Read Time: 3 minutes

Introduction:

This is one of the most common objections. The claim is that the pro‑life position is just a religious belief. This isn’t only wrong but is an oversimplification. This myth comes from the fact that, on average, many religious groups are more likely to be pro‑life, especially Christians. This fact doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change the reality that there are many agnostic and atheist pro‑lifers.

The Main Pro-Life argument:

To understand why the pro‑life view isn’t only religious, we need to look at the argument itself.

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

All other Pro-Life argument flows from this foundation. The main argument is simple, but that its main strength. To reject this argument, you have to admit that some human lives are less valuable than others. That is the logical conclusion.

Faith Isn’t a Reason to Dismiss an Argument:

Even with this simple argument, some people still dismiss it because they assume it comes from religion. People dismiss pro‑lifers because they have a religious faith, but that doesn’t make their argument invalid because everyone uses faith in everyday life.

Even atheists and agnostics rely on a faith to help understand the world. You need faith for reason to work, faith in the scientific method, and even faith in your own abilities. Faith is just trust or confidence in someone or something.

The question to ask instead is, how did they reach that conclusion and does their reasoning stands up to criticism. This doesn’t mean that some people’s poor reasoning discredits everyone in a particular group. What matters is looking at the overall arguments and being willing to evaluate them fairly.

Moral Reasoning Doesn’t Require Religion:

Alongside faith is reason. Everyone regardless of belief system, uses moral reasoning in everyday life. For example, almost all of us agree that stealing is morally wrong. We recognise that we can also find moral truths thought reason and the same is with the Pro-Life view.

A common objection is “consent to sex ≠ consent to pregnancy” but that like saying consent to sex ≠ consent to child‑support this follows the same logic. The law says the man him responsible because he engaged in an act so do we have a different standard.

Some people assume that pro‑lifers don’t care about women’s lives, but that’s a misunderstanding. The pro‑life view isn’t about letting anyone die, it’s about avoiding intentional harm to unborn children.

If there is a genuine medical emergency that requires emergency care, we still acknowledge that some situations are tragic and may unintentionally lead to the death of the unborn child. This is not equivalent to the intentional destruction of a child.

Thought Experiment:

Now imagine a remote African tribe where a newborn child is completely dependent on their mother’s body to survive. The mother already has several other children and caring for this baby is extremely difficult. Would it be morally acceptable for her to kill the child? Most people would say no. But what if I told you the child was a 10‑week‑old pre-born instead. Why should your answer change based on that detail alone? Humanity is the best measurement for determining worth; most other reasoning always unintentionally excludes other groups of humans or includes non‑humans.

Basic Biology:

Last of all from the biological perspective. Life beings at conception. Some people try to use rare situations, like identical twinning, to challenge this point. But exceptions don’t change the basic biological fact that conception is required for identical twining to even happen.

Conclusion:

In the end, the pro‑life position doesn’t depend on religion. It is based on a basic moral principle: every human being has worth because of their humanity.