Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Myths
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Later Abortion
      • Embryonic Hearts
      • Abortion Views and Gender
    • Collections
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
      • Fixed that meme for you
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Becoming Pro-Life
    • Publications
      • Overview Brochure
      • Why Secular People Should Care
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Why support SPL?
  • Donate
  • Menu Menu

Secular Pro-Life condemns Daily Show Comment on Abortion and Sharia Law

August 7, 2013/82 Comments/in Uncategorized /by Kelsey Hazzard
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Secular Pro-Life condemns a recent comment by comedian John Oliver, who is currently standing in for Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Oliver implied that abortion restrictions are motivated solely by religion and not by secular concern for the human right to life.

The comment came on Monday night’s episode. The segment, which can be viewed here, focused primarily on the Supreme Court’s recent decision weakening the Voting Rights Act. But about four and a half minutes in, the subject turned to abortion. Commenting on a recent North Carolina senate bill that addressed both abortion safety regulations and sharia law, Oliver joked:

Let me just understand this: you’re adding abortion restrictions to legislation banning the making of laws based upon religious belief. That’s like passing a bill banning high-fructose corn syrup, and adding a provision naming the state animal the gummy bear!

In reality, a commitment to church-state separation is not at all incompatible with support for abortion regulations. Between fifteen and nineteen percent of non-religious Americans identify themselves as pro-life. And among those who identify as pro-choice, abortion restrictions short of a ban enjoy majority support.

“I myself am a fan of The Daily Show,” said Secular Pro-Life president Kelsey Hazzard. “Its humor is often very insightful. But this time around, The Daily Show chose humor based on blunt stereotyping. I’m disappointed.”

“We understand that The Daily Show is, first and foremost, a comedy program,” Hazzard added. “But a large percentage of young people get their news from commentators like Jon Stewart and John Oliver, and they have a responsibility as journalists. There’s no shortage of real political hypocrisy to skewer; The Daily Show writers shouldn’t have to resort to misleading the audience.”

If you are non-religious and support legal limits on abortion, Secular Pro-Life encourages you to respectfully share your disappointment with The Daily Show by posting a comment on its facebook page.

Related Posts

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
  • Link to Instagram
https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png 0 0 Kelsey Hazzard https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Kelsey Hazzard2013-08-07 11:30:002021-11-08 12:35:39Secular Pro-Life condemns Daily Show Comment on Abortion and Sharia Law
82 replies
  1. Amy Perryman Shield
    Amy Perryman Shield says:
    August 7, 2013 at 11:45 am

    The last paragraph confuses me. Do you reject support from religious supporters of legal limits on abortion?

    Log in to Reply
  2. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 11:51 am

    Do you really believe the NC legislators had any of your secular motives? Or can you be honest and admit that, whatever your reasons for being anti-choice, the majority of anti-choice advocates are religiously motivated?

    Log in to Reply
  3. Elisabet
    Elisabet says:
    August 7, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Gordon, if they are religiously motivated or not is besides the point. The argument he made was that support for abortion restrictions – any restrictions – is an inherently religious position.

    That is factually incorrect, and as a show that prides itself for writing factually correct jokes it's very surprising.

    My guess is the writers made an error and Oliver, motivated by his deeply held pro-choice beliefs, didn't care.

    Log in to Reply
  4. Guest2
    Guest2 says:
    August 7, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Gordon Duffy, as someone who is very active in the pro-life movement, my experience is that most people who are pro-life are so because they are pro-woman not because of their religious beliefs. And most pro-lifers aren't anti-choice, just anti-abortion. Why is it that so many who are pro-abortion are anti-choice?

    Log in to Reply
  5. Katie
    Katie says:
    August 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    There's a difference between "laws based upon religious belief" and "religiously motivated". The first implies a personal religious decision on the level of choosing whether to go to church or whether to eat pork – things that shouldn't be imposed on anything else. The second can include well-thought out positions that people can subscribe to regardless of their religious beliefs, although sometimes the motivation for the level of importance can include religion. If someone is "religiously motivated" to care for the poor or the environment, and it leads them to support laws in favor of the poor or the environment, is that also equivalent to sharia law?

    Log in to Reply
  6. Crystal Kupper
    Crystal Kupper says:
    August 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    I'm sorry he did that. How frustrating!

    Log in to Reply
  7. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    I'm not convinced a mistake was made. He refered to religiously inspired law as religiously inspired. That's called accuracy.

    Log in to Reply
  8. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    nobody who is pro-choice is pro-forcing-women-to-have-abortions. As for your side being pro-woman… I'm just glad I wasn't drinking while I read that. I might have choked.

    So pro-woman that you have to take women's rights away. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery.

    Log in to Reply
  9. Faye Valentine
    Faye Valentine says:
    August 7, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    That's funny, because I've been called all sorts of vile things by "Pro-Choice" people because I was apparently "too stupid" to abort my daughter when I was pregnant with her and I "ruined [my] life" (even though it was always HER life I was primarily concerned with…you guys don't seem to comprehend having compassion for others even at your detriment).

    We're not "taking women's rights away"-no parent should have a right to kill their child. That is not a valid right. We do, however, want to grant every woman (and man, for that matter), the right to be born.

    Log in to Reply
  10. Matt Dillahunty
    Matt Dillahunty says:
    August 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Or, maybe he just recognized that the basis for opposing abortion is primarily religious…and that the handful of individuals claiming secular justifications simply don't have a good case.

    Log in to Reply
  11. Kelsey
    Kelsey says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    Since when is millions of people a "handful"?

    Log in to Reply
  12. Matt Dillahunty
    Matt Dillahunty says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Since when are there millions of secular individuals using secular reasons to oppose abortion?

    Log in to Reply
  13. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    So… by your own admission you are taking a right away, because you don't see it as a valid right.

    Compassion for others has never been something for anti-choice to practice rather than preach. Pro-choice is the compassionate position.

    Still conradicting yourself within the same sentence is impressive.

    Log in to Reply
  14. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    Would "tiny minority" suit you better?

    Log in to Reply
  15. Kelsey
    Kelsey says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Do the math. 15-19% times, what is it now, 38 million non-religious Americans?

    Log in to Reply
  16. Matt Dillahunty
    Matt Dillahunty says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    Please bring that argument if you ever follow through on your agreement to debate me…instead of sending someone else.

    Log in to Reply
  17. Kelsey
    Kelsey says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    I didn't realize you were still interested in debating me personally. Send me an email: info@secularprolife.org.

    Log in to Reply
  18. Maria
    Maria says:
    August 7, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Stop wrapping yourself in the cloak of false compassion and casting aspersions on prolifers with the non sequitur that they have no compassion. The bottom line reality of pro abortion is those men who refuse to take responsibility for their sexual acts and those women who feel they have no recourse except the killing of the unborn because YOU do not want to provide support, encouragement, recognition of the humanity of the unborn, the disabled. Who is lacking in compassion for women? The easy, throw-away solution only works for you because you refuse to look at the results of what you would have as a "choice", the ground-up, dismembered, beheaded bodies you refuse to acknowledge. Women's health and well being are not served by abortion.

    Log in to Reply
  19. Maria
    Maria says:
    August 7, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Nonsense. The abortion procedure itself is dangerous, more damaging than pregnancy which actually presents health benefits for women despite all the scare tactics employed by the pro abortion monolith. Your pragmatism is a thin disguise for the unwillingness to value women's sexuality in any way that interferes with convenience, even if the means of maintaining your "freedom to choose" (and you will never have to make that abortion choice for your body) is violence and the killing of a child. Population control and convenience is your mantra.

    Log in to Reply
  20. Maria
    Maria says:
    August 7, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    You are such a dunderhead, but an arrogant and dangerous one. There is no right to kill. Find a better solution. Creating a right to kill is the negation of the right to live for everyone, not just those who are conveniently hidden from view in the womb.

    Log in to Reply
  21. Vinícius
    Vinícius says:
    August 7, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    You're right about it being taking a right away. The end of apartheid was all about taking white people's rights away. I'm certain most white Southern Africans aren't bad people, yet I'm certain most white Southern Africans did not like the "losing our rights" part of it.

    I think pro-lifers should take all accusations that they are not compassionate enough seriously, and if those are true, do everything they can to improve. You know Faye is talking about something which happens a lot, women being judged for not aborting. If you are compassionate enough to never act like people who do that, you could also take this accusation about pro-choisers seriously and try to find out if anything can be done to improve it.

    Log in to Reply
  22. Clinton
    Clinton says:
    August 7, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    I think an honest reading of the paragraph in question will show that they want the non-religious people to do it to actually give a visual representation of the non-religious people who support these legal limits. Asking the religious people to go do it would just be to support Oliver's bad argument.

    Log in to Reply
  23. Clinton
    Clinton says:
    August 7, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    I must say, your first sentence made me chuckle heavily. Gordon is just a troll, and we really shouldn't feed them. 🙂

    Log in to Reply
  24. Maria
    Maria says:
    August 7, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    I blew my top!

    Log in to Reply
  25. Ralph Horque
    Ralph Horque says:
    August 7, 2013 at 7:49 pm

    If the anti-abortion movement were not hypocrites, then they would embrace contraceptives instead of trying to regulate those as well. The whole anti-abortion movement is not about saving "babies." It's about making women into 2nd class citizens and taking their rights away from them. If it were about preventing abortions then it would be pro-sex-education and pro-contraceptives. You anti abortionists need to take a good long look in the mirrors and figure out your own hypocrisy before condemning comedy central's comedians. They nailed this one.

    Log in to Reply
  26. Kelsey
    Kelsey says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:04 pm

    Do your research: SPL supports contraception.

    Log in to Reply
  27. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    So disagreeing with you on the facts in measured language is trolling now?

    Log in to Reply
  28. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    I have compassion for people.

    Log in to Reply
  29. Clinton
    Clinton says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    No. The fact that you're not interested in reasonable discourse makes you a troll.

    Log in to Reply
  30. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    I'm interested, I'm just not being offered it.

    Log in to Reply
  31. Clinton
    Clinton says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    And that statement proves your trollishness. You are being offered reasonable discourse.

    Take this statement that you made, for example:

    "So… by your own admission you are taking a right away, because you don't see it as a valid right."

    You completely misrepresented (most likely misunderstood) what she was trying to say. She was saying that a right to abortion doesn't exist in the first place. That's not taking a right away, anymore than my claiming that you don't have a right to rape is taking your right to rape away from you. If there is no right in the first place, then being forbidden something is not having a right taken away from you.

    Log in to Reply
  32. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    That was my point. I was using that to illustrate the fatuousness of the "argument".

    At present women have a legal right to an abortion. You anti-choicers want to say that they don't have that right because you don't think it is a right and therefore you are not taking rights away.

    But you are. There is a right women have now that you would remove.

    Log in to Reply
  33. Clinton
    Clinton says:
    August 7, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Another example of your trollishness: "anti-choicer." Don't call me anti-choice, and I won't call you anti-life. I'm not anti-choice, I just believe that some choices are wrong. I'm assuming you're anti-choice about rape and torturing children for fun.

    If that was your point, then it fails because you completely misrepresented her argument, which is not what an intellectually honest person does. The argument is only fatuous in the way that you represented it. Of course it would be wrong to take a genuine right away. But if the right doesn't exist in the first place, then to claim that we're trying to take away rights from people is nothing more than a strawman.

    Women may have a *legal* right to an abortion, but they don't have a natural right to an abortion. People once had a *legal* right to slavery, also, but I'm sure you wouldn't agree that it was right to bestow that "right" upon people. Legal rights are different than natural rights (in fact, I recently posted an article discussing rights on this blog, which I think it would benefit you to peruse). So in that case, you're also equivocating on the word "right." The pro-life position is that there is no natural right to abortion. Abortion kills an innocent human person, and no one has that right. The government allowing women to abort, just like the government allowing whites to own slaves, doesn't mean that right actually exists.

    Log in to Reply
  34. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 7, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    So, you at least agree that you want to take away a legal right from women, because you don't approve.

    Log in to Reply
  35. Clinton
    Clinton says:
    August 7, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Sure, if you want to frame it that way. But that's like saying that the government took a legal right away from white plantation owners when they made slavery illegal. There's nothing wrong with taking legal rights away if there's no grounding for the legal right in the first place.

    Log in to Reply
  36. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 8, 2013 at 7:34 am

    This is an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy, and as Kelsey said, some/many politically anti-abortion people do support sex ed and contraception.

    Log in to Reply
  37. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 8, 2013 at 7:36 am

    Actually, I don't think that the secular anti-abortion case is that weak, and I actually think that the pro-choice argument of absolute bodily autonomy is not a very good one.

    Log in to Reply
  38. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 8, 2013 at 7:51 am

    Now that's a comparison we can legitimately disagree on. I think forced pregnancy is a far more valid slavery analogue.

    Log in to Reply
  39. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    "maybe he just recognized… that the handful of individuals claiming secular justifications simply don't have a good case." Impossible. He might -believe- that to be the case based on ignorance like you do Mr Dillahunty, but it's simply untrue.

    Log in to Reply
  40. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    Selective compassion for people but a complete absence of compassion for some humans

    Log in to Reply
  41. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:21 pm

    "Or can you be honest and admit that, whatever your reasons for being anti-choice, the majority of anti-choice advocates are religiously motivated?" I honestly believe the majority are motivated by BOTH secular and religious principles.

    Log in to Reply
  42. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:23 pm

    your compassion is such that you believe in a license to kill-

    War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. -indeed

    Log in to Reply
  43. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:25 pm

    Just like the right to beat women and children was taken away from fathers and husbands – taking away a right because of moral disapproval is not nec a bad thing

    Log in to Reply
  44. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    forced pregnancy is inaccurate because we're not advocating rape

    there's a difference between prohibiting termination of something and forcing something to happen

    Log in to Reply
  45. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    No- he's saying either that there's ONLY religious motivation or else that when there are MULTIPLE motives and one is religious it invalidates the law

    the first is false

    the second would apply to most every law

    Log in to Reply
  46. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    i have compassion for humans

    Log in to Reply
  47. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:44 pm

    PS: the question is whether to accept a right to kill pre-personhood human beings in order to allow women to end a pregnancy

    2 different rights for 2 different types of humans are inexorably in conflict

    we favor the right not to be killed over a right bodily autonomy which allows killing

    you favor the right of a mature person over a right of a pre-personhood human being

    either a right to live trumps a right to kill
    or
    rights aren't legitimate until there's a person

    we disagree about what is morally relevant, which isn't unusual for major ethical disagreement

    what IS unusual is a large scale attempt to discredit one view as inherently religious

    it's as if dog fighting or bull fighting advocates claimed you needed to be a closet hindu to disagree with them

    Log in to Reply
  48. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    i don't recall kelsey sending anyone. i believe kristine wanted to debate you and kelsey was ok with it. i don't see the point in these things anyway. it was a standard prochoice view against a fairly standard prolife view with no religious allusions or justifications. no minds were changed. what was the point?

    Log in to Reply
  49. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 9, 2013 at 12:24 am

    Unlike with slavery, women who get pregnant had a chance to avoid this outcome in the overwhelming majority of cases.

    Also, slaves did not do anything to their owners/masters to justify forcing them to work on behalf of their owners/masters (and under atrocious working conditions and without pay, to boot). In contrast, one cannot say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of pregnancies.

    Log in to Reply
  50. Gordon Duffy
    Gordon Duffy says:
    August 9, 2013 at 10:34 am

    except if they are pregnant and do not want to be.

    Log in to Reply
  51. Jani Martel
    Jani Martel says:
    August 9, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Have you ever listened to yourself?

    Log in to Reply
  52. Jani Martel
    Jani Martel says:
    August 9, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    what happen to rare and legal?

    Log in to Reply
  53. Ralph Horque
    Ralph Horque says:
    August 9, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    I said ANTI ABORTION MOVEMENT. Not SPL.

    Log in to Reply
  54. Ralph Horque
    Ralph Horque says:
    August 9, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    Well, then you'd better get those loud mouthed republican buddies of yours to shut up. They're contradicting your assertion.

    Log in to Reply
  55. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:17 am

    compassion for them too- as long as they don't want to extricate themselves from the situation by killing

    Log in to Reply
  56. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:21 am

    if it's a choice between one side with unctuous views about sex ed and another that's supporting taking over a million innocent human lives / year it's not a hard choice

    give me dems willing to overturn RvW and I'll support them over the GOP in a heartbeat

    Log in to Reply
  57. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:22 am

    then go pester the ANTI ABORTION MOVEMENT Not SPL.

    Log in to Reply
  58. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:28 am

    I think I recognize you from your writing style. Is this DG? 🙂

    Log in to Reply
  59. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:44 am

    your contention about what is a better slavery analogue is pretty dubious, the slavery we're talking about in the antebellum south was chattel slavery.

    in other words it wasn't merely compelling someone to do work they didn't wish to. it was claiming they had no rights at all. it was deeming them nothing more than property that the slaveholder could use or dispose of as he saw fit. that's like the situation for the prenatal human, but not at all like the situation of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.

    she is for the most part free and the partial loss of freedom is for less than a year. her situation is more analogous to a military draftee, although I'd argue that draftees have less freedom than she.

    Log in to Reply
  60. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:22 am

    BTW- You're completely missing the point IMO. whether some individuals are in part or even wholly motivated by religion isn't important. What is important is whether a LAW is based on religion. For example, catholic theology opposes abortion but also capital punishment . 7've never heard anyone say that opposing the death penalty carries a religious stigma.

    There are fundamentalist churches advocating for environmental laws and citizenship for illegal aliens based on interpretation of scripture. In the VP debate, Biden mentioned how his views about economic policy were inspired by Catholic social teachings. The civil rights movement began in black churches. Abolitionism began with Quakers and evangelicals.

    The U.S. is a country where most people link morality and god. Therefore every social policy with an ethical conflict will have people on both sides (like Joe Biden) who are at least partially motivated by religion. I don't care about an individual's motives. That's a freedom of conscience issue and it's freedom of conscience which protects my atheism in a society where the culture was practically marinated in the Abrahamic traditions.

    What IS objectionable is if the law or policy itself is religious. That's what John Oliver was implying about restricting abortion and it's not true. The New England blue laws were inherently religious. There was no secular justification for them. Most sharia law is the same. Opposition to abortion is not inherently religious and the laws we're pursuing aren't either. Ultimately that is all that matters in terms of the separation of church and state. .

    Log in to Reply
  61. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 3:05 am

    PS: If I could be convinced that the prolife position is inherently religious, I'd switch sides. I've never even heard a serious argument to that effect. What's more, from my POV, the prolife position fits with a materialistic or physicalist worldview better than the prochoice view.

    Personhood views say that the essential nature of humanity is something which is acquired as we develop. Essence is an abstract object like universals which cannot be accounted for in a purely materialistic metaphysics. (Plus it violates Ockham's parsimony principle of ontology.)

    Organismal views don't distance humans from the rest of the animal kingdom with metaphysical hocus pocus. We're organisms with special abilities (or capacities when we're early in development). We aren't different at some fundamental level. We're part of a spectrum of species. Insisting upon an essence or different fundamental nature is a modern version of the Scholastic era's theological hierarchy of perfections which set man apart from animals because of the rational capacity that his soul provided.

    I'm an organism and always have been. Life began for me as it does for nonhuman mammals. Trying to redefine when life begins just for a single species is antiscientific. My species evolved to have the attributes associated with personhood and I'm a person now, but I haven't always been. The life of a butterfly doesn't begin when it can fly. Our lives began before we were persons.

    Log in to Reply
  62. JDC
    JDC says:
    August 10, 2013 at 4:32 am

    Excess use of CAPITALIZATION automatically makes your points true. It's a FACT.

    Log in to Reply
  63. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 10, 2013 at 8:39 am

    Yes, this is DG, if DG stands for what I think it does. Very nice analysis on your part. 🙂

    I was the one who previously PM'd with you about personhood. I haven't been on Facebook much over the summer, but hopefully I will go on Facebook more in the near future. I don't want to get too addicted to it. 😉

    Speaking of which, I think that I might need to formulate a new response to your points about personhood. I still lean politically anti-abortion, but I think that my previous response to your PMs might need to be changed in some places due to some changes in my thinking and analysis about this issue.

    Log in to Reply
  64. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 10, 2013 at 8:45 am

    They're not my buddies, and they are not contradicting my assertion. I have not met any anti-abortion person yet who is against the use of condoms, for instance. I wonder if any polls have been done about this–I know that the overwhelming majority of Catholic women use contraception (if my memory is correct), so I wonder what the results for anti-abortion people would be.

    I agree with you that many Republican politicians pursue a boneheaded strategy and approach when it comes to the abortion issue, though.

    Log in to Reply
  65. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 10, 2013 at 8:51 am

    I agree with you that an anti-Roe v. Wade Democratic Party (even if they are pro-choice on the state level) would be *much* more appealing for me to vote for on the national level. Democrats have many good ideas, but their support for Roe v. Wade really turns me off and causes me to flirt with the GOP.

    I agree with you that saving prenatal lives should be the main goal. That said, I would be more likely to vote for anti-Roe v. Wade Republicans who could be more flexible on things such as contraception (perhaps Romney, Huntsman, Christie, and/or someone else along these lines) and bi-partisan cooperation.

    Log in to Reply
  66. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 10, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Yep, ockraz has a point in his position, considering the zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human beings as well.

    Human being = A whole individual/entity/organism at any stage of human development.

    Let's see here–the woman is unable to exercise her right to bodily autonomy for nine months, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, this is due to a decision which she willingly made (having consensual sex with a fertile male instead of masturbating, using sex toys/sex dolls, having consensual sex with another female, abstaining from sex, and/or having consensual sex with an infertile male). In contrast, if the fetus (who did not willingly do anything which created this conflict-of-rights situation) is aborted, it/he/she loses on average several decades of its/his/her life. Several decades of life is a much greater loss than nine months of bodily autonomy.

    Log in to Reply
  67. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:09 am

    I strongly agree with you here; For instance, I support giving government assistance to pregnant women if they need it.

    Log in to Reply
  68. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:12 am

    This might be an appeal to motive fallacy. Just because someone's motives for promoting a particular political position are bad does not necessarily make this position itself bad and does not necessarily mean that there are no good arguments in favour of this political position.

    Log in to Reply
  69. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    That's a good point about the states. If RvW were gone and it wasn't a national issue anymore, I'd feel free to vote DEM at the federal level because of their populist economic policies. Frankly, what I'd really prefer is directly electing judges. The days of apolitical appointment are gone. With lifetime tenure, being unelected makes the judiciary antiidemocratic and I despise activism from the right & left – although I give the right credit for at least making an effort to avoid it. If we elected judges, I'd vote for DEM senators, but we don't 🙁

    Log in to Reply
  70. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    I recently heard a podcast episode (Philosophy Bites from the UK Institute of Philosophy) which walked through the steps: identity theory + ethical theory -> abortion position. Of course, like +90% philosophy professors the guest was prochoice, but it was still interesting — if only because it shows where the differences are. I disagree with his first step (consciousness based identity which is a weaker standard than personhood) and his second (moral rights lying on a sliding scale of importance depending upon whom they belong to) so it makes sense that we'd disagree about what conclusion to draw. If you're interested, I'll find the link and pass it on 🙂

    Log in to Reply
  71. ockraz
    ockraz says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    Exactly – the loss of autonomy is partial. I've known quite a few women who've continued working pretty much up until they gave birth. And, as you said, the ratio of loss is huge. As I see it, it's approximately 100 to 1 assuming a normal life span of around 72-78 yrs.

    I think you're right about accepting risk/responsibility. When I drive, if I cause an accident, I'm responsible even if I didn't do anything criminally negligent. It's a trade off: a small chance of becoming responsible for something I don't want in exchange for greater personal freedom to live as I choose.

    Log in to Reply
  72. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 11, 2013 at 4:55 am

    Directly electing judges might be a good idea.

    Also, I think that regardless of whether or not judges are elected, their terms should not be lifetime terms, but rather for 10/15/20/25 years.

    Log in to Reply
  73. Ralph Horque
    Ralph Horque says:
    August 11, 2013 at 4:57 am

    If you agree with them, and they're on your side of the abortion issue, then, like I said, you'd better get busy shutting them up. They're making you all look like asses. The pro-life movement looks like a bunch of pro-rape-culture, anti-woman, misogynists.

    Log in to Reply
  74. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 11, 2013 at 5:09 am

    "As I see it, it's approximately 100 to 1 assuming a normal life span of around 72-78 yrs."

    I think that it might be somewhat less than this, on average, since some pregnant women naturally miscarry. It would probably still be 50-60 years, though, or somewhere around there.

    Yeah, in regards to responsibility, there are many alternatives to sex available right now. I masturbate a lot right now, and I never have sex right now since I don't want to risk paying child support right now. Frankly, I am somewhat surprised that many pro-choicers are so horrified at a ban on most abortions (even if contraception was easily available to everyone). Males are already currently unable to have risk-free sex, and yet we deal with it, no matter how hard it may be. Thus, the end of risk-free sex for females won't be the end of the world (at least not for the overwhelming majority of them–females who have abusive families and/or spouses should be additionally helped out).

    Log in to Reply
  75. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 11, 2013 at 5:21 am

    "If you agree with them, and they're on your side of the abortion issue,
    then, like I said, you'd better get busy shutting them up."

    Again, they do not reflect all anti-abortion people.

    "They're making you all look like asses. The pro-life movement looks like a bunch of pro-rape-culture, anti-woman, misogynists."

    This might be an example of the guilt by association fallacy and an example of the hasty generalization fallacy. If someone is too stupid to realize that not all anti-abortion people agree with everything that certain anti-abortion politicians do or say, then I feel sorry for such individuals. As for the anti-abortion movement (or rather, some/many anti-abortion people being misogynistic), one can likewise say that the pro-choice movement, or at least some/many members of this movement are misandrous and anti-male.

    Log in to Reply
  76. Coyote
    Coyote says:
    August 11, 2013 at 5:28 am

    I also want to add that a repeal of Roe v. Wade would probably (at least initially) mean that there would probably be less than half a million additional prenatal lives saved, since many U.S. states will still keep abortion level even if Roe is ever repealed and since many people in U.S. states with abortion bans will travel to U.S. states where abortions are legal (or heck, even to Canada and Mexico) to get abortions. I think that many/most of the prenatal lives which will initially be saved will be the prenatal offspring/children of poor(er) women, which worries me because if politicians are unable to help out these poor(er) women and children during and after pregnancy, then this could lead to greater support for abortion re-legalization in many/most/all of the U.S. states where it would became banned in the event that Roe v. Wade is ever repealed.

    Log in to Reply
  77. Kristin
    Kristin says:
    August 13, 2013 at 7:33 am

    Since always. Not to mention all the religious people who use secular reasons to oppose abortion.

    Log in to Reply
  78. Skyweir
    Skyweir says:
    August 16, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    I agree with your view but draw the opposite conclusion. Life itself is nothing sacred, merely the mindless division and reproduction of DNA-strands set in system. As such, a fetus have the same inherit right to life as a skin cell, or a cancer cell which is able to live on in perpetuity and is by most definitions a separate organism growing inside your body.

    it is the persons, not the species, that should be protected. Organisms of the species Homo sapiens do not have an inherit worth greater than any other life form, but is our ability for rational thought, emmotional responses and self awareness that can be used to set us aside (if you wish) from other species in terms of "personhood". A fetus have no such abilites, and it is irrational to grant any organism rights based on potential. Indeed, with to days technology, every egg-cell is a potential new human if harvested and fertilized, every sperm cell can be saved and used for impregnation, yet these cells are not granted the same rights as a person either. Every time you ejaculate, thousands of potential humans are destroyed, but no one bemoans their fate.

    A zygote or even a fetus is mearly a collection of cells that share our species, much like a benign tumor (which is a seperate, independently growing organism of the species Homo sapiens). One day it could become a thinking, self aware being with the capacity of emotions, suffering, hopes and dreams, but it is not that yet. Indeed, most zygotes, by a slight alteration in the developmental genes, has the potential to become something completely different. This is one of the primary roads of mutational evolutionary leaps….

    In short, I cannot be "pro-life" when the arguments for taking the control of a woman's body away from her is either relgiously based, based on specist ideas of why human life is somehow precious just because it is life of a species I am a member of, or involves allowing for a concept of rights for "potentials" that is both ethically unsound and irrational.

    Human life is precious, of course, but not because it is human or life, both concepts devoid of value in and of themselves.

    Log in to Reply
  79. Dealhandler
    Dealhandler says:
    August 20, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    Beautiful! Amazing in many ways. Absolutely stunning. I would love to see this topic in real-life. I have come some advice to New York has some AMAZING Daily Deals you! All coupons are over 50% OFF! Let DealHandler gather all the best local deals from for you. Thanks for sharing….. Daily Deals,Bellevue, WA

    Log in to Reply
  80. Chantel
    Chantel says:
    August 26, 2013 at 6:15 am

    I just have to correct your language. RvW doesn't need to be repealed because it isn't a law, it's a court interpretation. The court just needs to overturn it.

    Log in to Reply
  81. Chantel
    Chantel says:
    August 26, 2013 at 6:25 am

    Does morality come from a diety, or is it innate in every person of reason? If everyone has a basic morality then wouldn't it stand to reason that whether you are religious or not, that a person's pro-life stance comes from the same inherent morality but that some people choose to ascribe it to their religious beliefs rather than to common morality. Do you think that it is written anywhere in the Bible, Torah, Koran or any other religious document that religious adherents should or must stop abortions? they do say that murder is wrong, but I am fairly confident that even you can't find an argument against that. I know pointing that out must really stick in your craw. It really seems to me that you are really less of a pro-choice person than an anti religion person. And yes, the vast majority of pro-life people are also pro contraceptives. Don't believe me? The latest polling shows that women far outnumber men in being pro-life. Who is it that you think is using all those contraceptives?

    Log in to Reply
  82. Chantel
    Chantel says:
    August 26, 2013 at 6:36 am

    Just to blow your mind. Did you know that until the Renaissance abortion was not considered a sin by the Catholic Church if it occurred prior to 40 days into the pregnancy for male babies and 60 for female? This is because that is when the soul was believed to enter the body. Muslims held similar views as does The Russian Orthodox Church has similar views, except they believe the soul enters with the first breath. Even the very athiest majority still believes this as part of their common culture. So, you see there

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Administrative
  • Adoption and Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • en español
  • Late-Term Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, and court cases
  • Medication Abortion
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • SPL Emails
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Your Stories

Archive

As the national conversation on abortion intensifies, it’s more important than ever that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Please donate today.

DONATE
© Copyright 2023 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

Politically Incorrect Medicine On Parental Responsibility and Who Qualifies as a Parent
Scroll to top