• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists are more pro-life than Christians

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Pro life. Human laws written to prevent criminal activity.

Wars and weapons on that list.

Crimes against humanity.

Humanity family. Medical biological teaching all humans owned the exact same two parents. DNA was the same human parent owner first.

We are family.

Status civilization invention trade greed caused criminal anti life.

Religious idealism to apply law against criminal.

Inventors theist designer built the weapons.

Humans agreed a life for a life was fair and equitable. Stating no excuse whatsoever to take the life of anyone.

Was Pro life referred originally. As equal status is family first.

Why it was law implemented to cause the mind to consider referencing life and not destroying life.

When you are the victim who no longer is living where is the equity?

If you preach you teach by example the example life is equal so is death.

Who speaks for the victim who should be living?

Hence the law said you cannot replace nor give back what you took which in totality was criminal.

Life says humans owned reason for inheriting the belief by irradiated brains status.

Yet no one tries to heal the criminal do they?

Wait a minute yes they did. They lawfully said three times a day ritual prayer meditation and offerings of meditative brain entrainment.

Life was owned first. Natural. Healthy. Equal. What excuse did science the theist inventor causer own for causing such evil life change?

Historic is science owned life's problems.

Pro life is therefore about implementing healing for a non criminal society. Hence it is owned by the pro lifers to implement the outcome instead of arguing.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.

No one is opposing bodily autonomy--but we logically oppose terminating a life because someone is inconvenienced.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Have you asked any atheists at RF if they're only "partially pro-death"?
No, but I know enough of them here to know that they appear to be generally more pro-life than many on the "religious right".

The problem with so many in the latter is that they see "pro-life" almost exclusively in terms of just the issue of abortion as there are many other pro-life issues that they ignore, and capital punishment tends to be just one of them. This is especially true of those in the "religious right" who buy into right-wing politics, and it's this mixing of religion and secular politics that all too often poisons the pudding.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Have you asked any atheists at RF if they're only "partially pro-death"?
Can we agree that being for capital punishment and for abortion is consistent, that being against capital punishment and against abortion is consistent but that being for one and against the other is hypocritical?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can we agree that being for capital punishment and for abortion is consistent, that being against capital punishment and against abortion is consistent but that being for one and against the other is hypocritical?

No.
I'm against capital punishment but support abortion. The principles involved aren't equivalent.
Capital punishment is killing a person, abortion, in most cases, is not.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hmm ... wanting killers to live is prolife? It's oxymoronic. Score one for atheism. :rolleyes:
The problem is that sometimes they are not killers. A Guilty sentence only means that a jury was convinced of someone's guilt. It does not necessarily mean that they were the killers. It has happened before and it will happen again. How many innocent dying due to poor defense, or corrupt prosecution, or simply strange circumstances are too many?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Can we agree that being for capital punishment and for abortion is consistent, that being against capital punishment and against abortion is consistent but that being for one and against the other is hypocritical?
I can't agree to that.

It's quite possible to have a consistent position that supports one, both or neither.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem is that sometimes they are not killers. A Guilty sentence only means that a jury was convinced of someone's guilt. It does not necessarily mean that they were the killers. It has happened before and it will happen again. How many innocent dying due to poor defense, or corrupt prosecution, or simply strange circumstances are too many?
Good point.
Another consideration: Most murders are impulsive. Statistically, murder has a fairly low recidivism rate. Wouldn't it make more sense to execute armed robbers or habitual drunk drivers, which have high recidivism rates, than murderers?

Criminology is often more political or emotional than reasonable or utilitarian.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good point.
Another consideration: Most murders are impulsive. Statistically, murder has a fairly low recidivism rate. Wouldn't it make more sense to execute armed robbers or habitual drunk drivers, which have high recidivism rates, than murderers?

Criminology is often more political or emotional than reasonable or utilitarian.
I vote for a death penalty for Jay walking!!
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Can we agree that being for capital punishment and for abortion is consistent, that being against capital punishment and against abortion is consistent but that being for one and against the other is hypocritical?
No, not really. I think there's enough difference in nuance between the two that it is perfectly reasonable to argue against one while arguing for the other. I don't particularly agree with the OP's suggestion that being against abortion but approve of the death penalty is hypocritical any more than the other way around would be. I think we miss out on a lot of the nuance of the discussion by simply conflating the two.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
You do not understand the mental issues that a mother encounters when forced to give birth against her wishes. It is not an inconvenience.
And there's many women who are coerced and pressured into abortions, as well, and end up traumatized from it. My own mother chose to run away from home rather than be forced into an abortion (of my oldest sister) by her father and her bf's parents.
 
Top