Why are religious people more likely to be against abortion?

Tim Robbins

Many atheists are against abortion but a much higher percentage of religious people are. Why is this?

It cannot be objectified when life begins - you can argue all night whether it conception, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 8 months - whenever... but you won't reach an objective answer.

Jesus was not clear when it began, either is the Bible. So why do some of them go so crazy about it? Like they invest a lot of time / money resisting all forms of it. Whereas an atheist against abortion is more likely to just be against is themselves but not invest much time / money trying to stop other people having one.

I think this resistance is because the religious associate abortion with an irreligious lifestyle, with casual sex and basically things they spend their lifes not giving into. They reject the proliferation of this lifestyle under all circumstances because it challenges their own - something that deep down they are insecure about.

It is a bit like they way they reject divorce, gay marriage even those these things make no difference to them - it challenges the irrational lifestyles that they do want to realise is nothing more than that - irrational.

So that's why they go mad about it?

Dades

Religion is all about taking away tricky decisions, therefore it states that a soul is created at conception. It either happens there (safe), at birth (unworkable), or at an arbitrarily set date like abortion limits (vague). And when a soul is the same as a person that's what you're left with.

Also, religion is obsessed with sex and people's bodies.

DB21

Because:

old hippy

I guess it's the incest thing. Mary got knocked up by the God fella, who is also Jesus and gave birth to ... Jesus. That's enough to mess up anyone's outlook

Seriously, though? Haven't a clue. I just wish they'd stay out of other people's business. If they are against it, fine - don't have an abortion but for the rest of us; don't force their doctrine where it's not appreciated.

Sarky

Don't forget the whole Adam & Eve thing. Eve was made out of Adam, so they were pretty much siblings. And who did their children have to shag to populate the world? Each other, that's who.

I suspect there's a whole lot of embarrassment and shame going on with that story. It's only natural it would filter down to people who actually did exist.

Real Life

I find that most religious people are also very right wing in their views and dont like people to have the option to make their own choices.
this goes for abortion, drugs and sexuality in particular.

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

And who did their children have to shag to populate the world? Each other, that's who.

I thought they just had two kids and they were both male?

General Relativity

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought they just had two kids and they were both male?

Probably started with the two named sons but someone noticed the plot hole and filled it in;

Genesis 5:4; After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

Morag

It depends on the religion mine has no say on the topic what so ever and in terms of the Roman Catholic Church, well they had very varied takes on it until the start of the 1900s.

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought they just had two kids and they were both male?

Well, at least they were married!

...uh, let me get back to you on that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Many atheists are against abortion but a much higher percentage of religious people are. Why is this?

I don't have an answer, just a suggestion that there's two questions buried in there (although I know you've specified your question to be about religious people).

I think one question is to try and account for why a lot of religious doctrines include taboos around certain things, such as abortion, extra-marital sex or charging interest on loans.

The other thing is to account for why, out of all the things that religious doctrines comment on, do religious people seem more motivated by campaigns against abortion than campaigns for interest-free loans.

I can't account for either. I was going to try, but my head started hurting. Flex going to lie down now, and sleep it off.

Dades wrote: »

Also, religion is obsessed with sex and people's bodies.

I'd never though of Hustler as a religious publication. This Internet is great, Ted.

Peregrinus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Many atheists are against abortion but a much higher percentage of religious people are. Why is this? . . .

I think this resistance is because the religious associate abortion with an irreligious lifestyle, with casual sex and basically things they spend their lifes not giving into. They reject the proliferation of this lifestyle under all circumstances because it challenges their own - something that deep down they are insecure about.

This may possibly explain the vehemence with which some religious people express themselves on this issue.

On the other hand, it’s very easy to turn this explanation around and suggest, with equal justification, that those who feel strongly pro-choice do so because that is consistent with a lifestyle which they feel strongly motivated to affirm.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It cannot be objectified when life begins - you can argue all night whether it conception, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 8 months - whenever... but you won't reach an objective answer.

No offence, but this is tripe. The question of when life begins has an answer which is both objective and well-established. Life is present from conception until death; ask any biologist, doctor, veterinary surgeon, geneticist or other appropriately qualified scientist.

And, not to be personal or anything, if a pro-choice advocate can reason from such a patently untrue premise as yours, and in eleven posts in a thread on the “Atheist and Agnostic” discussion board nobody has picked him up on this, it’s fairly clear that on this subject irrationality is not confined to one side!

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

...

No offence, but this is tripe. The question of when life begins has an answer which is both objective and well-established. Life is present from conception until death; ask any biologist, doctor, veterinary surgeon, geneticist or other appropriately qualified scientist.

...

I'm not trying to state here one way or the other when human life begins (don't want to drag another thread off-topic!), I just want to point out that the issue is controversial, and heavily debated, by laypeople and specialists alike. The answer you will get depends on who you ask; opinion is divided on the matter. Hence, it is neither objective nor well-established.

A quote (from the article below) from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine illustrates the point: "Unfortunately nature and science are messy and defy attempts to create human categories."

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/

Sarky

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that sperm and eggs are also alive, Perry (Can I call you Perry? Awesome.). But I don't think you want to get into that argument. You won't like it.

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

Don't forget the whole Adam & Eve thing. Eve was made out of Adam

And the good book opens with holygod essentially telling Adam to go f**k himself. And it all went downhill from there...

Peregrinus

Sarky wrote: »

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that sperm and eggs are also alive, Perry (Can I call you Perry? Awesome.).

Certainly, you can call me Perry. I've been called a great deal worse!

I'm aware that sperm and eggs are alive, Sarky, and I haven't said anything to suggest otherwise. I don't see that this fact does anything to validate Tim's position; rather the reverse, I would have thought.

Sarky wrote: »

But I don't think you want to get into that argument. You won't like it.

I love an argument. But why would we argue about this? We're in agreement.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

I'm not trying to state here one way or the other when human life begins (don't want to drag another thread off-topic!), I just want to point out that the issue is controversial, and heavily debated, by laypeople and specialists alike. The answer you will get depends on who you ask; opinion is divided on the matter. Hence, it is neither objective nor well-established.

The issue is not controversial at all. Life is present at all points from conception until death. If you can find anyone with any credibility who suggests otherwise, now would be a good time to link to him.

What is controversial is the extent to which the reality of that life gives rise to a moral claim upon us, and I agree that many people have very vehement feelings about this, to the point of irrationality. I don't see, though, that this is all on one side of the question.

And Tim's post illustrates my point very neatly. Tim proceeds from the (implicit) premise that in at least the early stages of pregnancy the life present may not have a a claim on our protection to an inference that, if it has no such claim, it isn't present at all. However you cut it, that's unwarranted, irrational and flatly contradicted by the well-established scientific facts.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is not controversial at all. Life is present at all points from conception until death. If you can find anyone with any credibility who suggests otherwise, now would be a good time to link to him.

........

You didn't like my earlier link to the CNN story quoting all them scientist fellas and how they argue about it?

From rationalwiki

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

There is consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception. There isn't even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there's consensus.

It is a debated issue. Scientists argue about it, and stuff. Can you provide a link to support your assertion of scientific unanimity on the point?

nagirrac

First of all for context I am pro-choice for the specific reasons that the Supreme court ruled in Roe vs. Wade i.e. a woman's rights supercede the rights of a developing foetus. In the absense of this ruling abortion could be declared illlegal in the case where an expectant mother's life is endangered. The question I like to pose my pro-life male acquaintences is "if your wife were dying in front of your eyes would you want the doctor's hands tied by a legal constraint on abortion".
The issue obviously goes much further than this. No woman should be forced to carry a child that was forced on her through rape or due to an unplanned pregnancy, what nonsense to suggest she should. Where it gets more difficult for me and I am sure for others is when the pregancy has progressed for 3 - 4 months and the decision is a "I can't handle a baby" one. I think society should have some support mechanism in place for these cases where the decision often is a lonely and heartbreaking one for the person involved.
As for the original question, I think its quite simple. People with a religious faith generally do not feel they have the right to make that decision.

endacl

nagirrac wrote: »

As for the original question, I think its quite simple. People with a religious faith generally do not feel they have the right to make that decision.

That's one explanation all right. Or have they conveniently abdicated the responsibility of considering the question?

Life's always easier when your dad takes the tough decisions for you.

Chuck Stone

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, but this is tripe. The question of when life begins has an answer which is both objective and well-established.

Life, oh life, oh life, oh life doo,
doot doot dooo. Life, oh life,
oh life doo, doot dooo.

Anyhoo, surely objection to abortion/limits should be based on the potential suffering of the fetus rather than whether it's alive? Consequently shouldn't the potential suffering of the Mother/parents be balanced against the suffering of the fetus?

Take a rape victim who becomes pregnant from the rape; rationally, wouldn't the level of suffering she will experience going through with the pregnancy greatly out-weigh the level of suffering of a two day old embryo making a termination, if desired, a no-brainer?

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

You didn't like my earlier link to the CNN story quoting all them scientist fellas and how they argue about it?

If I like it, it’s because it backs me up. Nobody in that article suggests that a fertilized egg is not alive. They disagree, not over the biological question of life, but over the philosophical question of personhood.

Some of them discuss whether it is a “human being”, to which I make two points. First, in his OP Tom didn’t mention human life; he just mentioned life. He talked about when life begins. I still don’t think there is any uncertainty or controversy whatsoever about that question.

Secondly, the “human” language is problematic in this context, because the term has more than one meaning. From a purely scientific point of view, is the fertilized ovum of the human species “human”? Yes, of course it is. It’s not canine, it’s not equine, it’s not feline; it’s human. And this can be objectively demonstrated with a microscope and a basic knowledge of cellular biology.

But to say this is not saying very much. The fertilized ovum is scientifically human in the same sense as, say, a fingernail clipping is scientifically human. But whether the uncontroverted scientific fact of biological humanity plus the uncontroverted scientific fact of life are together sufficient to create a claim on the part of the fertilized ovum to any kind of respect, protection or what have you from the rest of us is not a scientific question at all; it’s a moral (or philosophical, or ethical) question. Scientists may of course have views on the question, but I don’t see that their views carry any particular authority. And, yes, scientist have different views on this question, but that doesn’t make their disagreement a “scientific dispute”, any more than a disagreement among scientists over whether Pride and Prejudice or Emma were the better Jane Austen novel would be a scientific disagreement.

Arguments over whether the foetus is “human”, or has “human life” can obscure this important distinction. You’ll notice that the scientists in your article don’t actually deny that a foetus has (or is) human life; they talk about “meaningful, valuable human life”, which is (a) obviously a subset of human life; it implies the existence of human life which is neither meaningful nor valuable, and (b) is clearly making a philosophical, not a scientific point - you cannot scientifically, empirically demonstrate “meaning” or “value”.

Likewise your Wiki link immediately qualifies it’s discussion of “life” to refer to “the life of an individual human being”. But this too is to embark on a philosophical question. Granted that the fertilized human ovum is human, and it is (genetically) an individual (i.e. it is genetically distinct from both its father and its mother), is it a “human being”? “Being” isn’t a concept that scientists employ or define, I think. In order to be regarded as a “being”, does a thing have to do anything other than, you know, just be? Is there a scientific answer to that question? I think not.

Others in the article are quoted as talking about “personhood”, which again is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. And, on the whole, I think this is the better terminology, since it avoids the ambiguous term “human”, and clarifies that the point under discussion is a moral/ethical/philosophical one, not a scientific one.

(Fortunately for me, Tim doesn’t mention humanity anywhere in his post. He just talks about “life”, and that’s unquestionably a scientific issue over which, I still think, there is no dispute.)

pauldla wrote: »

It is a debated issue. Scientists argue about it, and stuff. Can you provide a link to support your assertion of scientific unanimity on the point?

Well, unanimity is kind of hard to prove. But the opposite would be very easy for you to prove. Find me one link to a reputable scientist who says that the fertilized ovum is not alive, as opposed to not a person, or not a human being, or not a meaningful, valuable human life, or not within any other morally-defined category, and I’ll buy you a pint and a chaser and give you the change. And if you are unable to find such a link, would you concede that that points strongly towards unanimity?

gbee

Sarky wrote: »

Don't forget the whole Adam & Eve thing.

Study genetics. The concept of Adam & Eve as our parents is replicated in DNA where a female marker appears and some thousands of years later a male marker appears, now on earth today, out of twelve or more lines of humanoids, only those with the 'Eve' and 'Adam' markers are alive.

gbee

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, but this is tripe. The question of when life begins has an answer which is both objective and well-established.

Now, you know this is not true.

Studies are examining the possible equation of life to cells as they react in a 'lifelike' manner.

All growing cells in all things born on this world react the same way, be that an ant, an antelope, a rattlesnake, an elephant, a chimpanzee a virus or a human.

Peregrinus

gbee wrote: »

Now, you know this is not true.

Studies are examining the possible equation of life to cells as they react in a 'lifelike' manner.

All growing cells in all things born on this world react the same way, be that an ant, an antelope, a rattlesnake, an elephant, a chimpanzee a virus or a human.

Yes, cells are alive (at the very least, because they can die). That's my point.

sbsquarepants

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Many atheists are against abortion but a much higher percentage of religious people are. Why is this?

You hardly need me to point this out to you Tim - they're kinda against everything!

I'm no cheerleader for abortion myself, but i think it's a neccesary evil in certain cases. I also think the best way to reduce the amount of it going on, which lets face it is in everybodys interest, is through education and access to contraception - both of which the holy joes also have problems with it! :mad:
Lets face facts, the keep your legs shut till your married and then never shut them again approach just doesn't work, it never did and particularly not now that science has rendered it completely unnecessary. Somethings got to give.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Many atheists are against abortion but a much higher percentage of religious people are. Why is this?

I think this resistance is because the religious associate abortion with an irreligious lifestyle, with casual sex and basically things they spend their lifes not giving into.

The problem I feel is that there is no one or two answers to this. You are going to hear a lot of answers, such as the good one you yourself gave in the OP, but also other good ones such as abortion means you are interfeering in "Gods plan" or "playing god".

But there are many more and the answer to the question you seek is likely to be an amalgamation of all of them, and unless you accept that your question is likely never going to be answered.

But yes your first answer is a good one. Similar to the Creationism/Evolution debate much of the bad feeling is caused by people who see the object of the debate.... be it Evolution or abortion.... as being related to, or even the foundation of.... irreligious lifestyles and evil. Images like these and these populate the media attempting to promote such propaganda in the minds of religious people. They purposefully draw lines in the sand that say "If you support abortion/Evolution then make no mistake, you are against us and on the side of Satan".

Ellis Dee

Why are religious people more likely to be against anything?;)

It's probably because they unquestioningly put their faith in something that can not be tested or proved and have little or no time for reason. Because they blindly accept whatever they think some invisible and undetectable being wants them to and refuse even to consider any argument to the contrary.:)

It might also be that they are not as secure in their faith as they like to project to the world. Like closet case gays, they doubt themselves and want to harness the laws of the land to ward off the temptations to which they subconsciously fear they might otherwise succumb.:D

gbee

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, cells are alive (at the very least, because they can die). That's my point.

I think your point transcends this, to put it bluntly, if so, I'm committing murder if I squat a fly.

sbsquarepants

gbee wrote: »

Study genetics. The concept of Adam & Eve as our parents is replicated in DNA where a female marker appears and some thousands of years later a male marker appears, now on earth today, out of twelve or more lines of humanoids, only those with the 'Eve' and 'Adam' markers are alive.

I'm not sure if i follow you here. The Adam and Eve story doesn't involve Eve putting it about about for thousands of years, churning out kids before the arrival of Adam?

gbee

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not sure if i follow you here. The Adam and Eve story doesn't involve Eve putting it about about for thousands of years, churning out kids before the arrival of Adam?

My take in brief as I've posted it many times. We have a DNA history, we are descendant from two individuals through DNA not sex ~ though that act would have transported the DNA, Eve and Adam never had sex together and lived thousands of years apart.

Say around 10,000 years ago a passing alien sees humanoids developing nicely and decided to visit. He or she finds great potential but they are childlike with relatively little cognitive development.

He tells them their life story of how the world was made and how they arrived at this now unique spot and leaves them a book which they cannot read yet.

Jump forward and we have the Bible, written in simple childish phrases, at it's most basic it's a history book ~ however our story takes many turns as various religions step in realising that great power over the masses can be imposed through various Interpretation and translations ~