http://www.gofundme.com/PLH_Reason_Rally
PRO-LIFE ATHEISTS = “Helping the devil?”
“In a way, donating to an atheist would be like helping the devil“. That’s what someone recently told me as I wondered out loud why so many pro-life Christians seem especially reluctant to fund my group’s pro-life educational projects. I had no idea! Pro-life Humanists (and all of you out there who are pro-life atheists and/or non-Christians) are helping the devil to save unborn babies – imagine that! Such monsters we are! And all this time, Christians have been arguing that abortion is the work of the devil – but somehow so is trying to stop abortion? And whatever happened to Luke 9:40 “whoever is not against us is for us“?
I launched Pro-Life Humanists a few years ago after seeing that of the many pro-life groups out there who do person-to-person outreach to the general public, there were none specifically equipped to reach the ever-growing atheist and humanist communities. Many secular young adults and recent defectors from religion want nothing to do with Christians, yet remain unsure about their views on abortion. Pro-life atheists are uniquely poised to encourage those young people toward a pro-life position, and toward advocacy of non-violent solutions to unplanned pregnancy.
But more to the point, I launched Pro-Life Humanists because, like other pro-life atheists who have aspired to be career pro-life advocates, I’ve been repeatedly turned down from positions in the pro-life movement. Back in 2001 I was impressed by pro-life leaders Scott Klusendorf and Gregg Cunningham’s pleas for more full time pro-life advocates: “there are more people working full time to kill preborn children than to save them“. Groups like theirs, (which largely only use secular arguments in their public work – a tactic I loved even when I was Christian) have lauded my informal debate skills whenever I’ve joined them as a volunteer. In my early twenties I received glowing reference letters from both Klusendorf* and the former midwest director of Cunningham’s group. But since I left faith behind, they have repeatedly rejected my offers to join them as full time staff and to raise my own salary under their organizations’ umbrellas. They only want staff who are “under spiritual leadership” and who can “join with them in prayer”.
* (See clarification note at end)
Unfortunately, the drudgery and finance of having to start up my own organization just to be able to do pro-life work was further complicated by the challenge of drumming up financial partners to make this work happen. It seems that not only do most pro-life Christian groups prefer to only hire pro-life Christians, but most pro-life Christians also tend to prefer donating to groups run by fellow Christians. If you doubt this trend, watch the video of two identical groups fundraising for an identical charity with nothing but “Atheist” and “Methodist” differencing them. (Incidentally, we get those looks when we attend the March for Life too). That no other group but a pro-life atheist group can bring the pro-life cause to the inner world of the atheist community doesn’t impress most pro-life Christians enough to make them want to donate to an atheist group – not even one doing something they agree with.
Last year, a substantial donor and her colleagues backed out on a contribution that could’ve helped us pay our cost of outreach to the American Atheist Convention and American Humanist convention (flights plus $400-$500 table fees, plus $300 conference fees per event). She had been excited to help until she realized that we not only do pro-life outreach to atheists, but we also are atheists.
Email sent to my colleague Noah from a rescinding donor: “I did not research Kristine’s website enough before I offered to make a donation. I did not realize that Kristine herself is an atheist. I thought she just spoke at atheist conventions with her message. I am Christian first and prolife second. I cannot support messages about unborn babies which do not attach the message of God’s creation.” [Emphasis added]
Rather than abandon my intended outreach effort, I put the bulk of the cost of both outreaches (about $3000 total) onto my personal credit card and went anyway. I had high hopes that once pro-lifers saw the fruit of my labour and the atheist minds changed to pro-life, they would get excited about my work and the funds would follow.
I was wrong. Not about my success – minds were changed at both events (and again at three other events I attended later that summer and fall). It was exhausting work to stand at a table for 18+ hours on three or four consecutive days, defending the pro-life position to inquiring and sometimes hostile passersby (I even got stopped with questions when I withdrew to the bathroom!) But despite verbal enthusiasm and Facebook “likes” from fellow pro-lifers in response to the news of pro-choice atheists becoming pro-life atheists, the funding still didn’t come. I got a few hundred very appreciated dollars from one very generous donor and a handful of smaller gifts from faithful friends, but the bulk of the outreach cost remained mine to carry. I guess we’re still a group of evil atheists, after all.
So it is that while other pro-life peers of mine are bringing in enough funds under established pro-life groups to earn a salary from their pro-life work, I’m quite literally paying out of pocket and going into debt to do mine. Friends have suggested I should quit and put my own needs first (I suffer from chronic health challenges and other problems that could well be receiving my financial attention) but I continue to resist quitting. I’m doing this for those who have no voice and whose entire lives are on the line. I don’t think I have the moral right to walk away from them!
Yes I am an atheist, but I so very desperately want to make a difference, and to help create a society where both unplanned and planned children are given the love and support they and their mothers deserve. And with the pro-life movement pleading for more full-time career workers, why should I have to content myself with being just another part-time volunteer or at best an online blogger with a limited reach – when I have so much more to offer this movement?
If you’re a pro-life Christian or religious person who grasps the importance of a pro-life presence in the atheist community, I plead with you to not allow our differences in beliefs to keep you from making our unique outreach possible. There aren’t enough pro-life atheists to adequately fund our work, and without your help we’re unable to continue changing minds offline to turn pro-choice atheists into pro-lifers.
And of course, if you’re a non-religious prolifer I beg the same of you. This group exists to bring your voice to our community, and while we’re willing to do the hard work at these events, we very much need your help to make that work possible. Unlike the fundraisers in the video I previously mentioned, we can’t count on most atheists (4/5 non-religious = pro-choice) to be enthused about our work either. So if you don’t help fund us – who will?
Please make a contribution to our latest fundraiser through Gofundme today. I assure you, we’re not helping the devil – but we’d really like to help save some preborn children, with your help!
——-
(Clarification 28/05/16: The “they” in “they have repeatedly rejected” refers to the “groups like theirs.” While I received a reference letter from Scott Klusendorf, he himself was not the one who rejected my offer, but rather a member of his staff who told me Scott wouldn’t hire an atheist. “repeatedly rejected” refers to multiple conversions over a series of weeks and in person with a regional director of Cunningham’s organization with whom I have often volunteered, one conversation with the member of Scott’s team, and a few other conversations over the past few years with other pro-life organizations. My apologies for the apparent implication that I had directly asked Scott Klusendorf if I could work for him and that he himself had repeatedly turned me down. Scott has since stated that there is a distinction between “assisting atheist pro-lifers and employing them.” and that he will “gladly do the former.”)
… I’m not sure the distinction matters all that much to a pro-life atheist who needs job and is trying to be gainfully employed in the pro-life movement.)
“I am Christian first and prolife second.”
That sentence reveals so much about priorities doesn’t it? It puts a particular religion as being more important than life itself!
And FTR, I’m really sad that my mom and I can barely make it financially, but I look forward to a day where not only can I afford food for my mom and I, but also support what you do Kristine.
I am a Catholic Christian and that sentence made my heart shudder with sadness. There is nothing less Christian than to look upon the face of someone with every good will in their heart and to spit upon them. I am a college student with few financial resources, but I will offer the ironic sympathy of my prayers. Take it as a show of good intent. My friend who works very actively with national right to life agencies has shown amazing support to pro-life atheist affiliated organizations for that same reason you mentioned: to spread the word to those many who need it, wherever they are in life, and whatever their beliefs. I wish you every good in your endeavor, as your work is both to the good of mankind, and, as I believe, to the glory of God.
Thanks for the emotional support, Matt! Please let your friends and family know about us. This is a great opportunity for pro-lifers to reach an audience that hasn’t given the pro-life position much ear in the past.
I may not agree with atheist concepts generally but most atheists I’ve known are pretty peaceful people, and have a right to their opinion. They’re also fairly heavily socially ostracized, to my understanding.
As for financially assisting Satan is concerned, I think more appropriate candidate groups would be the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party or ISIS.
We have really wanted to donate to you, but it seems the funds go into a personal bank account? We haven’t donated because of this reason….
Thank you Niomi! Actually Pro-Life Humanists has a separate bank account as of a year. Checks can be mailed and made out to Pro-Life Humanists / 541 Parker St. / Gatineau / Quebec / J9H 4S3 / CANADA
However, the paypal account in use is for the time being my personal paypal, due to some complications we had with paypal over our non-profit status. But I assure you that every last dime received through PLH goes back into the outreach work. In fact, if you worry that funds will be used for my personal gain, I’ve actually been funding 90% of the outreach work of this organization FROM my personal bank account and on my personal credit card over the past couple years. I believe strongly that this educational outreach is desperately needed that I haven’t allowed slow fund base and our unpopularity within the mostly religious pro-life community to stand in the way of changing minds and saving lives. I do all I can do with pretty much all I have.
Most of the conferences and events I’ve attended since launching Pro-Life Humanists cost approximately $1000 – $1500, as the conference fees are around $300 USD (add an extra $40-$60 for every $100 in CND – so $420 for me) and the display tables cost $400 – $500 USD (that’s $560-$700 CND) plus the cost of flights. I always couch-surf and buy my own groceries to save costs. On top of putting up my own funds and credit to cover most of the outreach, I’m not currently claiming any income for the hours of work I invest.
So please don’t be at all afraid of funds going into my account – rest assured there are and have been far far more going out of my account for this cause!
Thank you for your interest and concern! Pro-life funds should indeed be well spent! I’d be happy to show you our receipts if it would make you feel more at ease.
Kristine Kruszelnicki
abortions are not murder because murder is an unlawful killing, abortion is lawful, so its not murder
Actual life (mother) takes precedence over, only potential life (fetus). The mother has full human rights, the fetus none.
men make sperm which last 48 hours not a viable fetus, only after 6 months in the woman, is it viable, hense why its her choice
A fetus has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
a fetus feeds off a woman infringing her human rights, a fetus has none (human rights) until born. making it a womens decision until viable up to 24 weeks 50/50 viability
a fetuses heartbeat starts at 20 weeks ( its actual heartbeat ) because it takes 20 weeks for the muscles around the fetuses heart to fully develop. and even up to 21 weeks it has a 0 % chance of survival
stop religiousy motivated pharmacists refusing women the pill, forcing them into an abortion
getting universal healthcare will cut abortions massively because no poor or even mid income people can afford the shocking price of $30,000 or more of just giving birth
pro lifers just force women to give birth, even if the fetus died in the womb.¿ or has no brain ( 🔸Anencephaly ) and giving birth to it, will crush its skull and kill it, – better to abort before it feels pain! its true they can do a “C” Section. but the fetus will only live hours before dying as with – (🔸 Acrania ) – no skull (exposed brain) i hope this comment has been educational why abortion can never be illegal
paid maternal leave number of weeks : America 0 Iran 34. republicans silent
Hi Steve, Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
A few quick thoughts in return:
– It seems like you’ve made a lot of assertions but I don’t see a lot of argument to back those claims up. Why should anyone accept, for instance, your claim that “The mother has full human rights, the fetus none.” Do you mean based on current law? Because what’s legal today doesn’t always = what is right. History is the best example of this. In fact that’s why human rights activists today fight for rights of GLBT in countries where they have no legal rights. Because having no legal rights doesn’t translate to having no rights.
“Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).” All of these are assertions/claims that aren’t backed up with arguments. Being not-yet-born is definitely not the same as being not-yet-living. Fetuses grow and develop precisely because they are alive. They’re not a potential human if they’re bodies made by human parents — they biologically can’t be anything but human. Young humans yes, and very immature humans, but nonetheless humans developing through all stages of human development toward adult maturity.
“Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” This is absolutely true if only her own body are involved. The law and morality always have a say when one’s personal choice impacts or harms another body.
“a fetuses heartbeat starts at 20 weeks” that’s factually incorrect. The heart begins beating by no later than 6 weeks. See non pro-life sites like the Endowment for Human Development, which lists fetal development facts, week by week.
By the way, viability says nothing about rights or about whether or not one is human. Viability only measures one’s ability to survive outside of current environment and conditions. Stick me on the moon without proper equipment and I won’t be viable either. Viability in fetuses measures only the progress of modern technology. They can’t survive without their mother’s body because of how old they are, not what they are. But extreme vulnerability should not justify abandonment or killing of the vulnerable.
And while time doesn’t allow a full response to the question of terminally ill fetuses, even if we were to justify abortion in those cases, that still wouldn’t justify the vast majority of abortions on healthy fetuses and healthy pregnancies.
That being said, I agree with you about universal healthcare and paid parental/maternity leave. The religious Republican right aren’t the only pro-lifers in existence even if they are loudest. 🙂
I would have thought it would have been aiding and abetting the devil and his wicked works *not* to help PL atheists stop abortions! These Christians have their priorities ass-backwards, they really do. I’m not a Christian, I’m not an atheist either. Although I can’t give money at this time, when I get the chance I would be more than happy to do so. Prolifers have a bad name because of all this religious exclusionary mumbo-jumbo. Thanks for your website Christine 🙂
Much appreciated, Crystal! 😀
I don’t agree with your position on abortion, but as a fellow atheist, I have to admire your conviction. If you’re indeed correct, one day I hope you’ll be recognized for your tireless effort.
Thanks! That’s kind of you to say! 🙂
The funniest part to me is that you can make a compelling argument that the Bible itself is *pro-choice*. Exodus 21:22-25 states that the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is a fine; it’s only a murder if the mother dies. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 says it’s better to never be born rather than live an unfulfilled life. In Numbers 3:39-40 God tells Moses to only count infants over one month old for his census. Genesis 2:7 implies that life begins at first breath. And the most obvious one is Numbers 5:27, where women who cheat on their husbands should be forced to drink a concoction that forces a miscarry; in other words, the Bible is directly condoning abortion (but only against the woman’s will, of course, because this is the Bible and we can’t have women making choices!).
I’m personally against abortion for pretty much the exact reasons this site describes (I’m a strong atheist). But it strikes me as strange that people believe that Christianity is naturally anti-abortion when the Bible itself is not. Just goes to show how people’s rational (or irrational) ethical intuitions get taken over by religion, regardless of whether or not the theology itself supports those ethical beliefs.
I think it’s like anything else in the Bible, it all depends on how you read it. Scott Klussendorf actually did an expose of Exodus 21 that shows why people who use it to justify abortion are probably not reading it correctly (translation issues mostly) http://prolifetraining.com/resources/five-minute-6/ . But overall, the secular case is easiest to justify, since the Christian is in the unenviable position of trying to explain why an all-knowing God who hates abortion is putting fetuses in wombs where he knows they’ll be unwanted and will be destroyed. It’s so much simpler to stick to the facts of when bodies begin.
Abortion is not only the case of religion but more of a natural law which comes from the observation of the nature. I wonder why so many non-theists don’t support the scientific teaching that conception is the moment when a human being is created and why they don’t follow the logocentric arguments of the pro-lifers. I am glad that there are people who support pro-life movement while not being religious – just because they have a proper language to convince other non-religious people for the pro-life positions. The religious persons’ view on abortion are often rejected by non-theisis only because of the religious bias of the supporters. Personally I am a Catholic who descended from atheism. I can fully understand the non-theist point of view and fully appreciate your logocentric struggle against abortion. Logocentrism is the key in the debate, not citations from the Bible – becuase non-theists will not just not listen to them. And Catolicism is said to be rooted in logocentrism (tomistic philosophy) also.
Thanks Pawel! Indeed, the science of when new bodies begin is very clear. A lot of non-theists want to place human debut at consciousness, but that’s a flawed position given that consciousness doesn’t exist without a brain, which can’t exist without a body. It’s the living body that matters, not our individual skills which would not exist without the whole body.