Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

[firedragon]

I do believe that I was the one that first pointed out that effectively atheists tend to be more "pro-life" even when abortions are considered. Would you doubt me if I claimed that atheists were more likely to be Democratic than Republican in the U.S. than Republican? And that Democrats are much more likely to support Planned Parenthood than Republicans? The latter should be a given at least. Since the goal of anti-abortionists should be lowering the number of abortions then Atheists would qualify as more "Pro-life" since they support Planned Parenthood and the presence of a Planned Parenthood office in an area can be shown to lower the number of abortions since they provide a full range of health care. They are not just abortion mills. I probably can support all of these claims, though to be honest I have never checked out the political leanings of atheists.

You could be correct. But since the OP is pointing out quantitative generalisations, the same has to be presented for atheists being more anti-abortionist than Christians in the same sample.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Poll: Atheists Overwhelmingly Oppose the Death Penalty; Most Christians Favor It

Not surprising really.

T'isn't. Atheists are more supportive of life for murderers than Christians, less supportive of life for innocent babies than Christians.

 

[metis]

Atheists are more supportive of life for murderers than Christians, less supportive of life for innocent babies than Christians.

So, then you are only partially pro-life?

 

[Heyo]

T'isn't. Atheists are more supportive of life for murderers than Christians, less supportive of life for innocent babies than Christians.

The whole debate is a word (and therefore emotions) game. Pro lifers also insist on calling foetuses "children" or "babies". (Sometimes countered by "clump of cells" by pro choicers.)

@firedragon: see what I mean?

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon: see what I mean?

Oh. What? Was that a prophecy?

Haha. I will make a bit of study on this. Thanks for your direction. I think you were absolutely right.

 

[pearl]

The whole debate is a word (and therefore emotions) game. Pro lifers also insist on calling foetuses "children" or "babies". (Sometimes countered by "clump of cells" by pro choicers.)

I think you might be confusing pro-life with anti-abortion. In any event the Supreme Court is not, or should not be in the business of making moral or emotional judgments, but legal, constitutional law. I think this will hinge on whether or not, or at what point a fetus is considered a person entitled to the protection of the Constitution over and against the personhood of the mother. I certainly think the Court has possibilities other than banning all abortions. Initially, Roe v Wade never had in mind abortion on demand as we now know it, it was through successive decisions we have abortion demand. There is always the option of returning the whole abortion issue to the States.

 

[Altfish]

So what is the reason?



Police corruption lives everywhere. So in this so called "more civilised UK" you will still corruption and will have wrong convictions even if you kill them or make them live in a prison for a number of decades.

Not a good enough explanation. Let me ask the question again.

On what basis did you make the conclusion that opposing death penalty is a good or great thing in order to be so positive about it? As an atheist.

Just saying "US police is corrupt" is a non-answer. Prove it with empiricism because you are. Hope you understand that question.

You obviously struggle with understanding.
I do not believe in revenge; an eye for an eye; etc. As an atheist human life is precious, a murderer takes one but it doesn't mean a state authorised murder should follow.

Let me ask you a question. How many innocent people are you happy to be murdered by the state whilst pursuing revenge?

 

[Wandering Monk]

How 'pro-life' is fundamentalist opposition to public health measures and vaccinations during the Covid pandemic? I can't count the number of times I heard the mantra 'They were going to die anyway' when the topic of Covid and co-morbities comes up.

 

[Altfish]

Thanks a lot for that response. Finally a direct response, and an educative one. I am not very well versed in the movements in question, yet if I am to make an assumption, these phrases are brands. I think you have outlined it better.

The thesis was, pro-life being referred to anti-abortionists and the anti-capital punishment activists or thinkers is the same. And the thesis also included that "UK is civilised". @Altfish

But in the UK, abortion is legal. Not too sure unto how many weeks. 20?? But still, it is legal. Thus does that make UK "uncivilised"?

Its a strange dichotomy.

Why can't the anti-abortionists understand that the woman's health both physical and mental is equally important.?

 

[Altfish]

Since you said the calling name "Pro Life" is the same as anti abortionists, have you a research that shows Atheists to be more "pro life" when it comes to abortion as well in comparison to Christians?

Atheists have no creed to follow; Humanists do support the woman's choice.

 

[Altfish]

T'isn't. Atheists are more supportive of life for murderers than Christians, less supportive of life for innocent babies than Christians.

More supportive of the mother's life too. I do not consider that a fetus has the same rights as a mother. AND going by the number of miscarriages and still births that happen, isn't God pro-abortion?
btw I am not suggesting freedom for murderers, 30-years in prison is sufficient punishment for most. I cannot support state funded murder.

 

[sun rise]

There is always the option of returning the whole abortion issue to the States.

I'm sure that those who are against a woman's right to decide want SCOTUS to declare a fetus human from conception and use the Constitution to forbid abortion at the state level as well.

 

[firedragon]

You obviously struggle with understanding.
I do not believe in revenge; an eye for an eye; etc. As an atheist human life is precious, a murderer takes one but it doesn't mean a state authorised murder should follow.

Let me ask you a question. How many innocent people are you happy to be murdered by the state whilst pursuing revenge?

Thats religious preaching. Not research findings.

 

[firedragon]

Atheists have no creed to follow; Humanists do support the woman's choice.

Good script. But that's not a relevant response.

 

[Altfish]

Thats religious preaching. Not research findings.

And that's not an answer to my question

 

[Altfish]

Good script. But that's not a relevant response.

I disagree; I could write a 40 page dissertation and you would not be satisfied, you do enjoy trolling

 

[firedragon]

I disagree; I could write a 40 page dissertation and you would not be satisfied, you do enjoy trolling

Thanks for all of that. But even if you write a 1000 pages of a preaching script, it is still not research. A quantitative study show numbers of atheists vs Christians who support and not support abortion which is as you said the same as supporting and not supporting death sentence.

Some atheists seem to think calling names etc are intellectual discussion. But its just a evangelism tactic used as an escape strategy when you are caught out practicing double standards.

 

[Valjean]

It's a common pro-choice argument that you see quite often. To oppose abortion (or even fail to grant it anything less than full unquestioning support) is misogyny. The sincere belief that a viable fetus has moral value is just a cover for what is really a desire to punish sexually liberated women. Or so the narrative goes.

What narrative?
I'm still not seeing the relationship.

That outside rare and tragic circumstances of medical necessity it is immoral to destroy a human fetus. I see no moral distinction between (most) abortions and infanticide. The taking of innocent human life for no other reason than adult convenience is the moral crime of our times.

You're not thinking about this. Your's is a knee jerk reaction.
What universal principles are involved?

The moral difference is based on the qualities that confer moral consideration. "Species" is a facile, unsupported "explanation." What qualities are you basing your moral consideration on?

This is a diversion from the issue. Animal life does not carry the same moral weight as human life.

Why? Conventionalism? Might-makes-rignt? Please explain the principles involved. What qualities do humans have that give them special moral consideration?
Apologies for forcing a religious to actually think or analyze a moral question. I know this is unfamiliar territory.

That does not mean we should be cruel to animals but as far as abortion is concerned the moral consideration is strictly concerned with human life. And all that human potential which has been thrown away. It's going to be karmic when the population really begins to age.

Human life? Human potential? Please explain the qualitative difference. What qualities -- other than species -- are in play here?
I think you're responding emotionally, from conventionalism, rather than actually thinking about the principles involved. "Species" is not a moral principle. You're being speciesist.

It spoke volumes to our moral insanity (on the issue of animal life) when people were outraged that a zoo had to shoot a gorilla to save a human child. Yes, the child should never have been there but there was no question that the zoo did the right thing in the circumstances. Being upset that a gorilla died is sentiment. Thinking it was a bad thing to kill a gorilla to save a human child is sentimentality. A culpable abandonment of moral reason for selfish emotion.

Interesting. Link?
You say "moral reason," but i'm not seeing the reasoning; just the emot

Gorilla Carries 3-Year-Old Boy to Safety After He Fell Into Enclosure in 1996 Incident

 

[Suave]

Yeah, yeah, libs and leftists love to kill little babies in the womb (or approve of it), but rush to save brutal murderers from the death penalty. Whatever helps you sleep at night. (See, it can go both ways. )

(Not all atheists are libs or leftist, either. )

Please let us agree to have medical science determine when a human life's personhood begins. According to Wikipedia's article regarding the beginning of human personhood,
"In the years since the designation of brain death as a new criterion for death, attention has been directed towards the central role of the nervous system in a number of areas of ethical decision-making. The notion that there exists a neurological end-point to human life has led to efforts at defining a corresponding neurological starting-point. This latter quest has led to the concept of brain birth (or brain life), signifying the converse of brain death. The quest for a neurological marker of the beginning of human personhood owes its impetus to the perceived symmetry between processes at the beginning and end of life, thus if brain function is a criterion used to determine the medical death of a person, it should also be the criterion for its beginning.

Just as there are two types of brain death - whole brain death (which refers to the irreversible cessation of function of both the brain stem and higher parts of the brain) and higher brain death (destruction of the cerebral hemispheres alone, with possible retention of brain stem function), there are two types of brain birth (based on their reversal) - brain stem birth at the first appearance of brain waves in lower brain (brain stem) at 6–8 weeks of gestation, and higher brain birth, at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) at 22–24 weeks of gestation."

Why not just follow the science? This seems reasonable to me.

I trust in medical science to establish when an embryo could consciously experience pain. According to a study study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28 to 30 weeks after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness, they write" (JAMA 2005; 294:947-954)
Please reference: Fetal Pain

Based on the criteria of personhood involving being capable of consciously feeling pain, personhood doesn't begin until at least 28 weeks after conception.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What ever happened to forgiveness? I don't remember Jesus meek and mild talking of revenge. Or did I miss that bit?

Prisoners can repent and get right with God at any time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't finish their sentence. Governments have a duty to mete out justice.