“Atheist pro-lifer”? Not an oxymoron

[rug]

David Gibson | Jan 24, 2013

Rather, it is a thing, as Catholic World Report explains:

Kelsey Hazzard is a 24-year-old, pro-life University of Miami alumna and recent graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law. She was raised in the United Methodist Church, but as an adult began having doubts about God.

“I took a break from religion for a while, and soon realized that it had no impact whatsoever on my morals,” she said. She now describes herself as an “apatheist,” meaning she does not care whether God exists or not, although she says she finds God’s existence “highly unlikely.”

“I was pro-life the instant I learned what abortion was,” said Hazzard, who is a legal fellow at Americans United for Life. “But my position became much stronger in college, when I took a course on prenatal development.”

In 2009, Hazzard founded Secular ProLife (SPL), a group whose vision is “a world in which abortion is unthinkable, for people of every faith and no faith.” Hazzard, SPL’s president, created the group in part to attract non-religious people to the pro-life movement.

http://davidgibson.religionnews.com/2013/01/24/atheist-pro-lifer-not-an-oxymoron/

http://secularprolife.org/index.php

[cbayer]

1. This should come as no surprise.

While the deepest roots of the anti-choice movement are religious, people come to similar conclusions based on other factors.

Sorry to see it, but not surprised.

[rug]

3. They received some interesting reactions.

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/03/atheists-dont-believe-in-us.html

[cbayer]

5. No true scotsman!

Dogma is dogma wherever you find it.

[MADem]

2. She doesn't understand the science of reproduction, apparently.

It requires three elements--an egg, a sperm, and a wiling womb.

Males of our species only have one of those three, women have the other two.

Majority rules.

I think she's a tethered goat, myself. I don't believe a word she says about her POV or motives.

[rug]

4. There's no willing womb involved in a pregnancy that's the result of rape.

[MADem]

7. It doesn't matter what the reason for the pregnancy is. If the woman does not want to be pregnant,

that woman has decided that her womb is not willing.

I would not question a woman who chose (the operative idea being "choice&quot to bring a fetus to term that occurred as a result of rape, any more than I would question a woman who chose to terminate a pregnancy for that, or frankly, any reason.

It's just not my business. It's not anyone's business. It's a personal choice that a woman makes--not me, not any politician.

I always tell people that if they do not care for abortion, they should be sure to not ever get one.

[rug]

8. Then your analogy fails.

You're speaking about gestation.

[MADem]

10. What analogy? I'm am pro-choice, plain and simple. It's not your business and it's not mine.

It doesn't matter how a fetus is conceived--even if it's in vitro--if a woman doesn't want to carry the fetus to term, that is HER CHOICE.

There's no "analogy" there. That's just the way it is.

Not. Our. Business.

If you don't like abortion, don't get one.

[rug]

11. Your analogy about reproduction.

The article really isn't about pro-choice or pro-abortion. What's interesting is this group.

[MADem]

20. It's about an "atheist pro-lifer" who claims that a clump of cells is a human being because

"science" says so.

If those cells were a human being, they wouldn't need a host (aka a "willing womb" made willing by the host providing it).

[rug]

23. This is interesting.

Do you know how ironic this statement is?

It's about an "atheist pro-lifer" who claims that a clump of cells is a human being because "science" says so.

I'l say it again, this thread is not really about abortion. Otherwise I'd ask you at what point do you consider the "clump of cells" to be human.

[MADem]

24. When the clump of cells forms a body and brain and can live outside a host.

But here's the bottom line--it's NOT MY BUSINESS.

It's not yours, either. If a woman does not want to host that clump of cells, that's HER call. There are laws on the books that limit a woman's decision making, but meeting that timeline is HER duty--not mine, not yours.

This thread IS about opposition to abortion--the anti-abortion view of a person who is shopping the POV from a "I'm a cool atheist, kids--and I'm anti-abortion!" perspective. Lando Griffin, plain and simple.

If this woman was just another atheist, she'd fly under the radar. The fact that she is aggressively touting an anti-abortion stance and puts herself at the head of an organization touting that very stance, and that she is trying to play a lame ass "science" card to do it is what makes the thread newsworthy.

It's her stance on the abortion issue, her leadership of an anti-abortion atheist organization, that calls attention to her, not her lack of religiosity alone.

[rug]

25. I noticed you called this classic wedge-driving below.

Do you think atheism is being used to drive wedges on any other issues?

[MADem]

27. I don't know. I do know that a bit of vociferous argument occurred over Obama

choosing, for his inauguration ceremony, a black (church-hopping) laywoman (first ever) who was the widow of a civil rights activist who worked side-by-side with MLK and an activist in her own right to give an invocation, and a pro-gay marriage Hispanic immigrant pastor from the church he attends to give the benediction.

But is that wedge driving? Or just classic DU shit-stirring?

That was a single, solitary event and we won't see one of those for another four years. It will be hard to maintain the outrage on that score.

This little foray, though? This is plainly an "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" deal. It's like the fundies who tell crude and hate-filled Jewish jokes amongst themselves, and then profess their undying support for Israel because they think they need Jews to do their Rapture Thing. The anti-choice people are realizing that they aren't winning their argument by killing doctors, by parading around with fetus pictures, by standing in the way of women seeking services at clinics and hollering invective at them, by pointing a pastor's shaky finger at people and screaming "GAWD IS GONNA GITCHA!!!!" so they're trying this on for size.

Thing is, most of the wingnut fundies on the front lines of the anti-choice wars will have to really swallow hard to partner with this "enemy of my enemy." It's just not their schtick. It's like oil and water.

I do smell organized cash behind this thing. This is not a "grassroots" thing at all--the astroturf is still giving off that plastic stank.

[rug]

31. That was not a one-time thing if you've been following along.

If you think this group is astroturf it's important to produce that evidence.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that there could be an atheist or securlar organization opposed to abortion?

[MADem]

34. Because I have google. This woman is very suddenly everywhere. nt

[Xipe Totec]

29. There is no reproduction without gestation nt

[cbayer]

6. Why is that?

While I don't agree at all with her position, I see nothing to indicate that it's not genuine.

[MADem]

9. Something smells "off" to me.

Her entire "effort" (and it smells like a great deal of effort, too) seems designed to sell an anti-Roe v. Wade attitude to the "kids." See, she's cute, and cool, and an ATHEIST--surely the young hipsters will be swayed, n'est pas?

Reminds me of how Peter Griffin on the Family Guy dressed up as Lando Griffin, cool teenager, and went to high school with his own kids to convince the youth of Quahog to not "do toad," the new and hip drug that was going around.

If "science" tells little Kelsey that the unborn are "human beings" then surely they don't need to be grown for nine months, do they?

See here: http://m.npr.org/news/Health/145642200


Annnnnnnnnd...here she is, authoring a contribution to the "Anti-Obama Blog:"

http://antiobamablog.com/author/bill-saunders-and-kelsey-hazzard/

No agenda there, eh? That is a pretty ugly place on the web, IMO....

I'd love to find out who funds that "Secular Pro-Life" outfit. They have a very sophisticated web site and their focus IS women under 24--and they repeat the "science says" argument, when science says no such thing. They also have a "Hey guys" Facebook page, that's all cool and hip and current.

This isn't one girl with an opinion. This is a highly coordinated effort.

This smells to me like the flip side of the Doctor Shooting Crew.

The "Friendly Atheists" have noticed and have called them on their Faux Science claims: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/25/secular-pro-life-group-responds-to-criticism/


I have pretty good Bullshit Radar. Mine is pinging a mile a minute with this crew.

[cbayer]

13. Oh, she definitely has an agenda.

The organization is listed as a non-profit supported by contributions. I would bet they get support from religious anti-choice groups.

At any rate, there are people who are anti-choice and their position is not based on religion. That I believe. Whether this particular person is that or not is unclear.

The question seems to be is whether other non-believer groups want these people in their tent or not.

[rug]

16. She wouldn't be the first atheist who is anti-Obama.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Of course. Probably the worst political pro-lifer in history was atheist Ceaucescu. Nevertheless,

there is a pretty high correlation between hard-line religious groups and the political pro-life movement.

[2pooped2pop]

14. shouldn't that be atheist anti-choicer? n/t

[rug]

15. If they're advocating repeal as well, yes.

[mr blur]

17. Where does it say that lack of belief in gods requires support for abortion?

[rug]

18. It doesn't. Why you can even be a misogynist xenophobe as well.

[cbayer]

19. Nowhere, but she is meeting some pretty heated resistance from some within the

non-believing organizations she has tried to affiliate with.

I think the point here is that anti-choice positions are almost always attributed to fundamentalist christians and catholics, but those are not the only populations that may hold those views.

[MADem]

21. This is CLASSIC wedge-driving. She wants to appeal to "jaded youth" who adapt a sarcastic,

know-it-all, BTDT attitude towards everything. In comes a godless little hipster to provide a POV that goes against the grain, thus making it "interesting."

Lando Griffin!

[cbayer]

32. You could be right and time will most likely tell.

I tend to take people at face value, which has generally served me well, but not always.

[okasha]

22. I'd settle for a world

in which abortion is never necessary ,except in medical emergencies such as ectopic pregnancy.

[MADem]

26. If the fundies in Congress wouldn't make it difficult and expensive for women

to access birth control, while permitting boner pills without a co-pay, you might get closer to your wish.

[napoleon_in_rags]

28. A moment of Devil's advocacy:

At the personal level, I really appreciate birth control and choice. I'm not in any situation to be having kids, and I'm pretty glad I don't. I'm really grateful for those options being there.

But then, there is that cold, rational, scientific side of me that stands back and looks at the entirety of things, and realises that there are hard economic circumstances where birth control and abortion pretty much ensure that those smart enough to use them don't pass on their genes. While intelligence isn't entirely genetic, it plays some role. And nurture clearly plays a larger and more important role: pro-life parent who have lots of kids will pass on those values to their kids, increasing their numbers. Could we be headed for a world where the only people in the gene pool are those who believe they shouldn't use birth control because an angry sky man tells them its a sin?

I suppose its a possibility.

So forgive me, but in some ways I can relate to a pro-life agenda: I would like to see people who are smart enough to practice family planning pass on their genes and values to children like them, even in these tough times where its hard to see how children could be supported.

PEace.

[tama]

30. If current trends continue

US is becoming populated mostly by Amish, not in so distant future. Not good news for MIC, if you look for positives.

And if intelligence has something to do with ability of evolutionary adaptation, Amish ain't doing so bad.

[napoleon_in_rags]

43. Man, I should have gone Amish. Its all about the beards. nt

[cbayer]

33. I can't for the life of me figure out how you see a pro-life agenda

leading to smarter people having more children. If anything, it is that agenda that keeps poorer, less educated (though not necessarily less intelligent) people from obtaining appropriate family planning and having more children.

Smart, educated people with incomes will always have access to pretty much whatever they want.

[napoleon_in_rags]

36. Its honestly more of a hypothetical question.

I'm pro choice. My partner and I have chosen not to have kids, simply because we don't make much, and we couldn't really offer them the kind of life we would want kids to have.

Now I believe the numbers of the status quo support what you're saying: Planned families result in more successful kids, because the parents can choose the right time to have kids. But my question is about a hypothetical darker time in the future, where something like a resource crunch returns us to darker days: like imagine a time with a 50% child mortality rate. Would we compassionate liberals have the emotional tenacity to keep popping out kids in a scenario where we would watch half of them would die? Its a grim scenario to imagine, but happens in nature, and those creatures make it through are those which have offspring regardless of the mortality rate.

Its a significant question because the literature I see seems to suggest a strong link between the political beliefs of children and parents. What I'm wondering is could there be scenarios in which a low liberal birth rate combined the propensity of children to follow what their parents belief actually result in the extinction of liberal social tendencies?

Its a hypothetical question, totally detached from current realities...And it may have no bearing on anything. Perhaps those who embrace reason and planning, family or otherwise, will simply never face such tragic times, having seen them coming from a distance and taken appropriate measures.

[cbayer]

38. Good points, but I doubt you mean to suggest that abortion be outlawed

as an answer to the scenario you propose.

My reading (abstract only) of the linked article would indicate that people's political affiliations are initially correlated with parental affiliations, but that they are malleable and issues become more important than parents over time.

At any rate, I 'm not too worried about birth rates at this point, as Latinos have the highest rate in the country and tend to vote democratic.

[napoleon_in_rags]

40. abortion should not be outlawed.

I'm not advocating anything, its more of an exploration of a scientific question that could give us insights into why non progressive beliefs exist today in some high numbers. Could hard times in our history have aided in their propagation?

[cbayer]

41. Well, it's an interesting question.

I would look at it from another angle as well. Since there is evidence that it is the most disenfranchised that are most likely to be religious and that that is the same population least likely to have access to family planning resources, one could make the following argument. That population is more likely to have more children. In that case, there may be more children raised in families with religious beliefs than not.

But then you would have to ask if these same people are more likely to have religious beliefs that include decidedly non-progressive positions, like being anti-choice or anti-GLBT.

I'm not sure about that.

[napoleon_in_rags]

42. Yeah, good question.

In the Latino case, you have a fair amount of kids born without a lot of money, in a probably Catholic setting, who are supporting Dems and progressive causes.

I had a friend many years ago who wrote a poem with a line : "God is the drug that gets you through the 24 [hours]" That always stuck in my head. When I view it from a personal level, I can understand why people in hard times are religious. Its that hope. For instance in situations with a high infant mortality rate, I can understand the comfort that comes with the belief that some kids "just got to go to heaven early", how that could keep you going. And I think those forms of faith will always condemn certain behaviours: Everybody is a little gay, a little voyeuristic, a little something "sinful". In the hardest times, we make sense of the world by thinking of it as a punishment for our actions or desires. It returns to us a sense of being control where before there was none. The condemnation of groups who have the same attributes we blame ourselves for is the side effect of that.

Yeah, the study I linked to shows kids getting more and more individual as time goes on. I think that may be the answer, people are dynamic, people change. That may be the factor that keeps the world progressive: personal growth. If so, that's a powerful thing to know: We should be fostering it.

[cbayer]

44. I saw an interesting documentary on the religious beliefs of African American slaves.

They really had incentive to believe that there was something better than this on the other side. There was other way to make sense of it and it gave them hope and the will to go on. For them, it wasn't about control really, it was about salvation.

The growth of the nones is a fascinating phenomenon and may bode well for progressive values in general. It seems that many are disillusioned with the religious right's political agenda, but have not give up their belief in god or their "spirituality". They will hopefully explore options that are more liberal and progressive.

[napoleon_in_rags]

45. Hey, nice little boat GIF.

For them, it wasn't about control really, it was about salvation.

"Self determination" may have been a better word for me to use than "control". Its that idea that you can do something about your circumstances through faith, that are beyond your control in the physical world. Black slaves wouldn't have tied it to their desires - their "sin" was their clearly skin color, and only salvation was thus in the next life. But I think that desire for self-determination is universal.

As far the "nones", if I were a Christian I would be miffed at Republicans. You had things like the orchestrated takeover of the Southern Baptist convention for political gain. All the capital the church built over centuries being burned to advocate tax cuts for the rich and wars, things Jesus never talked about. And of course, the "nones"
http://www.religionnews.com/2012/12/18/unbelief-is-now-the-worlds-third-largest-religion/
are as a result growing rapidly.

[cbayer]

46. I think self determination is a great term.

A person's happiness can be correlated with how much control they feel they have over their own lives. If you strip them of everything, at least they can hold onto their ability to control their eventual entry into heaven.

It's been really great talking to you n_i_r. I hope we will meet again.

edited to add that I live on a boat and my gif reminds me why!

[2ndAmForComputers]

35. Ever since I knew of the Log Cabin Republicans, nothing surprises me anymore.

Also, this guy: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/11/08/rewriting-history-a-black-neo-confederate-speaks/

[uriel1972]

37. The correct response is 'So?'

That an atheist takes a pro-life position is not impossible, atheism is no guarantee of other characteristics.

[cleanhippie]

39. But...but...but... IT"S AN ATHEIST THAT THINKS THAT WAY!!!!!!!!!!!

That means, of course, that atheists are just as bad as religious people who think the same!!!!

They are equivalent, don't ya know!