Freedom of Religion

Democrats Want to Force Religious Pregnancy Centers in California to Offer Abortion Info

Some crisis pregnancy centers are shady. But the point should be making them be honest about what they are, not trying to turn them into something they're not.

|

Barberton Community Foundation

Democrats wouldn't take kindly to a bill requiring abortion clinics post info about adoption or the joys of motherhood. In fact, liberals (and libertarians) have objected, quite rightly, to state rules compelling abortion doctors to read pro-life statements, advise women about "abortion reversals," or narrate ultrasounds. Yet, in California, Democrats want to require Christian pregnancy-counseling centers to offer info about abortion. 

More details from the Huffington Post: 

The California Assembly passed legislation Tuesday that would require faith-motivated crisis pregnancy centers to provide comprehensive information about reproductive health care options, including abortion.

The bill, known as the Reproductive Fact Act, would require pregnancy centers to post notices saying that reproductive health services, including abortion, are available to pregnant women in the state. Pregnancy centers also would have to disclose whether they lack a medical license. The bill passed on a party-line vote, with Republicans objecting on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally compel government speech for the state's 167 centers.

The Republicans are probably right, at least in part. Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a similar statute in New York, allowing the requirement that these centers disclose whether a licensed medical provider works there but rejecting the state's attempt to compel centers to provide referrals for abortion clinics or emergency contraception. In December, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina law requiring physicians to narrate an ultrasound to women seeking an abortion. A San Francisco statute requiring pregnancy center ads not to misleadingly imply that they offer abortion services or referrals was allowed to stand by a federal court. Legally, there's a pretty clear line between requiring transparency or truth in advertising and compelling speech.   

(I'll never understand why both Democrats and Republicans seem to think that carrying out their preferences willy-nilly with state force won't backfire when they inevitably lose power. A legislature powerful enough to compel faith-based counselors to offer abortion info is a legislature powerful enough to compel abortion clinics to urge women to "choose life.")

To be clear, some crisis pregnancy centers can be shady. They have been known to misleadingly portray themselves as full-service women's health clinics, or to obscure religious affiliations. They may offer discredited info on things like "the link between abortion and depression," or engage in what some describe as bullying or pressuring women into carrying pregnancies to term.

But the state really shouldn't be in the business of deciding what completely non-criminal information a private operation may make available. And many businesses and non-profits have owners with religious beliefs that they don't necessarily broadcast. In other words, you may condemn these pregnancy centers' tactics or views, but they're not de facto doing anything illegal. What's more, they may doing some good: Despite not offering contraception or abortion advice, the centers do offer things like free pregnancy tests, screenings for sexually transmitted infections, ultrasounds, and baby clothes.

If particular centers are engaging in deceptive or fraudulent practices, then by all means, go after them for that. But the point should be making them be honest about what they are, not trying to turn them into something they're not. 

NEXT: Offensive Police Photo: Why Is a Black Suspect Wearing Antlers? Why Do the Cops Have Hunting Rifles?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Superstitions don’t trump women’s health. Duh-doy.

  2. Democrats wouldn’t take kindly to a bill requiring abortion clinics post info about adoption or the joys of motherhood. In fact, liberals (and libertarians) have objected, quite rightly, to state rules compelling abortion doctors to read pro-life statements, advise women about “abortion reversals,” or narrate ultrasounds. Yet, in California, Democrats want to require Christian pregnancy-counseling centers to offer info about abortion.

    Principals, not principles.

    1. They’d have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for that pesky First Amendment!

    2. NOT FETUS IS FETUS

        1. I was for U-Hauls full of fetuses before I was against them.

  3. The license thing will probably pass muster. The other stuff, not for the same reason as the Republican-passed laws.

  4. Nothing says “choice” like government compulsion. As for backfiring, it’s a teaching necessary for salvation in the church of statism that your invocation of bigger government cannot backfire. When I try to explain that it can, I get that all-purpose scathing rebuttal known as “La la la, I can’t hear you.”

  5. So, regulating the shit out of everything abortion-related will never come back to haunt you in any way. Nothing you can think of that might cause this strategy to backfire in unexpected ways? Nothing? Ok then, carry on.

  6. If Democrats really wanted to do something about the issue, and are willing to support unconstitutional measures to that end, they’d be much better off running a transit ad campaign explaining what CPCs actually are. “These are not Planned Parenthood, FYI” would be a lot more useful.

  7. “What’s more, they may doing some good: Despite not offering contraception or abortion advice, the centers do offer things like free pregnancy tests, screenings for sexually transmitted infections, ultrasounds, and baby clothes.”

    OK, who are you, and what did you do with ENB?

    Oh, here she is:

    “engage in what some describe as bullying or pressuring women into carrying pregnancies to term.”

    Abortion clinics also engage in what some describe as bullying, etc. to get women to abort.

    http://www.mccl.org/forced-abortion.html

    Now, before you shrug these off as competing anecdotes, ask yourself – which side of the abortion debate wants to *ban* coerced abortions, and which side opposes such bills?

    1. Which side of the abortion debate wants to *ban* coerced births, and which side opposes such bills?

      Srsly dude.

      1. Seriously yourself.

        http://www.texasrighttolife.co…..WXrjvlViko

        1. The most unbiased voice in abortion news.

          1. I found an anti-coercion measure promoted by a prolife group.

            Now find me a “prochoice” group which is sponsoring a measure against forced abortions.

            1. Forced abortions. Hilarious. I thought those sluts could wait to get an abortion so they could go back to being slutty sluts just trying to get knocked up so they can have another abortion.

              Your insanity is a real credit to your religion.

              1. I guess you sure refuted all those people who think every woman getting an abortion is a “slutty slut[] just trying to get knocked up” etc.

                And the insane thing is, by arguing with some fantasy prolifer in your head, you think you’ve rebutted me.

                1. I don’t have to rebutt the insane, only point out your constant and glaring inconsistencies.

                  Keep up the good fight against freedom, Brave Knight of Malta.

                  1. “I don’t have to rebutt the insane”

                    Is that why you don’t even bother trying to state my position correctly?

                    “Keep up the good fight against freedom, Brave Knight of Malta.”

                    My point about the Knights of Malta is that your anti-celibacy obsession proves too much – it means you’re attacking brave men much better than you.

                    Of course you try to cover your tracks by saying I’m pretending to be a Knight of Malta – are you even capable of summarizing my position accurately?

              2. Do you suppose he thinks there are gangs of aborto-Nazis rounding up innocent fetus-carriers and aborting them?

                1. Beats me, Warty. What does his church say? He doesn’t seem capable of a thought outside of dogma.

                2. Yeah, I didn’t get the “forced abortions” bit.

                  1. It’s some new bit of propaganda they have thought up, WTF. Rail against a vanishingly small to possibly non-existent problem in order to mask their politically unpalatable goal.

                    1. Hmm…the Nazis forced people to have abortions…abortion clinics do abortions…giving women abortions is the same as forcing them to have abortions….wait a minute….GREAT SCOTT

                    2. So, they are seriously trying to claim that there are actually groups of people who are somehow forcing women to have abortions against their will? If that were actually true, we wouldn’t need any new legislation, since that would already be illegal due to the kidnapping, unlawful detention, assault (via the unwanted medical procedure) etc. etc. So maybe, just maybe, it makes sense to assume there is some ulterior motive behind these bills.

                    3. Well you see, WTF, totalitarian regimes have, sometimes, forced women to terminate pregnancies, and still do in places like China. So…yeah…

                    4. totalitarian regimes have, sometimes, forced women to terminate pregnancies, and still do in places like China. So…yeah…

                      The only way to stop all assaults is to outlaw boxing matches!

                    5. “So, they are seriously trying to claim that there are actually groups of people who are somehow forcing women to have abortions against their will?”

                      No, “they” want abortionists to take the same precautions with their patients that real doctors take in cases of possible domestic abuse – post warnings in the waiting rooms about how you can get help against the abuser, examine the wounds the woman got from “falling down the stairs,” etc. – you know, what real doctors do if they’re concerned for their patients.

                3. Why are you so afraid of answering pro-lifers’ actual arguments? Are you afraid that your own arguments are inadequate? Or are you genuinely unfamiliar with the other side’s position?

                  1. Yup, that’s me. So afraid of your stunning logic and powerful brain.

                    I am very familiar with your position. It’s one of supplication and groveling for favor from a non-existent deity.

                    It makes you a joke.

                    1. “It’s one of supplication and groveling for favor from a non-existent deity.” Now you just sound like an asshole.

                    2. I am very familiar with your position. It’s one of supplication and groveling for favor from a non-existent deity.

                      It makes you a joke.

                      If you say so.

                    3. It makes him a joke because it has driven all reason from him, MG.

                    4. It’s pretty near sighted to discount someone based on their religious beliefs. Unless they are a Scientologist. Then by all means.

                    5. “I am very familiar with your position.”

                      Then why don’t you state it honestly?

                    6. Because you don’t, twat. I don’t have to play by the rules you refuse to honor yourself.

                      This useless. I might as well be talking to a wall.

                    7. You’re admitting your dishonesty and projecting it onto others?

                    8. I might as well be talking to a wall.

                      That’s exactly what the Girondins said.

                4. How does one “abort a fetus-carrier”?

            2. I had an encounter with one of my recent child molestation victims. Normally I avoid impregnation, but this time, I more or less slipped. Anyway, after a couple months, I noticed that she was starting to get a little chubby, so I followed her into a secluded area, then knocked her down and stuck a vacuum cleaner hose onto her girly parts to prevent any future difficulties with the Child Support Police.

              Joke was on me, she wasn’t pregnant. Not even menstruating yet. She just had gone through an eating binge to try to erase the memories of her trauma. Well, lesson learned.

              1. Is Nicole really still the Worst?

                1. I’m sure she could top this.

        2. Bear in mind that that abortion-rights crowd still claims to be “pro-choice,” meaning they’re supposedly anti-coercion. So why aren’t *they* introducing these bills? Why do they think it would cut into their bottom line to require things like this:

          “House Bill 1648 and Senate Bill 831 carry a Class A misdemeanor for coercing or forcing a woman into an abortion. The abortion industry has been complicit in abetting the perpetrator of coercion instead of protecting the victim. To ensure that women are thoroughly informed of their rights prior to undergoing an unwanted abortion, abortion facilities will be required to display signage explaining the crime of coercion and featuring the hotline numbers and available options for women who feel threatened by coercion and forced abortion.

          “Women would also be afforded a private room with a phone at the abortion facility so that they can call law enforcement authorities or contact other intervention resources.”

          1. So, what do they do, drive around looking for pregnant women and snatch them up so they can force them to have abortions?

            How about a law that bans any coerced medical procedure? I don’t think that is really terribly necessary either. But making out as if there is some urgent need for such a law specifically pertaining to abortion is ridiculous. I’m pretty sure there are already laws that would apply if a family member or lover or whatever used threats or other coercive means to get a woman to abort.

            1. Yes, cases like this are purely imaginary:

              “A Canaseraga man who allegedly assaulted a pregnant woman in Swain faces several charges, among them first-degree rape and second-degree attempted abortion, both felonies.

              “New York State Police Wednesday charged Kyle E. Morrison, 25, with a third felony, aggravated criminal contempt. He is also charged with third-degree stalking, second-degree menacing, fourth-degree criminal mischief, third-degree assault and second-degree unlawful imprisonment.

              “State police said they investigated a dispute that happened on on Friday. Morrison is accused of violating an order of protection, then assaulting the pregnant woman.
              Morrison was allegedly aware of the pregnancy and was committing physical acts to injure the woman and her unborn child, police said.

              “Morrison was arraigned in the Town of Burns Court and sent to the county jail without bail.”

              http://www.eveningtribune.com/…../140919638

              1. Those acts are all already illegal. I don’t really have a problem with adding an extra charge for willingly harming a fetus. But calling such an assault “coerced abortion” is a bit misleading. That’s assault. When I think “coerced abortion”, I think of a boyfriend making threats or something. Which should also be criminal without it’s own abortion-specific law.

                Don’t pretend this is about anything other than getting any law passed that will possibly restrict abortion in any way.

                1. My point is that this is what women may face if they *don’t* abort – so there will be cases of women going for an abortion lest the share the fate of the woman in the article.

                  And the coercion bills would require abortionists to take precautions to inform clients that they have resources in case they’re being coerced – so they don’t have to deal with the problem alone.

                  “Don’t pretend this is about anything other than getting any law passed that will possibly restrict abortion in any way.”

                  Unlike choicers, pro-lifers get to care about both the woman *and* her child.

                  The purpose of these bills is twofold, AFAIK:

                  (a) to protect babies from being killed

                  (b) to protect their mothers from coercion

                  (c) to expose the choicers as they try to explain how a bill against coerced abortions threatens their agenda

                  1. threefold. (cue Monty Python jokes)

        3. They are equivalent positions.

          1. The prolifers believe that killing the “entity” in the womb is not a valid choice. They at least have grounds for thinking that.

            I would think that choicers – based on their own propaganda – would be against coercion either way. To them (judging by their rhetoric) having the child can be just as valid an option as not having it. So why not support some kind of anti-coercion bill? If they can’t support a bill sponsored by icky prolifers, let them introduce their own anti-coercion bills.

            1. So why not support some kind of anti-coercion bill?

              Because they don’t trust pro-life agents of the state not to use it to prosecute people inappropriately. WHAT A CRAZY LIBERTARIAN IDEA. Is that a hole in one?

              1. Well, by all means, let’s repeal the assault laws, because who knows, some prolife DA might misuse them.

          2. Whatever, Nikki. We all know the unmarried celibate weirdo who wants to use the full power of the police and state to keep women from having abortions is the one who’s really concerned about coercion.

            1. Well, at least coercion against the most innocent possible individuals in the world.

              1. You don’t know that. Who knows what kind of evil thoughts are in the mind of a blastocyst?

                1. THOUGHT POLICE!

              2. Hey, look Eddie… another worthless piece of shit is on your side!

                1. Just pointing out that, as a libertarian, I don’t conflate the evil in someone’s mind with a lack of innocence. That is what the thought police are for.

                  1. I was just making a joke because your comment was irrelevant. Yes, that is what people who think that abortion is criminal think, we all know that and it isn’t what is being discussed.

                    1. I was replying to a comment.

                    2. “Yes, that is what people who think that abortion is criminal think”

                      I’m losing track of the straw men – what ridiculous position are you imputing to prolifers this time?

                      Or are you, like all libertarians, simply trying to enslave women to take to your monocle mines?

                      See, I can do it too!

                    3. Relax, chief. I think I was being fair. I was responding the briannnnnnnnnn saying that abortion is coercion against the most innocent individuals.

                      While I do think that you are wrong about abortion and your favored policies would have terrible results if enacted, I try not to mischaracterize pro-life/anti-abortion arguments. Did I get it wrong? Are you actually motivated by a desire to enslave women and not to protect innocent beings?

                    4. Sorry, I’m still confused about what you said, but I am sincerely sorry if I lumped you in with the straw-man people.

                    5. My only point was that bringing up the essential pro-life argument that abortion is killing innocent people was irrelevant to the discussion about coerced abortions and whether a law is needed. Another discussion on the fundamental morality of abortion would be tiresome and pointless. This is probably that too, but I still like sticking to the point.

                    6. Well, how about making the choicers play by their own book of rules? They think women should decide for themselves whether to get abortions – very well then, pass laws to ensure this.

                      Of course, prolifers don’t play by the prochoice book of rules – in fact, they aren’t playing at all.

                2. Hey, look Eddie… another worthless piece of shit is on your side!

                  Count me in.

            2. We all know the unmarried celibate weirdo

              Hey!

            3. So, SugarFree, just to be clear, I suppose it’s OK to attack people for their sexual practices and sexual orientation (as you interpret them)?

              Or perhaps you think only sodomy, adultery and fornication should be exempt from criticism?

              1. Or perhaps you think only sodomy, adultery and fornication should be exempt from criticism?

                Only when done improperly and with insufficient gusto.

                And I’ll attack anyone for any goddamn fucking thing I well please, fetus-fucker.

                1. “And I’ll attack anyone for any goddamn fucking thing I well please, fetus-fucker.”

                  It’s a good think you’re not irrationally bound by dogma – that explains why you explain you position to cogently and coherently!

                2. Odd, SF. I read this comment as saying that sodomy, adultery and fornication should be exempt from criticism when done improperly and with insufficient gusto.

                  Which seems inconsistent with your literary ouvre, which features all of the above, done with, err, gusto and verve.

                  1. Are you trying to parse SF’s posts in search of coherence and logic?

                    1. SF and I are generally within shouting distance of each other (alright, perhaps not the best metaphor).

                      But he does go a little off the rails on abortion, IMO.

  8. “They have been known to misleadingly portray themselves…., or to obscure religious affiliations.”

    Amway Abortions!

    1. My upline makes 25% on this abortion, and now I’m DOUBLE DIAMOND!!!

  9. discredited info on things like “the link between abortion and depression,”

    Controversial, sure. What isn’t?

    Discredited? That may be a little strong.

    For the study, researchers analyzed data on 877,000 women, including 164,000 who had an abortion. They found women who had an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk for mental problems.

    Women who had an abortion were 34 percent more likely to develop an anxiety disorder, 37 percent more likely to experience depression, 110 percent more likely to abuse alcohol, 155 percent more likely to commit suicide, and 220 percent more likely to use marijuana.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ab…..al-health/

    Before doing a procedure (such as abortion), physicians are required to tell the patient all the risks, benefits, and alternatives in order to get informed consent. Depending on professional judgment and the state of the science, physicians may actually be required to tell patients about the increased risk of mental health problems.

    Tiresome disclaimer: I don’t think abortion should be completely outlawed, but I also don’t think it should be given a privileged position, exempt from normal informed consent, facility licensing, or other requirements that are imposed generally.

    1. I don’t even think it is controversial. I did a D&C last week for a missed abortion and the patient was depressed about losing the pregnancy even at 12 weeks. Now that doesn’t mean abortion should be illegal, other surgeries have emotional impact, but I don’t think you can say it isn’t a concern.

      1. You need a responsible medical professional alt-handle. Florida Man performs medical procedure in clinical setting! is just too jarring to the senses.

        1. A serious, non-troll sock? But what would we call it Man?!?

          1. Conspicuously Unlocated Man?

            Hmm… something about that doesn’t work.

            1. Umm… Man Man? No, no.

              1. Ramblin’ Man?

                1. Good one.

                  1. Nowhere Man

      2. Or, you know, a huge contingent of people calling you a murderer for having a medical procedure and wanting you to be thrown in jail over it causes anxiety, depression and an urge to self-medicate.

        1. Seriously, SF, that just doesn’t happen IRL. For starters, radical pro-lifers who want to jail the formerly pregnant are far from a “huge contingent” and have virtually no access to public media, which is completely hostile to them. If you run into one at all, it will be one-on-one, probably outside the clinic.

          So, worst case, you might have to walk past a some people calling you dirty names and waving nasty signs. Which is quite rare, in and of itself, and lasts a few minutes, tops. Unpleasant? Sure. Mildly traumatic? OK. The cause of long-term mental health issues? Uhh, no.

          If people get depressed after abortions, its not because of pro-lifers. Personally, I think that people who have abortions might tend, to generalize, to have other personality traits that both lead them to have unwanted pregnancies (poor impulse control, etc.) and also predispose them to depression, etc.

          But the pro-life boogeymen? I doubt it.

          1. If people get depressed after abortions, its not because of pro-lifers.

            Nah. Just because of pro-natalists.

            1. Not only that, but it’s a huge non-sequitur. I’ve gotten depressed after having broken bones set. …So what?

              1. If it is an undesirable side effect of a procedure, it is ethical to inform the patient of the risk. Same thing if you’re having surgery on your face, giving the patient a realistic estimate of scaring is practicing good informed consent.

              2. Warty I think your “broken boners” auto-corrected.

                And, yeah, that would be depressing.

        2. Dude, what pro lifer wants to send women who have abortions to jail?

          1. The ones that want to criminalize abortion do, don’t they? I mean, if you see it as equivalent to murder, what else would the appropriate response be?

          2. I’d assume the kind of pro-lifer who makes, sells, or waves a sign like this.

            In my experience (my folks were moderately involved in pro-life activism in the ’90s) the majority of people focused on “adoption, the better option” but movements tend to be judged by their most extreme members, and “you’re a murderer crowd” was a noticeable minority.

            It’s been ~20 years now, so I don’t really know where things are at now.

            1. The real question would be what does the legislation that people who want to ban abortion favor look like. Even if most activists focus on other things, wouldn’t a ban have to have some criminal sanctions attached to be effective?

              1. The ban legislation that I have seen (although its been a long time since I’ve seen any) imposed penalties on the doctor, not the patient.

                1. Seems a little inconsistent if you think abortion is immoral and criminal. But fair enough.

        3. Possible , SF, but this was a spontaneous abortion and the woman felt a “loss”. I’m sure there are women who don’t think twice about having an abortion, but I’m also sure some women who elect to have an abortion, feel some emotional trauma. I don’t think that is controversial.

          1. I’m also sure some women who elect to have an abortion, feel some emotional trauma. I don’t think that is controversial.

            According to ENB, its “discredited”. Doesn’t even rise to the level of being controversial, because its just not a thing.

            1. According to ENB, its “discredited”. Doesn’t even rise to the level of being controversial, because its just not a thing.

              I wonder if ENB has ever had a friend lose a pregnancy. I’ve known women that have taken it very hard even though it wasn’t their fault.

              1. I don’t know if it’s really fair to compare losing a pregnancy to deliberately aborting one. In the former case you are all emotionally involved with the notion of your future child.
                Not that having an abortion isn’t often troubling. Pretty much all the people I know who have had one have mixed feelings about the whole thing.

                1. I’m not saying they are the same thing, but that they are similar enough to discredit the claim that there is no emotional distress after an abortion for some women.

          2. “I’m sure there are women who don’t think twice about having an abortion”

            I’ve worked with teens that have had as many as five, which is fucked up because the drop-in center provides free birth control (condoms, the pill, etc.).

            1. That is sad.

            2. I had a friend in high school who was told by her doctor that if she had another abortion she’d end up with too much scar tissue to conceive and wouldn’t be able to have children later (this is reported by her, so I don’t know the details of what the doctor said), so she started having kids.

              Even the most die-hard pro-choicers in our friend group asked her “can’t you take a fucking pill?”

              1. Or do anal.

    2. What is the link between giving birth and depression? I think that is pretty significant too. If you have to get informed consent, which makes sense, it seems like the consequences of the alternative should be made clear too. If you get an abortion you might be depressed. If you have the baby you might be depressed and you might be stuck supporting some little asshole for the next 18 years. Or have to deal with the emotional effects of giving a baby you just bore away for adoption. Or I guess you could leave it out to die of exposure.

      1. Postpartum depression is a very real thing. I don’t think anyone would think it controversial if an OB discused that risk or treatments with their patient.

        1. It seems to me that the laws requiring certain information to be given about abortion to women seeking abortion fail in that they only give the downsides of one choice and ignore the downsides of giving birth. Not that I think giving birth should be discouraged.

          1. I honestly don’t know the laws, but for other medical treatments you are informed of all options with risk and benefits. I think abortion should be treated the same way.

            1. I agree. What bugs me is the pro-lifer push for any law that makes abortion less convenient or available. Their interest is not primarily in giving complete and accurate information to people considering a procedure. I also am bothered by people on the other side who want it treated differently from any other procedure.

              1. Agreed. Both sides lose their damn minds when it comes to this issue.

                1. Ding ding ding

  10. “When you’ve lost Elizabeth Abortion Brown…”

    1. +1 Bradley Biggle,

  11. So they’ll hand out pamphlets about abortion with all the real gory pictures in them at the crisis pregnancy centers to satisfy the legal requirement. Problem solved.

  12. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ????? http://www.workweb40.com

    1. Hey, you fucking Nazi, did it ever cross your racist mind that I don’t want to change my fucking life?

  13. Really annoys me when people declare any position even remotely anti-abortion as being an obvious religious “superstition”, as a couple do throughout this thread. It’s a prog trick to delegitimize arguments without having to engage in them. It’s a genetic fallacy.

    I’m an atheist and pro-life. Couldn’t help but determine my kid was a human being well before he was born after the many ultrasounds. So at a certain point, the termination of his life without his explicit permission would’ve been murder. Does one have to be religious to be against murder? I think I’ve heard some bible thumpers make that argument, but I’m perfectly capable of developing an ethical philosophy sans a divine actor.

    1. No, of course not all anti-abortion people are motivated by religious belief.

      I would still argue with you and say that the fact that you are convinced that the fetus is a human being is based entirely on emotional reaction and that humanity has to do with one’s mind, not one’s appearance. But there is a debate to be had there. Philosophical questions like that are probably never going to be solved once and for all.

      1. I’d welcome that discussion. But can never seem to get past the “my body” part of the conversation. And inevitably get accused of being a secret Christian or something despite explicitly stating otherwise.

        The fetus responds to external stimuli fairly early on, second trimester at the latest iirc. For me, that’s the benchmark of independent life. So while no NYT crossword puzzles are in his/her immediate future, I’d suggest a newborn’s cognizance isn’t exactly at Hawking levels either and we don’t doubt humanity at that developmental stage.

        Does it go all the way back to conception? A little more difficult of a case to make. Quite honestly I’ve never gotten far enough in a conversation to where I’ve had to make it, before being accused of misogyny or some such trite nonsense.

      2. It’s llike you don’t grasp the idea that if you can have a debate about whether something is a human being or not that logic demands that you treat it as if it IS a human being until you know for sure that it’s not.

        Just in case.

    2. If I thought that *only* religious people, were against abortion, I’d cite this as an argument in favor of religion.

      Of course, there are non-religious opponents of abortion, they simply don’t fit into the narrative.

      To be clear, I’m *happy* that there are prolife atheists/agnostics/spiritual people etc.

      1. Was more referring to “SugarFree’s” responses to you. In which pro life=religion=stupid. Astounding in its rhetorical brilliance.

        1. There seem to be a few topics which set him off. Abortion is one. And there are some *people* who set him off. I am one.

          I could probably say “have a nice day” and he’d be all like “don’t you presume to tell me what kind of day to have, you [bleep] [bleep]!”

          1. Just read through all your comment battles today, Notorious. Wanted to let you know there are many of us that believe as you do. In fact, the only thing that calms me down after reading ENB abortion articles (can you find someone a little more balanced to write about abortion issues, Reason?), is scrolling down and looking for your comments.

  14. So, you tell pregnant women what we demand you tell them. Or we will shut you down.

    Way to go, California!!

  15. Hey, State of California! Women already know where to go to procure a hasty abortion!

    Just follow the line to where the screaming pro-life protesters are.

    It’s not rocket science.

  16. Your evidence of “shady” crisis pregnancy center practices comes from a linked article on ProChoiceAmerica. Really? Because there’s no chance they would exaggerate or lie about that subject or anything.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.