of blood pouring from the walls and these dreams have been linked to awareness of the termination of a pregnancy.

Most relationships can’t handle the ending of a pregnancy. Some do, but they are rare. There is finger pointing. Either ‘you made me kill my baby’ or else ‘you took my child from me’ is part of the argument later. Even if they stick it out for a while, the mention of the time is often painful for one or both parties.

Pregnancies that end in abortion usually happen because the mother feels she ‘can’t handle being pregnant’ or ‘this is not the right time’. This does not mean that the pregnancy actually corrected the situation. The parties are no more ready for the pregnancy when it happens again. Many pregnancies that are terminated are followed soon by another ‘unplanned’ pregnancy. The abortion hasn’t fixed anything.

Then there are pregnancies that are ended because of rape. The mother is often guilted into ending the pregnancy with the idea that it will ‘make it go away’. Ending the life of the child doesn’t un-rape the mother. The memories of the event are not diminished in a cold sterile room, or a back room in a back-alley apartment where the mother is violated again.

Pregnancies that are ended because of incest are likewise another non-solution. If the abortion serves to ‘protect’ the situation, it doesn’t protect the mother. It allows the rapist/violator father of the child to be undetected, while making the mother feel guilt over the situation. If the abortion happens because of fears of ‘inbreeding’: children of closely related parents, while not a good thing, does not mean that the product of this coupling will be any more odd than any other child. “Inbreeding” takes several generations to cause mutations. There are many people living productive lives and public lives who are the product of a woman and her father, a woman and her uncle, a woman and her brother. Ending the pregnancy allows these things to continue, with the woman being abused by the sire as well as who ever procures the abortion.

While I’m sure there is some good reason to allow for an abortion, I have not heard of it yet.

 

[catharina]

How do you create a solely secular arguement against abortion?

One person I debated/discussed with (it was definitely a friendly debate) pointed out that as a society we judged human value, for lack of a better word, on consciousness…for example, when a person in a coma is deemed brain dead, they are considered dead. When I brought up that sleeping people are also unconscious they pointed out that you could in fact observe brain function, making it different from being brain dead.

They then pointed out that in the early stages of pregnancy, babies do not have brain function, and can therefore be aborted without guilt, since they aren’t actually alive yet.

Now, from a religious perspective, it’s easy to respond. But from a secular perspective, I must admit that I was at a loss.

How do you create a good arguement against abortion from a secular perspective.

So next step for the other individual in your friendly debate?
Maybe this …

Kill those babies born with anacephaly.
Each of them is lacking brain matter to a greater or lesser degree.
They’ll die anyway, in days or hours after birth
So kill them - preferably in public with clowns and applause?

Next to die? Children born with hydrocephalus.
Their brain development will be problematical and supporting it can be expensive.
So kill them too.

Next … whatever the death-monger decides.

The essential fact is that all
human life begins at conception -
and that fact can’t be reasonably denied.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m sorry, Marc, but I don’t think that the abortion problem (its prevalence) is at root a 'secular" problem – that, if Catholics could “reach” secularists, the problem would be largely solved. Abortions happen in high numbers among practicing, believing Catholics in this country, and in high numbers among practicing, believing Catholics in much-more-Catholic countries. Why? Because “rational discussion” is one thing, and an emotional decision is another. The decision to carry-to-term an unwanted, surprise pregnancy has immediately imaginable, life-long, practical consequences for the couple, especially the mother. That tends to be much more powerful than detached intellectual argument.

Second, the root causes are different depending on the populations involved. By far the largest percentage of abortions in this country occur among single women aged 22-29, who are sexually active. And why are they sexually active? Because the (secular) culture expects, “demands” it. So the secular argument needs to be against casual, irresponsible sex among the unmarried. I vigorously and viscerally oppose cohabitation (and obviously the sex that accompanies it) as extremely unwise and ultimately self-disrespectful for the female, but my voice is against the tide. If you are so close, so intimate with another, that you can actually get naked with him or her, you belong married to each other, because marriage is the recognized, healthy, community-supported state of life for psychological (and sexual) intimacy. That is an argument that one can make with secularists, atheists, whomever. No other lifestyle supports sexual intimacy. None.

The second largest population in this country to choose abortions are sexually active teenagers, many of whom are married, and most of whom are ethnic minorities with little education or money, and who have made the poor choice to marry (or hook up with) the wrong person, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time. Usually the spouse is not much better off financially or psychologically than the pregnant woman is, and thus unable to support the child; thus, the mother aborts out of panic. Emotionally and practically, it’s a logical choice, overriding any intellectualized morality of the situation. Further, many of these pregnancies are deliberately sought (unlike most in the 22-29-year-old group) for the sake of “keeping” the mate, and in many cases even with the goal of his marrying her. And, in both poor Latino and poor black subcultures, the pattern of early marriage to a biological “Dad” who then disappears, is often a learned, modeled habit carried down to the next generation without particular examination of its fruits.

The smallest group is married women over 40. Some of these are Catholics who believe they’re doing the right thing by not holding back on reproduction, but then sometimes find themselves in a strained marriage (emotionally, financially), and also decide out of panic, not morality. The rest in this age group are a variety of religious and non-religious persuasions who abort due to negative amnio or CVS results.

I’m not saying that intellectualizing about the definitions and origins of life does not enter into any abortion decisions, but it does not dominate those decisions, for the most part.

It really is about lifestyles, cultural choices, cultural trends/behaviors. Couples who discover an unintended pregnancy and are not pleased about it, generally don’t sit around having philosophical discussions about it. They’re having emotional and practical discussions about it – which is why they should have thought about the emotionality and practicality of it before they removed their clothes.

[The statistical trends are summarized from a variety of sources I’ve accessed over the last several months. That’s why I’m not providing links: there are too many of them. And I am sticking just to U.S. abortions, not those of other countries, where the situations and motivations – when those statistics are high – are quite different]

 

[catharina]

I’m sorry, Marc, but I don’t think that the abortion problem (its prevalence) is at root a 'secular" problem – that, if Catholics could “reach” secularists, the problem would be largely solved. Abortions happen in high numbers among practicing, believing Catholics in this country, and in high numbers among practicing, believing Catholics in much-more-Catholic countries. Why? Because “rational discussion” is one thing, and an emotional decision is another. The decision to carry-to-term an unwanted, surprise pregnancy has immediately imaginable, life-long, practical consequences for the couple, especially the mother. That tends to be much more powerful than detached intellectual argument.
Second, the root causes are different depending on the populations involved. By far the largest percentage of abortions in this country occur among single women aged 22-29, who are sexually active. And why are they sexually active? Because the (secular) culture expects, “demands” it. So the secular argument needs to be against casual, irresponsible sex among the unmarried. I vigorously and viscerally oppose cohabitation (and obviously the sex that accompanies it) as extremely unwise and ultimately self-disrespectful for the female, but my voice is against the tide. If you are so close, so intimate with another, that you can actually get naked with him or her, you belong married to each other, because marriage is the recognized, healthy, community-supported state of life for psychological (and sexual) intimacy. That is an argument that one can make with secularists, atheists, whomever. No other lifestyle supports sexual intimacy. None.

The second largest population in this country to choose abortions are sexually active teenagers, many of whom are married, and most of whom are ethnic minorities with little education or money, and who have made the poor choice to marry (or hook up with) the wrong person, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time. Usually the spouse is not much better off financially or psychologically than the pregnant woman is, and thus unable to support the child; thus, the mother aborts out of panic. Emotionally and practically, it’s a logical choice, overriding any intellectualized morality of the situation. Further, many of these pregnancies are deliberately sought (unlike most in the 22-29-year-old group) for the sake of “keeping” the mate, and in many cases even with the goal of his marrying her. And, in both poor Latino and poor black subcultures, the pattern of early marriage to a biological “Dad” who then disappears, is often a learned, modeled habit carried down to the next generation without particular examination of its fruits.

The smallest group is married women over 40. Some of these are Catholics who believe they’re doing the right thing by not holding back on reproduction, but then sometimes find themselves in a strained marriage (emotionally, financially), and also decide out of panic, not morality. The rest in this age group are a variety of religious and non-religious persuasions who abort due to negative amnio or CVS results.

I’m not saying that intellectualizing about the definitions and origins of life does not enter into any abortion decisions, but it does not dominate those decisions, for the most part.

It really is about lifestyles, cultural choices, cultural trends/behaviors. Couples who discover an unintended pregnancy and are not pleased about it, generally don’t sit around having philosophical discussions about it. They’re having emotional and practical discussions about it – which is why they should have thought about the emotionality and practicality of it before they removed their clothes.

[The statistical trends are summarized from a variety of sources I’ve accessed over the last several months. That’s why I’m not providing links: there are too many of them. And I am sticking just to U.S. abortions, not those of other countries, where the situations and motivations – when those statistics are high – are quite different]

Wonderful analysis, elizabeth.

To the bolded-above I’d add this: The decision to abort also carries lifelong consequences for the parents, especially the mother, in terms of regrets and lowered self-esteem. Yet this factor is seldom addressed or explored within the pro-abort community. Rather, for most, abortion is seen as ‘perfect solution’ to a bothersome problem.

The endless regrets that I've seen among women (and men) who have supported acts of abortion are staggering.

I'll add a link to show one approach to those who are in emotional pain from abortion.

[silentnomoreawareness.org/resources/index.html](http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/resources/index.html)

 

[puzzleannie]

How do you create a solely secular arguement against abortion?

How do you create a good arguement against abortion from a secular perspective.

in the US and any country whose constitution was based on ours, abortion violates the fundamental right to life this document protects (not grants, protects) and upon which all other rights are based. period. If the supreme court members have not read said document they are pledged to defend, well, they are not fit to wear those robes.

 

[Black_Rose]

in the US and any country whose constitution was based on ours, abortion violates the fundamental right to life this document protects (not grants, protects) and upon which all other rights are based. period. If the supreme court members have not read said document they are pledged to defend, well, they are not fit to wear those robes.

When I was a fervent secularist, another argument against abortion was simply an ad hominem, but it does have some intellectual content although it does not assail the notion that abortion is immoral, and in fact, accepts the ethical conclusion and premise involved. It simply shows how inconsistent the pro-lifers are, even if one assumes the veracity of their ethical premises.

Here is how the argument works:

1. 
   *]Assume that pro-lifer’s ethical premise is correct and that one should intrinsically value human life regardless of its external attributes such as brain function, consciousness, and the capacity to suffer.
   
   *]Then note that one implication from this premise that all human life should be valued. In this case, then it would be trying to send foreign aid to developing, third world countries that face a relatively high rate of childhood morality due to their lack of economic resources.
   
   *] And then note how the pro-life movement does not expend much effort to alleviate global poverty relative to the resources expended and fervor for anti-abortion activism. One could then insinuate that the reason for intense anti-abortion activism is that it allows people to be moralistic on issues that does not effect them since anti-abortion activists do not anticipate that they will utilize the services for abortion providers in the future. In contrast, assailing global poverty entails expensive financial costs because one would need to transfer financial resources to competent agencies able to efficiently contribute to attenuating the negative effects of global poverty (e.g. Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International). I do not remember the last time a pro-life organization endorsed the work of MSF, Amnesty International, and UNICEF. Even if they directly or indirectly support abortion, one could easily rebut this claim by noting that their activities save more lives than their position on abortion terminated.
   
   I could never be an ardent pro-lifer even if I accept Catholicism because of the inherent hypocrisy I see in the pro-life movement. Still, I am not impressed with the pro-life movement and I find its intellectual and ethical foundation weak.

 

[JackVk]

When I was a fervent secularist, another argument against abortion was simply an ad hominem, but it does have some intellectual content although it does not assail the notion that abortion is immoral, and in fact, accepts the ethical conclusion and premise involved. It simply shows how inconsistent the pro-lifers are, even if one assumes the veracity of their ethical premises.

Here is how the argument works:

1. 
   *]Assume that pro-lifer’s ethical premise is correct and that one should intrinsically value human life regardless of its external attributes such as brain function, consciousness, and the capacity to suffer.
   
   *]Then note that one implication from this premise that all human life should be valued. In this case, then it would be trying to send foreign aid to developing, third world countries that face a relatively high rate of childhood morality due to their lack of economic resources.
   
   *] And then note how the pro-life movement does not expend much effort to alleviate global poverty relative to the resources expended and fervor for anti-abortion activism. One could then insinuate that the reason for intense anti-abortion activism is that it allows people to be moralistic on issues that does not effect them since anti-abortion activists do not anticipate that they will utilize the services for abortion providers in the future. In contrast, assailing global poverty entails expensive financial costs because one would need to transfer financial resources to competent agencies able to efficiently contribute to attenuating the negative effects of global poverty (e.g. Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International). I do not remember the last time a pro-life organization endorsed the work of MSF, Amnesty International, and UNICEF. Even if they directly or indirectly support abortion, one could easily rebut this claim by noting that their activities save more lives than their position on abortion terminated.
   
   I could never be an ardent pro-lifer even if I accept Catholicism because of the inherent hypocrisy I see in the pro-life movement. Still, I am not impressed with the pro-life movement and I find its intellectual and ethical foundation weak.

1. 
   Global poverty is not something that pro-lifers are necessarily interested in. Besides, we need to eliminate abortion on the homefront before we can inform thrid-world countries about the dangers of abortion. If we still haven’t convinced the United States government that abortion is wrong, then what makes you think a resident of a third-world country is going to listen?

 

[Black_Rose]

Global poverty is not something that pro-lifers are necessarily interested in.

Why not? Isn’t a interest for the alleviating absolute poverty in underdeveloped countries a natural conclusion from the moral reasoning (valuing all human life) that a pro-lifer invokes?

 

[JackVk]

Why not? Isn’t a interest for the alleviating absolute poverty in underdeveloped countries a natural conclusion from the moral reasoning (valuing all human life) that a pro-lifer invokes?

What do underdeveloped countries have to do with any of this? I’m not saying I don’t care about them, but abortion is a problem we face here in the US (I don’t know where you are, I apologize). I’ve never heard anything about trying to stop abortion in third-world countries, because it’s bad enough here.You’re going off on a completely different topic.

 

[Black_Rose]

What do underdeveloped countries have to do with any of this? I’m not saying I don’t care about them, but abortion is a problem we face here in the US (I don’t know where you are, I apologize). I’ve never heard anything about trying to stop abortion in third-world countries, because it’s bad enough here.You’re going off on a completely different topic.

If the value of preserving human life is important (this is the value that pro-lifers supposedly base their stance on abortion on), then one should adamantly be concerned with the absolute poverty of the third world.

Here is what I found about global poverty from a thirty second google search:

An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.Source 9
…

Water problems affect half of humanity:

* Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
* Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
* More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
* Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
* 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
* Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea

globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Well, the deaths from diarrhoea, malaria, and AIDS are in the millions too. If one actually values human life as the pro-lifers claim, shouldn’t one be aware of the toll these maladies inflict on human life and work the attenuate its impact?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If the value of preserving human life is important (this is the value that pro-lifers supposedly base their stance on abortion on), then one should adamantly be concerned with the absolute poverty of the third world.

Here is what I found about global poverty from a thirty second google search:

globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Well, the deaths from diarrhoea, malaria, and AIDS are in the millions too. If one actually values human life as the pro-lifers claim, shouldn’t one be aware of the toll these maladies inflict on human life and work the attenuate its impact?

This is ridiculous. Pro-life refers specifically to the fields of anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-euthanasia, and nowadays is often limited to anti-abortion. You can (And should! every point you make is correct!) be pro-life AND be very much for aid for the impoverished in third world countries.

But just as pro-choice does not refer to pro-every choice everybody will ever make, pro-life is shorthand for a specific U.S. movement, and an important one. Abortion is one of the biggest problems in the world today, as is third world poverty, but the pro-life movement is referring to abortion. I see nothing wrong with choosing to devote yourself to anti-abortion activism.

 

[Black_Rose]

This is ridiculous. Pro-life refers specifically to the fields of anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-euthanasia, and nowadays is often limited to anti-abortion. You can (And should! every point you make is correct!) be pro-life AND be very much for aid for the impoverished in third world countries.

But just as pro-choice does not refer to pro-every choice everybody will ever make, pro-life is shorthand for a specific U.S. movement, and an important one. Abortion is one of the biggest problems in the world today, as is third world poverty, but the pro-life movement is referring to abortion. I see nothing wrong with choosing to devote yourself to anti-abortion activism.

I am not attempting to redefine the pro-life movement since its specific definition is somewhat intuitive. But I am merely pointing out that if one truly values all human life as many pro-lifers themselves claim, then one should be concerned with the preventable mortality incidence (particularly disease the people in developed countries do not suffer because of the availability of sanitary conditions and clean water) in the third world.

My argument is similar to Noam Chromsky’s position:

youtube.com/watch?v=rzY0L2g1f64 (at 2:40-4:40)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I am not attempting to redefine the pro-life movement since its specific definition is somewhat intuitive. But I am merely pointing out that if one truly values all human life as many pro-lifers themselves claim, then one should be concerned with the preventable mortality incidence (particularly disease the people in developed countries do not suffer because of the availability of sanitary conditions and clean water) in the third world.

My argument is similar to Noam Chromsky’s position:

youtube.com/watch?v=rzY0L2g1f64 (at 2:40-4:40)

I am not in a place where I could watch that video right now, sorry.

But what you’re essentially saying is that nobody should devote themselves to one important cause if there are other important causes in the world. I disagree.

 

[JackVk]

I am not attempting to redefine the pro-life movement since its specific definition is somewhat intuitive. But I am merely pointing out that if one truly values all human life as many pro-lifers themselves claim, then one should be concerned with the preventable mortality incidence (particularly disease the people in developed countries do not suffer because of the availability of sanitary conditions and clean water) in the third world.

My argument is similar to Noam Chromsky’s position:

youtube.com/watch?v=rzY0L2g1f64 (at 2:40-4:40)

You’re comparing apples to oranges. Both saving unborn children and helping to alleviate disease and poverty are both noble causes. “Pro-life” focuses on abortion, articificial contraception, stem cell research, etc. But diseases and poverty in third world countries is a completely different issue. I’m not saying that one is more important than the other, they’re just separate topics.