I don't want to get involved in this discussion on a substantive level (I personally think the government should stay out of abortion issues almost entirely), but I remember this came up on the old board several years ago and I thought it might be worth addressing what I think is a very common misconception. The vast majority of atheists are pro-choice, not surprisingly, but there's a non-trivial movement among secularists to ban abortion in pretty much all circumstances. Pew suggests about 11% of atheists think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
The Religious Landscape Study is a comprehensive survey of more than 35,000 Americans’ religious identities, beliefs and practices that’s been conducted in 2007, 2014 and 2023-24. Pew Research Center.
www.pewresearch.org
And there are even groups focused on this issue. For example (links in the C&P cut for the sake of space) --
secularprolife.org
Part 1: The human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human organisms.
“Life begins at fertilization” is a shorthand way to say that the zygote is the first developmental stage of a human being’s life cycle. This is not a religious premise; it is a biological fact, attested to in countless biology and embryology texts and affirmed by the majority of biologists worldwide.
Corner cases and unusual biological phenomenon do not change the fact that the zygote is the first stage of a human’s life cycle.
Part 2: All human organisms are morally relevant.
Many pro-choice people acknowledge that, biologically, life begins at conception but deny zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are “people,” i.e. morally relevant humans deserving of human rights. They offer a variety of ideas about what additional criteria are necessary. Common suggestions include that the child must have a heartbeat, have brain waves, be viable, or be “conscious”/self-aware.
We find these criteria for “personhood” arbitrary. Many of the proposed criteria would, if applied consistently, deny personhood to already born groups of humans we universally recognize as morally relevant and worthy of protection, such as newborns, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. We believe consistency demands that we protect all humans as morally relevant and members of our species.
Part 3: It’s generally immoral to kill humans.
In our experience, people may have different ideas about why it’s generally immoral to kill humans, but few if any people sincerely debate whether it’s generally immoral to kill humans. As a matter of policy, we at Secular Pro-Life do not take a stance on the metaphysical questions regarding where morality comes from or why we should care about one another. We simply ask that all people who believe, as a baseline premise, that it’s wrong to kill each other apply that stance consistently and recognize preborn children as part of the human family.
Part 4: Bodily rights aren’t enough to justify elective abortion.
Some pro-choice people argue that it doesn’t matter whether the fetus is morally valuable “person,” because no person can use another’s body against her will. We believe this bodily rights argument is one of the strongest pro-choice arguments, and we encourage all people interested in the abortion debate to lean into this conversation. Still, we find that the bodily rights argument is not enough to justify elective abortion. Examples involving organ donation, car crashes, and other illustrations of bodily rights are disanalogous to pregnancy and abortion in one or more major ways