Pro-Life Nonbelievers

Add a Comment

16 Comments

Comment by Simon JM on August 27, 2009 at 3:20am

Welcome Chris,
nice to have you join up. I'm not sure about the ratio of men to women, though I do have links to Feminist Pro-lifers both religious and secular. I do hope we can get more activity here or at least point to other active secular groups.
Cheers
Simon

Comment by Chris Z on August 27, 2009 at 3:02am

Well, thank you Jen for starting this group. I am an Atheist, Conservative, Pro-Life, Veteran, Vegetarian, Physics Student. I have been searching all over the internet for a group like this. I have found that more men seem to be Pro-life Non believers than women. I'd appreciate the opinions of everyone? Being male, I would love to hear that I am wrong.

Comment by Ockraz on March 8, 2009 at 8:11pm

:) Thanks!

I like the Nolan chart in that it is at least 2-dimensional instead of just a right-left model, but I don't that there are some kind of arbitrary assumptions (the 2 dimensions are economic and social- but what about things like enforcement of the law or foreign policy) and it doesn't take into account motivation. Two people can favor more government activity in an area, but depending upon the desired goal, they can have opposite ideologies.

I made my own chart for classifying political ideology, that factor these elements into it, but it is more complicated.

Comment by Jen R on March 8, 2009 at 7:59pm

That sounds like a brilliant blog idea.

Comment by Ockraz on March 8, 2009 at 7:45pm

That kind of sounds like something I've been talking about lately.

I'm actually trying to get together some friends to do a political blog based on the Nolan chart- a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian and me :) - the chart calls me a 'statist', but that's because Nolan was a libertarian. I call myself an 'egalitarian'.

The idea is that the left is okay with expanding government influence in economic matters, but not in the area of social/moral issues. The right is the converse. Libertarians want neither, and a 'statist' favors both.

Comment by Jen R on March 8, 2009 at 5:53pm

Ah, but *which* new party? The consistent life ethic party? I'd love it, but I'm not sure how big it would be. The "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" party? That's a huge underrepresented group, but I don't know how many of us would actually fit it. Especially since "socially conservative" would include things like prayer in public schools and opposition to gay rights. The "libertarians, except pro-life"? Not my bag, but anyway that already kind of exists -- you certainly can be a pro-lifer in the Libertarian Party, and plenty of libertarians argue that abortion violates the "no use of force" principle.

Comment by Christopher Peter Robinson on March 7, 2009 at 11:37pm

Ummm... the box is what you put the paper in. The booth is what you but yourself in.

We need a new political party.

Comment by Jen R on February 13, 2009 at 8:26pm

Ain't that the truth, Justin.

Comment by Justin P. Gray on February 13, 2009 at 8:25pm

Well, at least I know there are 11 of us that will never, never, never be able to leave the ballot box without feeling a little cheated...

Comment by Christopher Peter Robinson on January 17, 2009 at 12:04pm

@equinox: Actually, the best way to keep evolution progressing is to keep beneficial genes alive.

A better way to think of it is through the right to live.

• 1
• 2