- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Abortion Anti-Choicers: The Myths, The Truths, The Censorship
For those of you who know anything about my political leanings or personal views, you know that I more or less consider myself a “male feminist.” That is, I’m a man who believes in equal rights, equal treatment, equal everything, for women. I believe the only way men and women differ is their biological gender (and maybe their psychological gender as well), but other than that, as members of society we are equals and should be treated equally. Gender roles? Who needs ‘em?
One thing I adamantly will defend is a woman’s right to control her body, and a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Hell, even my own mother had an abortion before I was born. Do I hold it against her? Not at all, and I believe that she had every right to do what she did and will defend her on it. If she would have chosen to carry to term, that would have been fine also. Pro-choice is not about being pro-abortion per se, it’s about supporting the freedom of choice. Just like I don’t believe in forcing women to carry to term, I also don’t believe in forcing women to terminate. Personal choice is the name of the game here.
So, why am I doing a blog about this, seeing as how I’m already pretty set in my ways? Truth be told, the more vocal anti-choicers (the term “pro-life” is a load of garbage, one can be both pro-life and pro-choice, and most women I know are best described in this way) are manipulative and just are not honest people. Let’s take a look shall we?
Anti-choicers like to throw around pictures of aborted fetuses and stuff, choosing to focus on supposed late-term abortions. I’ve got news for you: what you see in those pictures is not the result of late-term abortion. Those are generally babies born prematurely who have died from complications or otherwise natural means, and then these anti-choicers get ahold of them and doctor them to use the shock factor. For most of us who are pro-choice, this doesn’t phase us because we know exactly what they do. It’s not different than what PETA does in their investigation videos (PETA drives me nuts, by the way, and I’m vegetarian, go figure). Doctored images are nothing new to the anti-choice world, it’s been going on for several years. If it’s one thing I’ve learned in my work as an intactivist, it’s that shock tactics very rarely, if ever, work.
Anti-choicers love to throw around the supposed “medical risks” of abortion, often times blowing them up ridiculously out-of-proportion and even claiming supposed risks that have long since been debunked by the latest data. As anyone knows, no medical procedure, be it surgical or the consumption of prescription drugs, is completely risk-free. Seeing as how abortion is indeed a medical procedure, it does have its inherent risks (internal bleeding, perforated uterus, etc. just to name a few). These risks are minimized by a well-trained, skillful physician. Myths like abortion raising the risk of breast cancer have long since been trashed, and quite frankly my mother popped myself and my youngest sister out of her womb and we turned out just as healthy as could be, despite her earlier abortion. Doesn’t sound to me like abortion is that big of a factor in the risk of miscarriage. The real big risk I can see is the risk one might regret it later, but that’s not a medical risk so it shouldn’t even be a consideration.
Another big thing anti-choicers love to play upon is religion. OK, I’ll give this to you, because quite frankly pretty much all denominations of Christianity (with the exception of your very liberal ones), Judaism, and Islam, oppose abortion from a religious standpoint. I am none of the above. I’m a Unitarian Universalist with atheistic tendencies. The UUA has supported choice since its inception and will continue to do so. Religion is really the only thing I think anti-choicers can argue on, and I’ve yet to find a compelling secular reason to oppose a woman’s right to choose. That said, is that a good enough reason for making it illegal? The answer is no, because not everybody adheres to a particular religion. Supporting a federal ban on abortions is no different than supporting organized religion, which is contrary to what the constitution claims.
Lastly, dare you oppose an anti-choice organization on the internet or in writing, prepare to be censored. I left a comment on the YouTube upload of the video “The Silent Scream” (which, by the way, that video is very clearly fake, I’ve seen enough sonograms to know that’s not exactly what they look like), exposing the video for the lies it contained within. You know what their response was? Delete my comment and block me. So typical anti-choice, there. If that doesn’t scream propaganda to you, I don’t know what does.
One last remark I’d like to make is this: roughly 7 in 10 anti-choice leaders are male. OK dudes, let’s get real here. When are you EVER going to carry a baby? What gives you the gall to say that women should be forced to carry to term, when you yourself will never, ever experience it yourself. Something tells me you’d be crushed to carry something for nine months and give it up to never see it again. Yeah, that’s what I thought. Until you’ve lived a day in the life of a pregnant woman, you have absolutely no right to tell that woman what to do. This issue does not affect you, so butt out.
So, what do anti-choicers really want? Are they really in it to “protect the unborn” as they say? If you think that they are, you’re wrong. Here’s what they’re hell-bent on: punishing women for making their own decisions about what to do with their bodies, and Christianizing the country. That’s all there is to it. That said, most of us who are pro-choice very clearly see through that smoke screen.
Where does the real work need to be done? Even as someone who is adamantly pro-choice, and I believe every pro-choice person will say this, we need to work to reduce the number of abortions that take place. Do I believe abortion is necessarily the right thing to do or is a moral thing to do in all situations? I’m not going to say that, personally. I will say though that I don’t think anyone is going to deny that abortion is way too commonplace today. The real answers to reducing the number of abortions are not on the law books, but in education. Comprehensive sex education is needed in schools, and also needs to be public access. Abstinence-only sex education, I believe, is the real thing to place the blame on. Abortionists should provide detailed analysis of the benefits and risks of the procedure, something they don’t do that well. Informed choice is always a good thing. Development of better, more failsafe forms of contraception is a must for reducing the number of abortions (well, unless you’re Catholic, but thanks to them and their anti-contraception teachings we’re facing a massive overpopulation crisis).
So, in conclusion, what are anti-choicers exactly? Nothing more than a bunch of manipulative, academically dishonest theocrats.











Comments
Thanks for confirming
a hypothesis of mine. I believe that most people who support abortion do so because of their desire to justify the wicked. You love your mom, and you should, but you aren't helping her by justifying her sin.
There's no getting around it. Someone has to die in order to have a successful abortion. It's a double injustice, because the innocent die, and the guilty go free.
You should tell mommy that there's forgiveness for all sin in Jesus, though. That's the place where she'll find peace.
Wrong
My mother recently became an atheist after several years in the LDS Church. To her I say, "smart woman ."
There is no such thing as sin.
One Thing I Discern...
...from this ramblin' wreck is that you're anti-life. Yup. Anti-life. If you're going to label the other side what you wish, rather than call it what it wishes to be called, then I'm free to label you "anti-life." Spare me the nonsense that pro-lifers "aren't pro-life about everything." I imagine pro-choicers are anti-choice about some things. Some are anti-choice on recreational drugs , owning a handgun, or driving a Hummer. I certainly hope most of them, anyway, are anti-choice with respect to rape and/or beating one's wife or husband.
So if you reject the label "pro-life" for other people, I just as easily reject the label " pro-choice " for you. THAT was easy.
Right to decide
Right to decide should be ultimately the woman 's choice as she has to carry the child . Education, education ,education is the answer to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases. Everyone needs to protect their own body. Men with condoms and women with birth control. Athletes who kids look up to must promote safe sex . Someone like Tiger Woods and others who jeopardize their own health and the health of their wives and girlfriends and possible children need to promote responsibility and education. When we hear about all their dalliances with no regard to protecting themselves or the women, they must be made to realize that what they do affects others. But ultimately, the woman must be the most responsible as she is the one ultimately responsible for the safety of herself and the unwanted pregnancy or ultimate raising of these children. If you look at statistics of mothers raising children as single parents and then at father 's raising children as single fathers, the overwhelming group is women. Interesting article with lots of food for thought. Thanks for starting what I hope will be a respectable discussion. So far so good.
I see your opinion
and I disagree with it.
One thing at a time though,
"One thing I adamantly will defend is a woman ’s right to control her body" - Except in cases of rape , she controlled the conception. You claim, "As anyone knows, no medical procedure, be it surgical or the consumption of prescription drugs , is completely risk-free." I would adjust that to say biological procedure, which conception is. Protection, is not 100% effective, as the educated persons know, and so they should have to deal with the consequences. If the consequence is the joyous occasion of birth then so be it. They decided to do "do the deed" as it were.
"Anti-choicers like to throw around pictures of aborted fetuses and stuff, choosing to focus on supposed late-term abortions." Granted, as they are the most horrific procedures to be performed. I've seen a large number of different kinds of surgeries and the only one that ever made me squirm was an abortion . Not even a late term to tell you the truth. Maybe it is the religious in me but knowing that could have been a person that was pulled out makes me nauseous. As far as doctoring photos I don't think I have too much of a say in that. I don't believe that the photos were doctored on the grounds that there would be more news or controversy about it.
Although I would argue that supporting anti-abortion legislation is not supporting organized religion . As someone so untrusting of doctors don't you see who the real beneficiaries of abortion are? The doctors and insurance companies who specialize in the procedure. What benefit do churches gain? Nothing $$$ and so in the secular world, absolutely nothing. Does it increase church enrollment? I would think allowing abortions and then the onset of regret would do more to help in the "congregation supplementation" department.
One final problem I see. "When are you EVER going to carry a baby ?"-Never. "What gives you the gall to say that women should be forced to carry to term, when you yourself will never, ever experience it yourself."- What if its my child ? Or your child? What if the father is willing to raise the child even if the mother isn't? Do fathers have no rights at all? Are we only breeding studs to the femisogynistic masses? The point being that it does affect men. Real men, not those pansy jerks who can't handle responsibility for their actions.
I do agree on one key point.
The solution is less abortions. More education . Although with the caveat that it be legitimate education not taught by anyone with a vested $$ interest in the sale of condoms . Sex ed needs to provide information on the proper use of birth control but also the fact that only abstinence is 100% effective. Which is a point most classes fail to mention. "Sure condoms are safe they're 99% effective" which may be true on Trojans website but considering the number of abortions, which we both agree is too high, they're not so much. And yes, I think user error is a big part of it but the boxes don't take a Rosetta stone to decipher the instructions for use.
Good article. I thought I'd put in my 2 cents. Thanks for keeping up an opposing viewpoint :D
really?
first off, how do you know the contraception she chose as a first line of defense didn't fail? second, if you really believe that baby was a person, then masturbation must make you lose it, seeing as each cumload is around 10,000 nipple nibblers drying up on the floor. also, apparently there WAS some sort of news and controversy over doctored abortion photos , or she wouldnt have heard about it, or is lying. now, i doubt the second one, as we have nothing to gain from lying. also, give me one good secular reason to oppose abortion. just one. come on. also, fathers DO have legal rights, but you gotta think. what if he beats her? what if this is his way of tying her to him? what if it was marital rape ? do you want those fellas to have control? hm? oh, and condoms ARE 99% effective, if used properly, but, seeing as abstinence only is taught everywhere basically. i had to figure out what to do my first tie on the internet , after sifting through mountains of misinformation (peanut butter apparently is what egyptians used... according to that creepy guy.) and the boxes. please. tell me, you got a hot willing member of whatever group you want, you gonna think to take the time to READ? look, abstinence is great. but face facts. kids will be kids, and kids want to stick it in each other alot of the time. and they often do. so teach them to do it without making more kids.
Um tom
"first off, how do you know the contraception she chose as a first line of defense didn't fail?" If it did, she knew it could happen. And now she should accept the consequences of her actions.
As for masturbation, seriously? Sperm don't continue developing, they lack that aspect of "life" that I spelled out from my textbook in that other post you pretended to have a decent response to. Plus, you got replied to and I'm waiting to see how you respond to bmmg39.
One side of any argument has as much to gain from lying as any other side. Don't pretend. " i doubt the second one, as we have nothing to gain from lying"
One good secular reason to oppose abortion ? Killing babies is bad.
"fathers DO have legal rights, but you gotta think. what if he beats her? what if this is his way of tying her to him? what if it was marital rape ? do you want those fellas to have control? hm?" - Other laws apply there. Those make him lose a fathers rights. Your example fails to provide relevance. Could the father of a blastula/zygote/fetus oppose his partners abortion on legal grounds? If he can I'd like to see some sources. If he can't, you fail again.
"oh, and condoms ARE 99% effective, if used properly," That was my point, a lot of the time they aren't. Its still that persons fault if they don't use them correctly. They should deal with the consequences.
"tell me, you got a hot willing member of whatever group you want, you gonna think to take the time to READ?" Yes. Yes I did. :p
" look, abstinence is great. but face facts. kids will be kids, and kids want to stick it in each other alot of the time. and they often do. so teach them to do it without making more kids." - I addressed that. Read the last part of my first post.
Uh, No, Tom...
Tom Robbins: "second, if you really believe that baby was a person, then masturbation must make you lose it, seeing as each cumload is around 10,000 nipple nibblers drying up on the floor."
Let us know when you reach the seventh grade and they begin to explain to you that a sperm cell is not the same entity as a human embryo.
A new human life begins at the moment of fertilization. No need for religious belief to comprehend that, kiddies!
ah, but who are you to judge?
is a sperm not alive? so therefore, you are killing that baby . funny how you people glom onto science when it helps you and run around screaming about conspiracy when it dont. now, each sperm is a potential human. this is your argument against abortion , that the fetus is or was a potential human with a future. guess the same dont go for all the other outcomes wriggling down the poon flume.
Sperm Are Alive, Yeah...
...but they're not human beings. What "conspiracy" do I scream about, dearie? You just walked in.
Again, as it says in actual science textbooks (which blissfully unopened by the likes of you), fertilization brings about a new human being. Sperm cells and unfertilized ova aren't human beings (unless you wish to call them "potential human beings" -- fine). Once fertilization takes place, what you have is no longer a potential human being at all, but rather an actual one. But thanks for playing.
Life =/= Personhood
Here's where the anti-choice argument fails. Saying life begins at conception (true) and personhood begins at conception (false) are two entirely different things. One is a true statement, the other is a false statement.
The only reason to be anti-choice is religious, and anyone with half a brain knows "God" doesn't exist. End of story, you fail.
Um
Could you explain the difference between counting as alive and counting as a person? thanks.
OK, Fine
Here's a simple invalid claim that explains this:
All persons are living things.
A dog is a living thing.
Therefore a dog is a person.
Obviously an invalid conclusion. Replace "dog" with "fetus" and you have the same invalid conclusion. I rest my case.
replace
dog with "dog fetus" and you would have made your case. I still think a dog fetus is a dog though. Nice try.
Key Difference
We don't grant dogs the rights of personhood upon birth. We grant humans the rights of personhood upon birth. Human and person are not synonymous terms.
I'll say it again: the only reason to be opposed to legalized abortion is religious. A fetus is not a person, it is a potential person.
Those
are only not synonymous terms because of the philosophical debate surrounding them yes? And you equate philosophy with religion is that it?
I don't ascribe to your idea of what makes a person a person. People who commit horrible crimes are still people. Legally. The entire "elective abortion " (meaning not necessary) debate, to me, seems like a way to jump ship and make life easier for people who either can't, or don't want to control their reproductive systems. Don't want a child ? Don't do the deed. If you must, use protection but don't pretend its 100% effective. If it fails, deal with it, don't kill it. It will qualify for your "personhood" in about nine months. About the length of time it takes to get a marriage visa from the government .
Would you give me 1 reason why a womans initital choice doesn't matter? She chose to do the deed. Why give her a pass?
Roger Williams said, "The greatest crime in the world is not developing your potential." How much worse is it then to destroy the potential of someone else?
Abortion IS A Form Of Accepting The Consequences
Maybe not the consequences you have in mind, but quite frankly abortion is not risk-free and from what I understand a very painful procedure, not to mention an expensive one.
So in a way, she is accepting the consequences for her actions, just not in the way you want her to. When you as a male can carry a child and birth one, then you'll be able to logically be anti-choice. Until then, men cannot logically be anti-choice.
She's
taking the easier road. Unless the abortion process is going to create a permanent financial burden and a lifetime of obligations its still the easier route. What if she gives it up for adoption you might say? Still not taking the easy way out. Birth is hard on the mother . No doubt. Even just trying to set up the epidural can be hellish sometimes. That being said, abortion is still the easy way out. Its not pain free by any means. Its not the "no consequences" route but in this case there is none. Its the "least amount of permanent consequences" route.
I can be very logically anti-killing-soon-to-be-people as a man. If that's my child do I have legal rights to say, "Hey, I want this child. Don't kill it." ? No. I really don't. So I'm forced to be against it in general with very few exceptions.
By the way, repeating your statements over and over don't make them true. IE
"When you as a male can carry a child and birth one, then you'll be able to logically be anti-choice. Until then, men cannot logically be anti-choice."
Consequences are Consequences
And whose to say abortion doesn't have the harshest consequences? Women come to regret their own abortions. That in and of itself is a worse consequence than anything. A guilty conscience is worse than the financial burden of raising a child , the pain of child labor , the pain of the abortion itself. That's the worst possible consequence and one you're failing to consider.
And sorry, the woman is carrying the child, the woman's right/decision trumps yours. That's all there is to it. Get over it. If you want to have more say, then have a sex change and carry a baby yourself.
Do You Think Men Shouldn't Contribute to Ovarian Cancer Research...
...or should they stay out of that one, too?
For that matter, if you're a man, bagpiper, then you shouldn't be writing any sort of column on abortion . If pro-life men aren't invited to the debate, then pro-choice men should be excluded, too. Fair enough?
Pro-Choice Is THE ONLY Logical Stance For A Man
Not your body, not your choice.
Let the women decide what they want to do with their own bodies . I will advocate for a woman 's equality always. We have the right to control our bodies (hell, that's not even a debate) and women let us have that, so why shouldn't we let them have theirs?
An Unborn Child...
...isn't part of a woman 's body, either, but rather another entity altogether. The argument of the "right to privacy " ends when another human being is involved (and irreparably harmed, as in this case).
A Fetus Is A Parasite
And we can do what we want with parasites. Until it's born, it's nothing more than a parasite.
Wow.
The attempts at dehumanization continues.
So
to protect people from the oh-so-harsh consequences of a medical procedure that costs a few bucks we should ban it. Save the women !
I've just given you a very good reason, (non-religious) to oppose abortion as a birth control method. And the only thing you can come up with is a blanket statement that ignores the fact that she chose to have sex in the first place. At least I've refuted the "only reason to be against abortion is on religious grounds" crap you've tried to push. Come up with a real refute please.
Chose To Have Sex Isn't Good Enough
Sorry, it's just not a good enough reason to oppose abortion . What she does with her body, and her choices, are none of your business. Period, end of story. That's no reason to oppose legalized abortion.
As to your first statement, I hope you know how idiotic that sounded. By your argument we should also ban plastic surgery which is an elective, expensive procedure that often has nasty outcomes and regret. I don't think you'd take that step, though.
No I wouldn't
Because the first statement was meant to sound stupid. I apologize that sarcasm is difficult to express in text especially when the person reading it assumes that the person who wrote it is dumb enough to actually hold that opinion. I appreciate your low opinion of me. Please push it aside for ten seconds to continue reading.
You have no authority to deem one of her decisions isn't good enough. By your argument you hold no authority over the womens body. This isn't about her body though. By my argument I hold authority over my sperm that she permitted entrance (willingly) and what may become of it. She created the easement for the admittance of the aforementioned sperm and has chosen to incorporate me, by virtue of the coitis, into any results it may yield, if any. Now were she forced to allow admittance, that would be different. But assuming she wasn't forced I legally, should have as much standing to the health of the future child as I would over one that has the "personhood" of having been expelled from the amniotic sack. So until I do, I oppose abortion as a means of birth control.
Fair Enough Then
If that's the case, go ahead and make a case to the courts to not terminate the pregnancy , but in doing so, you should forfeit your right to collect child support for trampling over a woman 's right to control her body.
Fair enough, don't you think?
Only if
a man who says, "I think she should have an abortion " gets to NOT pay child support should she decide to keep the baby then yes. Fair enough.
In Other Words....
...yes, I think he should be free from any child support obligation in that case.
What Goes For One Goes For The Other
It works both ways. That would be a somewhat, albeit not totally, fair option, but it's more fair than forcing a woman to have to raise a child for 18 years of her life.
I don't think you understand
If the woman doesn't want the baby , but the man does. He will have full responsibility without recourse to ask for child support . If the opposite, the woman wants the baby but the man doesn't, then she cannot legally demand child support either. As it stands now, she can whether or not he wanted her to have the child. Just asking for a little equality here. I don't see how its not totally fair.
Read My Clarification
I said yes, if a man thinks she should terminate but she does not want to, then yes, he should be exempt from any child support obligations.
I got that part
but what about the "albiet not totally, fair option"
I only ask because of my ideas about my beliefs in abortion have caveats I'd like to discover them.
The Not Totally Fair Part
Is that you think it's okay to subject a woman to labor pain, a pain so great and so intense and you will never experience it. You seem to forget women get the short end of the stick when it comes to reproduction.
Again
She knew the risks of intercourse. I figured that's what you meant.
Pro-Life Atheists and Agnostics...
...exist, you know, and do so in large numbers. If your ridiculous contention were true, there wouldn't be 10,000 pro-life atheists /agnostics, or 100, or one. There would be absolutely zero. So much for your theory.
The entity that comes into existence at the moment of fertilization is a human being (see also "synonym for 'person'"). I have you up to stage three right now -- when you acknowledge that the unborn entity is a human being but try to split hairs between "human being" and "person." A non-distinction without a difference. But at least we're moving quickly. Usually it takes me about three days to get somebody to stage three. This should be over soon...
Whatever
Atheists/agnostics who are anti-choice are inconsistent with their worldviews. Period, end of story. There are no logical secular reasons to support a legal ban on abortion . "The Silent Scream" I mentioned in this article is so fake and can be spotted as such by anyone educated in embryology, so that's no good reason either.
A fetus is not a person. A fetus is a potential person. Personhood by definition is granted upon birth, according to the laws of modern society .
Bottom line: abortion is legal, it's not going anywhere, and it's settled law , so just go to church and cry your little heart out to Jaaaaayyyyyssssuuuuuusssss about it.
No, Not End of Story
...though I certainly understand why you wish the debate to be over: because you're losing soundly.
A human embryo is no less a human being than you are. The science textbooks (and I'll be MORE than happy to cite them for you if you wish) support MY position, not YOURS. Laws do not trump scientific fact -- unless, of course, you're a really big fan of the Dred Scott decision? That one was 7-2, also, y'know...
...and if you were as confident in your belief that RvW is settled law as you claim, you wouldn't have bothered writing this piece, now would ya?
Losing?
Give me a break. I never said it wasn't human, I said it wasn't a person. There are plenty of humans in my mind that are sub-people. Serial killers, rapists, etc. aren't people as far as I'm concerned. They're human, but not people. Person is not a synonym for human in the eyes of me and in the eyes of the law .
Science says LIFE begins at conception - fine, that's fact. Personhood and life are not the same thing, no matter how you twist the words, and they never will be.
I mainly wrote this to dispel the lies that anti-choice people bring to the table, not because I'm worried about RvW being overturned, and exposing the anti-choice crowd for what it really is. You as a man have NO RIGHT to be anti-choice, because this issue does not affect you. Period.
Seriously. Lay Off the Pipe...
...(and I don't mean the musical instrument), and study some biology.
"I never said it wasn't human, I said it wasn't a person."
Yeah. And then after that I corrected you. Yeah.
Your hairs constitute life, as do the cells on the tip of my tongue. But they're not human beings, as human embryos and fetuses are. Serial killers and rapists (whether they're male or female) remain human beings, even after they have committed unspeakable acts. In fact, that you used that as an analogy further damages your argument and bolsters mine. People don't cease to be people just because they become "sub-people" "as far as you're concerned." Native Americans , African-Americans, women , and Jewish people have all been considered "sub-people" as far as "some people were concerned," and those "some people were just as nauseatingly wrong as you are tonight.
So Then We're At A Stalemate
When does personhood begin or what defines personhood? There's no clear-cut answer technically, all we have is what the law books go by, and I'm more likely to believe what lawbooks say than what some minority says. Personhood is a philosophical, not biological/scientific, context, and as such, there's really no clear cut answer and there will never be.
The words human and person in the eyes of most people, and that's all there is to that. Show me any anti-choice atheist and I will gladly rip them to shreds and show them just how inconsistent their views are.
As far as the people who commit those unspeakable acts, as I mentioned in another debate, I believe the death penalty is in order immediately upon conviction.
Piper, Yes or No:
Do you think we should have settled with the Dred Scott decision or not? That was made LAW at one point, too. So was the illegality of abortion before RvW. If we were having this conversation in, say, 1970, would you have said that abortion should remain illegal because that's what the LAW says? If not, then you're the one being inconsistent.
Careful about whom you call a minority, as support for legalized abortion has eroded in recent years, and more people now describe themselves as pro-life than pro-choice .
Any atheist who opposes war , the death penalty , and abortion is very consistent in her views, not inconsistent.
Majority In Terms of Global Population
I'm talking in terms of global population far more people align as pro-choice than anti-choice. I don't much rely on US populations for my demographics, as a global demographic better gives us an idea of what the majority holds as true. I would go into my extreme disdain for the United States as a country here, but I'll let you read about that in my opinion piece "America: Land of the Oppressed, Home of the Cowards."
Finally, as I mentioned, one can be both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time, as such, that poll could have reflected personal feelings on abortion , and not feelings about the legality of abortion. When it comes to the legality of abortion, it's about being pro-choice and anti-choice.
An atheist that opposes things that can only be reasonably opposed from a religious standpoint is inconsistent. I'm pro-choice, pro- death penalty (and I think the death penalty is extremely underused), and pro- war (in the right circumstances).
Secular Opposition
"An atheist that opposes things that can only be reasonably opposed from a religious standpoint is inconsistent."
Okay, but you don't need any religious standpoint to oppose the killing of innocent human beings, which is precisely what abortion entails. If you're against killing eight-year-olds, you should be against killing unborn children . No need for religious belief at all.
Here's The Difference
An eight year old child is a person.
A fetus is not a person, but rather a potential person.
hence you can't technically protect fetuses from abortion . There's nothing unconstitutional about abortion because, quite frankly, the constitution never explicitly extends rights to fetuses/embryos/unborn.
I've Already Explained This to You...
...but I'm blessed with patience and I type very quickly.
A new human being's life begins at the moment of fertilization, according to countless science textbooks .
"Human" as an adjective is not a synonym for "person," but "human being" IS a synonym for "person" (and for the word "human" as a NOUN).
Human Being =/= Person Either
A person is an individual who is born, by definition. There's no way around that. A fetus is just a potential person.
Personhood has nothing to do with science .
Thanks for Admitting...
...that you've abandoned science with respect to your arguments. According to you, it's completely arbitrary who can claim the mantle of personhood. I remind you again that this puts you in the company of some rather scary people.
Since When Were Laws Based On Science?
Answer: never.
So you can't use a scientific argument to enact legislation.
I'm sorry to see how badly religion has messed with your mind.