When Religion Feels a Lot Like Abortion

This content is for Member members only.
Log In Register
Liked it? Take a second to support Marianne Ono on Patreon!
Notify of
Dawn Redden
Commenter

Not a fan. Feels like lip service to me.

Ken Gill
Commenter

If religion wants to stop abortion, they need to be more accepting of single women who get pregnant. The whole routine of shaming or sending them away doesn’t help keep them away from abortion.

Edwin Deady
Commenter

Not being divine it don’t matter if Jesus existed or not. Why would supporting the Iraq wars mean someone wasn’t a Christian? The Iraq wars were justified. The fact that religious idiots chose to carve each other up after the fall of Saddam doesn’t take away the reasons for intervening.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid You’re having a hard time answering on the original post? Can you message me your difficulties? We’re working HARD to make it as easy as possible. Important to me.

Eugene S. Kaiser
Commenter

It is amazing that so many don’t know what the Gospel is about !

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Eugene S. Kaiser I have, that’s what concerns me.comment image

Eugene S. Kaiser
Commenter

Read the Bible. KJV. Amen !

Dawn Redden
Commenter

The Gospel is four distinct yet similar stories written 100 to 200 years after Jesus death. Some believe they were the result of oral stories shared by the Disciples through the years.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

What is it about?

Patricia des Champs
Commenter

Alisa Carnall

Carolyn
Member

Can you still call yourself a Christian if you’re against abortion, but have no problem with the death penalty or supporting a government’s decision to go to war.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

I very much agree. I do not see how anyone who supported the war in Iraq can call themselves Christian. Further, I do not think one could be Christian and have voted for Trump.

Barton Lloyd Clennon
Commenter

Jesus is a literary artifact of Roman Psyops…pro-Roman, pro-Imperial, pro-Slavery, anti-Jew, anti-Judaism…

Barton Lloyd Clennon
Commenter

Jesus is a literary character…he is as instantiate as Santa Claus…

David MacPherson
Commenter

In the same vein, why a carpenter and not a King? Why born in a stable and not in a palace? Why gather the lower class of people around him and not the highest in society? Why a man of no wealth and not someone richer than everyone else?
These few simple things don’t make sense if you are trying to ‘con’ people into belief in Jesus. Even today, we’d be more convinced with a show of power and wealth that weakness and poverty. He was real.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

I’ve little doubt Jesus was real. comment image

Barton Lloyd Clennon
Commenter

There isn’t one ostracon of evidence that a Christ existed…the Gospels are bullshit meant for generating followers not History, Warren…shit, Nazareth is a grave yard in Christ’s supposed time…

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Or he was real in a historical real-time way… just like you and I are. Plenty of historical archeological proof out there to look into if you’re into that sort of thing.

Ron Smith
Commenter

Send me the book

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Either Jesus really did rise from the dead and everything He said is true, or He didn’t, and Christians are the biggest fools who have been taken in by the biggest hoax the world has ever known. It’s as simple as that.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

I can only recommend books like ‘Who Moved The Stone?’by Frank Morrison, and ‘The Rage Against God’, by Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher Hitchins, the author of ‘God Is Not Great’. The former was an atheist when he started his book, and a Christian when he finished it. Incidentally, I have read both ‘God Is Not Great’ and ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins. So no way can anyone accuse me of only reading literature which confirms my own prejudices.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid How is “The Resurrection” proof? I mean, if it happened, I’d consider it rather strong proof, but is there evidence it happened?

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

While that’s exactly true… it’s not quite as simple as that. For an Atheist, he must move over to the point of actually being open to the possibility that God created all things and is working it all out in His own way. We are surrounded by God’s reality and are actually a part of it. The resurrection is a part of that reality and a huge part, but not the only part. To admit that humans are different in His reality and somehow fundamentally flawed is a big part too. Not only is the resurrection proof of God having shown up in a human form and suffered what he suffered, it’s the part that puts guilt, innocence and justice in context with pardon and “rehab”. All the pieces of the human puzzle don’t fit together any other way. And we have God’s reality to prove it to us all the time, even if we’ve never heard about (or deny) that guy Jesus.

Charles Digiorgi
Commenter

So rather than follow the Jewish Traditions –
that Jesus Condemned – We should follow Christ’s
example in making his Father’s name known.

“Our Father in the heavens,
let your name be sanctified.”
(Matthew 6:9) – BibleGateway

Jesus used his father’s name –
and told us to do the same.

In prayer to his father, Jesus said:

“O righteous Father,
even though the world does not know you,
I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
I made known to them YOUR NAME
and I will continue to make it known…
“I have manifested Your name
to the men whom You gave Me out of the world.”
(John 17:25,26,6)(ESV)-BibleGateway

“I will praise thy name for ever and ever..
Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised;
And his greatness is unsearchable.”
(Psalm 145:2,3)(ASV)-BibleGateway

“That men may know that thou,
whose name alone is JEHOVAH,
art the most high over all the earth.”
(Psalm 83:18) (King James Version) -BibleGateway JW.ORG LEARN MORE
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · Yesterday at 1:14pm

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

I’m having a hard time answering her on the original post. So here is my answer to her most pressing rebuttle. Attridge: Would you agree that abortion performed at ANY time prevents the future life and choices of that “homogeneous ball”? Where does God play into all this if you are truly a Christian (no “”s). Does the value He places on us suddenly change as an innocent? An Atheist has no problem with any of this. He’s adrift in a moral sea. He accepts nothing beyond his own logic and reasoning (an Atheists confession in real time). But we answer to the highest authority, and that authority says “You have no right outside of Me”. It doesn’t matter what you think of 1 John. The thread of the entire bible outlines the value God places on the individual person and how that person relates to Him (and the rest of creation). It saddens me when I see “Christians” support abortion in the modern form it’s taken. Defending it just rings hollow.

Russell Jay Haas
Commenter

I GREW UP CHRISTIAN TOO, and I can simplify what I believe. Abortion – Good !!!!! Christianity -BAD !!!! GOT IT?? I ALSO BELIEVE IN RETROACTIVE ABORTION.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

I’m not sure you’ll find that sentiment anywhere in the NT.

Russell Jay Haas
Commenter

If I feel right about it , I could finish this life, I’d be free from christians that don’t believe in christs’ message

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

May you never be on the recieving end.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Attridge has replied to many of your comments, but she’s done so on the Codex, and her comments are not syncing. You can reply there (follow the post) or here. Just her replies not getting synced back.

Andy Schroeder
Commenter

No, no, no, no, no do not attach religious tropes like “codex” to atheism which is exactly NOT anything to do with such TRIPE!

Jay Lindsey
Commenter

If we think God is a man then the abortion issue is unresolvable. But God is woman so SHE decides what to do! God is a vain and jealous woman and Jesus is a rich Jew!

Lee Helms
Commenter

Attridge seems to avoid the worst of the “pro-life” position. Too many people who call themselves “pro-life” are actually anti-sex and/or anti-pleasure. They oppose comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, HPV vaccinations and anything else that would prevent unintended pregnancies or STD transmission because those measures would make recreational sex “safe.” To them, sex is for procreation within marriage only, and sex outside of marriage is SUPPOSED to be dangerous, because it’s a sin, and the pregnancy/disease danger should discourage sinning.

I would like to assure Attridge that Atheist opposition to this theocratic norm is growing, and would be more substantial if we had had more of an opportunity to organize in the past. It has only been during the most recent decades (basically, since the Internet) that Atheists have even been able to FIND each other on a large scale. Give us time to develop the social connections and institutions necessary to establish support systems for others.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

I’d have thought there would be a few more positive responses….

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid How much do you know about randomness in the universe, in a general sense? There is no such thing (we’ll drop strings for a minute). Mountain ranges, weather, which star explodes, which one doesn’t… None of these are random– AT ALL.

Now this doesn’t make them predictable in the slightest, and for all intents and purposes we can say and live our lives as if they are random (you and I also move through time at two different speeds, but we can function quite normally ignoring that). They flip a coin at a football game and call it “random”—the fact that it’s not random in the slightest is completely irrelevant…

Just as the weather is deterministic, so are we. We have morality, but it doesn’t come from an outside source, it was bread into us, selected for. We learned the value of cooperation, and developed “morality” as a framework to understand and discuss what we intuit, that to survive together some rights (like the right to rape and murder) must be prohibited for a society to function.

So we create laws in an effort to create stronger, thriving societies.
That morality is innate, that behavior deterministic, has no more bearing on whether or not we can account for behavior in our laws, than the reality of determinism has on a coinflip. Indeed without laws, we’d quickly revert to a Hobbesian state of nature. We made laws to survive at a higher level of comfort (which we enjoy today), because laws actually are factored into deterministic calculations (even a sociopath has to check himself when he knows there are enforceable laws.)

http://www.theatheistcodex.com/codex/positions/morality-innate/

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid comment image

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

I’ve thought about your comments here on morality and guilt. If I understand you right, you state that if we think about it deeply (your words), there is no such thing as true guilt. And yet you also state that Atheists such as yourself actually have an objective moral foundation. I’m confused by this. If your morals have an objective foundation why (how) can you regect an objective guilt? They are linked one to another.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

OK… so what would be your objective moral reality? What object do you point to? The greatest good for the greatest number of people? Of what value does the least number of people have? Some? None? A graduated scale? Who gets to decide?

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid No, we’ve discussed this before: there is an objective moral reality–and I outlined how Sam Harris gets there. A utilitarian model–the greatest good for the greatest number. ISIS objectively does not fit that model, opposing them does. It’s theism that makes morality relative, because if they’re actually praying to the right god, YOU and I are the immoral ones. But you can’t demonstrate that they’re wrong on that front. We can show that they are not maximizing outcomes for people, however.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid On Courts: Not true. Thats like saying that because computer’s cant generate random numbers, we shouldn’t use random number generators, or because it’s not truly random, you should never flip a coin. But flipping a coin works… because for nearly all intents and purposes it IS random. Same thing with morality. Laws work, moral standards work. For nearly all intents and purposes we do have free will. But just like with randomness, if you get deep enough, it doesn’t quite work as it would appear too.

Edwin Deady
Commenter

Basically the key is empathy, something missing in sociopaths, Americans who reject a universal health service and many religious poeple.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Edwin Deady Of course there is a moral compass without God. The problem is that it has no focal point (religions can be skewed just like Atheism…. as religions are just mans attempts to define reality). Your morals have just as equal weight as mine without an authority that stands above us all. Here’s where honesty comes in (of course, you have no moral basis for honesty either unless you can point to one that has a unifying principle that covers all of man-kind). In order to have true morals that stand as a universal principle above human beings, we need law that stands above humans….. and truly understands them as well. Where will you get those? Until then ISIS has just as equal moral foundations as you do. The rest of the responses to this post are just noise that proves my point. Everybody is god in there own opinion. Trouble is… how will they get everyone else to accept it?

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

As an Atheist, you hit the nail right on the head. “No true guilt” means that Hitler killed himself for nothing. He was only “pseudo-guilty” and no court of law has any authority to convict based on that. Think of the money we’ll save.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid I’m not sure there is such a thing as true guilt, not in the sense you mean, any more than freewill. We have psudeo-freewill, just like psudeo-random. And psudeo-guilt, now, come to think of it.

Edwin Deady
Commenter

Warren Kincaid Let us be clear. Areyou saying that without a god YOU would be a murderer, rapist etc? If not then you must admit that their is a moral compass without religion.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

There is only one solution to the “problem”. You all stand in moral quick-sand. One person’s position is equal to any others position…. there is no such thing as free will, so there can be no such thing as true guilt (only guilt feelings)….. human value at its highest is reduced to “potential”. I’m amused by Lee Helms next opening line “the worst of the pro-life position”. As if there’s a bad side to ultimately valuing human life to the point of protecting it from elimination. It seems that no one wants to tackle what the elimination of an innocent human life is really called. Welcome to the modern world. Attridge proves that you don’t have to be called an Atheist to fundamentally think like one. The safety in the abortion debate is that it’s easy to hide… and easy to hide from. The reality of it all is pretty gruesome.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Edwin Deady I’d think that would be applauded. If more theists were like Attridge, I’d like theism A LOT more. Agree or disagree with her, seems to me she’s more a part of the solution than part of the problem.

Edwin Deady
Commenter

Why? Gosh, a theist has some rational moments!

Ken Croft
Commenter

WHEN RELIGION FEELS LIKE A PAIN IN YOUR ASS!!!

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

It’s probably hemorrhoids.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Abortion is the issue that cuts to the very core of who a person is (and our collective society by force of law). Once one cell migrates into two and a DNA fingerprint is discernable we have a human life to deal with. The only difference from that moment until the individual’s physical death is the number of cells and the length of time. This is an inescapable fact (and held by science). Internally, everyone must deal with that and work it out from there. If there is intrinsic value in any innocent human life because of principle, that principle is universal at its core. In principle, if it is acceptable to perform an abortion, then it was acceptable to perform the “final solution” of the Third Reich (number of cells… length of time). Those who know but look the other way, or those who accept “but not for me” or those who say “You have no right to state a fact until you do something about it” are in the same central moral place as those who have an active part in the elimination of an innocent human being. If you are an Atheist then I guess you can place your own moral standards and values on anything you want, but you have no right to opine about others, because they can craft their own if you can. However…If you believe in an existent God who created humanity in His image and accept the value and justice that He places on you and your neighbor, and yet you find yourself accepting abortion as a human-centric “choice”? Then you have not thought it all the way through yet.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Dave Hollings You assume to much. He doesn’t need our help.

Dave Hollings
Commenter

If you hold this view, then why did God create human beings so that around 70% of all pregnancies terminate naturally. I assume that you hold God to be omnipotent, so God deliberately designed humans to be this way. God fails miserably to live up to the moral standard you set and is the world’s greatest abortionist. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans

Gregg
Member

I find myself in a similar position as the creator of this particular blog post. I am for all intents a moderate atheist who enjoys a good debate. I am pro-life to the extent that I would prefer people to not have abortions and will make that particular view known when it is fortuitous to do so. On the other hand I recognize the right for other people to choose their views on the matter and that in some cases abortion is necessary. That being said I believe in sensible controls being put in place. First I do not recognize that life per se begins at conception. The potential for life begins at conception for sure. Much like someone who is critically injured I view brain activity to be the defining mark. I see no issue with terminating the support of a person who for instance is brain dead, no conscious thought. Looking at the fetus, the time when brain activity actually begins (in any measurable sustained manner) is around the 25th week. This corresponds simply as the third trimester. At this time I would concede that the fetus is truly a life and not just potential life. It is also at this time that I would be willing to concede a moral objection to abortion. Prior to this I believe it is a decision that should be left to the person to decide.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Ron Quebec Only the hard truth will motivate a person in the right direction. Gear Heads of the world unite! I’ll let Karl Marx pick up the breakfast tab tomorrow.

Ron Quebec
Commenter

Well stated….

Ron Quebec
Commenter

SMH…”Shake My Hand”

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Sorry… don’t know what SMH means. I can make up a few, but they probably aren’t what you mean.

Gordon E Langer
Commenter

SMH!

Edwin Deady
Commenter

How nice to be so self-adsorbed.

Edwin Deady
Commenter

Explain how, do I maunder on about hypothetical situations with me as the heroine/hero?

Mark Stanton-Huxton
Commenter

Like your comment seems to be ?

John Termaten
Commenter

Pro life people is in fact pro birth, and then it stop’s. If all those pro life people would adopt a child, then we would not have so many foster homes.

David MacPherson
Commenter

Zlatko Zvekic genuine question here……if a friend of yours was self harming themselves, would you say nothing? If they then intended to take their own life, would you say nothing?

David MacPherson
Commenter

The problem I have is not just centred on abortion but our rather strange concept of what constitutes life.
We would agree that if a space probe found a micro organism on another planet, we’d be screaming that life had been found. However, on the other hand, we have accepted, that a foetus of 22 weeks, with all the appearance of a baby, all it’s features and limbs, somehow isn’t. How can that be? Genuinely asking.

John Termaten
Commenter

Debbie Scheibly So why are there so many children in foster care? I also believe you calling pro abortion people are libs. That is ignorant at it worse. This is a women’s right, no matter what political side’s they come from. It would be the same if I would call all anti abortion people whining Christians. but I do not. You should do the same.

Zlatko Zvekic
Commenter

Pro-life people are just basically confused bunch thinking that they have some right to say what someone else should do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Debbie Scheibly
Commenter

That is not the reason children are in foster home. It takes up to three years to terminate parents rights and sometimes longer. There is to much red tape and parents are given to many chances. You sir are clueless and I have adopted. We are the most given county there is and yet libs will whine we should do more

Jerry Durham
Commenter

$20 trillion in debt, over half of the households in the USA get some form of government aid, over 40 million on food stamps, etc… But John thinks we don’t care after birth, LOL…

John Termaten
Commenter

I’m glad you do.

Mark Stanton-Huxton
Commenter

You haven’t got a clue have you !

Dave Hollings
Commenter

The writer is pro-choice. meaning women should be able to make up their own minds about what to do if the become pregnant. She made her choice based on her principles. That’s fine. There is only a problem when other people try to force their principles on everyone else.

Zlatko Zvekic
Commenter

Some people rationalise before they act and some after, but we all rationalise. My take is that (just like Jesus from the stories) she was too young and messed up to think it all trough so now she is trying to rationalise what happened to her life. If Jesus existed and somehow stayed alive, he’d move to Hawaii or what ever place had nice beaches, good wine, cheese, olive…. I am getting carried away… sorry.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

And she proves my point in all of this. Hers is a human-centric point of view. Even though she wears a tag that says “Christian” she stands exactly where an Atheist does in values and morals. She displays all the modern traits of synthesis. The only difference is that she accepts the notion that in the human DNA is a quest for the “spiritual component” and acts on that urge, while those of the Sam Harris camp flatly deny it. In this post Attridge shows open acceptance of synthesis thought. She’s pro-life (knowing that abortion takes a human life)… but she’s not pro life (it’s OK to eliminate an innocent human life as long as it’s not her own). The typical modern ability of holding two diametrically opposing views at once, and then trying to justify them is clearly discerned in this post. What can I say? You can’t tell who someone is by reading their name tag. You have to listen to their positions.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

I didn’t have much luck replying to her article site… but I’m not the most computer savy guy in the world. No problem.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Well the article is above (of course), but her replies are going there, not coming back….

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

The Humanist Codex I do that with all “Christians” for your sake. There seem to be so many kinds and you seem to agree. I’ll check your post about her on your official site. I didn’t know that it doesn’t “synce”.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Attridge has replied to many of your comments, but she’s done so on the codex, and her comments are not syncing. You can reply there (follow the post) or here. Just her replies not getting synced back.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid Yet when you talk about Attridge, you put Christianity in quotes…. Do you do that with all christians.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Yours is another example of a “man-centric” point of view. Indeed… who does get to decide what a Christian is? The answer is easy. Not us.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Who get’s to decide what is a Christian? 1 john 5:6-12 It only seems fair to let the book that the term is rooted in define the answer. The source is always a good place to start. Verse 10, 11 and 12 get right to the point.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

Warren Kincaid Attridge makes a fair point. Who decides what is a Christian (or an Atheist… Frankly I think that I get to decide that, but I’ll PM her about that later…)? What should a Christian be? Someone who follows Christ? Most follow Peter, not Christ. Must you believe in the Resurrection, or just follow what he taught? Who defines christian?

Gordon E Langer
Commenter

scary!

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

Neither. It’s an observation. Biblically…. she’s something different than what a Chrisian should be. You have identified her closer as a theist. A Chrisian should see things from a God-centric position as Christians are called on to see God as an existent and communicating being (antually we all should, but that’s another topic). I expect that YOU will see things from a man-centric point of view… you’re an Atheist, how else would you see things? From a Christian, I expect something a little different. Interesting that the center of the discussion is abortion. It’s the most morally defining issue we face in this country today. She (and you) live with the dichotomy verbalized by your own admissions. Again… It’s an observation.

Nicholas Lamar Soutter
Admin

I’m not sure if this is a complement, or an objection…