The Underlying Psychological Motivations Of Pro-Lifers

[Scrabaholic]

I stopped here.

There is ONE reason I am pro life and one reason alone:

I do not believe in murder. Murder is against the law in virtually every society- or probably EVERY society- on the planet..

and that is that.. you can talk about psychological this and subconscious that... but that is my answer and there is no other.. (I know I speak for millions of other pro lifers)

Murder is ALWAYS against the law. In EVERY country.

 

[charliebrown]

It really sucks having strong support for both pro-choice and pro-life groups.

Personal experience as hindsight tell me personally that choosing life was a wonderful decision.

 

[Scrabaholic]

It really sucks having strong support for both pro-choice and pro-life groups.

Personal experience as hindsight tell me personally that choosing life was a wonderful decision.

You were pregnant?

 

[charliebrown]

You were pregnant?

No, my SO was pregnant. The decision to abort/carry was a joint decision. I know, what a novel approach to life changing events.

 

[weaver2]

You were pregnant?

The biological miracle we've been waiting for: a pregnant male.

 

[weaver2]

No, my SO was pregnant. The decision to abort/carry was a joint decision. I know, what a novel approach to life changing events.

And I couldn't be happier that the two of you could make a joint decision and now you have a baby you love and can care for. Not all women or couples are so lucky and another baby will destroy the family or the family will destroy the child.

 

[charliebrown]

And I couldn't be happier that the two of you could make a joint decision and now you have a baby you love and can care for. Not all women or couples are so lucky and another baby will destroy the family or the family will destroy the child.

The baby is now 35 years old and a healthy, happy contribution to society. I continue to hope society will improve so those circumstances become more rare.

 

[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 responded to your OP, yet you did not comment on my conclusions:

I think that, if you are a woman (since I dont know), 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.​

 

[Scrabaholic]

No, my SO was pregnant. The decision to abort/carry was a joint decision. I know, what a novel approach to life changing events.

No, it was her decision. Had she aborted, would you have had to sign consent? No. It was her decision, she just took your views into account.

 

[charliebrown]

No, it was her decision. Had she aborted, would you have had to sign consent? No. It was her decision, she just took your views into account.

Agreed, her discussing the situation and her listening to me saved all three of us from possible lifelong regret.

 

[Troodon Roar]

I responded to your OP, yet you did not comment on my conclusions:

I think that, if you are a woman (since I dont know), 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.​

I am a man. And to be honest, although I support the freedom of anyone to have any opinion they want about when the life of a new individual organism begins and when personhood begins, I think there is a correct scientific answer to the first of those questions (when the life of a new individual organism begins): and that is at fertilization. As for the second of those questions (when personhood begins), that is not a question that science can answer. It is a philosophical, legal question, since personhood is really a social construct. To be honest, I would be happy with abolishing the concept of personhood entirely, and no longer dividing living things into the two classes of “person” and “non-person”. I, myself, don’t draw a distinction between persons and non-persons, and I think all living organisms are equal. And I would consider relegating the unborn to the status of non-persons, while recognizing the born as persons, to be ageism, or age discrimination, honestly.

 

[weaver2]

The baby is now 35 years old and a healthy, happy contribution to society. I continue to hope society will improve so those circumstances become more rare.

Until the circumstances become rare abortion is a legal and often the most humane option. For you it was not. Again discussing and coming to a mutual decision is intelligent, loving and preferable.

 

[alrightjesus]

For me personally, I value human life, especially of those who are innocent. I'm strong in my personal beliefs and morals, and was even stronger about them back when I first became pro life. I think everyone deserves a fighting chance at life. The only real time I would say abortion is necessary is when the mother's life is in danger, as no one should be forced to sacrifice their life for someone else's, and even then I still think as much should be done as possible to save both child and mother.

A bit off topic but overall I think we should be supporting these women through their pregnancies and parenthood if they so choose, and make things like birth control more available. I don't morally agree with breaking women's trust or harrassing them for personal agenda. Even then there are many couples out there willing to adopt and it is something I myself would like to do someday.
I think an issue with alot of people is that they more willing to preach their agenda than they are to actually help women in effective ways. There's actually a Dutch non profit pro life organisation that actually helps women and honestly they are one of the few groups actually doing anything.

 

[Scrabaholic]

For me personally, I value human life, especially of those who are innocent. I'm strong in my personal beliefs and morals, and was even stronger about them back when I first became pro life. I think everyone deserves a fighting chance at life. The only real time I would say abortion is necessary is when the mother's life is in danger, as no one should be forced to sacrifice their life for someone else's, and even then I still think as much should be done as possible to save both child and mother.

A bit off topic but overall I think we should be supporting these women through their pregnancies and parenthood if they so choose, and make things like birth control more available. I don't morally agree with breaking women's trust or harrassing them for personal agenda. Even then there are many couples out there willing to adopt and it is something I myself would like to do someday.
I think an issue with alot of people is that they more willing to preach their agenda than they are to actually help women in effective ways. There's actually a Dutch non profit pro life organisation that actually helps women and honestly they are one of the few groups actually doing anything.

All the help in the world will not get every pregnant woman to continue the pregnancy. You could offer me a million dollars and I would still abort. I am not risking my life for a pregnancy I don't want. Nor am I putting my body through the ravages of gestation and childbirth.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

All the help in the world will not get every pregnant woman to continue the pregnancy. You could offer me a million dollars and I would still abort. I am not risking my life for a pregnancy I don't want. Nor am I putting my body through the ravages of gestation and childbirth.

I certainly would do the same thing, but my concern is for the women who would want to go through with their pregnancies if they were paid a million dollars and abort them due to their socioeconomic plights. Single women need government assistance to get through all nine months if giving their babies up for adoption is their preference. How many abortions are in this group of very poor women and high school girls without health insurance, a living wage job, or sometimes even a diploma? I would love it if these people were able to choose between abortion and childbirth. That, of course, would reduce the number of abortions in women who do have unwanted pregnancies. I am still waiting for Republicans to prove no pro-lifers want to betray pregnant citizens who have nothing to take care of themselves and a fetus at the same time.

 

[D_NATURED]

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.

I have to disagree. By definition, not believing in gods means NOT believing in the supernatural and creation...even with a capital C. Anyone who says they do think that way is being dishonest with themselves. It's OK to believe whatever you do, providing it's not an entitlement to violence or the irrational oppression of others. However, not believing in the Abrahamic god is not the same as atheism, when there's a lot of spiritual mumbo-jumbo. You may not have a name for it, but it ain't atheism.

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 question the wisdom of attacking make believe with make believe. What is the point of trying to appreciate the nuance of what were simply children's tales, taken literally by some really scary people still today. Humans ARE animals and everything we do, including religion, is our natural, evolved behavior. We build structures, we get together in them and we pretend together that there is someone better than us, up there.

Nobody needs a god to tell them that other, lesser, beings should be treated with as much kindness as possible. But, if god belief is what keeps you from being cruel to animals, by all means don't stop believin'.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I don't avoid being cruel to animals because of my belief in God. A lot of atheists are kind to animals. So are people labeled as agnostic: those who believe God's existence can't be proven or disproven. But I do believe if there was no god, there would be no love.

 

[D_NATURED]

I don't avoid being cruel to animals because of my belief in God. A lot of atheists are kind to animals. So are people labeled as agnostic: those who believe God's existence can't be proven or disproven. But I do believe if there was no god, there would be no love.

I see a contradiction there. You say that those who don't believe are capable of love and then you say that without god there is no love. We're on the same side, politically, and I don't want you to think I'm trying to beat you up over your opinion here but it's not logically consistent.

Do you think other, lesser, animals believe in gods? If not, how do you explain the way they love each other and their human owners as well? I say love is natural for social mammals and the truth of it is on display across many species.

I used to ride the same spiritual fence by saying that if god is love, love (the action) is by default god. By that, I used to mean that love was a transcendent human state. I have come to think that the idea of transcendence is wrong. We love or we don't and both choices are our prerogative. Some times we benefit from love and some times we benefit from selfishness. That being said, empathy is better than apathy and whatever it takes to bring us there is good enough for me. Beware though that the "G" word is as much justification for illogical hate as it is for illogical love. Using it, even for nicey-nice reasons is to open a pandora's box of potentially bad decisions.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I see a contradiction there. You say that those who don't believe are capable of love and then you say that without God there is no love. We're on the same side, politically, and I don't want you to think I'm trying to beat you up over your opinion here but it's not logically consistent.

People who do not believe in God are unable to love Him (Christians use a capital H on purpose). They are able to love people and nonhuman animals if they choose to, but this is not the same kind of love. There are three kinds of love: for God, romance, and friendship. God gives all people a natural ability to love, but gives everyone the free will to choose love or hate.

Do you think other, lesser, animals believe in gods? If not, how do you explain the way they love each other and their human owners as well? I say love is natural for social mammals and the truth of it is on display across many species.

Nonhuman animals lack the mental capability to believe in a god, but many of them have ESP (extra-sensory perception), which can only be explained as a God-given gift. They don't need to know God to be loved by Him and love others because He created them, just as He created people.

I used to ride the same spiritual fence by saying that if God is love, love (the action) is by default God. By that, I used to mean that love was a transcendent human state. I have come to think that the idea of transcendence is wrong. We love or we don't and both choices are our prerogative. Sometimes we benefit from love and sometimes we benefit from selfishness. That being said, empathy is better than apathy and whatever it takes to bring us there is good enough for me. Beware though that the "G" word is as much justification for illogical hate as it is for illogical love. Using it, even for nicey-nice reasons is to open a Pandora's box of potentially bad decisions.

Love is a natural emotion felt by all animals capable of feeling it. Transcendent? I have never heard that one. God is love because without Him, there would be no love. That is not the same as saying the act of love is God Himself, of course.

Empathy comes from love. Apathy comes from hate. Therefore, it is never better for anyone to be apathetic than empathetic. But apathy is not necessarily evil in all cases - nobody on DP is obligated to care if a famous singer gets pregnant. Empathy, however, is where this thread and all others about abortion come from. It is why I keep saying it is stupid for Republicans to think an embryo only God knows is more important than its own mother and treat her as such.

 

[weaver2]

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.


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.What does this forum think?

What evidence do you have that the pro-choice position is a depressing nihilism that robs life of meaning and value?

Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless. That is not a description of the women, men and families that support legal abortion.

Being pro-choice has never meant rejecting religion. Pro-choice advocates are church members, members of spiritual groups, and devoted agnostics. Almost none are part of the 3% of all Americans that are atheists. atheists. Most Protestant churches support the pro-choice movement.

Pro-choice has never seen life as meaningless. It is a celebration of the freedom to choose; to welcome a new little person into the world to be loved by a family or the freedom to choose to support and make stronger the already born family over an embryo, which if allowed to be born, would harm the lives of family members. It is the freedom to face the difficulty of being a single mother, or it is the freedom to choose to give away a new-born child if the family objects to abortion.

Most of all it is the freedom to make private choices without the interference of the government or the religious dogma of someone else's religion.

Living a meaningful life means one has the opportunity to choose the direction of ones life and the power to make the best decisions for family, self and a potential child.

 

[D_NATURED]

People who do not believe in God are unable to love Him (Christians use a capital H on purpose). They are able to love people and nonhuman animals if they choose to, but this is not the same kind of love. There are three kinds of love: for God, romance, and friendship. God gives all people a natural ability to love, but gives everyone the free will to choose love or hate.

So, even if I don't believe in a god, if the belief in god is not part of my intellectual being, then god still exists because you declared it? Isn't that a little totalitarian to stake a claim on love itself in your god's name? Give a little credit to evolution, if you will. It was by changing bit by bit over time, genetically, socially, spiritually and culturally that we are here. Not by the wave of a magical hand.

When you speak of god you should be more humble than to assume that everything you want to be true is. I, for one, think you are kidding yourself, just don't try to kid me.

Nonhuman animals lack the mental capability to believe in a god, but many of them have ESP (extra-sensory perception), which can only be explained as a God-given gift.

So, where is your evidence of animal ESP, much less human? Don't worry about giving me evidence that god gave animals ESP, it's too much to bear already. You seem like a harmless spiritual type but your lack of critical thinking is scary as **** to me.

They don't need to know God to be loved by Him and love others because He created them, just as He created people.

I was created in Cleveland by two hillbillies. Besides, the word "love" is too precious to be squandered on magic. Love is real and it's ONLY real when it's an action. A selfless act for someone else is the only measurable type of love, the only kind that really manifests in the physical world. Conversely, if your father molests you, he can't genuinely say that he loves you, even if he's really sorry and he insists that he does love you. To not control yourself, to do something so detrimental to any person, much less your child, to be so apathetic to the outcome, outweighs any minor comfort you may have been obligated to provide as a parent, every fuzzy emotion. There's no love there.

So, how can god love you if he can't act in your favor? And how do you act in the physical world to help him in heaven? Does he just send down warm wishes from above and you return them? To hell with warm wishes, give a bum a sandwich. Then, you'll be closer to Jesus than ever. So, if you're comfortable letting beautiful love be corrupted by the arbitrary worship of super nature, I question your decision. It's not worth it. Assigning love to an abstract construct is to cheapen what it really is and can be in the rational world.

Love is a natural emotion felt by all animals capable of feeling it. Transcendent? I have never heard that one. God is love because without Him, there would be no love. That is not the same as saying the act of love is God Himself, of course.

Why not? Why can't the ACT of love be god? Wouldn't that be a better god than the one that just sits around judging us as we struggle through his earthy obstacle course? What if god wasn't a thing but the collective good that men were putting into ACTION at any given moment in time? His power and his existence would wax and wain as people did more or less good to each other. I wish that were how people thought about god, it would be a better world. Instead they treat god like a pretend friend, not a duty to be kind.

Empathy comes from love. Apathy comes from hate. Therefore, it is never better for anyone to be apathetic than empathetic. But apathy is not necessarily evil in all cases

I thought you said apathy comes from hate. When is hate not necessarily evil?

nobody on DP is obligated to care if a famous singer gets pregnant. Empathy, however, is where this thread and all others about abortion come from. It is why I keep saying it is stupid for Republicans to think an embryo only God knows is more important than its own mother and treat her as such.

I'll give you 75% on that one.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Natured, this topic belongs in the Beliefs and Skeptics section, not in an abortion thread. But as it relates to abortion, friends and family who help the mother carrying an unwanted embryo or fetus are showing her love, while the government threatening to lock her up is showing hate.

 

[D_NATURED]

Natured, this topic belongs in the Beliefs and Skeptics section, not in an abortion thread. But as it relates to abortion, friends and family who help the mother carrying an unwanted embryo or fetus are showing her love, while the government threatening to lock her up is showing hate.

What would the abortion debate be without faith dominating it? It's actually very relevant. I'm glad you're on the right side of this and have found continuity with your spiritual sense but I don't think magical arguments in favor of choice are that much more intelligent than those against it. Follow your human empathy and that will be as godly as you need to be.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What would the abortion debate be without faith dominating it? It's actually very relevant. I'm glad you're on the right side of this and have found continuity with your spiritual sense but I don't think magical arguments in favor of choice are that much more intelligent than those against it. Follow your human empathy and that will be as godly as you need to be.

What magic are you talking about?

1 Corinthians 13:13 - But only three things remain: faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of all is love.

That is the basis of human empathy.

 

[D_NATURED]

What magic are you talking about?

1 Corinthians 13:13 - But only three things remain: faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of all is love.

That is the basis of human empathy.

The bible is full of magic, an all-powerful, invisible being is magic, what are you reading, the Jeffersonian bible? Quoting Corinthians to me is like quoting the joy of grilling to a vegan. The basis of human empathy is human need. We need each other so we have to care. It evolved, it's not bestowed.