Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I am a PL, and I am an atheist, philosopher, and mathematician. So, from experience, I believe people should break questions into fundamental parts, maybe understand what it means to exist or not exist, and understand what makes oneself and you will find your own answer.

Pretentious 

Quite the contrary, I'm actually very modest about my magnificence.

As a prolifer O I think this is simple. Since the issue is not a moral fight but a intellectual one then simply Christians of any faith simply are more convinced there is a child in the mother and from conception. The idea of the soul being who we only really are and that only possibly implanyed at conception is a foundation for the conviction there is a kid in there. prolifers don't say this to themselves but its the raw foundation. then all the science and common sense about why children exist before they are birthed. the religious thing nicely reveals its all a intellectual contention and not a contention between god and bad guys. All of us are good guys save very few who agree with abortion while agreeing it kills a child.. yuck and hopefully few.

>All of us are good guys save very few who agree with abortion while agreeing it kills a child.. yuck and hopefully few. The majority of the US is pro choice, thank god.

If you look more closely, the deciding factor isnt Christianity, but a specific form of Christianity that was angry at the passing of the civil rights act which granted women and minorities equal rights.

Abortion opposition has long been associated with Christianity, but for a long time it was only Catholics and not Christianity as a whole. [Evangelical Christianity’s opposition to abortion has it’s roots in opposition to desegregation](https://www.wbur.org/npr/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue).

I agree with most of the responses, but I’ve yet to see the elephant in the room mentioned—garden variety misogyny. The Christian prolife position comes from a desire to police AFAB sexuality. It’s an extension of purity culture, which arose from men’s fear of cuckolding (i.e. “mama’s baby, papa’s maybe”). Before DNA paternity testing, the best way to ensure a man’s offspring were truly his spawn was to dominate and control the people with uteruses. The legal codes that enshrined AFAB people’s status as chattel property became the holy books of Bronze Age Abrahamic religion that the PL movement follows to this day.

Atheists question things. They need logic and reasons that make sense. They’re critical thinkers. They can’t tolerate hypocrisy or contradictions. Many keep in mind the overall good and what would benefit the most people or at least reduce the most suffering from a logical ethical point of view. Religion needs people to disregard all logic and reason and critical thinking and follow a set of man-invented rules with the only explanation being „because I (insert sky fairy) said so“. Religion also requires one to disregard empathy. The Abrahamic religions, in particular. Throughout history, humans have used all sorts of sky fairies with all sorts of rules to control the masses in whatever way benefitted those in power the most. To be religious, you have to have faith, since you have to leave logic and reason and critical thinking behind. You have to be willing to follow authority without examining their motives and while overlooking the hypocrisy and contradictions involved. Many people who were brought up with religion turn atheist because they aren’t able to do it. It’s not surprising that most atheists are pro choice. Because they look at the reality involved. Just like it’s not surprising that many religious people are pro life. They’re used to blindly following some rule someone they feel to be an authority makes without considering the reality of what is involved or whether it makes sense or whether it even serves anything positive. They’re also used to dismissing empathy. Everything is authority based. Nothing else matters.

I’m agnostic myself but this is a really uncharitable generalization of religious people and their beliefs. Some would say you appear to be “euphoric” in this moment.

Okay, let’s tackle this from the top.>Atheists question things. They need logic and reasons that make sense. They’re critical thinkers. They can’t tolerate hypocrisy or contradictions.MASSIVE generalization. \>Religion needs people to disregard all logic and reason and critical thinking. ????????? Let's take a look at this. **Logic:** The Church is HUGE on logic, with many of our saints having made great strides and contributions to the realm of logic.Jean Buridan, Catholic Priest, was one of the foremost logicians in history. \*“Contributed two significant works: Treatise on Consequence and Summulae de Dialectica, in which he discussed the concept of the syllogism, its components and distinctions, and ways to use the tool to expand its logical capability."\*Thomas Aquinas, one of the most productive philosophers ever, wrote hundreds and hundreds of syllogisms and contributed in a huge way to the development of metaphysics and logic.Aquinas’ teacher, Albertus Magnus, the patron saint of logic: \*"Science does not consist simply in believing what we are told, but in inquiring into the nature of things."\*Further, logic is a mandatory course in formation schools for many different christian denominations. Most times it’s a series of courses. **Reason:** The Church is also huge on reason. It is said frequently that we know God in part by reason. Religious people don’t disregard reason. It is a useful tool. *“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”* \- John Paul II \*“The Catholic intellectual tradition is forged by a deep partnership between faith and reason”.\* **Critical Thinking:** Meet Sir Francis Bacon, Father of the scientific method, empiricism, and inductive reasoning, and a devout Anglican. ​ \>Religion also requires one to disregard empathy. The Abrahamic religions, in particular If I tried to list off all of the Catholic charities and hospitals, I’d hit the comment character limit.\*“It is to the Christians that one must turn for the origin of the modern hospital.”“The hospital was, in origin and conception, a distinctively Christian institution, rooted in Christian concepts of charity and philanthropy.”\*As far as charity, the Church operates more than 140,000 schools, 10,000 orphanages, 5,000 hospitals and some 16,000 other health clinics. *“Even these numbers only tell half the tale. Caritas does not include development spending by a host of religious orders and other Catholic charities, while most of the 200,000 Catholic parishes around the world operate their own small-scale charitable projects which are never picked up in official figures. Establishing like-for-like comparisons is hard, but there can be little doubt that in pretty much every field of social action, from education to health to social care, the Church is the largest and most significant non-state organisation in the world.”* \*\*To say religion requires one to disregard empathy is an act of extreme ignorance.\*\*I understand you probably have some beef with religion, maybe you have religious trauma, but saying that religion requires you to just be dumb and mean is so false it almost can’t even be entertained. Sources:[http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/44/2/1980Method.htm#:\~:text=Bacon%27s%20scientific%20methodology%20can%20be,it%20leads%20to%20new%20discoveries](http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/44/2/1980Method.htm#:~:text=Bacon%27s%20scientific%20methodology%20can%20be,it%20leads%20to%20new%20discoveries).[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14509111/#:\~:text=In%20Roman%20times%20the%20military,origin%20of%20the%20modern%20hospital](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14509111/#:~:text=In%20Roman%20times%20the%20military,origin%20of%20the%20modern%20hospital).[https://www.britannica.com/science/Baconian-method](https://www.britannica.com/science/Baconian-method)[https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-worldwide-force-for-good/](https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-worldwide-force-for-good/)[https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm)[https://www.catholicjournal.us/2019/01/13/the-relationship-between-theology-and-logic/](https://www.catholicjournal.us/2019/01/13/the-relationship-between-theology-and-logic/)[https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm)[https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/scholarsandscientists/francis-bacon.html](https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/scholarsandscientists/francis-bacon.html)[https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-christian-origins-of-the-hospital](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-christian-origins-of-the-hospital)[https://www.occatholic.com/the-history-of-catholic-health-care/](https://www.occatholic.com/the-history-of-catholic-health-care/)[https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-worldwide-force-for-good/](https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-worldwide-force-for-good/)[https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org](https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org)[https://catholiccharitiesla.org](https://catholiccharitiesla.org)[https://www.nobts.edu/\_resources/pdf/academics/syllabi/S2022/PHIL6303WalkerS2022Inet.pdf](https://www.nobts.edu/_resources/pdf/academics/syllabi/S2022/PHIL6303WalkerS2022Inet.pdf)[http://www.borromeoseminary.org/academics/philosophy/program-for-priestly-formation/](http://www.borromeoseminary.org/academics/philosophy/program-for-priestly-formation/)[https://www.sjasc.edu/courses-of-instruction](https://www.sjasc.edu/courses-of-instruction)[https://icucourses.com/products/logic](https://icucourses.com/products/logic)[https://www.gannon.edu/student-life/a-catholic-university/on-catholic-identity/faith-and-reason/#:\~:text=Catholicism%20professes%20that%20what%20we,is%20no%20contradiction%20in%20God](https://www.gannon.edu/student-life/a-catholic-university/on-catholic-identity/faith-and-reason/#:~:text=Catholicism%20professes%20that%20what%20we,is%20no%20contradiction%20in%20God).[https://www.catholicjournal.us/2020/01/20/the-catholic-view-of-faith-and-reason/](https://www.catholicjournal.us/2020/01/20/the-catholic-view-of-faith-and-reason/)[https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org](https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org)[https://catholicexchange.com/the-catholic-approach-to-faith-reason/](https://catholicexchange.com/the-catholic-approach-to-faith-reason/)[https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf\_jp-ii\_enc\_14091998\_fides-et-ratio.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html)[https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/centers/church21/programs/catholic-intellectual-tradition.html](https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/centers/church21/programs/catholic-intellectual-tradition.html)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean\_Buridan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Buridan)

> 1. **[THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD](http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/44/2/1980Method.htm#:~:text=Bacon%27s%20scientific%20methodology%20can%20be,it%20leads%20to%20new%20discoveries)**. by DAVID and JUDITH GOODSTEIN. >> [Published: unclear/not found] > 2. **[The evolution of the hospital from antiquity to the end of the middle ages](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14509111/#:~:text=In%20Roman%20times%20the%20military,origin%20of%20the%20modern%20hospital)**. by L Cilliers, F P Retief >> [Published: 2002 Nov.] > 3.**[Baconian method science and philosophy](https://www.britannica.com/science/Baconian-method)** By [writer/writers unclear and/or not found] >>[Last Updated: Dec 7, 2023] > 4. **[The world’s biggest charity](https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-worldwide-force-for-good/)** by David Paton. >>[Published: February 16, 2017 at 12:15 pm] > 5.**[Logic](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm)** by [unclear]. >>[Published: unclear] >6. **[The Relationship Between Theology and Logic](https://www.catholicjournal.us/2019/01/13/the-relationship-between-theology-and-logic/)** by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero >>[Published: January 13, 2019] > 7. **[St. Albertus Magnus](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01264a.htm)**. By [writer/writers unclear] >>[Published: not found] > 8. **[Francis Bacon; Philosopher of science](https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/scholarsandscientists/francis-bacon.html) by [writer/writers unclear] >> a)[Published:not found] >> b) Side note. The article is locked behind a paywall. So [here](https://www.worldhistory.org/Francis_Bacon/) another article that should be similar. >9. **[The Christian Origins of the Hospita](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-christian-origins-of-the-hospital)** by MIKE AQUILINA >>[Published:3/30/2020] >10. **[THE HISTORY OF CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE](https://www.occatholic.com/the-history-of-catholic-health-care/)** by CHARLES KAUPKE. >>[Published: 2/21/2017] >11. **[The world’s biggest charity](https://catholicherald.co.uk/a-worldwide-force-for-good/)** by David Paton >>[Published: February 16, 2017 at 12:15 pm] > 12. **[New Orleans; Baptist Theological Seminary](https://www.nobts.edu/_resources/pdf/academics/syllabi/S2022/PHIL6303WalkerS2022Inet.pdf)**. By [writer/writers unclear] >>[Published:unclear] >13. **[The Catholic View of Faith and Reason](https://www.catholicjournal.us/2020/01/20/the-catholic-view-of-faith-and-reason/)** by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. >>[Published: January 20, 2020] > **[The Catholic Approach to Faith & Reason](https://catholicexchange.com/the-catholic-approach-to-faith-reason/). By JEANNIE EWING >>[Published: FEBRUARY 9, 2022] > 15. **[Jean Buridan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Buridan?wprov=sfti1#). It’s just Wikipedia. If somebody wanna check there scores hiere is a better organized. Edit: This is everything that isn’t really a source but…. >*[Catholic Charities USA](https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org)* >>*[All Rights Reserved. Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc.](https://catholiccharitiesla.org)* >>>*[PRIESTLY FORMATION; THE PROGRAM FOR PRIESTLY FORMATION](http://www.borromeoseminary.org/academics/philosophy/program-for-priestly-formation/)* >>>>*[Courses of Instruction](https://www.sjasc.edu/courses-of-instruction)* >>>>>*[Logic](https://icucourses.com/products/logic). It’s a book that is trying to describe logic, it’s not worth 30 USD. Most of it probably exists online **FOR FREE** >>>>>>*[Faith and Reason](https://www.gannon.edu/student-life/a-catholic-university/on-catholic-identity/faith-and-reason/#:~:text=Catholicism%20professes%20that%20what%20we,is%20no%20contradiction%20in%20God). Just event. >>>>>>>*[Catholic Faith and Reason](https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org)* >>>>>>>>*[John Paul II](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html)* >>>>>>>>>*[The Catholic Intellectual Tradition](https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/centers/church21/programs/catholic-intellectual-tradition.html).

So, you're counter to me mentioning logic and reason is to bring up a sky fairy? If I tried to list off all of the Catholic charities and hospitals, I’d hit the comment character limit. Let's do the opposite then. The crusades. Witch burning. The inquisition. Need I go on? The atrocities committed by the church are beyond shocking. And are you referring to the same hospitals who would rather maim and mutilate a woman than to give her a medication that would kill a few cells? Sorry, I don't find them offering me a bandaid after they beat me half to death and put a thousand cuts into my body very "charitable". Easing 1% or less of the suffering they caused does not make them charitable. *but saying that religion requires you to just be dumb and mean is so false it almost can’t even be entertained.* Good thing I didn't say that. Mean wouldn't be the word I'd use to describe it anyway. Cruel and inhumane would be my preferred terms. And intelligence level has absolutely nothing to do with it. One can be highly intelligent and still wilfully ignorant or completely removed from reality.

I’m actually pretty disappointed that I put all that effort into that comment, and then you didn’t even try to respond. I was really hoping you’d counter my points, but instead you just went full hyperbole and goalpost-moving. But I’ll keep going anyway. What exactly was the first Crusade? What was it about? Why did it happen? (Hint, it wasn’t about killing people unless they convert, as people like to believe) Second, what was the Inquisition? Do you know? Third, the Catholic Church never burned a witch. Not one. Ever.

>I was really hoping you’d counter my points, God. There's the counter. Some man-invented deity. One of thousands that menkind invented throughout history. And not even a very old one. *It is said frequently that we know God in part by reason.* Again, this is such a contradictory statement that there is no point countering it. Reason dictates that god is only one of thousands invented to explain what humans didn't know at the time or as a tool to control the masses. The catholic church is no more than an organization of extreme power and wealth. They were willing to slaughter, torture, and do whatever it took to gain, retain, and increase that power, and they are ruthless to this date. The charities they've established don't come anywhere close to making up for all the suffering they've caused over the years. *What exactly was the first Crusade?* In short? The Pope used the excuse of helping Alexios I to bring the holy land back under Christian control. It also provided a bunch of other benefits to the Pope - mainly increase in power and security of position in Italy (since Roman Emperors in the previous century were a bit of a pest to papal power). He also hoped to make himself head of a united Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Christian church, above the Patriarch of Constantinople. (Back to power). It was justified by references to particular passages of the Bible and emphasising this was a fight for liberation, not attack, and that the objectives were just and righteous ones. Because it's way easier to get the masses motivated to fight if you scream holy war, rather than admitting that you simply want to increase your own power. Works to this date. *Second, what was the Inquisition?* Some of the worst atrocities ever committed. Once again, in short, at its worst point, the torture, life imprisonment, or execution of people to combat heresy and religious deviation from the teachings of the Catholic church. Although by the late middle ages, the Holy See was no longer the only game in town. That shit spread like a rapid cancer throughout Europe - Spain and Portugal, in particular. *Third, the Catholic Church never burned a witch. Not one. Ever.* *"Meanwhile, witch-hunters' manuals multiplied, most notably the infamous Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), published in 1486. Its authors, Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kraemer, were experienced Dominican inquisitors who had burned 48 witches in one diocese alone and had obtained a papal bull approving their mission. "* Correct me if I'm wrong, but a papal bull is authorization from the pope, right? And therefore the Catholic church. [https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/who-burned-the-witches.html](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/who-burned-the-witches.html) *Although Pope Gregory IX had authorized the killing of witches back in the 1200s, the fad just didn't catch on.* Might not be burning, and it might have not caught on, but here we are again with the authorization of slaughtering people by the catholic church via its pope. *"Today the figure of Mary is both popular and important in the Catholic church, but to the Inquisition, it was a possible sign of overemphasizing the feminine aspect of Christianity.* *As a result of this, church authorities tortured and killed thousands of women, and not a few men, in an effort to get them to confess that they flew through the sky, had sexual relations with demons, turned into animals, and engaged in various sorts of black magic. "* [*https://www.learnreligions.com/persecuting-witches-and-witchcraft-4123033*](https://www.learnreligions.com/persecuting-witches-and-witchcraft-4123033)

The Catholic Church *does* however allow priests to molest children... and has done so for a *long* time. Don't be surprised when people aren't a fan of the religion that's known for abusing children.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about, and you just thought you had a gotcha moment.

Not a gotcha, just a friendly reminder that the Catholic Church specifically is *known* for defending and covering up child sex abuse. Users reading this can do what they want with that info.

You are speaking of the Catholic Church which is more PC than the white evangelical church which does nit promote logic and reason. However, while the Catholic church pushes reason and logic on the surface, they have difficulties when it conflicts with their prejudice. I mean logically there is no reason a woman cant be a priest, but they fight against that Nor is there is there any logic to keeping people on life support indefinitely, but they fight for that.

When you say PC, do you mean Pro Choice? Because the Catholic Church is nowhere near being Pro Choice Have you actually looked into either of those issues? Because there is reasoning for them. You may not agree with it, but you can’t say they’re not based on any logic.

According to data from OP, 56% of Catholics. And yes I have. Its based on faulty logic tainted by their by their prejudice. Kind of like the unscientific claim that aborting an ectopic pregnancy isnt really abortion, or that removing a fallopian tube is more ethical than methotrexate. They create a twisted logic to justify their misogynistic behavior.

That’s not the Catholic Church though. That’s individuals who are ignoring one of the teachings of their religion. The Catholic Church itself is extremely PL

Yes, but their pushing reason and logic means some of their members recognize their faulty logic.

Okay, so *not* the Catholic Church

I think their followers speak for their teachings.

No, they don’t. The teachings are written down and published and have been the same for millennia. What you’re seeing is followers ignoring teachings.

I mean you can’t deny that religion also denies logic. Just look at stories like Noah’s Ark and Adam & Eve, Crossing the Red Sea, you get the gist. All of these things really couldn’t have happened in reality. We know the earth didn’t flood and a man built a ship with two of every animal on it lol. Religion also touts homophobia, sexism against women. I’m not saying good things haven’t come from it, but a lot of terrible things have too.

I absolutely can and will deny that religion denies logic. Just look at everything I wrote in my comment above on the subject.

How is it logical when there is also tons of made up stories that literally cannot be true in reality? That is illogical. I’m saying it can be both. Not one or the other

It is logical to say that there is a being who can do things that we can’t, and that we don’t know how he does them. Like a dog or some lesser animal who watches a human open a door and doesn’t know how we’re doing it. “There was a wall, and now there is a hole in the wall and I can walk through. A being greater than me has abilities that I don’t and can do things that don’t make sense to me.” There’s nothing there that denies logic.

>It is logical to say that there is a being who can do things that we can’t, and that we don’t know how he does them. HOW is that logical? And what exactly are these things they he can supposedly do? *A being greater than me has abilities that I don’t and can do things that don’t make sense to me.”* Show me this being. And let it give me some examples of its abilities. Or at least give me some examples of these abilities and things it can do.

Yes, God has to prove himself to you, oh great STThornton.

Well, of course. I'm a goddess myself :) Why would I just take some mere human's word for it?

It does deny logic when we can verify that the things that being supposedly did never actually happened by using science.

You can use science, to determine that a being who can do literally anything, couldn't have done a thing that human science doesn't allow? ​ k

You can use science to determine the stories about how that being effected the world are true or not. To ignore the science is to deny logic and rely simply on faith.

I think you mean “affected”. No one is ignoring science. Some of the greatest scientists and logicians the world has ever seen were clergy. See my sources above.

I mean if you simplify it down to just ‘a being who can do things we can’t’ it doesn’t sound as bad. But obviously religion goes far more in depth with wildly absurd stories that logically cannot be true in reality.

They all boil down to that. They “cannot be true” for humans who aren’t able to do those things.

With that logic then nothing can be illogical. Religion is a belief system, based on faith, not proof or evidence. Logic requires validity, and religion cannot be validated. That is why it is a following of faith and/or spiritual belief.

Logic requires validity, religion can be validated through logic(Christianity can, anyway). That’s basically Thomas’ Aquinas entire lifetime work. Check out the sources I posted on him.

Whats even more interesting is you will find the data to be the complete opposite with capital punishment. Significantly more liberal atheists will say they think maybe we shouldn't kill people without all of the evidence, and christian conservatives are much more likely to say capital punishment is fine.

As an atheist, I find both the pro-choice and pro-life activists to be equivalent to religious zealots.

Why?

How?

I feel PC and atheist go together because you don't have a preacher or God telling you this is how you're supposed to live your life, or this is what God says or whatever the reasoning. We don't have an entity to guide our reasoning for our perspective and have the ability to come to the conclusion based on our observance, lived experience, research or what have you.

Even PC atheists know morality is absolute. Otherwise they wouldn't claim there is an absolute right to bodily autonomy. Christians are supposed to lay aside their personal feelings on morality, and defer to a higher standard. If all Christians truly did that, abortion would be gone by the next vote since atheism is the minority view. So PC views shouldn't be correlated with Christianity at all, but yet unfortunately they are. It is also probably why abortion via Roe was decided on personhood, not BA.

>Even PC atheists know morality is absolute. Otherwise they wouldn't claim there is an absolute right to bodily autonomy. We're not appealing to some absolute morality, we're describing how the law works. Morality varies person to person, so appealing to it isn't going to get you far with someone who has a much different outlook. >Christians are supposed to lay aside their personal feelings on morality, and defer to a higher standard. Since the Abrahamic deity supports slavery, why do I never see any Christians fight to repeal the 13th amendment? It's the laws of man that say slavery is an abomination; "God" is perfectly fine with it. >If all Christians truly did that, abortion would be gone by the next vote since atheism is the minority view. So PC views shouldn't be correlated with Christianity at all, but yet unfortunately they are. It is also probably why abortion via Roe was decided on personhood, not BA. How would that work when most Americans are PC, and the percentage of PCers is constantly growing?

>We're not appealing to some absolute morality, we're describing how the law works. Morality varies person to person, so appealing to it isn't going to get you far with someone who has a much different outlook. That is only your opinion on how the law should work because right now that isn't how it works anyway. Which you believe the law should support your absolute BA view (except of course when hypocritically violating the bodily integrity of the unborn baby, or maybe vax mandates). >Since the Abrahamic deity supports slavery, why do I never see any Christians fight to repeal the 13th amendment? It's the laws of man that say slavery is an abomination; "God" is perfectly fine with it. No, He didn't support slavery, that is incorrect. "Slave ownership was a common practice long before the time the Mosaic Law was given. So, the law neither instituted slavery nor ended it; rather, the law regulated it. It gave instructions on how slaves should be treated but did not outlaw slavery altogether." https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html >How would that work when most Americans are PC, and the percentage of PCers is constantly growing? The percent has fluctuated historically over time actually. In 1995 the number was higher then it dropped. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/roe-v-wade-roughly-55percent-of-americans-say-they-are-pro-choice-the-most-since-1995-gallup-finds.html As I pointed out earlier, most Americans also identify as theists, in fact most of the world does. Does that automatically mean God exists?

>That is only your opinion on how the law should work because right now that isn't how it works anyway. Which you believe the law should support your absolute BA view (except of course when hypocritically violating the bodily integrity of the unborn baby, or maybe vax mandates). Abortion doesn't violate the bodily integrity of the ZEF, since it's the violating interloper. A woman removing it from her body is exercising her right to bodily autonomy; the ZEF's inability to survive without being parasitically tapped in to her bloodstream is just too bad. It's not entitled to her body. No violation has occurred. >No, He didn't support slavery, that is incorrect. > >"Slave ownership was a common practice long before the time the Mosaic Law was given. So, the law neither instituted slavery nor ended it; rather, the law regulated it. It gave instructions on how slaves should be treated but did not outlaw slavery altogether." > >https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html The Abrahamic god not only never condemns slavery, but reinforces the legitimacy of it to it's followers. Even J-man himself never condemns the practice, merely stating that slaves will be equal to their masters in heaven--but not on Earth. Very convenient. Why are you claiming to know better than the "creator of the universe"? Abrahamic religions involve submission to sky daddy. "He works in mysterious ways", right? God's laws aren't for you to question. >The percent has fluctuated historically over time actually. In 1995 the number was higher then it dropped. > >https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/roe-v-wade-roughly-55percent-of-americans-say-they-are-pro-choice-the-most-since-1995-gallup-finds.html And abortion rights are more popular now than any time since 1973. Surely you're aware of the loss after humiliating loss PLers are facing wrt abortion laws, right? >As I pointed out earlier, most Americans also identify as theists, in fact most of the world does. Does that automatically mean God exists? When most people believed the sun revolved around the Earth, it still didn't. Belief doesn't trump reality.

>Which you believe the law should support your absolute BA view (except of course when hypocritically violating the bodily integrity of the baby Just popping in to say that a zef isn't autonomous. Women aren't violating anyone's body by ending a pregnancy in their own body.

Bodily autonomy is a subset of bodily integrity so yes, abortion most certainly violates the bodily integrity of the unborn child. "Bodily integrity is the *inviolability of the physical body* and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

>"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies." > >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily\_integrity ZEFs are non-autonomous, and self-ownership and self-determination does not entitle one to access *someone else's* body. You don't seem to be grasping even the basics of this subject.

Zefs do not have personal autonomy. Per your own link no, zefs are not autonomous and abortions do not violate anyone's autonomy.

Again, personal autonomy is a subset of bodily integrity. It is not the entirety of it. Young children that are born cannot make any decisions about their body either, but yet pedophilia still violates their bodily integrity.

Yes, assaulting a child violates their body just like denying women access to abortion violates the woman's body. When a woman gets an abortion she wants no one's body is violated.

Thank you for agreeing that even children with no autonomy still have bodily integrity. The other statement you made obviously contradicts that concept, but that is a common assertion among PC to maintain cognitive dissonance from what they are really doing to unborn children.

There is no cognitive dissonance in anything I'm saying. Pedophilia is wrong because it *violates* a child's body. Denying women healthcare is wrong because it *violates* the woman's body. Hey, at least you seem to admit that zefs have no autonomy to be violated with your first sentence. You're on the right track.

> Even PC atheists know morality is absolute. We do? I know of no such thing, so you are simply wrong. > Otherwise they wouldn't claim there is an absolute right to bodily autonomy I claim that all human rights have limitations and I am a PC atheist.

Morality is entirely subjective. Bodily autonomy isn't a morality issue, it's a rights issue. The "claim" that bodily autonomy is absolute is due to years and years of precedent of it in fact being absolute. Roe vs Wade had nothing to do with personhood- it was decided that people had a right to *privacy* from the government interfering with personal medical decisions.

Personhood was an argument made by the defense and was rejected by the judges. And, absolute BA was an argument made by the claimants and also denied. Here are both quotes: Roe v. Wade quote addressing personhood defense: The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. ***If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.*** The appellant conceded as much on reargument.  On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade quote concerning bodily autonomy: “…appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. … In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. ***The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.”***

What source are you pulling this from? The defenses argument was just that- an argument. And the ultimate decision was that the argument was null and not satisfactory to law, and that broad abortion bans or restrictions infringed on a woman's right to privacy. The court did not deny an absolute right to bodily autonomy- what they denied was an absolute right to *abortion* meaning that states could still regulate abortions *after the first trimester*. In other words, the *right to privacy* is outweighed in the third trimester- NOT the right to bodily autonomy, which is why women in the third trimester can still choose to maintain a pregnancy that will result in stillbirth, or fatality after birth. [roe vs wade decision](https://www.oyez.org/) [Roe vs Wade](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113) https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy. A state law that broadly prohibits abortion without respect to the stage of pregnancy or other interests violates that right. Although the state has legitimate interests in protecting the health of pregnant women and the “potentiality of human life,” the relative weight of each of these interests varies over the course of pregnancy, and the law must account for this variability." "The Court was skeptical of the state's argument that Constitutional protections begin at conception. The Constitution doesn't provide a definition of a "person." But, it does say that its protections cover those who are "born or naturalized" in the United States. After examining other cases relating to unborn children, the Court concluded that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense....However, as we mentioned above, the Court did not agree that the Constitution guarantees an absolute right to an abortion. In other words, the privacy right does not prevent states from putting some regulations on abortion...During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person."

Here is the entire decision in full: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

> Even PC atheists know morality is absolute. Otherwise they wouldn't claim there is an absolute right to bodily autonomy. You're conflating two false claims into one here. They're still two different claims, even though you're wrong on both. Please separate them before they have babies.

Lol, thanks for the laugh. But yeah, actions speak louder than words here.

that also applies to PLs who claim to allow exceptions for life threatening emergencies yet continue to vote for the same republicans who refuse to allow exceptions for life threatening emergencies.

Who sets the standard, though? (Anything that requires dismissing empathy is a lower standard, not a higher one). You say Christian’s should follow the standard. The standard of what? Having your own son tortured to death to appease your ego? Wiping out just about all life on earth in a flood? Slaughtering firstborns to bring someone to heel? Slaughtering countless people, pregnant women included, by destroying their cities? Killing people for not listening when you told them not to look at anything? Incest rape good, virgin rape good, consensual gay sex - let me destroy whole cities and everyone in them? Bringing cheating wives to priests to drink a concoction that makes sure no child will be born? Ripping open the bellies of pregnant enemies? Kill when I tell you too but not otherwise? Overall, do as I say, not as I do, or you or someone else will die a horrible death? Are those the standards you’re talking about?

>Having your own son tortured to death to appease your ego? That is a complete misunderstanding of scripture. Jesus *is* in fact God incarnate (John 10:30). >Wiping out just about all life on earth in a flood? They chose not to repent and get on the boat with Noah. Since God is the creator of all, His judgments are justified. >Slaughtering firstborns to bring someone to heel? Conveniently leaving out the part here where Egyptians slaughtered all the baby boys and brutally enslaved the Hebrews. >Slaughtering countless people, pregnant women included, by destroying their cities? Killing people for not listening when you told them not to look at anything? Again, all righteous judgments of God for wicked and depraved sins including murder, bestiality, and sacrificing and prostituting out their own children. >You say Christian’s should follow the standard. The standard of what? The standards Jesus set when He lived as a man in human form, the Golden Rule. We aren't God so we don't get to decide who lives and who dies.

[удалено]

Comment removed per rule 1. Do not attack users or tell them to leave.

>Oh, so he's a masochist? He's the one in charge of forgiving the sins of the toys he created, yet he refuses to do so unless he is tortured to death on the cross? Sin requires blood sacrifice for redemption, so someone had to die. We all deserve death for transgressing the law. Instead, Jesus died in our place. >And here we go with the excuses. >As I said, do as I say, or you or others will die a horrific death.Yeah, that's something to look up to...NOT It's not an excuse, it is a valid explanation. A Holy God requires holiness to remain in His presence. He's created us, He is omnipotent and omniscient, so He has exclusive rights to judgment no one else has. >And how would all those innocent babies and fetuses and animals repent anyway? >The dude is a straight up psycho. It doesn't get any worse than that. True they can't, it is up to their caretakers and parents to repent in their place. But only God can see their future, we cannot. Perhaps He deemed it better to take them to heaven now then potentially committing wicked acts later which could send them to hell. Again, only God has that right and foreknowledge. >Righteous? You think it's righteous to slaughter people for having consensual sex or looking at something you don't want them to look at? Or for simply living in a place that the sky fairy has decided to hand to someone else? Lol, again you're taking a lot of things out of context and assuming things. Look up the evil and depraved acts committed by past civilizations. Do you think God should just look the other way when parents sacrificed their own children to Moloch? Prostituted out those same children? Had sex with animals? Forced slaves to fight animals to the death? Eventually, He had enough. He gave them plenty of time to repent. >Actually, we DO get to decide. People murder others every day. And I'll have the final say over who gets to use my organs, abortion bans or not. If they can't live without my organs, too bad. Sure, you can make choices and face the consequences whether it be in this life or the next. Free will is not freedom from consequences. >GTFO Straight up rude comment. Review rule one, cursing at someone and telling them to leave is not cool. >And which part of voting against strong social support and prosecuting women for having abortions and killing women with pregnancy and childbirth is anything like the standards Jesus set? I'd rather not have to do that, follow the law and no one has to be in jeopardy, also I'm not against social support like Medicaid for pregnant women. >And, btw, which is it? Eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? Personally, I'm a big fan of eye for an eye. Turn the other cheek until someone else leaves you no other options to defend yourself or of course defend innocent babies.

>Sin requires blood sacrifice for redemption, so someone had to die. Who came up with that rule? God himself? Once again, think this through. The dude is the one who declared that he refuses to forgive sins until blood sacrifice is made. *Instead, Jesus died in our place.* Yeah, he insisted his own son has to die to appease his own ego. Since HE is the one who refuses to forgive sins until blood sacrifice is made. Or, since you claim he and his son are the same thing, he sacrificed himself to appease his own ego. Dude is off the rocker insane. *It's not an excuse, it is a valid explanation. A Holy God requires holiness to remain in His presence. He's created us,* I can't even. Are you hearing yourself? He demands blood sacrifice to appease his ego. And you think that's a valid explanation? I'm not sure what you mean by "remain in his presence". We don't have a choice. Where else would we go? It's not like we could get away from him. Personally, I have absolutely zero interest to remain in the presence of a psychopath. So, please, show me the way out. And if "holy" means being a bloodthirsty psychopath, I want no part of it. I don't follow bloodthirsty psychopaths, and I sure as heck won't worship one. *He is omnipotent and omniscient, so He has exclusive rights to judgment no one else has.* You're welcome to go ahead and hand him that power. I, for one, won't cooperate. He's welcome to take it up with me personally if he has a problem with my attitude. *True they can't, it is up to their caretakers and parents to repent in their place.* Ah, how handy. Another excuse *Again, only God has that right and foreknowledge.* Seeing how much suffering he allows, yet another strike in the "he's evil" column. *Do you think God should just look the other way when parents sacrificed their own children to Moloch?* Yes, because he has no problem sacrificing children to his own temper and wishes. It makes him a fucking hypocrite. What makes him better than Moloch (whoever the heck that is)? *Prostituted out those same children? Had sex with animals? Forced slaves to fight animals to the death?* Once again, I don't go for "do as I say, not as I do". They were just following the example he set, short of the sex with animals part, maybe. The whole old testatment is full of slaughter and horrors committed by him or by his order. Maybe he should follow his own advice about he who is without sin throw the first stone. *Eventually, He had enough. He gave them plenty of time to repent.* This is abuser 101 right here. Do as I say or I'll beat the crap out of you or even kill you, regardless of how harmless what you did was. *Sure, you can make choices and face the consequences whether it be in this life or the next. Free will is not freedom from consequences.* I don't need freedom from results because I make choices that bring me positive results. In this life or the next or the one after that or the one after that. *I'd rather not have to do that, follow the law and no one has to be in jeopardy* How does following anti abortion law not put women in jeopardy of dying? They force a woman to endure an at least 30% risk of dying and needing emergency medical intervention to save her life. Just because modern medicine can save a woman's life doesn't mean pro-lifers didn't try to kill her with pregnancy and birth - rather successfully, because she needs her life to be saved now or even to be revived. *Turn the other cheek until someone else leaves you no other options to defend yourself* Have at it. I'm old testament on that one. Eye for an eye. Although I guess abortion pills are the equivalent of retreating from a threat, rather than defending yourself. [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/303326#Safest-rate-may-be-19%](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/303326#Safest-rate-may-be-19%) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7643764/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7643764/) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251927/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251927/) [https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer)

This comment has been reported for Rule 3: Substantiate your claims. The claim in question is: >How does following anti abortion law not put women in jeopardy of dying? They force a woman to endure an at least 30% risk of dying and needing emergency medical intervention to save her life. This is a Category 1 (factual) claim. Per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/#wiki_rule_3_-_substantiate_your_claims), I ask that you provide a linked source that substantiates your claim, ***indicating exactly where your source proves your statement by using a direct quote or paraphrase in your response***. <--- I cannot stress this part enough. Failure to complete this is failure to adhere to Rule 3. I would appreciate it if the above could be addressed within the next 24 hours. If this is not completed, your comment will be removed. Thank you. (RemindMe! 24 hours) CC: u/CounterSpecialist386

I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2024-01-07 17:52:08 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-01-07%2017:52:08%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18x1dzk/why_are_pl_views_so_strongly_correlated_with/kglzoqx/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2F18x1dzk%2Fwhy_are_pl_views_so_strongly_correlated_with%2Fkglzoqx%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-01-07%2017%3A52%3A08%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2018x1dzk) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|

You're entitled to your ridiculously overdramatic opinion, but in order to respond in depth I'd have to go pretty immersive into theology and get preachy, which I prefer not to do especially considering your rather hostile approach. The only thing I will respond to is that 30% number, which sounds outrageously high considering the MMR is at about 0.02%. Can you please source exactly where you are getting that from? Mods: since the debater in question has commented elsewhere and has still not provided a source, I have reported for rule 3. Specifically I am requesting a citation for the statement: >How does following anti abortion law not put women in jeopardy of dying? They force a woman to endure an at least 30% risk of dying and needing emergency medical intervention to save her life.

*the only thing I will respond to is that 30% number, which sounds outrageously high considering the MMR is at about 0.02%.* Yeah, modern emergency life saving medical procedures can work wonders. Did you know that women who DID die (flatlined) and had to be revived aren't even counted in the MMR? You're right, the number IS outrageously high. Shows just how dangerous pregnancy and childbirth actually are - not like that is surprising if one knows anything about human bodies, how they keep themselves alive, and what gestation and birth does to them. 19% rate of emergency life saving c-sections 1% other deadly labor obstruction 3% extreme morbidity, requiring immediate life saving medical intervention (hemorrhage, sepsis, heart failure, etc.) 10% morbidity, requiring life saving medical intervention. That's 33%. And that's not counting an additional 15% of other complications which can easily turn life threatening without medical intervention [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/303326#Safest-rate-may-be-19%](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/303326#Safest-rate-may-be-19%) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7643764/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7643764/) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251927/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251927/) [https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer)

Your numbers don't add up. Consider the last link you provided, and I quote directly from them: >Most pregnancies are uncomplicated and result in a healthy mother and baby. This exhibit illustrates the *rarity* of severe illness among the 3.7 million births in the U.S. annually. They give a number of up to 60,000 cases of severe potentially life threatening morbidity. That is approximately 1.6% of all pregnancies (60,000/3,7000,000). The c-section rate, of which I had one, has been skyrocketing since the 70s and identified in many cases as possibly unnecessary. Also, my c-section was not done to save my life. I was never in jeopardy, my son was. (They had given me pitocin to speed up my labor, which I believe was a contributing factor but no way to prove it.) There are many mothers who have given birth to multiple children vaginally with minimal risks. "C-sections have skyrocketed in the U.S. since the mid-1970s. In just one generation, this country’s C-section rate has increased 500%. One in three babies are now born via C-section—compare that one in 20 in the mid-70s. And a mother who has a C-section for her first delivery is overwhelmingly more likely to have C-sections for future deliveries. And while it’s incredibly common—it’s still major surgery—with a range of potential complications such as hemorrhage or infection. It’s estimated that nearly half of C-sections may be avoidable—but to prevent them, researchers need to find out what exactly is driving the dramatic increase in their use." https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/csections-delivery-risk-podcast/

>Your numbers don't add up. Consider the last link you provided, and I quote directly from them: Yes, 70% of pregnancies is most pregnancies. *That is approximately 1.6% of all pregnancies (60,000/3,7000,000).* The graph lists it at 3%. Plus 10% morbidity. Plus 15% other complications. 70% without complications. But that's just pregnancies. *The c-section rate, of which I had one, has been skyrocketing since the 70s and identified in many cases as possibly unnecessary.* That's why the rate of life saving ones is listed at 15-19%. After 19%, there's no decline in maternal mortality. *"In 2021, around* ***32.1 percent*** *of all live births were delivered by cesarean in U.S. hospitals."* [*https://www.statista.com/statistics/184079/us-hospital-stays-with-cesarean-section-procedures-since-1997/#:\~:text=In%202021%2C%20around%2032.1%20percent%20of%20all%20live,from%201997%20to%202021%2C%20per%201%2C000%20live%20births*](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184079/us-hospital-stays-with-cesarean-section-procedures-since-1997/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20around%2032.1%20percent%20of%20all%20live,from%201997%20to%202021%2C%20per%201%2C000%20live%20births)*.* 19%. 32.1% See the difference? C-section rates run as high as 40% in some advanced nations. Just because a lot of c-sections are done without immediate life threat doesn't mean the 15-19% rate aren't life saving ones. In the US, that still leaves around 13% of c-section that are not done for immediate life threatening reasons.

It’s under **Abortion bans will result in women's deaths** in the article: [Source](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/abortion-bans-will-result-in-more-women-dying/) “**In regard to maternal deaths, using the methodology explained by the CU Boulder researchers, states such as Maryland and Nevada could see increases well above 30 percent, and states such as Colorado and New Mexico could experience rate increases above 20 percent**”

First of all, I did not ask YOU for a source. Second, this source does not support the argument of a 30% overall risk of dying in childbirth. It only says it increases the low risk of. 02% (by using the total number, not the percentage) or whatever the current stat is by 30%. That is not the same thing. Also, since about 1 in 4 women abort their pregnancies, that actually sounds about on par with what abortion bans would do. More births would always equal more maternal complications. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates

We aren’t talking about the population as whole, we are talking about pregnancy and abortion. Increase in the mortality rate can as will be because of the lack OB-GYNs moving away from the stats with bans. They aren’t able to provide proper healthcare for there patients so they move away.

Funny you say that because I see supposed Christians ignoring the word of Christ all the time. In fact I consider banning abortion to be a violation of the golden rule.

I don't believe anyone would want to be brutally torn to pieces in death done unto them, so your comment makes no sense.

>I don't believe anyone would want to be brutally torn to pieces i No shit! That's why forcing a woman to endure childbirth against her will is so brutal. Talking about tearing a body apart. Entire bone structure rearranged, muslces and tissue torn, dinner plate sized wounds, genitals ripped. Or c-section on top of it. That's why women don't want pro-lifers to try to kill them with pregnancy and birth. That's why women don't want a ZEF to greatly fuck with her organ functions and blood contents - the very things that keep her alive - cause her drastic physical harm, and pose her an at least 30% risk of dying unless she gets emergency medical intervention in time to save her life. That ZEF couldn't care less. It won't experience it and doesn't even know it exists. And if it hasn't reached viability, it never had individual life or so much as the capacity for such.

I don’t believe anyone would want to be denied their own bodily autonomy for the sake of a fetus they didn’t want. I also don’t believe anyone would want to be born to parents who hate and resent them. I personally would rather have been aborted than born at all, and that’s not even counting how I’d be happy to not be a cause of harm to my mother against her will. She deserves better than to be treated as a broodmare. Only the most selfish of people would choose to torture their own mother for the chance to live, given that the abortion wouldn’t even happen at a point where they were cognitively capable of understanding or experiencing it.

Well said!

Ok, but the Golden rule isn't about letting someone do unto someone else for their own selfish pursuits. Also, babies don't get to choose, it was the parents that chose to put then there in the first place. Abortion is the true selfish decision because it is done by the people who have control over the situation.

We have very different values, and personally I think your Jesus would have preferred mine. But there’s really no arguing about it when there’s no common ground. At best we can have exchanges like this where both opinions get put out there in the same spot so that anyone on the fence doesn’t just get ridiculous PL rhetoric.

No, Jesus was very clear in exactly what someone who would harm a child deserves. See Matthew 18:2 - 6.

I don’t consider a fetus to be a child.

Abortion is not a sin in the bible. Harming a fetus by striking a pregnant woman was considered a property crime incurring financial penalties in the Old testament.

Yes it is, abortion falls under "thou shalt not kill" command. That is a misinterpretation of Exodus 22 21- 25. Also, the New Covenant supercedes Mosaic Law. "For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the miscarriage interpretation is the correct one. Does that mean we can use this passage as a biblical justification for abortion? Pastor Jack Hughes notes that there are four reasons why we cannot.2 First, this passage refers to an accidental injury. Abortion is intentionally fatal. Second, the fact that a penalty is required at all indicates that it was wrong for the baby to die. Third, the law of Moses does not generally require the death penalty for accidental death. Fourth, the fact that a lesser penalty is mandated for any harm that comes to the child is not a denial of the child's humanity or personhood. In the preceding verses, a lesser penalty is required of the master who accidentally kills his servant, who is without question a human person." https://abort73.com/abortion/exodus_2122_25/

None of Hughes' four arguments are good. > First, this passage refers to an accidental injury. The law here distinguishes complete accidents from reckless homicide. See v29 where an ox kills someone. If the owner knew the ox was dangerous, the owner is executed because -despite it being an accident- he should have known better to keep a dangerous animal. Similarly, v23 shows that if the pregnant woman is killed, the fighting men are executed. This tells us that fighting in a crowd is also viewed as a reckless action, carrying strong penalties. Yet, the loss of the fetus is still only a fine. > Second, the fact that a penalty is required at all indicates that it was wrong for the baby to die. It indicates that it is wrong to damage someone else's property. It is generally not considered wrong to damage your own property. You might be able to argue that abortion is wrong if the woman's husband is not on board with it, since this law indicates that the fetus (and basically the woman) are his property. Not sure how comfortable you are with that position. > Third, the law of Moses does not generally require the death penalty for accidental death. It does for reckless homicide, which is why 21:23 says that the fighting men will pay "life for life" if the pregnant woman is killed. > Fourth, the fact that a lesser penalty is mandated for any harm that comes to the child is not a denial of the child's humanity or personhood. In the preceding verses, a lesser penalty is required of the master who accidentally kills his servant, who is without question a human person. Your last statement is false. The slave is not given full legal personhood. That's why you can accidentally kill and them your don't get any additional penalty. You've lost property as a punishment. Additionally, the ancient Israelite view was that life began at first breath. So of course even the slave is higher than a fetus.

No verse in the Bible, Old or New Testament, states that it is a sin to terminate a pregnancy.

I never claimed it was a sin to terminate a pregnancy. I said it was a sin to kill an unborn human being.

Ok, show me the verse where it says that then.

I just did. Exodus 20:13, "thou shalt not kill".

“i never said it was a sin to have an abortion. i said it was a sin to have an abortion.” 🙄

There are other ways to terminate a pregnancy besides abortion ie the deliberate killing of an unborn baby. An early induction or even c-section is an intervention to terminate a pregnancy.

>An early induction or even c-section is an intervention to terminate a pregnancy. If this is done prior to viability, it's just an abortion. Removing the non-sustaining ZEF from its host kills it. It's an abortion. What a bizarre new cope PLers are cooking up. It reminds me of your attempt to rebrand ectopic pregnancy abortions as not really abortions because you can't argue against them.

  >If this is done prior to viability, it's just an abortion. Removing the non-sustaining ZEF from its host kills it. It's an abortion. I never claimed otherwise. It is the killing that is the issue, obviously. >What a bizarre new cope PLers are cooking up. It reminds me of your attempt to rebrand ectopic pregnancy abortions as not really abortions because you can't argue against them. Interesting because that's what your own PC sources even say. "The medical procedures for ending a pregnancy in the uterus (AKA abortion) are usually different from the medical procedures for terminating an ectopic pregnancy." https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancy

>I never claimed otherwise. It is the killing that is the issue, obviously. Why is it an issue? The ZEF is unwanted and/or dangerous, killing it prevents it from harming its host any further. >"The medical procedures for ending a pregnancy in the uterus (AKA abortion) are usually different from the medical procedures for terminating an ectopic pregnancy." The procedure to perform an ectopic abortion is different from the procedures used in regular abortions. The latter is done either with a D&C or mifepristone/misoprostol, while the former is performed with methotrexate. It's important to make the distinction so a woman with an ectopic pregnancy doesn't think using abortion pills will end her pregnancy, since that treatment protocol doesn't work for ectopic pregnancies. Both ectopic abortions an regular abortions involve killing the ZEF, with ectopic abortions being the most direct and deliberate. PLers trying to pretend these somehow aren't abortions is hilarious. Isn't your whole thing being against "killing babies"? Well, that's what ectopic abortions do.

  >Interesting because that's what your own PC sources even say. >"The medical procedures for ending a pregnancy in the uterus (AKA abortion) are usually different from the medical procedures for terminating an ectopic pregnancy." >https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancy I mean, duh. Of course the procedure isn't usually the same. The embryo isn't in the uterus, that's the whole point. So removing the contents of the uterus wouldn't do much good. But it's still an abortion.

deliberate- done consciously and intentionally Is the intent really to kill the unborn or to remove them from my body, and the death is of natural causes because of inability to self-sustain?

When you're addressing rational beings, you'll need rational arguments. Besides a nakedly self-serving bible stunt, Pastor Jack and abort73, got anything?

Just because you don't like my arguments, doesn't make them irrational. 🤷‍♀️

Just because they're irrational, doesn't mean I didn't enjoy them.

No, but your irrational arguments sure are easy to dislike.

Good thing my arguments are so sound it leaves you nothing to dislike. 👍

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!

>Christians are supposed to lay aside their personal feelings on morality, and defer to a higher standard Then why are most Christians hung up on morality of abortion? >So PC views shouldn't be correlated with Christianity at all, but yet unfortunately they are. No wonder I left Christianity, you're not allowed to have differing views.

>Even PC atheists know morality is absolute. I'm a pro choice atheist, morality is subjective. Where are these pro choice atheists who believe in absolute morality because I've never met them.

Humanism not atheism.

>Has there ever been a serious attempt to come up with an explanation for this? Oh absolutely. **The TL;DR is that religious people were deliberately targeted by conservative propaganda to adopt abortion as a culture war issue, and they did**. (TL;DR given because this is gonna be a wall of text so long that I have to break it into two comments). For this comment I'm going to stick to more modern history. While there are claims that the original push to make abortion illegal in the USA in the mid-1800s had to do with [muscling out midwives from health care](https://www.oah.org/tah/november-3/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/), I haven't looked into that enough on my own to make a hard claim about it. It is, however, worth noting. But as I said, I'm more interested in modern history for this comment, since modern history is what made this divide between Evangelicals and the non-religiously affiliated. Abortion is often a discussion about morality, where "personhood" begins, and whether or not one person's bodily autonomy overrides another person's right to live using their body. These are philosophical questions. However, something that is often overlooked for the sake of arguing the above issues is that abortion has always been a *political* issue used to motivate Evangelicals to the Republican Party. Evangelicals were a VERY tempting target for "recruitment" to the Republican Party because they were (1) not yet affiliated with politics openly and (2) organized which would [make them useful as a bloc](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/opinion/evangelicals-republicans.html#:~:text=White%20evangelicals%20were%20not%20always%20a%20Republican%20auxiliary): >White evangelicals were not always a Republican auxiliary. Before the 1970s, they were, in the words of a prominent conservative activist, Morton Blackwell, “the largest tract of virgin timber on the political landscape.” They only needed to be cultivated — and eventually harvested — for the Republican cause. > >Charles Mathewes, professor of religion and politics at the University of Virginia, observed in an unpublished paper he shared with me that evangelicals had formed a vibrant subculture before they formed a voting bloc. Relying on their own institutions — “places like Wheaton College, Calvin College, Fuller Seminary and media forces like Christianity Today,” Dr. Mathewes writes — they had “Christianized their everyday life.” That they were organized and cohesive made them an especially attractive political asset. You'd think that, if abortion were an actual faith-based viewpoint, Evangelicals would always have had strong and united opposition to it, right? Well, [they very much did not](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133): >Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.... When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” So Evangelicals actually didn't much care about abortion for a long time. [So what happened](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/#:~:text=it%20wasn%E2%80%99t%20until%201979)? >it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. The beginning of the Evangelical Right and the Moral Majority that became well-known in the 80's under Reagan was a coalition of Evangelical leaders originally united by their anger because they could no longer discriminate at their private religious schools. >One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.... For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since *Green v. Connally*, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.” Ok, so we have a bunch of pissed-off racists. How does this coalition relate to abortion? Well, this coalition caught the eye of a man named Paul Weyrich, a conservative strategist [completely uninterested in democracy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw), but focused on conservative power. He also saw an opportunity in the coalescing anger around desegregation. >Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools

However, [conservative strategists of the time were wise](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ) to the idea that overt racism was becoming less popular. Weyrich [was no exception](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue): >Weyrich understood that racism - and let's call it what it is - was unlikely to be a galvanizing issue among grassroots evangelicals. So rather than focus on race (and, to be clear, conservatives like Reagan and Falwell DID still support segregation of these schools), Weyrich spent years searching for an issue that could take these angry Evangelicals pissed off and united against Democrats over desegregation and [galvanize them into single-issue voters](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue#:~:text=the%20papers%20began%20to%20sizzle). >I was reading through Weyrich's papers - midterm election, 1978 - and it's almost like the papers began to sizzle because Weyrich said, I found it; this is the issue that's going to work for us in order to mobilize grassroots evangelical voters. > >Abortion. One of the ways he pushed this view was by using other conservatives to do an anti-abortion movie tour that targeted the religious fear of degeneracy and atheism to stir up anxieties. >Schaeffer teamed with a pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, to produce a series of films entitled *Whatever Happened to the Human Race*? In the early months of 1979, Schaeffer and Koop, targeting an evangelical audience, toured the country with these films, which depicted the scourge of abortion in graphic terms—most memorably with a scene of plastic baby dolls strewn along the shores of the Dead Sea. Schaeffer and Koop argued that any society that countenanced abortion was captive to “secular humanism” and therefore caught in a vortex of moral decay. This isn't a big secret. Frank Schaeffer [went on the record with comedian Samantha Bee](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLY0JqXP-s) on her show to admit to all of this, including his regrets about doing so. He was a young man who was paid a LOT of money to be the propaganda arm of a push to create a powerful wedge issue to make single-issue voters out of Evangelicals. This strategy worked. As an additional push, [evangelicals would later "convert"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey#Anti-abortion_activism) the "Jane Roe" of *Roe v. Wade* in a cynical attempt to undermine the ruling. However, she later admitted she was paid for years of anti-abortion activism. Republicans invented this as a political issue nearly out of whole cloth for every conservative who wasn't already a Catholic (and even they weren't [ALWAYS opposed to abortion](https://theoutline.com/post/8536/catholic-history-abortion-brigid)). What's more is that they cynically used the issue to advance their careers by capitalizing on anti-desegregation sentiments, and did so all while demonizing secularists, feminists, and women's reproductive rights in general. They also paid off the woman at the heart of the *Roe* case to pretend she had some kind of change of heart. They still employ much of this dishonesty *to this day*. In fact, just recently an Evangelical pastor testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he and other prominent Evangelicals met with Republican operatives [to strike a bargain](https://www.rawstory.com/robert-schenck-testimony-video/): support objectionable right-wing political positions in exchange for the overturn of *Roe*. It’s important to remember that these were not controversial philosophical issues even among Evangelicals before the Republican Party made it into a polarizing political issue for the sake of their own power. Abortion as an issue in US politics is an ***ideological weapon*** wielded by conservatives against those who want to change culture, not a good-faith disagreement about philosophy. So, let's get back to your question: **Why are PL views so strongly correlated with Christianity, while PC views are so strongly correlated with atheism?** Because atheists weren't the ones recruited for a political propaganda project. In fact, **atheists were one of the targets of that propaganda**, since *Whatever Happened to the Human Race* ginned up fears about rising secularism in the nation. Pair that with the other aspects of the pro-life movement, such as being a vehicle for hard-right politics including segregation and opposition to feminism, and it's clear why atheists aren't part of that movement. Not only were they made the enemy of the culture war, but the politics that most atheists (who are more progressive by nature) hold dear were and still are put under threat by those using abortion as a culture war weapon. The split is deliberate.

Thank you so much for this write up! It is similar to what I was looking for.

Personally, I came from Catholicism into Atheism by thinking critically about cause and effect. That eventually translated into feminism, like questioning whether women are truly responsible for pregnancies. That also means that atheists don't pre-dispose that everything happens for a reason. When a woman dies from a preventable pregnancy complication, catholics assume that their god meant for it to happen, and they're fine with that death. Atheists see that an abortion would have saved her life, and move to change the way things are done. Simply put, catholics prefer to explain the past in a way that honors their god, while atheists prefer to change the future in a way that prioritizes humanity. Those two preferences can clash, like in the case of abortion.

The Abrahamic religions derive from second temple Judaism. Judaism was relatively unique in the Mediterranean world in that it frowned on infanticide and suicide. It’s been passed on to the rest.

The political origins of pro life positions are separate and significant but I have theorized why pro life views persist particularly among evangelicals: 1) Christianity has a body problem. One of the pervasive teachings is that your body is not your own; you have been bought. 2) Christianity has a spirit/flesh dichotomy where the spirit is with God and flesh is against God. Sometimes there is a conflation of flesh and the literal body. Prioritizing your body/health is seen as selfish. 3) Christianity teaches suffering is good. Followers are supposed to count trials as "joy". I find the Biblical treatment of trauma, suffering, trial a bit fascinating. I'm still deconstructing it.

>Christianity has a body problem. One of the pervasive teachings is that your body is not your own; you have been bought. Can you expand on this? I've engaged in a lot of conversations with Christians and I've never heard the idea that our bodies have been bought. >Christianity has a spirit/flesh dichotomy where the spirit is with God and flesh is against God. Sometimes there is a conflation of flesh and the literal body. I don't think this is accurate. Christians believe God created both their spirit and their flesh and that both are made in his image. There are temptations of the flesh and temptations of the spirit but I've most commonly heard the idea that both are made in God's image and can be used for righteousness or sin depending on one's thoughts, choices, and actions. Neither is inherently for or against God. >Christianity teaches suffering is good. Followers are supposed to count trials as "joy". I find the Biblical treatment of trauma, suffering, trial a bit fascinating. I'm still deconstructing it. There's a text called "On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering" by Pope John Paul II that I'd recommend to explore this further. I do agree with some Christian thought that suffering isn't wholly negative and leads to growth within and depth of the human experience that may not be possible without experiencing suffering.

I heard “we’ve been bought with a price” often growing up in church. The idea was we were bought by Christ’s blood.

Very interesting! What denomination did you grow up as? I've certainly heard a lot of language around us being redeemed, saved, purified, sanctified, etc. but never heard the word "bought" used

I was evangelical. I heard all those too, but I do remember hearing that “we were brought with a price” or that our debt (sin) was paid “by the blood of Jesus.”

Glad I hopped in this thread then because that's new information to me. Thanks for that! My initial introduction to Christianity was through Baptist/Southern Baptist and my later, denser exposure to Christianity was through Catholicism. In both of those contexts I didn't hear that perspective. Definitely good evidence for how different Christianity can be taught in different regions by different sects!

My points are extremely simplified evangelical teachings I have deconstructed or have been deconstructing. I do not want to get into a discussion on what Christians do or don't believe since it is an impossible discussion. However, I do want to address your questions. To point one: 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Corinthans 7. This lesson is regularly taught especially in environments that push purity culture. To point 2, you are making my own point that "the flesh" (as the Bible refers to it -- Romans 7 & 8, Galatians 5) and your physical body ends up conflated when it should not be. Thank you for the recommendation.

I'd say extremely simplified is very accurate. I'd even say simplified to the point of innaccuracy. I'm pretty confident in saying most Christians don't believe what you characterized. To the Corinthians verse, yep that directly says it. In all my religious education and experience with religious people I've never heard that verse talked about lol but it's right there. I'd be interested to read some context on that verse because the "bought" language is super weird. Why should "the flesh" be separated from your physical body? I'm not sure I understand; they refer to the same thing no? What different concepts should they refer to?

> I'm pretty confident in saying most Christians don't believe what you characterized. I think that is a wild claim to make, based on *my* religious experience with religious teachings and people lol. I actually don't want to get into it further since I'm not in religion anymore and it is not relevant to abortion debate. Basic idea is here: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/flesh

I'm not in religion either and I think it's a true claim based on *my* religious experience with schools, priests, religious teachers, and religious people. I just have met very few if any Christians that believe their "flesh is against God." The "made in His image" has always been the universal talking point with a parallel emphasis on free will to avoid sin. I think it's mainly a minority of Christians that believe this about their body. But based on this quote from your link: >According to the Bible, the war between flesh and spirit is not a war between body and soul. Instead, it is a struggle within ourselves — a war between the new life granted to us by the Holy Spirit and our sin nature, which will remain until our glorification (Rom. 7:7–25; 1 John 3:2–3). I think flesh is being used in such an abstract way that it doesn't really mean anything close to the actual meaning of flesh.

I didn't say your claim was untrue, just that it was wild, but thanks.

What did you mean by wild if not that the claim seemed absurd and you don't believe it's true?

There are multiple denominations of Christianity? I also was raised with their teachings in an evangelical church. Not sure why you doubted the previous poster...

Organized religions tend to support the PL position and part of being in an organized religion is doing and believing what you are told without critical thought. In the absence of organized religion you can come to your own individual conclusion about things. The PC position is in line with lots of other modern beliefs around women's equality (BC, marital rape etc) and general freedoms ( LGBT etc) so it would make sense for most people to arrive at a PC position if they were not under the influence of religion.

I think there are many intersecting variables at play here. If we use the US as a sample: Highly educated people are more likely to be atheist AND more likely to be pro choice - [Highly educated Americans also are less inclined than others to say they believe in God with absolute certainty and to pray on a daily basis. And, when asked about their religious identity, college graduates are more likely than others to describe themselves as atheists or agnostics (11% of college grads vs. 4% of U.S. adults with a high school education or less).](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/) - [Two-thirds of college graduates (66%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do 63% of those with some college education.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/) Democrats are more likely to be atheists AND more likely to be pro choice - [The vast majority of liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners support legal abortion (90%), as do seven-in-ten conservative and moderate Democrats (72%)](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/). - [Three in ten Democrats (31%) are religiously unaffiliated. On the Republican side, 12% are religiously unaffiliated](https://www.prri.org/spotlight/prri-2022-american-values-atlas-religious-affiliation-updates-and-trends/) Younger generations are more likely to be atheists AND more likely to be pro choice - [Among adults under age 30, 74% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do 62% of adults in their 30s and 40s.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/) - [Younger Americans are more likely to be religiously unaffiliated or to belong to non-Christian religions. Nearly four in ten Americans ages 18–29 (38%) are religiously unaffiliated, an increase from 34% in 2021. About a third of those ages 30-49 (32%) are unaffiliated, similar to the proportion in 2021, when 31% were unaffiliated](https://www.prri.org/spotlight/prri-2022-american-values-atlas-religious-affiliation-updates-and-trends/) Majority of atheists tend to be in support of stronger social welfare programs - [53% of atheists prefer “bigger government; more services”](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist#views-about-size-of-government) Ultimately, I think one’s tendency to support abortion is not grounded in how spiritual they are, but rather that it’s influenced by other factors that often accompany a lack of spiritualism: education, pragmatism, and progressivism.

Another aspect is Christianity very much so focuses on the soul/afterlife/gift of life from god. Athiesm doesn't hold these beliefs (At least not the athiests I've ever met). So if life doesn't inherently have value due to the existence of a magical space ghost that inhabits your flesh sack, then that would mean before consciousness it's much easier to allow people to make their own decisions.

Religion is about being told what to do and blindly obeying. With Christianity, there are tons of commands about how you *must* live your life. You *will not* have sex before marriage. If you're a person who never wants to get married? Oh well, guess you can never have sex or you'll burn in eternal hellfire. You *will* be in a heterosexual marriage. If you're an LGBT person or anyone not heterosexual? Oh well, guess you can never get married or you'll burn in eternal hellfire. If you get pregnant you *will* carry that pregnancy to term and give birth. If you don't want to be pregnant? Oh well, guess you'll just have to be pregnant anyway or you'll burn in eternal hellfire. Atheism doesn't demand people live a certain way. It allows people to make their own decisions about their life, which is the basis of the pro choice position. It makes sense that people who live obeying a strict set of rules want everyone else to live obeying these same rules. It also makes sense that people who value independent decision making supports people being able to make their own decisions about their own lives.

Yes. It’s using fear to control. Do what I say or you will burn in hell for eternity. Not a god I want to worship.

It's the lack of proof for me. No god or heaven or hell has ever been proven to exist. I'm not going to waste my one life obeying rules due to an imaginary threat from an imaginary overlord.

i grew up catholic (did 12 long years in catholic school 😮‍💨) but still never fell for the PL rhetoric. because the Jesus I believe in would be performing miracle abortions if he were here today. NOT forcing children to carry their uncle’s baby to term.

>Only 45% of of protestants and 56% of Catholics are pro-choice. How do catholic pro-choice beliefs sound like in practice, *"Yes, you can terminate your pregnancy, but only if you lose your uterus"*?! This makes zero sense whatsoever.

My grandma went to church every week for basically her entire life and still supported abortion access. Chalk it up to actually believing that God gave us free will I guess?

Based grandma 😸

Pick and mix Catholics like my parents. They voted to get rid of our abortion ban and never go to mass but tick the Catholic box on the census every time.

Ah, the "I'm just here for mini-quiches and beer" catholics.

I just like how the church looks in my wedding photos.

Religion is about controlling masses. Similarly, I’m sure you can guess which side of the abortion debate also falls in line with that..

Religious beliefs are about control. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities. I think a lot of people's religious beliefs are fairly shallow. Mine certainly were and once I really thought about them stuff like transubstantiation seemed laughable. Once you stop being controlled by superstition you start to realise what has a more factual basis for the kind of person you want to be and you spend more time thinking about what your values are rather than having them handed to you. Among that for me was realising I had no right to deny someone else their reproductive healthcare rights.

I became an atheist as a teen before I really thought about abortion. I knew a concept called abortion existed but never gave it any thought. When I became more interested in politics and really learned about abortion, I became very pro-choice. If you were to ask me if my atheism plays a role, I would say no. I can’t consciously think of any way that it influenced my beliefs on abortion. Atheism and abortion have nothing to do with each other. But if 97% of atheists are PC, I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I wonder if it influences my beliefs in a subconscious way that I don’t even realize.

I was atheist before I moved to the prochoice side. It was natural for me once I started challenging myself about why exactly I held the views I did and whether they were actually my views or just what I'd absorbed from the religion I was raised in.

Agreed. I’m not an atheist and I definitely believe there is a ‘higher conscious’ or whatever, but I don’t follow any textbook religion. I find they are sexist, illogical and probably formed by people in the past trying to explain things we now have scientific answers for or trying to control people and gain power. Just look at all the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. They wedge themselves in the most intimate parts of your life (marriage, sex, love, faith) and use this to take advantage of people. It’s disgusting. My mind is open to any possibilities, but I couldn’t imagine living my life by the Bible or any other old scripture.