# Nonreligious prolifers - what are your arguments? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2004, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191 "2004-01-07T12:46:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/61 "2004-01-12T03:34:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\*You’re interesting, **IWLN** , in that the most profound and groundbreaking statements you make seem to be the ones you throw in as an afterthought. This is the interesting part to me. What harm do you see happening to these people? \*\* I think our human spirit, our feelings about ourselves and humanity as a whole are geared toward success, positiveness, worthiness. If I have an abortion, assuming that I have a conscience, a sense of responsibility and a love for life; then it will be a failure and even a loss of some part of me. I’m not talking about the physical loss, but more the loss of self-esteem or spirit. I don’t believe that the average person honestly deep inside views abortion as a neutral event. They weigh their options and make a sometimes very painful choice. Even the fact that they are in that position before they make the choice can take it’s toll. You have to tell yourself it doesn’t matter, until it doesn’t matter anymore. This creates a permanent change inside. Those of us who really value each and every life have to live with the fact that 40 million have died and we haven’t been able to help. This is similar to having a horrible war go on day after day and continuously hearing about the casualties. It is demoralizing, sad. The only choice I have is to try and not think about it, but then when it comes back up, it’s like a shock all over again and more loss. I realize many would say it’s none of my business and since it’s leagal, they’re right. But at what point would it become my business, 100 million, 200 million. Is there a point that it’s bad for us, for our human spirit or should we still mind our own business? Even if I somehow make allowances for some circumstances, there has been so many needless abortions, only due to neglect, carelessness and just a lack of any value placed on life. It’s really hard for it not to affect me and others who feel like I do. I’m expected to feel compassion for the women, but can’t, _not_ feel it for the babies too. I realize this is my problem, not anyone elses; but the solution of not caring anymore will make part of me different, less and I can’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/62 "2004-01-12T13:29:34Z")
**IWLN** , it sounds like you base your opposition on abortion on the fact that you feel bad when you hear about an abortion; that you emotionally dislike abortions, and so on. Am I correct? Am I close? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/63 "2004-01-12T15:15:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\ ***IWLN** , it sounds like you base your opposition on abortion on the fact that you feel bad when you hear about an abortion; that you emotionally dislike abortions, and so on. Am I correct? Am I close? \*\* That’s like me saying you base your support of abortion on the fact that you _don’t_ feel bad when you hear about it. Kind of trivializes any critical thought process or assesment, doesn’t it? When I hear about the old lady who was murdered, I feel bad. It’s not just some form of shallow sympathy. It has to do with _what_ happened and why it’s wrong. The “feeling bad” is a product of the assesment of the event, but has nothing to do with the facts. No. Not even close, **Priceguy** … ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/64 "2004-01-13T19:10:40Z")
**IWLN** , to be honest, I’m not able to put together a coherent picture of why you’re opposed to abortion either. First you’re talking about the fetus being a seperate entity deserving of rights in and of itself, then you’re talking about it being a part of you (generic you) and your family, then you’re talking about how abortion affects society. I can understand arguing from the standpoint of the fetus as an individual, but if it’s individual enough to deserve rights in and of itself, it’s not enough a part of someone else to deserve protection as part of her self-interest. So arguing both at the same time doesn’t really make any sense to me. Can you clarify it for me? And which of the arguments you’ve laid out is the real driving force behind your objection to abortion? Also, how does one’s family and their feelings really, truly factor into one’s life decisions? If it would disappoint or upset your family for you to go into a certain line of work (it didn’t pay enough, or they felt it was dangerous, or not prestigious enough), would you give up a career you found fulfilling to make them happy? What if they didn’t want you to marry someone you loved (say they were a different race or religion or the same gender, rather than alcoholic or abusive or something of that nature), would you bow to their feelings? Where do you draw the line between family happiness and saying, “This is my life, and I have to live it for me, not you”? (For the record, there are a lot of things I wouldn’t tell my parents about my gynecological health and sex life, but that doesn’t make those things inherently bad or wrong. It just makes them none of my parents’ business.) ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/65 "2004-01-13T21:19:34Z")
> [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > **IWLN** , to be honest, I’m not able to put together a coherent picture of why you’re opposed to abortion either. First you’re talking about the fetus being a seperate entity deserving of rights in and of itself, then you’re talking about it being a part of you (generic you) and your family, then you’re talking about how abortion affects society. That’s fair. I don’t have one reason. I believe there are many different things to consider. I didn’t intend to do more than just answer the OP. I don’t do this topic without emotion, which makes me unable to argue effectively. > [@](#): > > I can understand arguing from the standpoint of the fetus as an individual, but if it’s individual enough to deserve rights in and of itself, it’s not enough a part of someone else to deserve protection as part of her self-interest. So arguing both at the same time doesn’t really make any sense to me. Can you clarify it for me? I do think it is individual enough to deserve it’s own rights, but do see where that can be at odds with the woman’s self-interest. Here I would have to weigh who made the _choice_ to be in this position. > [@](#): > > And which of the arguments you’ve laid out is the real driving force behind your objection to abortion? The actual right of the unborn to survive. Survival/life takes precidence over inconvenience. Also very strong for me is not killing another human being. Not from a judgmental POV, but concern for the woman. > [@](#): > > Also, how does one’s family and their feelings really, truly factor into one’s life decisions? If it would disappoint or upset your family for you to go into a certain line of work (it didn’t pay enough, or they felt it was dangerous, or not prestigious enough), would you give up a career you found fulfilling to make them happy? What if they didn’t want you to marry someone you loved (say they were a different race or religion or the same gender, rather than alcoholic or abusive or something of that nature), would you bow to their feelings? Where do you draw the line between family happiness and saying, “This is my life, and I have to live it for me, not you”? I wouldn’t make a decision based solely on this factor. But I do think it deserves consideration and should have possibly a small amount of weight in my decision. I think it’s important to remember that you are not just terminating your baby’s life, but also someone’s grandchild. I also didn’t mean to imply that they would have any say in this. They don’t. Remember the OP asked for the reason people are pro-life that didn’t have to do with G-d. For me there is not one good reason, but many. The number of abortions done makes it obvious that the things I believe are important, aren’t shared by many people. Popular opinion or utilization doesn’t convince me that this decision is right or moral. Over-utilization, which is what I believe is happening, convinces me that life is losing it’s inherent value. I _would_ rather see our priorities and morals change and not the law, necessarily. It is hypocritical of me, but I can honestly see _some_ circumstances where the right to choose would be vital. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/66 "2004-01-15T10:46:04Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > That’s like me saying you base your support of abortion on the fact that you _don’t_ feel bad when you hear about it. Who said I don’t? > [@](#): > > When I hear about the old lady who was murdered, I feel bad. It’s not just some form of shallow sympathy. It has to do with _what_ happened and why it’s wrong. The “feeling bad” is a product of the assesment of the event, but has nothing to do with the facts. You said > [@](#): > > The only harm I can see is to the people who allow it to happen and to others who care that it happens. I asked what harm you could see happening to those people, and your answer was “loss of self-esteem or spirit”, “have to live with the fact that 40 million have died and we haven’t been able to help”, “demoralizing, sad”, “not caring anymore will make part of me different”. To me, that sounds like an emotional reaction to abortion, ie you feeling bad about abortions. What are the facts? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/67 "2004-01-15T20:27:28Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Who said I don’t? Well since I _do_ actually pay attention to what you write, I did pick up a few of the reasons you are pro-choice. You may not feel bad about abortion, but that’s not what you’re basing your opinion on. You don’t believe that abortion will bring about a perceived change in the value of life. I believe it already has. You don’t believe a fetus has any rights to claim itself a life. I do. > [@](#): > > You said I asked what harm you could see happening to those people, and your answer was “loss of self-esteem or spirit”, “have to live with the fact that 40 million have died and we haven’t been able to help”, “demoralizing, sad”, “not caring anymore will make part of me different”. To me, that sounds like an emotional reaction to abortion, ie you feeling bad about abortions. > What are the facts? I have agreed that as far as early term abortions, first trimester, from the POV of the unborn, there is no harm. Something not aware, will never be aware of having it’s life taken away. So from the unborn’s perspective, it is a non-event. But I can’t agree that those facts make it okay to take that life away. This is _not_ an emotional opinion. This is simply my evaluation of what constitutes a life. This, to me, seems completely logical. A 1 year old is different froma 10 year old, but no less valuable. A fetus is different than a 1 year old, but no less valuable as a human. You may consider putting a value on human life an emotional issue, but I do not. It is in our best interest to value life. I will admit I do a horrible job at keeping my emotional responses out of this, but it doesn’t invalidate right and wrong. How we feel about ourselves and others(yep, stinkin’ emotions) have everything to do with how our world is. My belief is that it does change our society and have a negative impact. Like it or not **Priceguy** , many of the most important decisions are made with some emotional input. Our emotional health is as vital to who we are as our physical health. I don’t believe most abortions are done without emotional input and subsequent emotional impact. It can’t be completely discounted. Personal experience with several friends gave me a compassionate perspective on this. Even abortion done for the most logical of reasons, can be emotionally expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2004, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/68 "2004-01-17T11:23:51Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > I have agreed that as far as early term abortions, first trimester, from the POV of the unborn, there is no harm. Something not aware, will never be aware of having it’s life taken away. So from the unborn’s perspective, it is a non-event. But I can’t agree that those facts make it okay to take that life away. This is _not_ an emotional opinion. This is simply my evaluation of what constitutes a life. This, to me, seems completely logical. A 1 year old is different froma 10 year old, but no less valuable. A fetus is different than a 1 year old, but no less valuable as a human. You may consider putting a value on human life an emotional issue, but I do not. It is in our best interest to value life. Yes it is. But that doesn’t mean life itself _has_ a value. It just means that, in general, it’s better to act as if it did. When circumstances dictate otherwise, it may be better not to. > [@](#): > > How we feel about ourselves and others(yep, stinkin’ emotions) have everything to do with how our world is. Absolutely. > [@](#): > > My belief is that it does change our society and have a negative impact. Could you be more specific? You’ve said it already has had changes, what are they? > [@](#): > > Like it or not **Priceguy** , many of the most important decisions are made with some emotional input. Yep. But that doesn’t make it appropriate or right. > [@](#): > > Our emotional health is as vital to who we are as our physical health. Absolutely. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe most abortions are done without emotional input and subsequent emotional impact. Me neither. But you would agree that an abortion performed on a woman to whom it means as much as cutting her fingernails is not “wrong”, provided no-one else knows? Just testing the water. By the way, excuse me for being lazy here, but I have a headache and would really like not having to read through the thread again, so please tell me if you want abortion to be legal or not. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/69 "2004-01-17T22:02:41Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Yes it is. But that doesn’t mean life itself _has_ a value. It just means that, in general, it’s better to act as if it did. When circumstances dictate otherwise, it may be better not to. Circumstances like convenience, selfishness, economics? Life itself always has a value. It’s just a matter of what degree. > [@](#): > > Absolutely. I have nothing else to add to this. I was just enjoying the fact that you didn’t disagree with this statement.🙂 > [@](#): > > Could you be more specific? You’ve said it already has had changes, what are they? When enough people around you adopt a certain behaviour or do something often enough, even if you originally didn’t think it was right; it takes on a kind of tacit acceptance, simply because it has become a common occurance. Even though I believe abortion is wrong, it has lost the ability to shock me, due to it’s frequency. It’s the same with different crimes. When you hear everyday about murder, there is a part that stops reacting in horror and becomes somewhat resigned to how bad things can be. There’s even a part of you that rather than trying to do something about it, becomes somewhat resigned to it’s inevitibility. We become non-reactive mentally and in action. I also think that when a person consistently puts their needs in front of other’s, it affects our world profoundly. The mind-set that goes with abortion is _my_ needs supercede any one else’s including my unborn child. If in this most basic of ways you think you are more important than another life, it is inevitable that you will respond to the rest of your life events this way. When something bad or tragic happens, there are basically two different kinds of response to hearing the news. The first group of people feel compassion, sadness and see what they can do to help and the second group of people immediately assess how this is going to affect them. They may have some of the other responses, but “self” comes first. I think justifying abortion because of “self” makes it a lot more likely that future decisions are based on the same mindset. It becomes more important to somehow prove that “you” were worth making that decision for. > [@](#): > > Yep. But that doesn’t make it appropriate or right. I don’t see how it cannot be right, when your mental/emotional health is so tied in to making the right decisions. > [@](#): > > Me neither. But you would agree that an abortion performed on a woman to whom it means as much as cutting her fingernails is not “wrong”, provided no-one else knows? Just testing the water. Does the doctor know? 😉 I guess I’m chilled by the concept of taking a life being the same as nail clipping, but would have to agree that for her, it is a non-event; so can’t be seen as wrong. It’s wrong, but may be a lucky break for the baby.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > By the way, excuse me for being lazy here, but I have a headache and would really like not having to read through the thread again, so please tell me if you want abortion to be legal or not. No, I don’t _want_ it to be legal. I want it to go away or at the very least become a rare occurance. Will I try and do anything to make it illegal. Probably not. I have admitted to being somewhat of a hypocrite in this area. I don’t think making it illegal would stop the practice. It would simply add more physical risk and inconvenience to what now exists. In spite of the fact that I really have no desire to be fair about abortion, if the majority of people think it is an acceptable thing to do, then, no matter what I believe; I have to respect that. Very reluctantly. ---
**Author:** ![BraveNewSquirle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@BraveNewSquirle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraveNewSquirle)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/70 "2004-01-17T22:14:35Z")
As far as I’m concerned (and I know most here wil disagree and hate me for what I will say) life begins at one’s first concious memory/thought. I also don’t think that anyone but the woman involved has the right to make the coice. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/71 "2004-01-17T22:30:05Z")
> [@BraveNewSquirle](#): > > As far as I’m concerned (and I know most here wil disagree and hate me for what I will say) life begins at one’s first concious memory/thought. > I also don’t think that anyone but the woman involved has the right to make the coice. Any idea when that would be? I don’t remember much before age 2 or 3, but the actual first thought would probably be sometime in the last four or five months of gestation, if you count brain wave activity. There’s response to outside stimuli, noise, voices, etc. How do you measure when the first thought actually is? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2004, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/72 "2004-01-18T12:43:22Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > Circumstances like convenience, selfishness, economics? For example. > [@](#): > > Life itself always has a value. It’s just a matter of what degree. Where does this value come from? What basis does it have? > [@](#): > > When enough people around you adopt a certain behaviour or do something often enough, even if you originally didn’t think it was right; it takes on a kind of tacit acceptance, simply because it has become a common occurance. I agree. This is becoming a habit. > [@](#): > > Even though I believe abortion is wrong, it has lost the ability to shock me, due to it’s frequency. It’s the same with different crimes. When you hear everyday about murder, there is a part that stops reacting in horror and becomes somewhat resigned to how bad things can be. There’s even a part of you that rather than trying to do something about it, becomes somewhat resigned to it’s inevitibility. We become non-reactive mentally and in action. I also think that when a person consistently puts their needs in front of other’s, it affects our world profoundly. I’m not disputing that. I just strongly doubt that a woman having removed what is essentially an unwanted parasite will have a negative effect on society. > [@](#): > > The mind-set that goes with abortion is _my_ needs supercede any one else’s including my unborn child. But the unborn child doesn’t even notice. It just dies. > [@](#): > > If in this most basic of ways you think you are more important than another life, it is inevitable that you will respond to the rest of your life events this way. I hate to say this, but… cite? It just seems as an unproven assertion to me. > [@](#): > > I think justifying abortion because of “self” makes it a lot more likely that future decisions are based on the same mindset. It becomes more important to somehow prove that “you” were worth making that decision for. You’re apparently assuming that it is by definition better for the fetus to be born. It may very well not be the case. And even if it is, the situation remains a neutral one for the fetus (dies quickly) and a positive one for the woman (no unwanted pregnancy, no unwanted childbirth, no unwanted child etc). Net outcome: positive. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how it cannot be right, when your mental/emotional health is so tied in to making the right decisions. That’s not quite what I said. I did agree that our mental/emotional health is as important as our physical health. That does not mean that basing decisions and actions on emotions is a good thing. > [@](#): > > I guess I’m chilled by the concept of taking a life being the same as nail clipping, but would have to agree that for her, it is a non-event; so can’t be seen as wrong. It’s wrong, but may be a lucky break for the baby. Then why is it wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c37758/32.png) [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2004, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/73 "2004-01-18T13:42:57Z")
Excluding issues involving self defence, to kill someone, for profit, fun or convenience (same as profit, really) is abominable. To kill a zygote one day after conception? No big deal. Probably zero significance. To kill a near term child by sucking out his or her brains after inducing a breech birth? That is an abomination. However, despite some myths, the “Law” has never treated infanticide with the same degree of severity as adult-to-adult murder. That was serious stuff and governments did all they could to discourage it. In pre twentieth century societies, infanticide was generally treated lightly and ignored by officialdom whenever possible. Institutions like foundling homes were established in many countries, but they had a small impact on the uncounted death rate. As for abortion, it is a killing of convenience. No more, no less. Having said all that, there never has been, nor ever will be a way of putting a stop to abortion. But, as long as it’s not glorified, we should all be content. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/74 "2004-01-19T00:14:12Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > For example. She’s in school, will lose momentum in her career, doesn’t have the money, doesn’t want a baby with the man she conceived one with, doesn’t want her parents to know, is afraid of childbirth, etc. > [@](#): > > Where does this value come from? What basis does it have? I suppose where any of our values come from. From our own childhood and feeling valued, from later experiences. From our own survival instincts. From our religions. These are not only our own perceptions, but also fairly universally, there is an agreement that it’s not right to take a life, which indicates that life has value. Killing would not be so unacceptable if we didn’t feel like the victim had worth. > [@](#): > > I agree. This is becoming a habit. 🙂 Do you agree that _wrong_ takes on a different definition if it is accepted by a majority of people? > [@](#): > > I’m not disputing that. I just strongly doubt that a woman having removed what is essentially an unwanted parasite will have a negative effect on society. It doesn’t seem like this method that we have to continue to survive can be selectively discarded. A wonderful thing for society or a parasite at the same time. You did forget to call it a _human_ parasite, though. Not quite the same as a tapeworm. > [@](#): > > But the unborn child doesn’t even notice. It just dies. Abortion is legal up to the third trimester. A baby born not long before the "cut-off time, can actually survive. Say I get an abortion at 23 weeks and compare with a premature delivery. The premie feels discomfort, pain, etc. Why do you think the aborted baby feels nothing. Because it’s quick? In the spirit of your request on the next point, I would have to see a cite that addresses an unborn’s pain response at different stages of development.🙂 > [@](#): > > I hate to say this, but… cite? It just seems as an unproven assertion to me. Rat’s. I suppose I should feel lucky that “cite” hasn’t came up all of the other times I deserved it. It is an opinion, an unprovable assertion. I could probably come up with plenty of examples of self-importance affecting our society adversely, but can’t really prove the cause. The “self-importance” could be the cause of the millions of abortions, rather than the reverse. You’re right. > [@](#): > > You’re apparently assuming that it is by definition better for the fetus to be born. It may very well not be the case. And even if it is, the situation remains a neutral one for the fetus (dies quickly) and a positive one for the woman (no unwanted pregnancy, no unwanted childbirth, no unwanted child etc). Net outcome: positive. I disagree that it is always a positive one for the woman. I found almost 30,000 hits using the words, “abortion and regret” and abortion and remorse". There are thousands of stories from women who didn’t realize how sad and empty they would feel afterwards. The friends I have that have had an abortion felt the same way. I have only known one woman who said she didn’t regret it, although I’m sure there are many. Abortion counseling is inadequate and abortion seems like a fairly simple thing, but for many it’s not. A worman who regrets her abortion gets very little sympathy from most people. Since it’s a voluntary act, many people feel like she deserves to feel bad. I don’t. > [@](#): > > That’s not quite what I said. I did agree that our mental/emotional health is as important as our physical health. That does not mean that basing decisions and actions on emotions is a good thing. See above point. If you don’t factor in your emotional response, it can cause permanent emotional damage. > [@](#): > > Then why is it wrong? Maybe it’s not, for her. If she can be that dispassionate about it, why not just give the little parasite to someone who wants it, after it’s born? Never mind, that would be unselfish. Maybe it’s not wrong for her, but I don’t think that abortion is typically that devoid of any emotions. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/75 "2004-01-20T07:42:51Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > I suppose where any of our values come from. From our own childhood and feeling valued, from later experiences. From our own survival instincts. From our religions. These are not only our own perceptions, but also fairly universally, there is an agreement that it’s not right to take a life, which indicates that life has value. Killing would not be so unacceptable if we didn’t feel like the victim had worth. But this is just our idea of the values, our perception that they exist. That doesn’t mean they do. Whence the values themselves? Why should we act according to them? > [@](#): > > Do you agree that _wrong_ takes on a different definition if it is accepted by a majority of people? Nope. > [@](#): > > You did forget to call it a _human_ parasite, though. No, I didn’t forget. I saw no reason to include it as it’s irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Why do you think the aborted baby feels nothing. Because it’s quick? Yep. > [@](#): > > In the spirit of your request on the next point, I would have to see a cite that addresses an unborn’s pain response at different stages of development. You misunderstood me. I’m sure that a 3-month fetus can feel pain. I don’t advocate torturing 3-month fetuses, for exactly that reason. Well, and the reason that it’s totally pointless and a waste of time and resources, but _also_ because they feel pain. > [@](#): > > I disagree that it is always a positive one for the woman. I found almost 30,000 hits using the words, “abortion and regret” and abortion and remorse". There are thousands of stories from women who didn’t realize how sad and empty they would feel afterwards. The friends I have that have had an abortion felt the same way. I’m sure many women regret it. That’s easy to say when you don’t have to take care of a screaming baby you didn’t want. This is a situation with two bad choices, so feeling bad after choosing should be par for the course. I would imagine it’d be quite difficult to find women who’d acknowledge that they regret _not_ having the abortion, because of the incredibly strong social taboos surrounding it. > [@](#): > > If you don’t factor in your emotional response, it can cause permanent emotional damage. We’re still missing each other. To take emotions into account when making a decision is perfectly rational; to base decisions on emotions is not. An example: 1. If I don’t kill that man with a gun, he’ll kill those five people and their families will suffer grief. 2. I don’t like that guy’s face, let’s kill him! > [@](#): > > If she can be that dispassionate about it, why not just give the little parasite to someone who wants it, after it’s born? Never mind, that would be unselfish. No, that would be stupid. There are enough little parasites in the world that desperately want homes and families. There’s no reason to introduce another unwanted child. And no, there’s no reason to go through the unpleasantness and discomfort of pregnanct and childbirth for that purpose. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/76 "2004-01-20T23:39:03Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > But this is just our idea of the values, our perception that they exist. That doesn’t mean they do. Whence the values themselves? Why should we act according to them? You’re losing me here. I know you have values/morals. Some obviously are not appropriate for anyone but you. Some are shared by a majority of people. Our ideas, our perceptions, the majority’s opinion of the common good. Those, we act accordingly to. If my country isn’t run by some mix of common values and opinions, then it’s not really a democracy. > [@](#): > > Nope. Well then where does the concept of wrong come from, if not from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable? Incest used to be acceptable because it was a common practice. Not perceived as wrong if you want to do something and your neighbors are already doing it. > [@](#): > > No, I didn’t forget. I saw no reason to include it as it’s irrelevant. _Human_ is only a relative factor later. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Yep. Interesting perspective, but a babies frame of reference would be different. I’ll bet you value your comfort more than that. Not many of us would consider even a quick minor surgery without something to block our pain response. > [@](#): > > You misunderstood me. I’m sure that a 3-month fetus can feel pain. I don’t advocate torturing 3-month fetuses, for exactly that reason. Well, and the reason that it’s totally pointless and a waste of time and resources, but _also_ because they feel pain. So then pain to the unborn is important, but becomes irrelevant because of inconvenience to the mother? About 45% of abortions are done after 8 weeks and another 12% after 12 weeks. Only 1% of abortion is reported to be for rape or incest. That means 99% of the women voluntarily choose a behaviour that will cause painful response in at least 12% of unborn babies? Remember at 9 weeks a baby reacts to loud noise, touch and pain stimuli. I realize that statistics vary, depending on who the information comes from, but according to the source I was just looking at 72% of women think second trimester abortion should be [illegal](http://www.abortionlaw.org) . Why isn’t it? > [@](#): > > I’m sure many women regret it. That’s easy to say when you don’t have to take care of a screaming baby you didn’t want. This is a situation with two bad choices, so feeling bad after choosing should be par for the course. This isn’t _just_ feeling bad. This is wishing they could change what they did. This feeling is forever. > [@](#): > > I would imagine it’d be quite difficult to find women who’d acknowledge that they regret _not_ having the abortion, because of the incredibly strong social taboos surrounding it. I don’t believe it’s that common. Maternal instincts seem to kick in when they first look into their baby’s eyes. > [@](#): > > We’re still missing each other. To take emotions into account when making a decision is perfectly rational; to base decisions on emotions is not. I’m not missing what you’re saying. I don’t believe a decision based totally on emotion can be made correctly. Especially if another life is at stake. Of course practical matters have to come into it. But it is very emotionally charged, with emotional repercussions, either way you go. > [@](#): > > No, that would be stupid. There are enough little parasites in the world that desperately want homes and families. There’s no reason to introduce another unwanted child. And no, there’s no reason to go through the unpleasantness and discomfort of pregnanct and childbirth for that purpose. Actually newborn “parasites” aren’t that easy to come by. But you’re right. Most people don’t care enough about protecting a life that they’re not going to get any benefit or pleasure from. Putting yourself out a little for a stranger’s happiness is a foreign concept. It’s is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/77 "2004-01-22T08:05:15Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > You’re losing me here. I know you have values/morals. Some obviously are not appropriate for anyone but you. Such as? > [@](#): > > Some are shared by a majority of people. Our ideas, our perceptions, the majority’s opinion of the common good. Those, we act accordingly to. If my country isn’t run by some mix of common values and opinions, then it’s not really a democracy. Unfortunately, democracy in itself is not sacred to me, so this is no argument. I am heavily in favour of democracy because it’s the worst system there is except all the others we’ve tried, not because it is somehow more right than any other system in itself. > [@](#): > > Well then where does the concept of wrong come from, if not from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable? Incest used to be acceptable because it was a common practice. Not perceived as wrong if you want to do something and your neighbors are already doing it. The concept of wrong comes from pain/harm. With your incest example, you seem to prove my point. It was socially accepted, yet morally wrong, because even then, as far as we know, it caused harm. > [@](#): > > _Human_ is only a relative factor later. Sorry, I lost you here. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > Interesting perspective, but a babies frame of reference would be different. I’ll bet you value your comfort more than that. Not many of us would consider even a quick minor surgery without something to block our pain response. Naturally it’s easier to make rational decisions when I’m not personally involved. That doesn’t make the rational decision any less valid. > [@](#): > > So then pain to the unborn is important, but becomes irrelevant because of inconvenience to the mother? Not irrelevant, but because, last I checked, abortion is very quick, a very minor factor. > [@](#): > > About 45% of abortions are done after 8 weeks and another 12% after 12 weeks. Only 1% of abortion is reported to be for rape or incest. That means 99% of the women voluntarily choose a behaviour that will cause painful response in at least 12% of unborn babies? Remember at 9 weeks a baby reacts to loud noise, touch and pain stimuli. Yep. A moment of pain for one individual. Better than the alternative. > [@](#): > > I realize that statistics vary, depending on who the information comes from, but according to the source I was just looking at 72% of women think second trimester abortion should be [illegal](http://www.abortionlaw.org) . Why isn’t it? It is in many countries. I disagree with those laws. > [@](#): > > This isn’t _just_ feeling bad. This is wishing they could change what they did. This feeling is forever. > > I don’t believe it’s that common. Maternal instincts seem to kick in when they first look into their baby’s eyes. Cites? I’m half-joshing, I know these things are close to unverifiable, but that also means they cannot be used as arguments. > [@](#): > > Actually newborn “parasites” aren’t that easy to come by. Who said anything about newborn? > [@](#): > > But you’re right. Most people don’t care enough about protecting a life that they’re not going to get any benefit or pleasure from. Putting yourself out a little for a stranger’s happiness is a foreign concept. It’s is stupid. Straw man. You know this is not what I’m saying. Feel free to read the “Hypothetical Ethical Dilemma” thread in Great Debates if you doubt that. And you’re still acting as if the fetus’s life has a value in itself and as if the fetus is somehow automatically better off if born. None of this is true. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/78 "2004-01-22T12:14:40Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Such as? I didn’t say your morals and values were good, I just said you had 'em.😉 I can’t say specifically about those that you have, that aren’t appropriate for everyone. In general though, morals and values that reflect specific religious beliefs or that specifically require people to _personally_ go against their religious beliefs aren’t appropriate. Totally unrelated to religion, I believe we should give our time and money to help other people, but it should not be expected of everyone. The list is long. I morally expect a lot from myself that it would not be reasonable to expect universally. Many things that are morally right, aren’t morally required. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, democracy in itself is not sacred to me, so this is no argument. I am heavily in favour of democracy because it’s the worst system there is except all the others we’ve tried, not because it is somehow more right than any other system in itself. I should have just left it at the common good or said in a free society. The point I made was obviously the wrong one. The values are an odd assortment of what we were taught, what we desire and what is practical and humane. We should follow them because life is more pleasant when we do and life runs smoother. These morals and values provide kind of an outline for how things should be, rather than starting over for each situation > [@](#): > > The concept of wrong comes from pain/harm. With your incest example, you seem to prove my point. It was socially accepted, yet morally wrong, because even then, as far as we know, it caused harm. It kind of chokes me to disagree with you on this, but if incest was common practice, custom; there was probably _not_ the mental and emotional trauma that is associated with it today. If I lived out in the hills and did it with daddy and had no concept that it was wrong; there would be no pain or harm and I might even enjoy the extra attention daddy gave me. Ugh. I’m okay if you want to drop the incest part of this.☹ > [@](#): > > Sorry, I lost you here. What’s your point? My point is that you haven’t convinced me that a fetus being _human_ isn’t relevant. Although I’m sure it would suit your argument better if I only included that which you thought was relevant; I’m just not there yet.😉 > [@](#): > > Naturally it’s easier to make rational decisions when I’m not personally involved. That doesn’t make the rational decision any less valid. Naturally. But what does that have to do with humane treatment. And are you sure a rational decision is always the right one? I’m equally sure it’s not. > [@](#): > > Not irrelevant, but because, last I checked, abortion is very quick, a very minor factor. I could cite real life situations, during abortion, where this is not always the truth. I won’t because I have no idea if they are slanted or exagerated to fit a particular agenda. I think you are right in a majority of the cases, but not all. > [@](#): > > Yep. A moment of pain for one individual. Better than the alternative. I’m sure you didn’t mean to call the fetus an individual. That might somehow indicate it has interests, separate from the mother.:rolleyes: That alternative you’re talking about is a chance for a life, with no guarantees of good or bad. Kind of like you and I have. > [@](#): > > It is in many countries. I disagree with those laws. Earlier you defined, "The concept of wrong comes from pain/harm. " Your words. Yet you advocate doing something like second trimester abortions, which are very likely to cause pain, as an acceptable thing. Does someone have to be able to verbalize their pain/harm or have someone else willing to do this, to make it valid? This seems like a Scotsman fallacy. P- It is wrong to cause pain. M-But unborn babies feel pain. P-Well, it’s a quick pain. > [@](#): > > Cites? I’m half-joshing, I know these things are close to unverifiable, but that also means they cannot be used as arguments. Honestly, I think thousands of stories from women who had abortions and regretted them, should count for something. But since you’re only looking for “pain/harm” as it fits with your argument, it holds no weight with you. Here, I’ll give you a [cite](http://www.artthatsnew.com/artwork/scripts/natures-scene/NSindividual.cfm?HTMLTitle=pino-maternal-instinct) I kind of liked it, anyway. > [@](#): > > Who said anything about newborn? We were talking about adoption. Which I agree is not a viable solution in most cases. A fetus is seldom adopted, hince, my reference to newborn. Jeeze **Priceguy** , it’s just a word. I know you object to labels that humanize the process, but all babies that are born are newborns and those that aren’t born are put in a medical waste container. > [@](#): > > Straw man. You know this is not what I’m saying. Feel free to read the “Hypothetical Ethical Dilemma” thread in Great Debates if you doubt that. I agree, it was a strawman. But, I didn’t say _all_ people and particularly not you. Just 40 million or so, even if it didn’t address the point well. > [@](#): > > And you’re still acting as if the fetus’s life has a value in itself and as if the fetus is somehow automatically better off if born. None of this is true. Neither of us knows if the fetus is better off born. Is it better to be dead or alive. Most people would say alive. I can’t see anything that a fetus is lacking that you have, other than a little time. I am honestly still puzzled over the concept that it would not have value in itself. This is not stubborness or moral indignation; I don’t understand? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/79 "2004-01-22T17:20:14Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > I morally expect a lot from myself that it would not be reasonable to expect universally. Many things that are morally right, aren’t morally required. Why not? It’s better to do them than not do them. What excuse could there then be for not doing them? > [@](#): > > We should follow them because life is more pleasant when we do and life runs smoother. These morals and values provide kind of an outline for how things should be, rather than starting over for each situation It seems like we’re finding a common ground. I’m entirely with you on the first sentence. As for the second sentence, that’s how I want the laws to work, since they can impossibly “start over for each situation”. But individual actions should be governed by a situation-oriented set of morals, because that works better for individuals. > [@](#): > > It kind of chokes me to disagree with you on this, but if incest was common practice, custom; there was probably _not_ the mental and emotional trauma that is associated with it today. If I lived out in the hills and did it with daddy and had no concept that it was wrong; there would be no pain or harm and I might even enjoy the extra attention daddy gave me. I suppose there’s a little nugget of truth in this. If both participants are consensual, then yes, it is the taboos of society that makes it harmful. But really, how often do you think that happened, even among people living out in the hills? You do realise that a dad raping his daughter does cause emotional (and in all probability physical) pain in her, no matter how socially acceptable incestuous rape is? Wife-beating was socially acceptable once, that didn’t make it harmless. There are many other examples. Torture. Clitoridectomy is _still_ socially acceptable (and even socially required) in some places, but I think we agree that it’s harmful. > [@](#): > > My point is that you haven’t convinced me that a fetus being _human_ isn’t relevant. Why would it be? What’s so special about humans? > [@](#): > > And are you sure a rational decision is always the right one? Not always. There could be some unknown factor that, if known, would change the decision. But it’s still a method light years ahead of the alternative, “cross your fingers and hope”. > [@](#): > > I could cite real life situations, during abortion, where this is not always the truth. I won’t because I have no idea if they are slanted or exagerated to fit a particular agenda. I think you are right in a majority of the cases, but not all. Shit does happen, no denying that. For example, some people [remain awake while under anaesthetic during surgery](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990226.html), which causes nightmarish amounts of pain and dread. But I’d still go in for surgery, and I’d still have it done on my child or pet. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you didn’t mean to call the fetus an individual. That might somehow indicate it has interests, separate from the mother. It certainly is an individual and it certainly has interests, but so what? So does a tapeworm. > [@](#): > > Earlier you defined, "The concept of wrong comes from pain/harm. " Your words. Yet you advocate doing something like second trimester abortions, which are very likely to cause pain, as an acceptable thing. Does someone have to be able to verbalize their pain/harm or have someone else willing to do this, to make it valid? This seems like a Scotsman fallacy. P- It is wrong to cause pain. M-But unborn babies feel pain. P-Well, it’s a quick pain. It is wrong to cause pain, but it is wronger to cause more pain. A quick pain is better than prolonged pain. And so on. Bringing unwanted children into the world is worse than the quick pain that’s a risk in abortion. > [@](#): > > Honestly, I think thousands of stories from women who had abortions and regretted them, should count for something. I understand that you do, but I don’t. There’s no way to evaluate the stories. There’s no way to find out how many regretted not having an abortion. > [@](#): > > Neither of us knows if the fetus is better off born. Is it better to be dead or alive. Most people would say alive. I can’t see anything that a fetus is lacking that you have, other than a little time. For me, rationally and personally, dead/alive is truly a neutral distinction. If I die, I don’t suffer from it. I’m dead. Death in itself is neutral. It should be avoided only because of the grief it causes. > [@](#): > > I am honestly still puzzled over the concept that it would not have value in itself. And I cannot explain since non-existence is still the default assumption. You posit “life’s value” as a self-sufficient existent entity. I don’t see the evidence for it. What value is there in life itself? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191/80 "2004-01-22T22:38:43Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Why not? It’s better to do them than not do them. What excuse could there then be for not doing them? Different upbringing. Different perspective and priorities. Different value of other human beings and their needs. Not capable of feeling a full range of responsibility and emotion. > [@](#): > > It seems like we’re finding a common ground. I’m entirely with you on the first sentence. As for the second sentence, that’s how I want the laws to work, since they can impossibly “start over for each situation”. But individual actions should be governed by a situation-oriented set of morals, because that works better for individuals. We probably have more “common ground” than you think. “Logically”, I don’t disagree with a large part of what you say. I would like to see the laws a little more suited to each situation, although it seems to be going in the opposite direction. > [@](#): > > I suppose there’s a little nugget of truth in this. If both participants are consensual, then yes, it is the taboos of society that makes it harmful. But really, how often do you think that happened, even among people living out in the hills? You do realise that a dad raping his daughter does cause emotional (and in all probability physical) pain in her, no matter how socially acceptable incestuous rape is? Wife-beating was socially acceptable once, that didn’t make it harmless. There are many other examples. Torture. Clitoridectomy is _still_ socially acceptable (and even socially required) in some places, but I think we agree that it’s harmful. Hmm…it didn’t go away. I was talking about incest and you are mainly referring to rape. When it wasn’t “taboo”, there would not have been harm or pain as long as the child was old enough. The other things obviously do cause harm/pain. My argument is that there can be wrong without harm/pain, although there could be a potential for harm/pain, simply from a biological POV. > [@](#): > > Why would it be? What’s so special about humans? Our attachments to eachother. Eeeww, our emotions for one another. Our concern for each other. Our reliance on each other. We are different than other life. My dog was never concerned whether the other dogs in the world were getting enough food.😉 > [@](#): > > Not always. There could be some unknown factor that, if known, would change the decision. But it’s still a method light years ahead of the alternative, “cross your fingers and hope”. A decision that factors in practicalities and emotions is hardly a “cross you fingers and hope.” If in spite of the weight of some of the practicalities, you chose to do something, because of the compelling nature of the emotions; it may not be a purely “rational” decision, based only on facts, but the most acceptable. > [@](#): > > Shit does happen, no denying that. For example, some people [remain awake while under anaesthetic during surgery](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990226.html), which causes nightmarish amounts of pain and dread. But I’d still go in for surgery, and I’d still have it done on my child or pet. So would I, but only for necessary surgery. Abortion is elective. I would not needlessly cause _anyone_ pain. > [@](#): > > It certainly is an individual and it certainly has interests, but so what? So does a tapeworm. But nine months later, you would actually consider sacrificing your life to save _it_, after weighing your _moral obligation_. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? > [@](#): > > It is wrong to cause pain, but it is wronger to cause more pain. A quick pain is better than prolonged pain. And so on. Bringing unwanted children into the world is worse than the quick pain that’s a risk in abortion. So you’re actually saying it is right to cause pain, to prevent the _possibility_ of future pain, that is _impossible_ to even predict? Kill the baby now, because it may not have a life quite as good as being dead??? > [@](#): > > I understand that you do, but I don’t. There’s no way to evaluate the stories. There’s no way to find out how many regretted not having an abortion. Those stories are stating what impact abortion had on their lives. It far surpasses a laboratory experiment for providing the necessary factual information. As for not being able to find out how many regretted _not_ having an abortion, I agree that social taboo would get in the way of public disclosure, but **Priceguy** , women tell all to each other privately and I’m damned old. I’ve never heard it from a mom. Shouldn’t that lead me to believe it’s rare, that our biological or learned nuturing responses do kick in and turn a problem into a much loved baby. I was literally _horrified_ by my first pregnancy. If thoughts could have made _it_ go away, my son wouldn’t exist. I would have missed so much. I realize this isn’t always the case, but I believe it is more frequent than the poor unwanted baby that has a horrible life. > [@](#): > > For me, rationally and personally, dead/alive is truly a neutral distinction. If I die, I don’t suffer from it. I’m dead. Death in itself is neutral. It should be avoided only because of the grief it causes. I agree that for myself, if I’m dead, it won’t matter, to me. We are not from the moment of conception ever alone, though; so life and death are never neutral. If I cause the death of a man who lives his entire life on a deserted island, it would be a neutral event for him because he no longer has awareness, no one misses him. There’s no impact on the world. There is still impact on myself, due to the choice I made to end his existence. Am I wrong, since it affects no one but me? > [@](#): > > And I cannot explain since non-existence is still the default assumption. You posit “life’s value” as a self-sufficient existent entity. I don’t see the evidence for it. What value is there in life itself? I don’t understand _non-existence_ being the default assumption. Awareness/life is the default assumption. How could it be anything else, when life is all you know? There is no such thing as non-existence, because you would have to have existence or at least some perception of it, to cease to exist. You can’t abort a non-existence. You can make existence end, but can never return to _non-existence_. Existence has value, although to varying degrees. Non-existence means that something never was, there is no _something_. That is neutral because there is no awareness of it. Life has value simply because we desire our continuing existence and generally see that as a positive circumstance. I want credit for resisting the urge to bring G-d into the non-abortion part of this debate. It is a relentless urge, I am successfully conquering.😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nonreligious-prolifers-what-are-your-arguments/223191.md?page=5)