The Underlying Psychological Motivations Of Pro-Lifers

[Troodon Roar]

To start off, although I do not support making abortion illegal, I am nevertheless pro-life at heart, always have been, and always will be. I am going to share what I consider to be the deep underlying psychological reasons for my views on abortion, because I suspect I am not at all a typical pro-lifer.

It seems to me like many pro-lifers’ views on abortion are connected to their broader socially conservative worldview. Surveys have found that pro-lifers tend to think that men and women should have different roles in society as a result of the biological differences between them, for example. And we all know that many who are anti-abortion are, or were, anti-same sex marriage, and espouse more traditional conceptions of marriage, and the family in general.

I could scarcely be more different. I have various psychological motives for my view on abortion, which are very different from those many other pro-lifers have, and I will now share them.

1.) I am, and always have been, an animal lover, and supportive of animal rights. And in many ways, unborn humans really remind me of non-human animals. Like non-human animals, they are denied personhood, they are voiceless and cannot speak up for themselves, and they even physically resemble non-human animals, particularly in the earlier stages of gestation. Ironically, although many people often point out how an embryo has a tail, or looks more like a tadpole or a shrimp than a human, in order to mock the pro-life position, this actually is one of the main reasons why the embryo’s plight strikes such a chord with me.

2.) I think an individual organism’s life begins at fertilization. First of all, because it’s just a truth of modern biology that was confirmed a long time ago. Second, I actually like the idea of life starting at conception rather than at birth, or later in the pregnancy, for various reasons. First, it means that I got to spend several more months alive in the 1900s, and got to live through many more events that I would not otherwise have been alive during, and my lifespan gets extended by several months. Second, it means that I once had a tail and looked like a non-human animal, which fills me with delight, being the animal lover who I am.

3.) I want my life to have meaning and value, and I feel that the pro-choice position is often associated with a depressing nihilism that robs life of meaning and value. First of all, because I am an animal lover, and unborn humans have that same quality that non-human animals have which makes me love them so much, I view dismissal of the dignity of unborn humans to be tantamount to dismissal of the dignity of non-human animals. The fact that some pro-choicers point to the embryo’s non-human appearance to demean its dignity certainly does not help with this, as well. And non-human animals are a significant part of what gives my life meaning and value. Second, the pro-choice position is often associated with a materialistic view of consciousness, which I really despise and which really depresses me. People often argue that a fetus is not conscious until a certain point in development at which its brain reaches a certain stage of development. This is materialism. Materialism really does not appeal to me for various reasons, but foremost among them is that it entails I am identical with my physical body, which I do not want to be true, and that it implies the lack of an afterlife and eternal oblivion after death, which I do not want to be true.

So these are the most major underlying psychological reasons I have for my personally pro-life stance which I can think of at the moment. What does this forum think?

 

[soylentgreen]

To start off, although I do not support making abortion illegal, I am nevertheless pro-life at heart, always have been, and always will be. I am going to share what I consider to be the deep underlying psychological reasons for my views on abortion, because I suspect I am not at all a typical pro-lifer.

It seems to me like many pro-lifers’ views on abortion are connected to their broader socially conservative worldview. Surveys have found that pro-lifers tend to think that men and women should have different roles in society as a result of the biological differences between them, for example. And we all know that many who are anti-abortion are, or were, anti-same sex marriage, and espouse more traditional conceptions of marriage, and the family in general.

I could scarcely be more different. I have various psychological motives for my view on abortion, which are very different from those many other pro-lifers have, and I will now share them.

1.) I am, and always have been, an animal lover, and supportive of animal rights. And in many ways, unborn humans really remind me of non-human animals. Like non-human animals, they are denied personhood, they are voiceless and cannot speak up for themselves, and they even physically resemble non-human animals, particularly in the earlier stages of gestation. Ironically, although many people often point out how an embryo has a tail, or looks more like a tadpole or a shrimp than a human, in order to mock the pro-life position, this actually is one of the main reasons why the embryo’s plight strikes such a chord with me.





So these are the most major underlying psychological reasons I have for my personally pro-life stance which I can think of at the moment. What does this forum think?

Unfortunately it should be pointed out that an embryo does not have a tail nor is the image of a tadpole.


What you are thinking of is the image of a sperm.

The chord being struck is a discordant one.

2.) I think an individual organism’s life begins at fertilization. First of all, because it’s just a truth of modern biology that was confirmed a long time ago. Second, I actually like the idea of life starting at conception rather than at birth, or later in the pregnancy, for various reasons. First, it means that I got to spend several more months alive in the 1900s, and got to live through many more events that I would not otherwise have been alive during, and my lifespan gets extended by several months. Second, it means that I once had a tail and looked like a non-human animal, which fills me with delight, being the animal lover who I am.

Although the individual life may be said to begin at conception. There is no scientific truth to the idea that any form of self awareness begins at conception. The idea that there is a "I" who gets several more months is simply the imagination of the person who does have self awareness and an active imagination.

3.) I want my life to have meaning and value, and I feel that the pro-choice position is often associated with a depressing nihilism that robs life of meaning and value. First of all, because I am an animal lover, and unborn humans have that same quality that non-human animals have which makes me love them so much, I view dismissal of the dignity of unborn humans to be tantamount to dismissal of the dignity of non-human animals. The fact that some pro-choicers point to the embryo’s non-human appearance to demean its dignity certainly does not help with this, as well. And non-human animals are a significant part of what gives my life meaning and value. Second, the pro-choice position is often associated with a materialistic view of consciousness, which I really despise and which really depresses me. People often argue that a fetus is not conscious until a certain point in development at which its brain reaches a certain stage of development. This is materialism. Materialism really does not appeal to me for various reasons, but foremost among them is that it entails I am identical with my physical body, which I do not want to be true, and that it implies the lack of an afterlife and eternal oblivion after death, which I do not want to be true.

But you obviously do not want a woman to have meaning and value in her life as you are quite willing to deny her the right to decide what is of value and meaning to her because she is only secondary to the pregnancy. You have with this statement dismissed the dignity of the woman by saying that she is not valued for herself but only her ability to give birth gives her value.

 

[Troodon Roar]

Unfortunately it should be pointed out that an embryo does not have a tail nor is the image of a tadpole.


What you are thinking of is the image of a sperm.

The chord being struck is a discordant one.



Although the individual life may be said to begin at conception. There is no scientific truth to the idea that any form of self awareness begins at conception. The idea that there is a "I" who gets several more months is simply the imagination of the person who does have self awareness and an active imagination.



But you obviously do not want a woman to have meaning and value in her life as you are quite willing to deny her the right to decide what is of value and meaning to her because she is only secondary to the pregnancy. You have with this statement dismissed the dignity of the woman by saying that she is not valued for herself but only her ability to give birth gives her value.

At a certain stage in pregnancy, an embryo does have a tail. No, I am not referring to sperm.

And you’re putting words in my mouth. As I stated, I don’t support making abortion illegal, and I’m certainly not denying a woman the right to decide what is of value and meaning to her. I certainly do not think she is subordinate to the pregnancy. The two lives are equal in value to me; neither is superior or inferior to the other.

"You have with this statement dismissed the dignity of the woman by saying that she is not valued for herself but only her ability to give birth gives her value."

I never said anything even remotely similar to this. I actually very much support women’s rights, and oppose discrimination of any kind, including that based on sex. It is this same hatred for discrimination of all sorts that leads me to have sympathy for the unborn, as well as non-humans.
In fact, I would consider myself a feminist, if that term is defined as meaning "equality of the sexes".

 

[Hari Seldon]

To start off, although I do not support making abortion illegal, I am nevertheless pro-life at heart, always have been, and always will be. I am going to share what I consider to be the deep underlying psychological reasons for my views on abortion, because I suspect I am not at all a typical pro-lifer.

It seems to me like many pro-lifers’ views on abortion are connected to their broader socially conservative worldview. Surveys have found that pro-lifers tend to think that men and women should have different roles in society as a result of the biological differences between them, for example. And we all know that many who are anti-abortion are, or were, anti-same sex marriage, and espouse more traditional conceptions of marriage, and the family in general.

I could scarcely be more different. I have various psychological motives for my view on abortion, which are very different from those many other pro-lifers have, and I will now share them.

1.) I am, and always have been, an animal lover, and supportive of animal rights. And in many ways, unborn humans really remind me of non-human animals. Like non-human animals, they are denied personhood, they are voiceless and cannot speak up for themselves, and they even physically resemble non-human animals, particularly in the earlier stages of gestation. Ironically, although many people often point out how an embryo has a tail, or looks more like a tadpole or a shrimp than a human, in order to mock the pro-life position, this actually is one of the main reasons why the embryo’s plight strikes such a chord with me.

2.) I think an individual organism’s life begins at fertilization. First of all, because it’s just a truth of modern biology that was confirmed a long time ago. Second, I actually like the idea of life starting at conception rather than at birth, or later in the pregnancy, for various reasons. First, it means that I got to spend several more months alive in the 1900s, and got to live through many more events that I would not otherwise have been alive during, and my lifespan gets extended by several months. Second, it means that I once had a tail and looked like a non-human animal, which fills me with delight, being the animal lover who I am.

3.) I want my life to have meaning and value, and I feel that the pro-choice position is often associated with a depressing nihilism that robs life of meaning and value. First of all, because I am an animal lover, and unborn humans have that same quality that non-human animals have which makes me love them so much, I view dismissal of the dignity of unborn humans to be tantamount to dismissal of the dignity of non-human animals. The fact that some pro-choicers point to the embryo’s non-human appearance to demean its dignity certainly does not help with this, as well. And non-human animals are a significant part of what gives my life meaning and value. Second, the pro-choice position is often associated with a materialistic view of consciousness, which I really despise and which really depresses me. People often argue that a fetus is not conscious until a certain point in development at which its brain reaches a certain stage of development. This is materialism. Materialism really does not appeal to me for various reasons, but foremost among them is that it entails I am identical with my physical body, which I do not want to be true, and that it implies the lack of an afterlife and eternal oblivion after death, which I do not want to be true.

So these are the most major underlying psychological reasons I have for my personally pro-life stance which I can think of at the moment. What does this forum think?

I'm an animal lover myself, 3 rescue cats and a dog. I am also pro-choice. I don't think I'm unusual at all and suspect there are many with similar beliefs.

 

[Troodon Roar]

I'm an animal lover myself, 3 rescue cats and a dog. I am also pro-choice. I don't think I'm unusual at all and suspect there are many with similar beliefs.

I know. Technically, I am pro-choice as well, since I don’t support making abortion illegal.

Many in the animal rights movement tend to be pro-choice. And meanwhile, many in the pro-life movement tend not to care too much about non-human animals.

I care about all life. I would say I am consistently pro-life: pro-nonhuman life, pro-unborn life, anti-war, anti-death penalty. I support some commonsense gun regulation, but also uphold the right to bear arms, one of the reasons for this being that, if humans have guns, they could hunt their own food, providing a more humane alternative to factory farming. So gun ownership may actually be a good thing for animal rights, in my view, which is a big reason why I’m not as anti-gun as many other consistent pro-lifers. But of course, I am against mass shootings, and am by no means a gun fanatic. No one should be able to purchase a military-style machine gun as easily and as effortlessly as buying a piece of candy.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I belong to a Christian message board that also has an abortion debate section. It is where Cahtolics told me the Church catechism prohibits or discourages taking the "morning after pill" on the basis that life begins at fertilization. I have a big issue with this stance - not a denial of this biological fact, but that many zygotes don't survive the trip to the mother's uterine wall anyway if allowed to do so naturallly. By definition a woman is not pregnant until this happens. So I can't accept taking Plan B as murdering a baby.

The fetal tail is irrelevent. The fetus is like a non-human animal because it is a mammal. Humans are biologically just members of the animal kingdom. If human abortion should be illegal, the same must be said about spaying pregnant cats and dogs. But vets do not always wait for kittens and puppies to be born. Is it right to have a double standard here when millions of furry animals are being euthanized every year because their parents weren't fixed? Are we going to believe human fetuses have souls, but feline fetuses do not?

 

[Troodon Roar]

I belong to a Christian message board that also has an abortion debate section. It is where Cahtolics told me the Church catechism prohibits or discourages taking the "morning after pill" on the basis that life begins at fertilization. I have a big issue with this stance - not a denial of this biological fact, but that many zygotes don't survive the trip to the mother's uterine wall anyway if allowed to do so naturallly. By definition a woman is not pregnant until this happens. So I can't accept taking Plan B as murdering a baby.

The fetal tail is irrelevent. The fetus is like a non-human animal because it is a mammal. Humans are biologically just members of the animal kingdom. If human abortion should be illegal, the same must be said about spaying pregnant cats and dogs. But vets do not always wait for kittens and puppies to be born. Is it right to have a double standard here when millions of furry animals are being euthanized every year because their parents weren't fixed? Are we going to believe human fetuses have souls, but feline fetuses do not?

Yeah, I get what you’re saying about Plan B.

And as for the double standard of unborn humans being held to be superior to other animals, I am in total agreement with you here. I do not think humans are superior to other species, and I am equally opposed to abortion of unborn non-human animals. In fact, I consider it to be worse, because the decision is made by humans, rather than by the pregnant mother herself who is carrying her unborn offspring.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I know. Technically, I am pro-choice as well, since I don’t support making abortion illegal.

Many in the animal rights movement tend to be pro-choice. And meanwhile, many in the pro-life movement tend not to care too much about non-human animals.

I care about all life.

I care about all life as well, not just the pre born. I do like your admission on the anti-choice crowd not caring about animals. Seems odd since God (if there is one) created them as well if you believe. You would think they would deserve more respect. I have 2 kids as well. Both are also animal lovers.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I care about all life as well, not just the pre-born. I do like your admission on the anti-choice crowd not caring about animals. Seems odd since God (if there is one) created them as well if you believe. You would think they would deserve more respect. I have 2 kids as well. Both are also animal lovers.

There is definitely a God. I guess you are an agnostic to be unsure about that. Even many people who don't believe in God do accept the existence of a supernatural Creator of all natural things with a captial C.

Something I really hate is many pro-life Christians believe because God told man to rule over all the other animals and the Bible only says He made man in His image no other animal species has a soul and all of them are inferior to humans. The problem is they say this while ignoring another verse in the same chapter (Genesis 2) in which God told Adam and Eve all of the plants are their food and the food of all the other animals, which means every animal at the time was a vegetarian. They also ignore a verse in the first chapter that states God blessed all of the animals after creating them. So it should be very clear to every Jew, Christian, Mormon, and Jehovah's Witness God loves all animals equally, from the amoebas to blue whales, and did not want any of them to die when they were made.

 

[weaver2]

..... I am going to share what I consider to be the deep underlying psychological reasons for my views on abortion,

What does this forum think?

Instead of pontificating on the best way to go about birth and abortion so that their underlying psychological reasons aren't unnecessarily upset, maybe once in a while men could have the courtesy to ask the people that actually bear children and make the difficult abortion decision what they think.

 

[Lursa]

So these are the most major underlying psychological reasons I have for my personally pro-life stance which I can think of at the moment. What does this forum think?

I think that, if you are a woman, then the pro-choice perspective and current laws suit you perfectly: because you have the choice to act on a pregnancy according to your beliefs.

I also view your reasons as philosophical, not psychological. As such, then if you are a man, then you can also appreciate how important personal liberty and self-determination are for all persons, men and women.

 

[HIP56948]

I'm an animal lover myself, 3 rescue cats and a dog. I am also pro-choice. I don't think I'm unusual at all and suspect there are many with similar beliefs.

Off topic but I love your picture. Spent many a childhood night reading his stories.

 

[Scrabaholic]

There is definitely a God. I guess you are an agnostic to be unsure about that. Even many people who don't believe in God do accept the existence of a supernatural Creator of all natural things with a captial C.

Something I really hate is many pro-life Christians believe because God told man to rule over all the other animals and the Bible only says He made man in His image no other animal species has a soul and all of them are inferior to humans. The problem is they say this while ignoring another verse in the same chapter (Genesis 2) in which God told Adam and Eve all of the plants are their food and the food of all the other animals, which means every animal at the time was a vegetarian. They also ignore a verse in the first chapter that states God blessed all of the animals after creating them. So it should be very clear to every Jew, Christian, Mormon, and Jehovah's Witness God loves all animals equally, from the amoebas to blue whales, and did not want any of them to die when they were made.

I'm curious - are you vegan?

I believe some animals are for food. In the Bible, God says what ones to eat and what not to eat. ie. not to eat pork or seafood. He says to eat only animals with a cloven hoof. But I believe he also gave us stewardship of the Earth and it's inhabitants and we are to treat them humanely and not to over hunt or over fish and cause species to go extinct.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I'm curious - are you vegan?

I believe some animals are for food. In the Bible, God says what ones to eat and what not to eat. ie. not to eat pork or seafood. He says to eat only animals with a cloven hoof. But I believe he also gave us stewardship of the Earth and it's inhabitants and we are to treat them humanely and not to over hunt or over fish and cause species to go extinct.

No, I actually oppose vegan diets.

You are jumping ahead to the third book of the Bible. God changed the rule after the Great Flood. You also are wrong. We can eat animals that chew cud and have split hooves (pigs don't meet both criteria) and certain birds, which are listed in Leviticus.

On topic: Biologically, aborting a human fetus is no different from aborting any other mammalian fetus would be. If abortion is going to be illegal all forms of killing unborn non-human animals must also be outlawed. Naturally pro-lifers will always tell you no animals except homo sapiens have souls and deny homo sapiens is an animal species if they are not non-human animal lovers.

 

[Hari Seldon]

There is definitely a God. I guess you are an agnostic to be unsure about that. Even many people who don't believe in God do accept the existence of a supernatural Creator of all natural things with a captial C.

Something I really hate is many pro-life Christians believe because God told man to rule over all the other animals and the Bible only says He made man in His image no other animal species has a soul and all of them are inferior to humans. The problem is they say this while ignoring another verse in the same chapter (Genesis 2) in which God told Adam and Eve all of the plants are their food and the food of all the other animals, which means every animal at the time was a vegetarian. They also ignore a verse in the first chapter that states God blessed all of the animals after creating them. So it should be very clear to every Jew, Christian, Mormon, and Jehovah's Witness God loves all animals equally, from the amoebas to blue whales, and did not want any of them to die when they were made.

If there is a god it has a really dark sense of humor. I think Jefferson said it best:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

 

[Hari Seldon]

Off topic but I love your picture. Spent many a childhood night reading his stories.

9th grade history class, we read The Foundation as a parallel to the Roman Empire. I've been hooked ever since.

 

[Scrabaholic]

On topic: Biologically, aborting a human fetus is no different from aborting any other mammalian fetus would be. If abortion is going to be illegal all forms of killing unborn non-human animals must also be outlawed. Naturally pro-lifers will always tell you no animals except homo sapiens have souls and deny homo sapiens is an animal species if they are not non-human animal lovers.

I agree with them that animals do not have souls. But yes, we humans are an animal species.

 

[oneworld2]

I agree with them that animals do not have souls. But yes, we humans are an animal species.

That just completely contradicts itself

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I agree with them that animals do not have souls. But yes, we humans are an animal species.

If other animals don't have souls and humans are animals, humans don't have souls either. We all know humans do have souls and therefore so do other animals.

 

[oneworld2]

I agree with them that animals do not have souls. But yes, we humans are an animal species.

That just completely contradicts itself

If you think we are animals then animals have souls. BTW I think you are wrong and that all animals have souls. Down grading creatures abilities and value has been and is still being used to justify cruel treatments and for that reason alone decent people should reject to buy into it imo

 

[oneworld2]

To start off, although I do not support making abortion illegal, I am nevertheless pro-life at heart, always have been, and always will be. I am going to share what I consider to be the deep underlying psychological reasons for my views on abortion, because I suspect I am not at all a typical pro-lifer.

It seems to me like many pro-lifers’ views on abortion are connected to their broader socially conservative worldview. Surveys have found that pro-lifers tend to think that men and women should have different roles in society as a result of the biological differences between them, for example. And we all know that many who are anti-abortion are, or were, anti-same sex marriage, and espouse more traditional conceptions of marriage, and the family in general.

I could scarcely be more different. I have various psychological motives for my view on abortion, which are very different from those many other pro-lifers have, and I will now share them.

1.) I am, and always have been, an animal lover, and supportive of animal rights. And in many ways, unborn humans really remind me of non-human animals. Like non-human animals, they are denied personhood, they are voiceless and cannot speak up for themselves, and they even physically resemble non-human animals, particularly in the earlier stages of gestation. Ironically, although many people often point out how an embryo has a tail, or looks more like a tadpole or a shrimp than a human, in order to mock the pro-life position, this actually is one of the main reasons why the embryo’s plight strikes such a chord with me.

2.) I think an individual organism’s life begins at fertilization. First of all, because it’s just a truth of modern biology that was confirmed a long time ago. Second, I actually like the idea of life starting at conception rather than at birth, or later in the pregnancy, for various reasons. First, it means that I got to spend several more months alive in the 1900s, and got to live through many more events that I would not otherwise have been alive during, and my lifespan gets extended by several months. Second, it means that I once had a tail and looked like a non-human animal, which fills me with delight, being the animal lover who I am.

3.) I want my life to have meaning and value, and I feel that the pro-choice position is often associated with a depressing nihilism that robs life of meaning and value. First of all, because I am an animal lover, and unborn humans have that same quality that non-human animals have which makes me love them so much, I view dismissal of the dignity of unborn humans to be tantamount to dismissal of the dignity of non-human animals. The fact that some pro-choicers point to the embryo’s non-human appearance to demean its dignity certainly does not help with this, as well. And non-human animals are a significant part of what gives my life meaning and value. Second, the pro-choice position is often associated with a materialistic view of consciousness, which I really despise and which really depresses me. People often argue that a fetus is not conscious until a certain point in development at which its brain reaches a certain stage of development. This is materialism. Materialism really does not appeal to me for various reasons, but foremost among them is that it entails I am identical with my physical body, which I do not want to be true, and that it implies the lack of an afterlife and eternal oblivion after death, which I do not want to be true.

So these are the most major underlying psychological reasons I have for my personally pro-life stance which I can think of at the moment. What does this forum think?

That's a great and sensitively worded post and tbh I have a whole load of turmoil over the abortion question for the very same reason thinking the same about animals too . In short it is very much how I feel about it and that voice for the voiceless is a core of my beliefs too

 

[oneworld2]

Instead of pontificating on the best way to go about birth and abortion so that their underlying psychological reasons aren't unnecessarily upset, maybe once in a while men could have the courtesy to ask the people that actually bear children and make the difficult abortion decision what they think.

The poster asked " what the forum thinks " and that would include the female percentage so he did ask the people you refer to what they think so it seems you had a bit of a pop for nothing

 

[Scrabaholic]

That just completely contradicts itself

Non human animals do not have souls.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That just completely contradicts itself

If you think we are animals then animals have souls. BTW I think you are wrong and that all animals have souls. Down grading creatures abilities and value has been and is still being used to justify cruel treatments and for that reason alone decent people should reject to buy into it imo

Non human animals do not have souls. If they did, God would prohibit us from eating them.

 

[soylentgreen]

At a certain stage in pregnancy, an embryo does have a tail. No, I am not referring to sperm.

And you’re putting words in my mouth. As I stated, I don’t support making abortion illegal, and I’m certainly not denying a woman the right to decide what is of value and meaning to her. I certainly do not think she is subordinate to the pregnancy. The two lives are equal in value to me; neither is superior or inferior to the other.

"You have with this statement dismissed the dignity of the woman by saying that she is not valued for herself but only her ability to give birth gives her value."

I never said anything even remotely similar to this. I actually very much support women’s rights, and oppose discrimination of any kind, including that based on sex. It is this same hatred for discrimination of all sorts that leads me to have sympathy for the unborn, as well as non-humans.
In fact, I would consider myself a feminist, if that term is defined as meaning "equality of the sexes".

That is what i would call an armchair philosophy. In other words it is easy to say you support both a womans right to decide and the right to a childs life because the problem is not yours.

But in reality there is no equality here. If the woman gets an abortion the life growing within her dies. A decision needs be made. On that basis then you should make a decision on where you stand.