The pro life do more for unplanned pregnancies than the pro death crowd ever did.
The anti-choice people do nothing but remove choices. If a pregnant woman is coming for help about an unwanted pregnancy, she needs an abortion, not religious people trying to talk her (or fool her into missing deadlines) into having a baby she doesn't want. Those people are not her friend, nor her future baby's. They just want to use her as an incubator for Jesus. Did you read or see Rosemary's Baby? Or The Handmaid's Tale? This woman is a broodmare to these people.
I assume you don't eat eggs or meat then. If you do you just said you would be a cannibal, no problem.
No, you said that.
You and I had a similar discussion a few weeks back, and I remember pointing out that your conception of equality in the matter of man versus the beasts is lowering man, as seen with comments like, "That makes man no better than the animals" or "I'm no descendant of a monkey," as if animals are garbage. No, humanism elevates the beasts, not lowers man. The beasts are seen as non-human people, that deserve respect and dignity, and to be spared the indignities that a religious view of them facilitates. I've heard such people speculating over whether animals are conscious or can suffer.
You see animals as food, so when I call man their equal, you turn to cannibalism as the inevitable consequence of the man-beast equality. If man is no better than a chicken, then eat them both. Antispecism is the name of this ethical stance, that, "the species an animal is part of isn't a valid criterion to decide how it should be treated," and the consequence for somebody with humanist values is vegetarianism, not cannibalism.
no one is advocating letting the mom die.
That's not accurate. From
What Happened to Exceptions for the Life of the Mother? - The Atlantic (may be behind a paywall if you don't subscribe and have seen your allotment of free Atlantic articles):
" Anti-abortion-rights groups, like Wisconsin Right to Life, have described the “life of the mother” exception as
unnecessary and wrong. The Idaho GOP just approved a platform with no
lifesaving exception. Republican candidates like Matthew DePerno, the Republican running to be Michigan’s attorney general, oppose all exceptions to
abortion bans, and that includes to save a mother’s life. Conservative states are rushing to eliminate or narrow existing exceptions to their laws. Powerful groups like Students for Life,
Feminists for Life, and the
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) argue that “
abortion is never medically necessary” and that doctors should always be punished for intentionally taking a fetal life."
As I said above, the anti-choice contingent is uninterested in the mother's well-being, just getting another live birth for Jesus, and why? Because of an ancient religion with ancient values that derived from a time when life was cheap, was short, many infants and women died in childbirth, and men were continually being slaughtered at war. Survival depended on every available womb working every year if possible. That was when underpopulation was a threat to the group's survival. And every rule that promoted fecundity was promoted - women should marry soon after menarche, they cannot withhold sex, the rhythm method is sin, no gay sex or masturbation, no sodomy, and no divorce. Is there any doubt what the motive for all of that is?
But today, the opposite is true. Overpopulation is the threat, and the modern world has evolved new morals - family planning, small families or no children, it doesn't matter who you love, birth control and abortion should be safe, effective and available. But this ancient monolith continues to exert pressure to have more children, because its sees its values as coming from a deity and therefore universal and unchanging. Here's where humanism comes to the rescue, with its rational ethics. Where religions are fossilized according to an ancient narrative, reason allows us to rethink the issue and make intelligent choices based on what is best for mankind and the beasts (old ideas don't work there, either).
The church is increasingly being seen as an albatross around the neck of mankind. It's net effect is very negative. It's the principle source for misogyny and homophobia. It's the principle source of anti-science sentiments and anti-intellectualism. And now, it's inserted itself deeply into government and is coming for hard-won rights in an attempt to drag humanity out of the abyss of this ancient and no longer relevant morality.
People want this destructive force - the organized, politicized church - neutralized. They don't mind private religion, but this isn't that. This is creeping theocracy, and is the basis of anti-theism, which is not anti-religion or anti-adherent, but anti-theocracy. Just as any educated and decent citizen should be advocating against the petrochemical industry's effort to harm mankind, so too should the same people be doing what they can to diminish the church's cultural hegemony, and that's anti-theism, or the opposition to theocratic tendencies in a secular state.
