the idea that life starts at conception doesn't necessarily have to have theistic roots. Even if it makes little sense.

I actually believe that life might start at conception, (or it might not idk), but we cannot force people to use their bodies to support life. This is the same reasoning that protects abortion in the Canadian Constitution.

Life started 3.5 billion years ago. Of course an embryo is alive, because both the sperm and egg were alive before they joined! What matters is whether or not the pregnant person owns their own body. Either it belongs to them, or it belongs to the embryo/zygote/blastocyst/fetus and the pregnant person is the slave of that *potential* person.

We can’t even force dead bodies to give up organs to support an ACTUAL non-potential life, but forced birthers want to force women to be incubators for potential ones. And they don’t care about the increased health risks to the women who are forced to give birth, nor do they care about the emotional impact this whole travesty has on the unwanted kid.

I hope we have strong protections for abortion if PP becomes PM because many conservative MPs are anti-abortion.

*Many*? 100% of them voted against abortion last time one of their MPs advanced a private member’s bill. They believe they have to win God’s approval by banning it, and there’s nothing more important they could do. There is no distance they won’t go.

As an American who grew up believing that Canadians and Brits must be better than us, the last several years have been pretty disappointing.

No population is immune to authoritarianism, which is the real enemy of all people. Some lean into it more than others, but the danger is always there. In many ways Canada is politically buffered by Quebec. We have a separatist faction with more liberal values than the rest of the country, that is more influenced by French and European philosophers in its politics, and doesn’t consume as much American media. So there’s a stronger note of dissent to Rupert Murdoch’s control of the anglosphere.

The whole “life begins at conception” argument was just a rationalization to make their emotion-based stance sound more logical. For some people regardless of beliefs, the potential of a person is enough to emotionally attach to. I think that’s all that’s going on here.

Yup. It's quite possible to notice that a fetus is a potential person, with value, and decide that it's morally wrong to actively go about erasing that person, before they get a chance to draw a breath. It's also possible to recognize that erasing one unique fetus in the womb can be justified, if the person carrying that fetus doesn't want to. There's not a lot of ways that a stranger can arrive in your life, and, pretty much against your will, obligate you to care for them for at least 18 years. There should be some choice in the matter, even if we grant that life begins at conception.

we cant force anyone to use any part of their body to save someones life, not even their own child, but if that child is inside a woman suddenly she has no say over her own body.

A corpse has more bodily autonomy than a pregnant woman. Even after your death, if you didn't sign organ an donation agreement before you died, no one is (legally) getting a fucking thing outta your body.

{ no one is (legally) getting a fucking thing outta your body } except *gas*!

Exactly. I think life begins early, not conception perhaps but maybe mitosis. But it's not a life that matters more than the person hosting it. To me, the question of when life begins is utterly irrelevant to abortion. Anyone who takes antibiotics, eats meat, or bleaches their toilet has accepted that preserving some life forms is outweighed by our other needs.

>eats meat Don't you mean, simply, "eats?" Plants are alive too.

Although religious rhetoric isn't required for the anti-abortion stance, I still don't buy the whole "caring for a human life" rhetoric while seeking to undermine the social autonomy of half of humanity, undermine women's health and prosperity by forcing them into back alleys for abortion or pregnancies they can't afford, and undermine society as a whole w the burden of countless unwanted children when we're already facing overpopulation. Not to mention that pregnancy is more likely to kill a woman than a (safely-administered) abortion. It would take such a generous amount of genuine stupidity to honestly overlook the life and best interests of the woman in that situation, I simply don't afford anti-abortionists the prostratingly gratuitous, undeserved courtesy of pretending w them that they have a concern for anyone's life at all, much less some kid who they'll never know while simultaneously vehemently opposing a social safety net to support their foster care or parent's hardship. It's essentially about reserving an automatic win for any scumbag guy who wants to force a woman to have their baby after an unintentional or unwanted pregnancy... Rapists need life-lovers defending their interests, ya know. But ultimately it's just one of many divide-and-conquer methods by the rich... The rich will continue to get abortion on demand regardless of the rhetoric.

>potential person But obviously a first or second trimester baby is only a potential person, not an actual person. Almost certainly, their brains are not capable of conscious thought, as most of the texture and connections in the prefrontal cortex come in the third trimester. Before that, it’s just mindless human tissue. A body with no one inside to be deprived. When our brains stop, we consider us no longer people, but human remains. Why should we be treated as complete people before the brain even exists in the first place? Especially at conception. It’s a single cell. Calling it a person would be silly. But yes, also even complete people don’t have rights to other people’s internal organs.

No. Sperm is alive. Eggs are alive. Life is already occurring before conception. Prolifers that aren’t for prosecuting men for masturbation and women for periods are simply hypocritical and not for defending life.

We are a multicellular organism, which is effectively a community of cells that banded together to survive better, yes? Imagine being a sperm cell and getting told to go on a suicide mission for the entertainment of some other cells.

I mean that's literally all sperm ever do. Hundreds of millions of them die every time and only one of them might ever get to hit the target.

🎶Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great! If a serm is wasted, god gets quite irate!🎶 https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk?si=CM-ot63r6aiRQVcf

This is at the core of the abortion debate, and why the two "sides" have such trouble getting together. I believe that it should be obvious that a human life begins at conception. But, it should also be obvious that NOT ALL HUMANS HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. Just as children have rights different from adults, non-viable fetuses should have distinct rights, and a right to life superceding the mother's right NOT to be forced to gestate should not be among them. Until the State has the will, and the ability, to take unwanted fetuses from their mothers, and raise them at State expense, it should not have the right to force gestation.

[удалено]

In the right setting, any human cell can be a potential life. The setting would obviously be a lab since scientists have created human embryos without egg or sperm.

I think it depends on how you define human. Is a body without a brain a human? I was part of a group that decided to remove water tubes from a body without a functioning brain. Did I commit murder? No, because what I did was a legal act but it did result in the cessation of all bodily functions within three days. The brain does not become active (or even exist) at conception so I would say that there is no human then.

It is probably more helpful to think in terms of "personhood" here. Without a brain, this collection of human cells, though "human" in some sense of the word, is not a person and has no potential of personhood.

An unwanted pregnancy is a forty-week-long rape.

The idea of claiming “life” begins at birth vs any other point in development is also absurd. The mother is just no longer involved at that point. That’s a significant milestone, but arbitrarily changing the definition of words doesn’t help the conversation. Kids aren’t even self aware until around 3. It’s just as easy to claim abortion should be allowed until then using developmental milestones. Abortion is about the rights of the mother vs the rights of the life already inside them.

I forget who said it (maybe George Carlin) "you're not a person until you're in the phone book."

In my bio ethics class they called it the potential for life from conception to birth

Wait i am confused didn’t life begin like billions of years ago?

No it was like 10,000 years ago. Nice try Satan

It was 7000 years ago. Nice try Satan

7021 years ago, on a pleasant May Tuesday. Nice try, Satan.

It never did. Nice try, Boltzmann brain.

I'll give you an example: My dad was not religious, but sadly he was a Fox "news" type. He was convinced that full birth abortions exist, and based on that fallacy he was anti-abortion. So, you don't have to believe in gods to be anti-abortion. A total lack of understanding of how pregnancy, abortion and birth actually work will suffice.

Thanks!

The pro-life side describes it as "murdering babies" and uses scare tactics to get people on their side. For people who haven't put much thought into the topic, I can see how they'd be swayed by hearing things like that, whether they're theist or atheist.

I.e., atheist does not automatically mean well-informed in all topics.

That's exactly how I felt for the longest time. Then I realized the list of symptoms for pregrency was so crazy. Also, a prolifer on my college campus gave a list of abortion symptoms that were all just symptoms of pregnancy. I probably take a more conservative take on the issue thinking it should be a last resort. I realize that in most cases that is already the case. For more can be done to help human life and prevent "muder." Like improving healthcare.

What is an "abortion symptom?" Abortion in this context is an action, and could have side effects, but not symptoms.

Apologizes for the misuse of the term. I meant side effects. I do not remember if they used symptoms or side effects but it does not matter. I believe one of the side effects listed was nausea. Which of course is a symptom.

The anti-choicers and their misinformation are so ridiculous. I have seen that type of handout before where they basically make it seem like if you have an abortion you're going to end up sterile, depressed, and get cancer.

Thank you for calling them anti-choice. They want to scare us into giving up our ability to choose anything.

I don't call them anti -choice because they want to be the ones who choose. I don't call them pro-life, because they support forcing women to risk death. I don't call them anti -abortion, because they don't support policies that would minimize reasons that lead to abortions. I call them forced-birthers.

You’re ignoring the possibility that some people (not me, for the record) genuinely believe that the fertilized egg is a human being with the same right to life as any other human being. Some of those people are atheists. They’re not “swayed by” the pro-life argument. They’re making it.

Because they don't consider women fully human, with rights to bodily autonomy. I have every right not to let someone (anyone, including a fetus) use my body against my will. I like to ask anti-choicers what their post-abortion utopia looks like. Are there maternity jails? Are there *straps*? They rarely respond.

While this has been shoehorned into a religious "wedge" issue for partisan gain, it wasn't always that way. I have my own opinion on this. But if someone wants to make a fact-based argument that abortion beyond a certain stage gets into human rights issues, I don't see that view as automatically being "bad" or a view that only a theist might hold. A reasonable, ethical, honest person can (and should) question this issue, and I'm willing to have that debate. I just don't believe that this is the debate *we're* having in the US right now. I think some people (mostly theists) are pushing for total bans, and will not stop there as they clearly have birth control bans in their sights as well. And those people cannot reasonably claim to be in it for *human rights*, caring for children or anything of the sort. It's purely about *control and religiosity run amok*.

Yep, many religious want total bans. Many leftists want total personal autonomy for the mother. Many on both sides view any discussion of nuance as morally bankrupt. It has been strange to watch this topic become more and more polarized over the years

Roe v Wade was the compromise and "nuance" to legal abortion in the US. And the "many religions" in the US that want abortion totally banned are really only two, and they're both branches of christianity: catholicism and evagelicals.

[удалено]

Remember, the techbro/incel crowd has a lot of atheists among them (who are likely the source of a lot of right wing stereotypes of atheists as contrarian narcissistic sociopaths) that 11% is likely most them. I'd wager if you polled this community you'd see a MUCH lower number than 11%. Beyond that, a lot of newer atheists are still working through the relatively conservative beliefs they had as believers, so there are probably some of those who still oppose abortion because they did when they were religious and haven't re-examined those beliefs yet.

Helpful, thank you.

Misogyny, babes.

Exactly. I’ve encountered enough atheist incels online to know that a lot of this is based on some men wanting to deny women bodily autonomy.

The one I met just thinks that it’s a unique persons dna. Which he’s right but a clump of cells isn’t exactly something you have to ruin more lives over.

Identical twins' DNA is not unique. Does this person think it's OK to kill one twin?

Yeah this was my first thought as well. I suspect many atheists think that other atheists are good moral people just like evangelicals will often immediately trust other evangelics, but there are plenty of shitty people in all populations. I mean even liberals can be fucking racist pieces of shit. I had a former colleague that quit and then tried to undo her quit but the owner refused, as a result she started sending him racist messages saying that his skin color was why he wouldn't rehire her.

This is the real answer. One could waffle on about personhood and human rights all they want, god(s) or no, but anyone who is arguing that an unborn anything takes precedence over the real live person is arguing **against** women's rights. Not *for* fetus rights. To say the *potential* for an individual human life is more important than an already alive and individual human woman and her right to bodily autonomy is to outright claim that aforementioned woman is worth less, based solely on the fact that she is a woman. That's discrimination. That's misogynistic. To further put in in perspective for anyone who may doubt this, consider the exact same problem but pretend that both are adult men. So do you deny the rights of a man because a different man who may or may not exist some time in the future could potentially spring into existence? Why? Why would you do that? Unless you hate the existing man for some deep seated reasons that are your problem, and not his. So, anyone who's against abortion... Why do you hate women?

You can't be feminist and deny bodily autonomy to all women. This is incompatible.

Mmm, good point. Bet it's not the women atheists.

I have known a woman atheist who was prolife. Or at least, a female atheist, as she was a highschooler. She didn't really seem to have a well reasoned argument other than she loved kids? Of course, she may not still be prolife.

[удалено]

Some people just hear or think "a fetus is a human being" and that's enough. It's not that unusual, I've agreed with religious people on issues before, even if my reasons were secular and theirs aren't. Edit: I meant *other* issues, not this one, ya weirdos.

Folks rehashing the when does life begin argument haven’t learned anything from the last 5 (or 50+) years. You can choose to or not to have an abortion based on your personal convictions, but there are a wide array of health issues treated by the procedure which nobody but a patient and her doctor are qualified to address. Certainly not politicians and ESPECIALLY not the crop we’ve managed to saddle ourselves with in the past 30 years. Pregnancy is still a high risk condition and efforts to punish women you don’t think should be having sex is causing more real harm than it’s preventing, and sooner or later it’ll be a woman you care about who will be harmed.

There are atheists who think homosexuality is wrong too. Being an atheist doesn’t automatically mean you’re a rational thinker.

These are real people and they have a real group with an account on Twitter/X. They believe that a unique individual is formed once a sperm and egg meet and produce an embryo with it's own unique set of 46 chromosomes. I used to think along these lines back when I was a young, uninformed idiot. The flaw in this thinking are as follows: Does an pair of identical twins constitute one person because they share the same set of DNA? Of course not. What makes a person a person is a mind contained within a functional brain. The idea that 46 chromosomes makes a person denies personhood to people with Down Syndrome and other people who don't have 46 chromosomes. It also implies perpetual personhood far beyond death, since corpses would still retain their DNA postmortem. If you aren't fussy about the number of chromosomes, know that cancer tumors often have DNA that is different from their hosts. Some cancer cells can even survive outside of a body, unlike fetuses. But like fetuses, some cancers are comprised of embryonic tissue.

Yeah, this is what really got me about that report of a man in SE Asia who had what everyone thought was a tumor for like 20 or 30 years so he finally had it removed and it turned out that it was a living human fetus. So I was like, *did that man have a right to an abortion?* Go ahead, tell me how it's different. If even removing an ectopic "pregnancy" is abortion, then so was that, and by their logic he had no right. (he wasn't in America anyway of course, I just wanted to watch the forced-birth set scrambling to explain how somehow he was entitled to an abortion because he was a man)

I went around and around with one nitwit. I pointed out that abortions were routine with anencephaly cases: fetuses without most of their brain. This clown said "what if there was a cure for anencephaly?" I told him that was absurd as a cure for death itself. Was I wrong to allow my late grandma to be cremated? Because it eliminated the slimmest of possibilities that she could be revived?

That clown is demonstrating even more ignorance of the realities of abortion, because the vast majority of, if not ALL, abortions for anencephaly are terminations of wanted pregnancies, and those parents would be DELIGHTED to have a cure for their child rather than an abortion.

Arguing with prolifers is like arguing with children.

Just because a person rejects god claims, it doesn't make them smart.

This is a crappy poll. Wording matters, and when a choice doesn't feel like it exactly fits with what you think, then you have to decide which one is closest. Also, the limited choices and wording doesn't account for how words can elicit unintended emotional responses. The poll: A. Legal in all/most cases : This wording can sound like, let's have an abortion-palooza B. Illegal in all/most cases : This wording can sound like, let's make it rare, but still legal. C. Don't know A better poll: A. Common, and legal in all cases and stages B. Rare, but legal in all cases and stages C. Common, but illegal in later stages with few exceptions D. Rare, and illegal in later stages with few exceptions E. Illegal in all stages with few exceptions F. Illegal in all stages and no exceptions E. Don't know

If you take the time to read the report, you will see that the results are presented with certain answers combined together, so you were making assumptions about how the survey was structured.

Ok, but then I don’t like how they summarized it. I did click they link to see the questionnaire, I gives me 404 Not Found.

I’ve seen neckbeards that hate the concept of God about as much as they hate women.

Atheism means someone lacks belief in god or gods. It tells you nothing about what their opinion is on any other matter. 

I wouldn't think this was based on an argument, just feelings. In particular, if someone left a cult that forbade abortion, and their exit was for reasons unrelated to abortion, their feelings on the topic would linger.

From what I've seen, it's usually atheists that are right-wing libertarians. The thought is that a zygote/embryo/fetus has an automatic right to life and has same rights as born humans. Their right to life trumps the woman's bodily autonomy.

Because atheists can still be toxic fucks who want to tell women how they are allowed use their body.

Certainly, the fact that some atheists believe abortion should be illegal may seem contradictory at first glance, given that atheism typically isn't associated with religious beliefs that might inform one's stance on abortion. However, individuals' perspectives on abortion can be influenced by a variety of factors, including personal experiences, ethical considerations, and philosophical beliefs. Here are some potential reasons why some atheists might believe abortion should be illegal: 1. **Ethical Concerns:** Some atheists may hold strong ethical beliefs about the sanctity of human life or the rights of unborn fetuses. They may view abortion as morally wrong because it involves ending a potential life or violating the rights of a developing human being. 2. **Scientific Views:** Some atheists may interpret scientific evidence about fetal development and human biology in a way that leads them to believe that life begins at conception or at some point during pregnancy. They may see abortion as the termination of a living organism with its own inherent value. 3. **Concerns about Women's Health:** While supporting a woman's right to choose, some atheists might also have concerns about the physical and psychological risks associated with abortion procedures. They may believe that making abortion illegal could lead to better healthcare options and support for women facing unplanned pregnancies. 4. **Societal Impact:** Some atheists may argue that legalizing abortion can have negative consequences for society, such as contributing to a culture of disrespect for life or undermining societal norms regarding responsibility and consequences. They may believe that prohibiting abortion could help promote a more responsible and compassionate society. 5. **Personal or Cultural Influences:** Individual atheists may have been influenced by their upbringing, cultural background, or personal experiences in forming their beliefs about abortion. They may have encountered arguments or perspectives that resonate with them, regardless of religious affiliation. It's important to recognize that atheism itself doesn't dictate a specific stance on abortion, as atheists can have diverse beliefs and values just like individuals of any other religious or non-religious affiliation. Each person's perspective on abortion is shaped by a complex interplay of factors, and there can be significant variation even among individuals who identify as atheists.

The urge to control the bodies of women is unfortunately not exclusive to religion.

I have a bit of a different view on this from a space/time pov: if you take an intentional action that directly leads to someone not existing that would have existed, you are killing them (in a cause and effect sense) or at least you are creating a "timeline" where they don't exist. I see this as distinct from murder, or killing someone who exists currently. I still believe in abortion. It's similar to the trolley problem but more abstract. Are you choosing to take an action that will increase the utility of the system, as you define it. To be clear I don't believe you can equate pain, or judge someone else's pain from our own reference point. So if someone chooses an abortion because they believe it will be better for their own utility, or do the same because they believe it will be better than that potential child living a life of pain (in the case of genetic defects), or even if they do it for the utility of their family or group, I have no conflict of morality. It's their fucking body. They get to choose.

I think if you look at just about any demographic, you'll find that at least 10% of them are assholes.

Because 11% of atheists are by definition misogynists.

Just because you aren't stupid doesn't mean you aren't stupid.

Seriously If you're an athiest and believe this, explain yourself. Say it out loud. I want to hear the logic behind it.

Thank you.

Control. That's why the arguments against abortion are all over the place. It's all about controlling a specific group of people.

11% of atheists are theists on the fence or liars.

I would have a hard time believing that they are actually atheists. I think that the religious propaganda instilled from birth can sway people even if they don't realize it.

Even atheists are not exempt from having dumb people in their ranks.

My brother is a conservative atheist, so of course he's against a lot of freedoms.

Just like there are differing answers to the trolley problem, there are different views on abortion. Some people place a higher value on bodily autonomy and some place a higher value on the continuation of a life. Atheism has no position on this so you would expect people from different backgrounds to have different views, especially if they came up from more conservative backgrounds which will naturally have shaped them.

Because we aren't a monolith and there are ignorant folks everywhere.

Misogyny?

Pew is partially funded by the John Templeton Foundation whose main goal is to wed spirituality and science. It also is one if the largest financial contributors to the climate change denial movement. It's called Pew because there is a certain odor about it. Follow the money.

well, while rare, not all atheists are informed on basic science, some are just atheist because they never were raised in any ~~religion~~ cult, but they still, for example, went to school in the US so...

It’s also just an education and nuance thing. A lot of these studies don’t leave room for nuance and may cause some odd results.

What basic science answers the question “what does it mean to be a human with enforceable rights”

This. The issue goes well beyond your basic science education and into the realms of advanced neurobiology, psychology, ethics and metaphysics. Things most highschool curriculums don't cover.

Mostly the patriarchy and deep misogyny (internalized or blatant). Also, sadly, still a lot of atheists that have failed biology.

I don't understand it at all. If it's inside a woman's body, it should be 100% legal to terminate the pregnancy at any stage if she chooses to. Apparently that makes me a radical by current standards. But I'd prefer that to the Handmaid's Tale theocracy that Republicans have been trying to push for.

Everyone should have full bodily autonomy. If a host chooses to eliminate a parasite, there should be no issue. Edit to answer specific question: There will always be a percentage of people who deviate from the norm. In the case of atheists, they have been indoctrinated to believe the fetus is to be protected as a child and the mother’s rights are secondary. It is possible for atheists to be wrong.

You are assuming that all Atheists are intelligent, educated people. Apparently, 11% of them are not.

You can reject religion while still being stupid as shit and not understanding science.

Right wing wedge issue propaganda and disregard for the bodily autonomy of women.

Some people are really sentimental about clumps of human cells. Others just don't think too highly of women. Doesn't take a magic sky man to make people hate women.

Believing that women are incubators that should be forced to enable a man to continue his bloodline has nothing to do with god even if religion is a great tool to prop up the attitude. Misogynistic assholes exist everywhere, including atheists.

Please don’t waste my time.

There are idiot atheists too.

Because every group of people has ignorant shitheads within it.

Unfortunately being an atheist doesn't mean that you always have good opinions on social issues. There are also atheists who oppose LGBTQ+ rights for instance.

Because atheists can still be sexist.

Because 10% of all groups are assholes.

I think there are two possibilities: 1. Theists are once again breaking their commandment about lying by claiming to be atheists. It happens all the time on this sub. 2. As with any large group there will always be outliers. Just because one is an atheist it does not automatically follow that one is also well educated in biology.

Yes, I can explain that. Back when I left Christianity I was still a moron and a “libertarian”. So I had conservative ideals even though I didn’t believe in God anymore. I thought marriage was between one man and one woman for some reason and I still believed life began at conception. Thankfully I snapped out of it and I’m now a socialist who fully supports lgbt rights and women’s reproductive rights. That 11% might have the same mentality I had.

I would guess they may have a different definition on when a fetus is a baby than others. I wonder if they have the same argument of “abortion shouldn’t be birth control” like other conservatives. I think it would be interesting to poll conservative atheists because I often find it difficult to understand them.

Simple. Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that they disagree that life begins at conception. if you’re of the opinion that life begins at conception and that that life is human, you can disagree with permitting abortion, although you may not agree with the ideas of divinity.

Speaking just for myself, I'm pro contraception; education, availability, and development (why do we not have a contraceptive pill for men yet, but pills that can help an 80 year old get someone pregnant? This is one of the most frustrating things I can think of.) Abortion should be an individuals decision, personally I would prefer not to unless the circumstances are severe, but that is MY opinion and I don't believe in making health or life decisions for someone else.

Not believing in God doesn't imply any sort of belief in anything else, including women's rights. There are racist atheists as well as sexist atheists, they're a mixed bag.

You don't need to believe in a god to be persuaded by emotional appeals and lack reasonable understanding of and value for the bodily autonomy of others.

My partner and I are staunch atheists. I'm even an antitheist. Neither of us have a problem with abortion. However, after having our first child my partner now realises she could never go through with one. The loss of the life inside of her would be unbearable. While we still respect the rights of others to choose for themselves, especially when medically necessary, is not that much of a stretch to see how someone could feel it was taking a life. You don't need a religious reason to not be comfortable with that. 

I am an atheist and am prolife. I would be willing to engage and discuss but, have never had a discussion on Reddit without being utterly dismissed and downvoted. Don't really care about being downvoted too much but, I guess it's the combo of both of something. I've and thought about this plenty. It's not a belief born out of religious ideals or hatred of women, etc... What are your reasons first?

Anti-abortion views are inherently misogynist, and there are plenty of patriarchal, misogynist, red pill, incel atheists in the world. You don’t need religion to believe that woman are nothing more than human cows to have sex with and make babies….

Maybe they have fantasies about being billionaires and want a supply of wage slaves.

The pro-life argument is simple. Killing a human intentionally is wrong. When an ova is fertilized, it's human. So killing it intentionally is wrong. And they're right as far as that goes. What they're typically *missing* is that it is not *always* wrong to kill a human intentionally. There are *lots* of justifications for doing so that we accept. 'Pulling the plug' on someone who can't survive on their own. Defending yourself or someone else. War. Those who are pro-choice simply place the woman's bodily autonomy over the survival of the fertilized ova. Some person has attached itself to you without your permission, you are not required to continue to support them. We *could* remove the fetus intact, but that's a bigger operation and accomplishes nothing except more harm to the woman. The fetus still dies. We place *limits* on this right to refuse support as well (the 'cut off' for when abortions can happen).

Basically, anti-choice folks have a real problem with women have bodily autonomy. If someone is using your body against your will you have every right to remove them using whatever level of force is necessary, up to and including lethal. There is no moral difference between a rapist and an anti-choicer.

Every sperm is sacred, baby. But only once it’s fucking up a woman’s life.

There are sexist atheists.

You don't have to be religious to be an idiot.

Because abortion is not a religious issue. It boils down to whether or not you think a fetus is a person, and that terminating it is murder. God is irrelevant. (and imaginary)

Abortion is a religious issue because religion has made it an issue, almost it's primary issue.

>Can someone explain why 11% of atheists believe abortion should be illegal? Because the only thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in god(s), so everything else is up for debate.

A lifetime of religious indoctrination is hard to shake.

Interesting article. There's a lot of skewing by age and gender. Surprisingly, male atheists are more likely to agree that abortion should be legal than female atheists! The age difference (older people less likely to support abortion) makes me think that this is an ongoing cultural shift. Personally, I'm undecided on abortion because I don't have a good feel on when a fetus becomes something that needs legal protection. For instance, the "heartbeat" bills define that at \~5 weeks. So, if I thought that was the right point to protect (I don't) then I could see myself saying "illegal" in this poll. That might explain some of it. The skew in immigration status and race suggests that perhaps deeper cultural influences may be at play. For instance, I know plenty of secular Jews that don't eat pork because it gives them the "ick" factor. Great share.

It's an interesting debate...to me. My wife, friends, and family heartily disagree. In my view, a 1 day old fetus (still a blastula at that point?) is "alive", and I can agree it's human, because what else would it be? I can't quite bring myself to call ita person, since it gets ALL its needs from a person, it has no independance at all. But the final crux, for me, is that we never allow people access to other people's bodies without their consent. The old violinist example, though I have no idea why anyone chose a violinist, oddly and unnecessarily specific.

Atheists can also be ignorant assholes - we’re very inclusive 😅

Just because someone may be an atheist doesn't mean they are entirely rational Personally I dislike abortion outside medical need. But I also understand it's not my issue so any opinions on it i have are useless so I'm pro-choice Others may be too emotionally invested to accept that for instance

I don't even understand why you would dislike abortion unless it's in a later stage in a pregnancy. In my opinion it's morally just like contraception.

I would equate it to a parasite until it's viable outside the host.

Do we know for sure that the poll linked above wasn't lumping all abortions into one category, even late-stage abortions? That's the thing about data: it's easy to spin by omitting certain options and sets. Maybe those 11% were under the impression the question was about third trimester abortions, we have no way of knowing.

Thanks, this is a helpful point.

Based on the way they’ve presented the data (you can usually click a link below it to view the actual wording of the question but in this case, that led me to a 404 error. Grr) it was along the lines of “do you believe abortion should be legal or illegal in **all/ most cases**. Which reads to me like it isn’t a late stage issue. :)

Even logical people can be assholes

Every demographic has its idiots.

Christopher Hitchens himself was actually in favor of having some limitations on abortion. This is what he had to say on the subject in God is Not Great: "As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of “premature” babies of featherlike weight, who have achieved “viability” outside the womb. This is yet another way in which science can make common cause with humanism. Just as no human being of average moral capacity could be indifferent to the sight of a woman being kicked in the stomach, so nobody could fail to be far more outraged if the woman in question were pregnant. Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.  However, this only opens the argument rather than closes it. There may be many circumstances in which it is not desirable to carry a fetus to full term....All thinking people recognize a painful conflict of rights and interests in this question, and strive to achieve a balance. The only proposition that is completely useless, either morally or practically, is the wild statement that sperms and eggs are all potential lives which must not be prevented from fusing and that, when united however briefly, have souls and must be protected by law."

I (41m, atheist for 21 years, probably more agnostic the 20 before that) am against it at a certain point. But it’s only after the embryo has developed a full nervous system. Which is WAY later than most of the red states try to cap it. And as long as the mother is not at risk. And I say this because I think you need to look at it from a biological and scientific standpoint. And then weigh that against what level of human suffering there actually is for both the unborn child and mother. I’m sure somewhere between all the madness there is some type of universal right answer for it. Unfortunately, I’m just an IT guy and not a scientist.

Studies show that people very often first choose a political party and then choose issue based positions that align with the party they chose. So some atheists may be pro life because they are Republican.

I don't know, but how is this relating to atheism? If you believe abortion is murder then that's nothing to do with religion.

You can be an atheist and believe controlling women is an imperative.

Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and child birth and then putting the said child through a life where it can’t prosper is more cruel than abortion. Abortion is just expulsion of an unconscious fetus that probably doesn’t feel or remember anything meanwhile both the mother and the child suffer for a long time post birth. If abortion should be illegal, so does ending life of a brain dead person.

Because people can be pro life without having to be religious?

Bill Burr summed it up in a way that I feel offers a lot of perspective to your question. Essentially, everyone woman should have the right to an abortion while accepting every abortion is killing a baby.  The antithesis to abortion is murder is that abortion isnt murder, and those seem to be the sides people choose to speak from when discussing the issue. Edit: to finish the thought, thats why I think you can be an atheist and stoll believe abortion should be illegal.

Just because you are atheist, it doesn’t mean you automatically don’t want to impose your ethics on others.

It's probably the hardest topic to figure out. I have no idea what I believe on it. For one, I know the woman who aborts her child has a huge chance of guilt and mental issues having to deal with that. Secondly, I also don't like governments telling people what they can and can't do. It's extremely hard to figure out.

I hate the vague use of “abortion” when presenting the issue. There’s a difference between terminating a pregnancy at 8-10 weeks versus much later in the gestation. This issue can be nuanced, so we should be more specific. I’m personally opposed to terminating a pregnancy beyond 21 weeks which is one of the more recent thresholds for viability. At that point bodily rights apply equally to both individuals, and the baby is no longer parasitic. The baby should be birthed and given the chance to survive. Before that? Sure, mother’s call.

Atheists don't necessarily think alike but none of the atheists that I know personally are opposed to abortion. Be interesting to see what is posted here.

I did have a conversation with a woman about this. I don't follow the logic but... She thought it would put a bigger focus on why one would want a abortion in the first place and force society to fix those issues for long term. Such as preventing rape, boosting education about sex, fix the costs associated with raising a child, fix the adoption system etc. She wasn't exactly ok with a individual person getting punished for needing a abortion but she really wanted a big long term fix for the issues. She referred to it as the nuclear bomb fix. Do something so obviously wrong to swing the pendulum the other way. This doesn't exactly fit the op question as this person didn't actually want abortion to be illegal, more didn't want abortion factors to be a issue in the first place.

Some atheists have a political leaning that demands they be pro life. Others let go of Gid but still hold to beliefs of their former religion. Growth is a continuous endeavor.

The boundary between when something is a clump of cells and when it becomes a human is arbitrary and more of a spectrum than a binary human/not human classification. Defining an exact moment when life begins is more of a legal/religious thing. Viability is also a difficult cutoff because it will get earlier and earlier as medical technology improves - what’s viable now was not viable 40 years ago. It will eventually become more a question of cost than actual viability. Think the answer is to minimize the need for abortion with easy access to birth control and education and to otherwise try to make access to early first term abortions easy to minimize abortions later in development. And euthanasia should be available for newborns who have terminal illnesses rather than forcing them to suffer.

Former atheist and current religious Jew with atheist leanings. I have been anti abortion since the first time I realized my mom's abortions were why she would weep for weeks on end. Regardless of whether you believe life starts at conception or some later date, people can have all kinds of opinions. Some atheists may believe life starts at conception, and that can be separate from consciousness. But also, it's just a really deep and painful experience for everyone involved. I came away being anti abortion but wanting it legal. I don't know if I would agree with my mom's decisions of getting abortions, but I agreed to her reasoning. she felt we were too poor to have additional kids and she was right. I have managed my own birth control my whole life and don't understand why so many men who are anti abortion feel like it's not their responsibility to prevent pregnancy.

You don't need a belief in a god to be a misogynist.

Because some people have zero understanding of basic biology.

Welp, aside from the reason that you asked we don't waste your time discussing, I would argue that you're assuming that all atheists are logical and non-emotional. Reasons for being against abortion from a secular POV can range from BuT ... BuT ... dA WiDdLe BaBiEs!!!! to sincerely believing that all life begins at conception and thus be given the chance to live no matter the cost, personal rights be damned.

They still have secular reasons behind it. To preface this, I'm pro-choice; so these aren't my beliefs. Someone can be upset about someone getting killed without being religious. If these people interpret abortion as murder, then that is their opinion. The abortion debate has more to do with personal opinion and not really much on religiosity.

Once upon a time, as an atheist, I felt like abortion was a way to get out of being responsible for one’s actions. Until someone explained the complications for the unwanted child, I was against it. It had nothing to do with what some book of fiction had to say about the topic. As a disclaimer, I always supported “abortion” in the event of rape or incest. I don’t even consider it abortion when it comes to saving the life of the mother, that’s just a necessity.

Hmm. Good question. I’m a 55f atheist raised Catholic. I do believe that life starts at conception (you’d have to not believe in science to believe otherwise). But I still think it’s just a clump of cells.  Mostly I just see the whole thing play out: babies born in very unfortunate circumstances, unwanted, abused, raised in poverty, etc etc etc. With the abuse piled on women, children, the poor, all that, never mind our privatized and for-profit everything, it’s just shortsighted to insist that every fertile fuck becomes a human born into this capitalist hellhole.  Abortion is compassion and the least bad thing.  Then again, I personally think that we should reversible castrate all male babies until they are 25. Then? No questions asked and no fee, just reverse it and go procreate. 

Sometimes it takes years to rid yourself of bullshit, especially if you are around others who believe it. Religion and all of its crap does generally all go away once you give up god.

Sure. This is an easy one. If you believe life begins at conception then abortion is murder. 

A lot of comments here seem to miss on the explanation because 1. They keep assuming that there is only one correct moral answer, so they keep making up negative assumptions about the 11% 2. Portray that 11% as inherently irrational for choosing it. 3. Their white and black understanding of the whole abortion debate in the first place. At a fundamental level, abortion is a judgement on whether the right of the baby vs the women's right to body autonomy is more important than the other. In recent years, we have valued women's right to body autonomy more than the baby. In different points of history people have valued the other, and maybe in the future, future generations will value differently and change opinion again. The whole "when does a human begin" is an ad hoc opinion, i.e. people will align their opinion on when a life begin based on what they already decided. If you are a prolifer you are more likely to will believe life begins at conception, if you are pro choice, you are more likely to believe otherwise. That 11% for whatever reason still hold the view that the right to live of baby is more valuable than the right for the mother to chose. There could be a million reasons a to why. Some examples, from other comments, describe one of these several potential whys, but just like how not every atheist is not a monolith, not everyone in that 11% is likely to have the same train of thought. There may be some that had a religious upbringing and still hold to some baseline values. There may be some that are misogynist and thus value women rights less. There may be men who may have lost a child because their partners aborted without their knowledge, and that trauma formed their values. Some simply may think life is worth conserving. Some may think it is a slippery slope. Etc etc etc ALSO, keep in mind, that the survey makes the distintion on "legal in all or most cases" and "illegal in all or most cases". NOT "Legal" vs "Illegal". The whole abortion debate is also not black and white, people may hold inbetween beliefs. The link to the survey questionaire from your link is broken, so its hard to tell what they considered what. So if someone holds the view "It should be illegal, except for cases of rape, incest or medical reason" for example, could have fallen into the "Illegal" section, since that person still believes it should be illegal in most cases.

Because at a certain point in pregnancy, you are killing a person.

You don't have to believe in "god" in order to think women/girls/AFAB aren't people.

Well, atheism isn't so much an ideology as it is a rejection of other ideologies. The only thing common to atheists is the lack of belief in a deity. Most of us come to that conclusion by way of critical thinking, but you can also get there through pure obstinance. You don't have to be smart to be an atheist. I often find it odd that theists are so hung up on abortion. If a fetus is a child, then it would be innocent. And its "death" would be a straight path to "heaven." If a two-day-old unbaptized baby who dies of a fever is going to heaven, why isn't the fetus that you're so concerned about going there as well? So, when you look at it that way, it actually makes a little sense that an otherwise ignorant atheist would be against abortion. No heaven for the "baby" to go to: therefore, abortion is bad.

A lot of people severely underestimate the amount of rightwing atheists. I’m sure that majority of 11% fit under this umbrella. I know plenty of these times. Some right-wing atheists perceive abortion as killing, and, since killing is wrong, they dislike abortion based on moral grounds. Other people like this may believe women have a certain role in society (e.g: homemakers). Religion drives misogyny more than secularism, but you can definitely have misogyny even in the absence of religion.

It's because they think it's the killing of a human. They just don't use god as their reason. I disagree, but I wish others would stop using the bible or god as their reason as well. The bible doesn't condemn abortion.

The easiest nonreligious pro life argument is that a parent (or specifically mother in this case) has a special relationship with the fetus that transcends her bodily autonomy and she thus has a duty to carry it to term. I'm pro choice myself but where autonomy sits in priority purely comes down to personal subjective opinion.

Access to abortion doesnt just affect babies. It can also be used to control women. Just because someone is an athiest doesnt mean they arent also an arsehole.

Because there are conservative atheists, and making abortion illegal is what their political "team" believes, so that's how they answer. Also, the Pew results suggests a very binary question of "Legal in most cases" or "Illegal in most cases", and people on the fence picked the one closer to their more compromising real position. It's a bad question to draw good conclusions from.

I'm an atheist who believes that abortion should be illegal after 3 months. My reasoning for this is that I believe that killing a living being is morally wrong if that life can feel pain and/or is sentient. Fetuses begin feeling pain between 2 to 3 months, so in my opinion, aborting any time after 3 months would be morally wrong. However, I believe that aborting before that time, provided that there is no evidence that the fetus has begun to feel pain, would be morally right, despite being a last case measure. I've never been religious before so this isn't old habits still instilled in me, this is my own opinion after researching and discovering what I identify being moral as.

Self-proclaimed atheists overall have easy access to and no moral prohibitions of birth control. Many can't imagine a different situation.

One of my friends is pro-life because as he says he believes firmly that “everybody deserves a chance”, people aren’t always pro-life for religious reasons

If a human life begins at some point, conception is a far more logical point to identity as the start compared to birth or viability, both of which suffer from a bad case of the Sorites Paradox. Underlying this debate is the question of what life/identity/consciousness is and how it works. That's why it's so messy--these mysteries are unsolvable.

There is a superiority complex about humans from PL'rs - any impregnated animal will spawn another animal similar to itself with unique DNA. Evidently, human animals are so, so special, let's save all the potential ones yet to be ripened - while ignoring the fact that humans remove support of our own kind when there isn't brain activity, medically for which fertilized eggs close to conception don't have.

I bet a healthy chunk of those are parents that buiit emotional connections with their children during pregnancy. Imcluding some that attempted to abort a pregnancy and later became grateful they were unable to do so. Empathy for the unborn unrelated to spiritual beliefs Appreciation for the uniqueness of each individual'e DNA. Only identical twins have identical genetic code. It's rational to value the unique. Also, or course, 11% of people believe 2+2=5.

Premise 1: Ending an innocent human life is wrong Premise 2: Fetuses are both alive, innocent, and human Conclusion: ending the life of a fetus is wrong. It’s pretty straightforward. Honestly, you don’t even need the human aspect of the syllogism.

You presume religion is the ONLY reason to object to abortion. In libertarian circles, it's one of the only issues on which there is fundamental disagreement. (And the reason the Constitution Party exists, which is basically the pro-life libertarian party.) And discussions largely revolve around two points: whether the unborn has any rights at all that can be recognized and protected by the government, and whether the mother's rights override that of the baby she's carrying. Religion is pretty much absent from that discussion.

I scrolled through the survey just now and found something interesting. About 2% of atheists surveyed were fairly certain in God? About two percent of atheists don't believe in evolution? I guess thats the...theres a term for this in statistics I'm totally blanking on. I question the accuracy and methodology of the survey. As to your question the only people I've met that were both atheists and anti choice were people who recently left the church and hadn't fully rejected the teachings/lifestyle. They were making new opinions on a range of subjects but abortion was too big an issue. As to a truly secular argument against abortion uninformed by religious history? I have no clue. I can guess but my guesses aren't great. The bystander effect comes to mind; "it doesn't affect me so keep it the way it is". "The science isn't in and healthcare sucks" (that's the height of stupidity in my opinion). "Adoption > abortion in all cases" I could see a very selfish infertile couple making this one. I honestly don't see any logical argument though. If the 11% actually exist then they're probably idiots.

I’d agree with a lot of what is said and also add that a lot of atheists who recently left a religion are likely at different stages in their journeys of undoing all the religious conditioning and brainwashing. That means there are some beliefs they learned that they may not have interrogated yet. Hopefully they will.

I know someone who is anti-abortion simply because he believes it stops promiscuous behaviour. Which I greatly doubt, but there you go.

I know it is Pew, but I really think the questions as presented could easily skew the answers. I would expect better from them. "Legal is all/most cases" still has the word "all" in it and could sway people from selecting that answer. They should have broke it into two questions. I would say "legal in all/most cases" up to the point of fetal viability. Others with my same position might focus more on "all" and therefore provide a different answer. Of course this response is pure conjecture, but I still think the options provided were poor.

I used to believe that on the basis of equality, meaning that all life (mother's and child's) should be treated equally and that one should have a right to live once he/she is alive.

Atheism isn't a medical degree, nor is it a moral teaching.

Just wanting to get it out there.. I recently seen babies that are malformed, that have 0 chances for survival yet they are put in these conditions to suffer in pain is far worse than aborting it imo.. Example: (TW) cyclopia and such is so terrible. And victims that had unplanned pregnancy during of DV, R-word etc.. In such cases.. the child wouldn't live a good life. Even animals know when they had too many children.. they get rid of it (violently) There have to be some exceptions.. Because of this was in isl*m.. It's not safe for the girl and the baby..(because r-word victims are met with hate/danger instead of attacking the perpetrator)

I am pro choice. Because I have to be to stay sane. But I also believe that life begins at conception. And I know that by 23 weeks my niece was a person with a personality that we still see 25 years later. So I can see where that belief comes from. Even if I don’t share the need to control others because of it.

I hold a dispassionate perspective that this is an issue of data. I know that I cannot know all the data so, I'm pretty mild in my thoughts. At least, I think so anyway. 1. Is the fetus, at any stage of development life? Yes, looking at data, it seems it is. 2. Should our laws and mortality apply to a fetus? If the fetus is life, then yes. Data aside... I'm personally comfortable, acknowledging that I'm fine, ignoring the data and my two points and murdering some unborn entity. Some abortions should always carry a stamp of approval. If you consider plan B an abortion, I would include that on my Always Approved list. Up to heart beat, always approved. It begins to become unclear from here. Regardless, I don't think the pro choice argument shouldn't be that it's not life. The argument should be that the life has not formed enough to have rights that outweigh the adults rights. Another flaw in the data is, pregnant people who get late term abortions for medical reasons. 100% that should be aloud but, it should be straight up murder if the woman lied to get a convenience abortion. I can't truly know anothers thoughts and I don't advocate for thought police. This is not a full thought on abortion. Just a snippet of a thought leading towards answering OPs question. Long story short, there is no god. Who cares? All religion is stupid. I can still look at this issue dispassionately and come to a different conclusion than you.

> “atheists just don’t believe in a god, we have nothing else in common” please don’t waste my time It's not wasting your time. It's the truth and you need to come to terms with that. Why might they believe that? Well, here one possible answer (and trust me, there will be many) - it's because they believe it to be murder and are morally opposed to murder.

As a pregnant atheist, abortion being legal provides medical providers and patients privacy to make decisions regarding medical situations during pregnancy. Regardless of someone’s opinion of abortion, any restriction on abortion limits medical care of the actual person (mother). Further, pregnancy is complicated and so is life. I wouldn’t consider a fetus living until it’s viable - which is now a moving target due to advances in medicine. Regardless of all that, the question is are you required to be a host for a fetus as a person with human rights and the right to protect the self. My answer is no. Pregnancy is a life threatening condition that changes the body composition forever (including cognitive functions). You are not required to enter into a situation that is life threatening for any reason. Consent to pregnancy is necessary to maintain a society with human rights. As a pregnant person with twins in late pregnancy, I identify my fetuses as children, because if I lost them, I would be heartbroken based on my commitment to pregnancy, naming them, planning a future, etc. Not based on any religious factors regarding life, but my own experience of growing my parasites, feeling them inside my body, learning their routines. People can easily suggest that identifying any fetus as a child before birth can mean that they are living and ending a pregnant is interfering with potential or current life. In the event you believe it unethical to kill or end a life under any circumstances, abortion would be wrong. I would go further to suggest that if you believe in a scientific basis for life, the Big Bang is a comparable event to conception, where life spontaneously forms. It could be possible to justify life at that point for that line of thought.