Morality of abortion

**fkizz** · May 04, 2018, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Yes that's a demographic disaster, so abortion policy can't exist in a vacuum. In modern Western societies its a positive benefit to have abortion on demand for women.

Well, you can argue from an exclusively Western point of view, but from a perspective of "what effects the abortion policy has on the World", the result is female fetuses discarded en mass to benefit a more male numbered society, in preference for the male gender.

This is why it's so ironic females talk of this as "liberation of the female gender", just because something works in favour in your neighbourhood, doesn't mean that what's brewing in the World, and the more populated countries isn't working in opposite direction.

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Interesting scenario, not sure about the outcome. Killing a foetus for being "likely to be gay" seems evil, but I don't think a mother's motives can be questioned: if she doesn't want it it dies. I guess its the "not wanted" part that tends to make a child more likely to be criminal.

In such a scientific advanced scenario, where you could screen for a gay gene in the fetus, it could have as a result the progressive and complete elimination of homosexuality from the human race, this by Liberal policies and thinking.
World can be ironic as heck.

**Aexodus** · May 04, 2018, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Yes that's a demographic disaster, so abortion policy can't exist in a vacuum. In modern Western societies its a positive benefit to have abortion on demand for women.

Why should women be able to just have abortion on demand, whenever they want, when the otherwise perfectly healthy baby poses no risk to the mother's health.

Interesting scenario, not sure about the outcome. Killing a foetus for being "likely to be gay" seems evil, but I don't think a mother's motives can be questioned: if she doesn't want it it dies. I guess its the "not wanted" part that tends to make a child more likely to be criminal.

Does a foetus not represent a life? If not, why.

Well not even necessarily in the sex act, they can

to ejeculation and the semen can be implanted with a turkey baster.

Are you really saying men should have no contribution whatsoever to whether their offspring lives or dies.

Actually it starts as a female gamete with a trace of male DNA implanted, forms an egg inside the woman's body that hatches, the little wriggler that emerges implants in the uterus wall and essentially parasitises on the woman's body by attaching a feeding organ (the placenta). Its not viable as a separate entity until the last trimester usually, but the barriers are being pushed. So the answer to your question is really you need to inform yourself a bit more rather than asking silly rhetorical questions.

A trace? It's 50/50. Before fertilisation, an egg is just an egg. A sperm is just a sperm. After fertilisation, there is a permanent chemical change, at which point that zygote represents everything needed to create an individual, with a complete human DNA, is in a permanent state of growth, and as such is human from that point onwards.

Not really. If the mother does not want the child its more likely to be a criminal IMHO. Your hypothetical "good father' could mitigate that but real life is a but different to hypotheticals.

Im sorry? Mother's should kill their unborn babies just because they don't want to be mother's?

Maybe you want "Good Fatherhood" guaranteed? I mean divorce settlements try to enforce this but its pretty hard to get many men to even see their children. Mandating "good behaviour" is an aspirational goal of many backward systems like Presbyterian and Catholic Christianity or Chinese Communism.

Men are always expected to be fathers. The family unit is the very basis of society.

I think you have a right to your opinion, but this is a grim pragmatic decision best left to cold Malthusian decision makers rather than people with idealistic visions of caring fathers for every child.

Should we murder unborn humans if they happen to not have a father in the household?

They have powerful primitive religious factions that demand bizarre cult practices to prove they are in charge? Northern Ireland suffers from strong religious factionalism that has seen much bloodshed that horrified more civilised countries.

Perhaps it is that same past bloodshed that make sure us actually value life more than you.

Its not an obsession, its a cold calculation.

Its not, you're completely disregarding the fact that it is the father's child just as much as the mother's.

Practical experience will show you that in the vast majority of cases the children definitely belong to the mother more than the father.

But it isn't 'the rule' per se that it is always 'the mother's'. A child is a mutual and equal offspring of two people in a relationship.

Nonsense. You're making a sweeping and derogatory mischaracterisation of thousands of women. The women I know who have had abortions experience pain and guilt as a result even when it was indubitably ethically justified.

How exactly, is the termination of a healthy foetus justified?

Not if the test is "does the mother want it?".

It's not the mother's choice to make. She made that choice to have a child when she made the decision to get pregnant.

...and you have it. I'm surprised you welcome a society characterised by bigot murderous violence and poverty. Most citizens aspire to a peaceful prosperous life.

Are seriously suggesting our abortion laws are the root of societal problems in Northern Ireland???

No its a grim pragmatic policy, one that works. You can cry about it but try not to interfere with policies that save your society. As mentioned Northern Ireland benefits from the rest of the British Isle's more civilised approach to abortion. If everyone was as backward as the tools in Stormont your country would be even worse.

It wouldn't help if you didn't ad hominem every single pro-life advocate as 'backwards' 'bigoted' or 'uncivilised'.

Last I checked the rest of the British Isles is having its own problems with newfound Islamic terror attacks, and the displacement of the working classes.

Originally Posted by Himster

Norn Iron is an anomaly in almost every way imaginable. Visiting is like like visiting Amish country in Pennsylvania, except the puritans are more likely to froth at the mouth in one of those places.

No, it really isn't.

Then we have the popular views in Norn Iron: hatred of gays, a nearly erotic fetishization of imperialism, the election of terrorists and bigots to political positions (having no alternatives), the continued celebration and entrenchment of sectarianism, widespread racism and xenophobia.

Anti-gay marriage is not the same as hatred of gays, remotely.

Unionism is not in any way imperialism.

Im not sure why sectarianism, racism, and xenophobia is relevant to abortion.

While it is generally improving on all counts, especially in urban areas, it must be admitted that Norn Iron is still far behind every other western country.

So, in other words, we're not 'progressive' enough, and we have to step into line like everyone else? No, we have our own semi-devolved sovereignty, and will use it.

Women having sovereignty over their own bodies is progress, yes.

It's not their body, it's not their choice. What choice does the child have? A foetus is not simply a body part, either, so I don't get the 'my body my choice' thing at all.

It is 100% the woman's body.

Well actually it's a separate individual life that is 50% her genes and 50% the father's, but go on.

Consent and self sovereignty is so instantiated in western culture that even a corpse needs to consent to having its life saving organs removed in the form of an organ donor card.

So why doesn't the foetus get to give consent.

It can't be restricted or extended. Such as extending it to a mass genocidal crisis worthy of international news concerning every cum soaked sock.

A single sperm cell is not a human, this a strawman.

Should we have a funeral every time a zygote fails to attach itself to the uterine wall? An event which happens to to 75% of all fertilized ova.

Well, the only reason we don't consider it a miscarriage is pretty much because we aren't aware of it most of the time.

I don't think the "restriction" is a restriction. an embryo before the 9th-12th week lacks an independent metabolism, an essential criteria for determining life. A blurry line, to be sure. But far more meaningful than the arbitrary magical moments of fertilization or vaginal crowning.

It has all the information necessary to grow an adult human, thus, is human itself. It is a stage of growth, just like infancy or puberty. Is an infant not fully human too?

It's still not the man's body.

Wow.
What's it like living in the 1930s? Hey, watch out for the Adolf Hitler: He's a bad egg.

I never said it was the man's body. The only 'body' here, is the unborn one.

I'm just making the point that men have a hell of a lot more than their sperm to contribute to a child's upbringing.

The only western country where this is the case is Ireland, and that's almost certainly about about to change in a few weeks. We're just kinda slow, punctuality is the thief of time after all.

The Irish Republic, by definition is a foreign country.

We exercise eugenics through sexual selection too you know. But yes, this is an excellent point.

Yea, sexual preference absolutely is an example of natural selection, but the artificial termination of those who we consider 'imperfect' is wrong.

It saved nothing. It merely forced thousands of women the traumatic experience and cost of travelling to Britain or the Continent for the procedure, making it not just a gender issue, but also a class issue. Increasing single motherhood, with the associated increased crime rates and crippling fiscal costs onto the already fiscally deprived, with further increases to the already unbridgeable socio-economic divide between lower and upper classes.

Thats a cultural issue. The solution is not killing babies. And it has saved 1000s of people who would otherwise be dead.

Legalising abortion puts pressure on young women to abort their child. Where has the positive image of family gone too? What happened to settling down and having a family. Or are people so self centred they value a career more than children. I find that incredibly immoral, and a breakdown of society in of itself.

Should people not have to live with the consequences of their actions? Such as, unprotected sex they know full well could very likely get them pregnant.

**Katsumoto** · May 04, 2018, 12:25 PM

Women are always going to abort pregnancies they do not want. Whether it's because they were raped or simply cannot look after a child, it will happen, and the best and moral thing to do is to provide women with a safe and accessible way of doing so. The issue I see with the abortion debate is that the interest and care for the foetus by the 'pro-life' side tends to stop at birth. After which the live child and their mother can fend for themselves, apparently. You don't want a woman to abort her pregnancy, but are you willing to provide more benefits for single mothers? Subsidized housing? Adequate maternity leave? What about accessible birth control and proper sex education? The people that tend to be staunchly against abortion also don't tend to be the people that advocate such things.

**Aexodus** · May 04, 2018, 01:10 PM

I'm all for sex education, but I'm also all for people taking care of themselves, without resorting to aborting babies.

**basics** · May 04, 2018, 02:04 PM

When Jesus made the statement that we were/are conceived in sin He was laying down that at conception life begins, sinful life but nonetheless actual life. I used to think that life began when a baby took its first breathe separate from its mother and I only changed my tune when I read of what happens to a fetus when abortion takes place. The descriptions turned my stomach so much as to convince me that I was wrong, so wrong. That fetus is not a tumour or any suchlike to be medically extracted from a mother sometimes, perhaps most times, in bits and pieces to be harvested for the good parts whilst the rest is flung in a bin. It's monstrous and if every women was shown pictures of what they were delivering themselves up for perhaps most would not abort their fetus.

**Iskar** · May 04, 2018, 02:25 PM

At what point of time does the abortable fetus become a human being the killing of which would be murder?

**Aexodus** · May 04, 2018, 02:43 PM

It is human from conception. The embryo is the first stages of life. Abortion is always murder. Why do the 'rights' of the woman to an abortion (which I do not consider a human right at all) trump the right to life of genetically distinct organism that is her child.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei(the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

Life is a continuous process of growth and change, with many stages. The embryo, and fetus are no different to any other in terms of the right to life, to not be killed needlessly.

Abortion when the mother's life is endangered is justified, absolutely! But abortion simply on demand, just because it is inconvenient to the mother, I find abhorrent.

In England, anyone who wants an abortion gets one. They have never refused an abortion to a woman. That's not the kind of society that a great many people want to live in.

**Cope** · May 04, 2018, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Iskar

At what point of time does the abortable fetus become a human being the killing of which would be murder?

"The Church of England combines principled opposition to abortion with a recognition thatthere can be strictly limited conditions under which it may be morally preferable to anyavailable alternative. This is based on our view that the foetus is a human life with thepotential to develop relationships, think, pray, choose and love.Women facing unwanted pregnancies realise the gravity of the decision they face: allabortions are tragedies, since they entail judging one individual’s welfare against that ofanother (even if one is, as yet, unborn).Every possible support, especially by church members, needs to be given to those who arepregnant in difficult circumstances and care, support and compassion must be shown to all,whether or not they continue with their pregnancy."

General Synod 2017.

**Aexodus** · May 04, 2018, 03:35 PM

That doesn't answer the question^

**Cope** · May 04, 2018, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Aexodus

That doesn't answer the question^

Yes it does.

The Church rejects abortion (with limited exceptions) but will not condemn those who choose not to continue their pregnancies as murderers. On the contrary it asserts that they should be treated with support and compassion. Whilst you could make the argument that the Church would tend to apply similar logic to all people, the general implication of the statement is that there isn't a "point of time" during the pregnancy at which abortion becomes tantamount to murder.

**Aexodus** · May 04, 2018, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Yes it does.

The Church rejects abortion (with limited exceptions) but will not condemn those who choose not to continue their pregnancies as murderers. On the contrary it asserts that they should be treated with support and compassion. Whilst you could make the argument that the Church would tend to apply similar logic to all people, the general implication of the statement is that there isn't a "point of time" during the pregnancy at which abortion becomes tantamount to murder.

So right up until the birth itself? Just to clarify, are you ok with that? Right up til the very day of birth, if there is indeed no 'point of time'.

Is it it even possible to define this, beyond the stage of fertilisation?

**Cope** · May 04, 2018, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Aexodus

So right up until the birth itself? Just to clarify, are you ok with that? Right up til the very day of birth, if there is indeed no 'point of time'.

Is it it even possible to define this, beyond the stage of fertilisation?

Aexodus, I'm a Christian. I believe that life begins at the point of conception. But like the Church, I simply shall not categorize would-be parents as "murderers" for choosing to have an abortion. It would be grotesque to classify millions of decent people alongside society's worst offenders. That's why when Iskar asked "At what point of time does the abortable fetus become a human being the killing of which would be murder?" I rejected the implication that there must be a point at which abortion becomes murder.

**Elfdude** · May 04, 2018, 06:41 PM

Honestly from a medical perspective we rarely consider the baby in any level before the first 3 months. The frequency of genetic instability, placental detatchment, thyroid/hormal imbalance, diabetic complications, uterine abnormalities, cervical abortion, drug & alcohol & diet abortion, blood disorders and immunological dysfunctions means that honestly I would not be surprised if we were to do a very thorough conception study we'd find well over half or more "humans" are aborted due to natural causes. Beyond that, the medical definition is when a fetus can survive unassisted out of the uterus. In general the 50/50 mark is at about 5 months whereas a baby born 3 months premature has a 50/50 chance of survival. At that point medicine considers them worthy of rights.

Regardless I don't really consider fetuses babies, I don't believe in a soul or any nonsense like that. A mass of cells is a mass of cells and while I do consider life sacred I would never subject someone to parenthood who is not capable of doing so, nor would I subject a baby to adoption or an orphanage who does not need to be. Terrible things happen when you outlaw abortion. Terrible things happen when you outlaw contraception. It is not a good practice and we have ample experience to know that legal abortions no matter your ethical objections to an abortion are still better than the ethical issues which arise with outlawed abortions. I would not say the supreme court by today's definition was particularly liberal in Roe Vs Wade, they didn't have to be, the truth was that compelling.

Why do I not think it's a moral issue to kill a fetus? You can produce thousands of fetuses each of which could become a human, the responsibility of taking care of that human and cultivating a human is far more important than the potential of a mass of cells to become a human. I see waaaaay too many people who have children who shouldn't ever be allowed to come within 100 feet of a child working in fertility and pediatrics. Adoption is not an easy process and the life which those who aren't adopted have to look forward to is outright abuse. Forcing someone into that life because of your ideological hang ups is silly. Unless you're willing to take responsibility and open your home up to those children who need a home and offer them the care and love they deserve, I'm sorry but your opinion is little more than hot air from someone who clearly has no understanding or conception of what morality actually is.

**Prodromos** · May 04, 2018, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Muizer

The reason we have laws at all is that by collectively deciding to uphold them, we protect ourselves. It's an insurance policy, if you will. If someone robs you, others will denounce them not because it is written somewhere, but because they would want you to do the same for them. Now the codification certainly helps to apply the rules, but it doesn't abstract them from their origins. So, regarding abortion, it may be codified that killing a person is bad and that may lead to a biological debate about when a foetus becomes a human being, but that's a wild goose chase. The question is, whether you have a stake in its fate the same way I described above concerning robbery. That stake is what justifies interference in the lives of others. What's your stake in some anonymous foetus? Could it be you next time?

You're proceeding from the assumption that no one morally opposes harming other people, and that the only reason we advocate against it is for selfish/pragmatic reasons; namely, in order to minimize the chance of it happening to us in the future. I think that's a pretty baseless belief. You presumably oppose enslaving or massacring people for belonging to a different ethnicity than you. What "stake" do you have in it, since if it were legal and socially tolerated to enslave Japanese people, you still wouldn't be affected by it?

The moral argument is:

Premise 1: All human beings have rights
Premise 2: Unborn babies are human beings
Conclusion: Unborn babies have rights

Premise 1: It is morally wrong to violate the rights of human beings
Premise 2: Unborn babies are human beings
Conclusion: It is morally wrong to violate the rights of unborn babies

Even from a self-centered point of view, however, abortion is still problematic, although this argument is weaker somewhat. Being a live human being is the sole requirement to have human rights. If we believe that humanity alone isn't sufficient to have human rights, and that human beings can be denied rights due to other factors such as size, development, intelligence, popularity, gender, ethnicity, nationality, and so on, that opens a can of worms with potentially destructive consequences for humanity and likely you personally, eventually. Today, only born people have rights. Tomorrow, only net taxpayers have rights, or only healthy people, or only debt-free people.

3:33 - 7:05

21:03

Originally Posted by Himster

This view is evidently becoming more and more obsolete in developed countries.

Being pro-life is hardly going out of style. The younger generations are more pro-life than the older ones. The demographics of the movement is rapidly becoming younger and more politically and culturally diverse. If you aim to be on the right side of history, you should oppose abortion. If current trends hold, future generations will view us as barbarians for allowing abortion, in much the same way we view the ancients for engaging in slavery, infanticide, and human sacrifice.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post blog “The Fix” featured an article by Eugene Scott highlighting gains in pro-life sentiment among young adults. Scott cites a January 2017 Quinnipiac poll, which found that 18-to-34-year-olds were more likely than other age demographics to support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation. This opposition to abortion among Millennials led Scott to conclude that, 45 years after the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, the “culture battle over abortion is not over.” He added that some of the pressure to end legal abortion “will come from Millennial voters.”

These gains in pro-life sentiment among young people are even more interesting than many realize. During the 1970s and early 1980s, there was a significant generation gap in abortion attitudes. The elderly were considerably more likely to oppose legalized abortion than were young people. In fact, these disparities caused some political analysts to doubt the long-term viability of the pro-life movement. But in fact, the current generation of young adults is far more skeptical about abortion than were their predecessors.

The Quinnipiac poll Scott cites is far from an outlier. Two separate polls taken in the summer of 2013 by National Journal and Rasmussen both showed that young adults were more likely than other age demographics to support a 20-week abortion ban. Similarly, recent polling has shown that young adults are more likely than other age demographics to support the Department of Justice investigation of Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, polls taken of New York residents by the Chiaroscuro Foundation found that adults under age 40 were more likely to support a range of incremental pro-life laws, including waiting periods and parental-involvement laws.

The most compelling evidence about the shift in abortion attitudes among Millennials, though, comes from the General Social Survey (GSS), which is released every two years and is widely used by public-opinion scholars. The GSS has asked the same six questions on abortion since the early 1970s. It asks whether abortion should be legal option if 1) the woman is raped, 2) there is a strong chance of a fetal defect, 3) the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s health, 4) the woman is low-income, 5) the woman is unmarried and does not want to marry the man, and 6) the woman is married and does not want more children.

During the 1970s and 1980s, young adults were more likely than other demographics to think abortion should be a legal option in each of these circumstances. Starting around 2000, though, there was a significant shift in the attitudes of young adults. The GSS surveys taken after 2000 consistently show that young adults are actually the age demographic most likely to oppose abortion as a legal option in nearly all of these circumstances.

Despite recent setbacks, however, the demographic outlook for the pro-life movement looks anything but bleak. On issues from race to sexuality to drug law, Americans are used to seeing each new generation become more progressive than their parents; with abortion, it’s not happening: In a 2015 Public Religion Research Institute survey, 52 percent of millennials said the label “pro-life” describes them somewhat or very well, a number that roughly mirrors the general population. A 2013 poll showed that 52 percent of people aged 18 to 29 favored bans on abortion after 20 weeks, compared with 48 percent overall. Pro-choice activists now worry about the “intensity gap” among young people: A poll commissioned by NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2010 found that 51 percent of anti-abortion voters younger than 30 considered the issue “very important,” but for pro-choice voters the same age, only 26 percent said the same.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-young-people/

Originally Posted by Muizer

I would rather say that concluding aborting a cluster of cells is murder is a case of 'reductio ad absurdum' demonstrating the falsehood of its premise.

From an irreligious perspective, isn't every human being simply a cluster of cells or matter? Do you believe that when a cluster of cells forms a particular shape, it becomes "sacred" somehow? Do you believe a being composed of five cells lacks intrinsic value, but as soon as it becomes composed of six cells it magically gains intrinsic value? Is this really scientific?

The weakness in your argument is that this 'morality' seemingly comes from nowhere. The problem with having no foundation for this principle apart from "that's just how it is", is that you're not equiped to deal with unforeseen situations like the ones that medical science presents to ethics.

All morality beliefs are ultimately religious beliefs. It's incoherent to ask for a non-religious basis for morality (or law, since all laws exist to promote good and minimize evil). That said, the pro-life movement has plenty of adherents on the secular side, whose pro-life views are based on humanism or human rights advocacy, feminism, racial justice, and similar non-religious ideologies. This is especially true for young people.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/cover_story/2016/10/the_future_of_the_pro_life_movement.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Elfdude** · May 04, 2018, 07:30 PM