Are all anti-abortionists religious people?

[guillaumeb]

Not at all, if this group is any indication.

From the website:

The Mission of Secular Pro-Life is to end elective abortion.* We work toward this goal through:
 
Secularism. SPL seeks to increase the inclusiveness of the overall pro-life movement by creating space for pro-life atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other secularists. We also seek to provide pro-lifers of any religious or spiritual beliefs--or none at all--with the secular, pro-life perspective. We encourage all pro-lifers to understand the secular pro-life perspective so our movement can engage people using shared bases of understanding.

http://www.secularprolife.org/mission

Many times, the anti-abortion movement is treated as if it were the exclusive preserve of religious based groups that seek to impose their religious views on all Americans. This is seen as infringing on the idea that church and state must be separate. But what if anti-abortionists are not religious?

[caroldansen]

1. I think a lot of them just say they are. They certainly dont follow the bible. Many just say that to

try to get people to swing their thinking their way. Its attempted manipulation. God didnt make people to be robots. He gave them free will and the right to choose.

[guillaumeb]

3. True.

But the anti-abortion crowd is not the exclusive preserve of religious believers. Even non-theists can have a sincere ethical reason (not grounded in a religious philosophy) to oppose abortion.

[atreides1]

9. A fine line between these groups!

You can just barely see the light separating the SPL and their religious doppelgangers!

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. And not all white supremacists are white.

Congratulations. You found a group of secular anti-choicers so infinitesimally small no statistician with their head screwed on tight would consider them a significant segment of the anti-choice or secular communities.

Let me know when something interesting happens.

[guillaumeb]

4. So are you dismissing these people as outliers?

As statistically insignificant to the point of being non-representative?

What an interesting argument.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Damn skippy.

And not as interesting you'd think.

Do you want me to go ahead demonstrate why your follow up argument is wrong now, or should I wait for you to make it first?

[guillaumeb]

6. So at what percentage does a sub-group become representative of the whole?

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. You had your opportunity. Guess I'll be destroying it before you make it.

This is a two parter.

Part I.

Secularism is the belief that government and religion should remain separate, that religious scripture should not serve as the basis for civil law. That. Is. All. The degree to which a person is "secular" has no bearing on whether or not one is pro-choice because -- unlike certain religions -- "secularism" doesn't address abortion directly.

One could very well well believe in the separation of church and state and still conclude, by way of some obscure, non-religious system of ethics that abortion is immoral. In which case, I will take issue with that obscure, non-religious system of ethics, just as I take issue with religions that oppose a woman's right to choose.

Part. II

So at what percentage does a sub-group become representative of the whole?

As anyone who has sat through a remedial class on statistics for the behavioral sciences can tell you, that is not how it works. Because: 1) I have already demonstrated your argument is built on faulty comparisons and is therefore unworthy of pursuing; 2) the only real reason this question was posed in the first place was to distract from the issue of said faulty comparisons; and 3) I am not here to teach you remedial statistics, I'm leaving it at that.

Conclusion:

So here you are, trying and predictably failing to draw comparisons between religions that directly and explicitly oppose the practice of abortion, whose adherents more reliably oppose abortion, with a nebulous principal whose one and only stipulation is that religious institutions should remain separate from the state, and whose subscribers derive their ethical principals from a wide variety of sources, including religion.

I am reminded of a man trying to ice skate uphill.

[guillaumeb]

17. Your condescension is noted.

As is your failure to address my points. Feel free to claim whatever you wish as you continue to evade the point.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Your points were addressed rather handily.

Which is why you're whining about tone instead of offering counter-arguments or conceding defeat.

[trotsky]

18. Wow!

[trotsky]

7. Why, did someone claim that?

Great strawman you're arguing against.

Are you personally for or against a woman terminating her pregnancy?

[guillaumeb]

8. I asked a question. Thus the question mark.

But I will admit to it being a rhetorical question.

I am pro-choice.

Do you feel that these non-theists have a sincere, non-religious based, ethical objection to abortion? And is this sincere, non-religious based, ethical objection sufficient cause to lobby for anti-abortion laws?

[Freddie]

10. I don't care how "sincere" they are

Or wherever the motivation for their anti-choice views. A decision that a woman makes about her body is not theirs to make.

[trotsky]

12. I honestly haven't read their reasoning so I don't know.

But they can base their personal opinion about abortion on whatever they want.

I fully realize this is you reacting in your typical style to the opinion piece I posted, and I am flattered as usual, but you're REALLY straining here.

[guillaumeb]

15. And I am frequently flattered when my posts are copied by others.

The PPoF series in particular.

[trotsky]

21. Copied, mocked, who can tell the difference these days?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I don't feel they do, but they might feel they do.

I'm happy to hand them their asses in any debate they'd like, but I've never met any in person, because much like leprechauns, either they don't exist or they exist in statistically meaningless numbers.

According to their own optimistic claims, SPL numbers 6 million persons, not as a an organization, but just they claim there's 6 million people in the us that are secular and pro-life, which is an interesting inference, but their actual membership numbers are unpublished and they won't talk about it. (LOL)

Within the United States, 72% of the religiously unaffiliated say that "abortion should be legal in most or all cases"[7] compared to 53% of the general public. Among atheists and agnostics, 84% say abortion should be legal in most or all cases. SPL operates in the context of a highly polarized debate over abortion, where the anti-abortion movement America mainly consists of members of the Christian right.[8] While 75% of white evangelical Protestants say that having an abortion is morally wrong, 25% of religiously unaffiliated people say so.[9] The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics notes that 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion" while just 12% of atheists and agnostics do.[10]

There's your fucking contrast you're worried about. Oh boy.

Doesn't matter if you look at 'religiously unaffiliated' or 'atheist/agnostic', we are massively more pro-choice than the religious general public.

Deal with it.

[LOL Lib]

11. Anti-Abortionists are fascist assholes.

Secular or not. "My God or my Emperor will make your life choices for you."

They should all die a tortuous death daily until their eyes are opened to the sovereignty of their fellow man. Fuck them all.

[Thomas Hurt]

14. are you sure.....

this isn't just a group of right wing evangelicals lying for Lord and scamming people.....

[guillaumeb]

16. I am not certain of anything.

You also could be a front for someone or something. Feel free to investigate.

[Lordquinton]

22. Yes.

You have searched and found one example and are trying to redeem the irredeemable with it. reading their site a bit and the arguments are indistinguishable, right down to the casual misogyny and desire to control women. They are completely based in religious objections, the only difference is that they don't end everything with "Because god" so their arguments can easily be taken apart and dismissed.

So do you have another group? or just this one that proves it is a purely religious movement?

[guillaumeb]

23. Perhaps you should contact them and give them the benefit of your wisdom.

I am certain they would appreciate your guidance and insight into their hidden motivations.

By the way, is this the no true Scotsman argument rising zombie-like from another source?

[Lordquinton]

24. Look up kitzmiller vs dover

Their argument is rooted in religion. Why don't you read it and see if you can form a counter argument?