It's fetus, no such thing as an unborn child. The catholic stance on "sanctity of life" is grossly misplaced, misplaced by misguided folks.

No, an Aristotle advocate can be pro like from birth, if you follow his potentially actually scheme

Never met an unbeliever that was pro-life. I was raised in a fundy Christian church that taught God gives each person a soul at birth, so a pro-choice religious sect.

I say fetus; to me this is more accurate. Pro-lifer is not always religious. My brother is not religious; he doesn't know what he believes. He used to support abortion. Then he changed his mind and is now pro-life. He still is not religious that I can see.

Eh. I use fetus if I’m having a medical discussion - as it’s a medical term. Otherwise I use whatever I feel is appropriate to the context - often times unborn child just to rub some pompous ass the wrong way.

I know several pro-life atheists, though I’ve never encountered one anywhere close to some of the religious versions. From my experience they agree to exceptions for at least fetal abnormality and imminent danger to the mother.

I don't think so. I don't think you have to be religious to value human life. The concept of when that occurs exactly, probably has a lot to do with religion

There are non-religious ways to reason towards a pro-life position. The argument from moral caution makes at least a degree of logical sense: we can't be certain when human life begins, but the moral consequences of getting that call wrong are atrocious, so until the question of when "personhood" starts is resolved, don't abort any pregnancy at all.

...I'm not saying that's my own take on the issue, because it isn't. Rather, It's to point out that the argument is a) not so fanciful as to be immediately dismissable, and b) not grounded upon the received wisdom of an ancient mythology.

I wouldn't try to carry out a fetal abnormality that's for sure. Wouldn't make it to term, damaging further chances to have kids. I'm also under medication for epilepsy I can't take while pregnant if my goal really is a healthy, non brain damaged kid. Pregnancy is huge stress on the body and I think of Pro-choice like that. Either way just make the decision earlier the better and don't try to miscarry (drinking, intentional harm, under-eat etc), just have an abortion.
People didn't used to name their kids till they were past 1 because of how common infant death is. The bible is at best pro-choice itself, that's why priests used to be involved in a lot of abortions so girls wouldn't try themselves and get hurt/die themselves.
I'm against capital punishment, pro-euthanasia, anti-war, pro-welfare, Pro-choice, pro net-neutrality, pro-space travel. I'm a lot of things.
There is over 7 billion people on earth and people die and are born in each moment, but we can control our own lives. We should be able to decide if we want to add another person into our lives. It is hard on the mind and body you should have your choice in it.

I'm personally a pro-choicer. That kind of choice is a gut wrenching one and shouldn't be a political or religious ploy, ever. I've never been in a situation that I had to make such a choice but I have known several who had. Forcing a birth has far more negative effects on the people involved and society on a whole in the long run than just leaving it alone and supporting the choice regardless of which way it goes.

I personally am adamantly against abortion, however I feel it's not the government or religion's right to tell a woman what is best for them.

Because I am against abortion, I've never had one. I have also offered to drive a friend and wait with her when she went to get an abortion, and I almost paid for my daughter to have on (she decided on her own not to get one). This is a very personal decision for a woman, and should be made by her and her family/significant other (if SHE wants to involve them).

I use all terms, but not interchangeably. To me they all describe different stages of development. I might use zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn child, or any number of other descriptors depending on the circumstance. I will call it an unborn child when the mother actually intends to give birth and it is viable outside the womb.

It's a fetus until it's fully developed, then it's an unborn child. And atheists can believe in anything anyone else does that has nothing to do with gods and religions. They are as whole and rounded--more so--than religious people. They care and love for the good of community and humanity, not for some threatening god.

Verbatim, No.

Practically, Yes.

I.e - All non-religious people I know are Pro-Choice. A few religious people I know are Pro-Choice. All Pro-lifer's are religious. (I feel like this needs one of those fancy Venn Diagrams to model)

I am definitely Pro-Choice, but still think abortion is a poor decision. Omitting life threatening pregnancies and rapes, etc..... On the grounds that: sex = chance of pregnancy. We gotta exercise some self-control. Abortion needs to be an option on the table if & when it gets to that point, but that doesn't make it a good option. If that makes sense.

No

I know it was cruel but the mother to be annoyed me to no end with her "My baby, my child....is a God's gift."
I went to the Anatomy class in Dental school and I took a pic of the fetus we had in a jar....and showed it to her. She run screaming during 20 minutes.

They’re just words, I believe that every woman should have a choice, even if it’s one I wouldn’t choose for myself... no qualifiers (like rape, deformities, etc.) because it’s not my body to set rules for.

I am aware of a lot of groups who are not pro-abortion, but would never use the term "pro-life" since that's just a term that has nothing to do with life at all. It's all about the fetus.

When I debate this issue with my conservative friends (believe it or not I have them), i use the term "Medical procedure" since that's pretty much what it is. A medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.

Still, I'm not sure how I personally feel about it. I don't argue "when life begins," but I do recognize that life or not, it is the "potential" for life. Potential in science can still be pretty significant. When I'm challenged by being asked, "well what if you were aborted?" I answer, "I wouldn't know. I wouldn't be here. Period. So there's no way I could logically answer that question."

It's a complicated issue, which is why pro-lifer's will never ever understand it.

I didn't for my children, but in general, I do. I don't know if all pro-life (I hate that term by the way) are religious, but religious people are more predisposed to reject science and women's rights.

No, I wouldn't say every pro-lifer is religious, but certainly more religious people would be pro-life. Pro life has a wider meaning for me.

I like the pro choice option better because it give people with life threatening problem an option. Also I do not think a rape victim should be obligated to carry her attackers baby. However people that use it as a form of birth control that bothers me.

The late Nat Hentoff, longtime columnist for both the Village Voice and Free Inquiry, was very outspoken about both his atheism and his pro-life stance.

I believe a person can be pro-life without being religious. I am against abortion and even when I was pro-choice I was against myself having one.

I consider myself to be both an atheist and pro-life,

I think the connection between religion and pro-life primarily stems from the faulty moral reasoning brought on by theistic philosophy: the only justification required for a religious person is "God said so." I think it's reasonable to guess that the vast majority of pro-lifers are religious, so, with their philosophy based in theism, the pro-life movement will look arbitrary and manipulative.

As for myself I think that my stance on abortion has only been solidified since I left Catholicism.

Here is a summary of my beliefs on the issue:
It seems clear to me that the most valuable thing to any person is their life, as any right, benefit, or relief a person receives is useless if that person is dead. Therefore, the ultimate violation of an individual is to kill them, thus depriving them of every freedom in one move. I think it is arbitrary to dictate which persons are deserving of this protection, from the old to the newborn. And, as an extension, I don't see any non-arbitrary or substantial distinction between a child in the womb and a newborn. As the crippling majority of gametes, both male and female, never develop past being a gamete, I think it's fair to distinguish them as separate from an individual.

Maybe I am wrong, but I see myself as having approached the issue rationally.

When I was much younger I was pro-life and atheist. Actually I was more conservative about a lot of things because I was a young mother and less educated.

I’m pro-life in a very generic sense (not in the political sense for which the term was popularized - I’m pro-choice in that regard) but I favor a life-affirming outlook over the cult of death attitude. But more to the point of your question… no, apparently not. I just encountered a person on this site who claims to be 100% certain there is no god and who also claims that fetuses have the same right to life that an adult human has.