Humanists fight for the rights of marginalized human beings.

Pro-Life Humanists ensure the youngest ones are not left behind.


Humanism has a long standing tradition of being a secular voice of social justice and equality.


Humanists have historically been defenders of the marginalized, and champions of human improvement for humanity’s sake.


Pro-life Humanists affirms the biological evidence of science that the lifelong continuum of individual human development begins when a new, whole, and distinct developing entity comes into existence at sperm-ovum fusion. We believe that to deny any biological member of the human species his or her basic right to continued existence based on exclusionary criteria,  is to violate the very principles of equality and inclusiveness that are the foundation of humanism.


Pro-life Humanists affirms that women and their prenatal offspring are both human beings with rights. When these rights conflict, we nonetheless reject as ageist the philosophy that a a fetus must lose his or her life entire to restore a temporary loss of bodily autonomy.


Pro-Life Humanists is a haven for irreligious, nontheist, and secular-minded pro-lifers, and we pleased to partner with any individual or group who is willing to join us in articulating a secular case against abortion.   We are consistent in our defense of all preborn human beings and refuse to discriminate against those conceived through violence. Pro-Life Humanists does not condone nor will we partner with any group or individual that advocates or performs acts of violence toward abortion providers or advocates.

9 thoughts on “About Pro-Life Humanists

  1. Acyutananda says:

    Debating with a pro-choice sister just now, she tried to discredit my objectivity because I had sent her a link to a secular argument on a Christian website. So I Googled for “atheists against abortion,” was delighted to find you, and immediately sent her your link! And I was also delighted to see C. Hitchens’s beautiful statement on abortion, because I had always admired his mind but had never so perfectly agreed with him.

    Please take a quick look at my link, then let me know how I can become more effective in partnership with you.

    • Kristine Kruszelnicki says:

      Pleased to meet you and glad to know that google has favoured us :) If you’re on twitter, add us there (@prolifehumanist). We’re also on FB: /prolifehumanists
      I’d love to interact as there are plenty of ways you can help bring the pro-life message to the atheist community. Thanks for the love!

      P.S. Love the name of your blog. Quite clever :)

  2. Milton says:

    After reading this piece, I wonder again what the original word ‘humanist’ means? I image it means to live and reason without the bonds of religious dogma told to us, to critically think about what gives something its meaning, and to think about all moral ideas with our thoughts of seeing ourselves as part of a larger, shared family despite our differences.

    With that in mind, I can see why someone would be a pro-life humanist as much as I can a pro-choice humanist. The word humanist can be attached to so many other ideas. As a humanist, I tended towards the Christian rhetoric on the sanctity of life. Like a sci-fi story, I wondered about the worst that could happen if we began to use clones to harvest organs or discarded fetus parts for stem cells without any regard for the sacredness and mysteries of that unique life.

    Christian rhetoric taps into a moral compass, as it did with the abolition of slavery in the 1800s. I’m pretty much pro-choice, but I’m also pro-life. I can live with these contradictions because I am a humanist.

    Give me ideas and give me choice, but take one away and the other falls.

    • Kristine Kruszelnicki says:

      I think the important issue when it comes down to choice is “what is that choice”. Surely we can agree that some choices are wrong. After all, slavery was a choice… Humanists believe in fighting for the good and improvement of humanity and while most Humanists are atheists (the founders of this group are) there is a small number of Humanists who are Christian but nonetheless take a secular approach to life issues. Humanism is essentially a secular doctrine that says that whether or not there is a God/gods, humanity is responsible for cleaning up our world and bringing about good for the whole of humanity. If the unborn are human beings, then they are to be included in the good of all humanity for which Humanism stands.

  3. I appreciate your work as I am part of the 15% of humanists who are pro-life. My thinking is that any couple who participates in unprotected sex must accept the responsibility of becoming parents. Abortion should only be performed when the mother’s life is in danger or in cases of rape. No woman should be forced to have the child of a rapists. He does not have the right to force his genetics to be passed on by force. Nor should a woman be expected to raise a child that shares DNA from someone so odious. Otherwise an unborn fetus is a human and should be protected by our country’s laws.

    • Kristine Kruszelnicki says:

      Hi Dane,

      I’m glad you found us, and I appreciate you taking the time to say hello. I hope we’ll have the opportunity to dialog in the coming months. :)

      Pro-lifers do differ from time to time on the issue of rape and I am happy to partner with those who are ready to work to end the 99% of abortions that are not for rape or life of mother. I agree with you that the rapist is an odious and despicable human being who should certainly be punished severely for his crime. Since we don’t give the death penalty to the rapist, do you think it’s fair that the child should have to pay the death penalty for his father’s crime? Children conceived through rape are not their parents – there’s no such thing as a rape gene that can be passed on. Are children of criminals not just as biologically human as any other unborn fetus?

      Anyhow, I’ll be happy to chat further. At least we agree on 99% right? :)

      - Kristine

      • Acyutananda says:

        Kristine has pointed out very well that the child is innocent, and has shown very well, implicitly, that the woman’s loathing for the child is a subjective thing and not a foregone and unalterable conclusion.

        I would strongly recommend this YouTube:

        Conceived in Rape

        It is a Christian production, but contains heartfelt stories by women of changes in perception that can occur without religion. It also contains some powerful secular arguments.

        Here –

        – a girl who appears to be at most 16 talks about her rape and abortion. This is another Christian production, and the video was no doubt importantly the work of her elders, but that doesn’t mean she is not sincere. She says:

        “What a rapist does to a woman is bad, it’s very bad, it’s a very dehumanizing feeling. But for a woman to choose abortion because she was raped is far worse than what the rapist does to you. Because I’m still alive, but my child is dead. When you think about what abortion is, taking a life is always worse than rape.”

        About two years ago there was a case in the news of an American woman who had been raped as a teen-aged farm girl in around 1929. The report did not mention her pregnancy period being traumatic. Her parents had made her deliver the baby secretly in a distant town and put it up for adoption. She had mothered it briefly and did not want to give it up, but her parents forced her to. She felt bad about that her whole life. 77 years later, her 77-year-old child (the one who had “cheated the abortionist”) and her grandchild tracked her down at the age of 100, and she was overjoyed.

        I feel that normally society should defend any innocent and helpless person against violence. I feel that a woman who has been raped should be counseled to watch videos such as the above and to communicate with women such as those in the video. If after such consideration, the thought of having her rapist’s child inside her for 9 months is still mentally intolerable to her to the point where it is affecting her mental health, then abortion may be unavoidable.

      • Anthony says:

        I agree with Dane that there should be an exception for rape and the life of the mother.
        In the case of rape I see the pregnancy as a continuation of the assault on the woman. I wouldn’t expect the woman to allow herself to be raped if she had a weapon available that would stop the assault.
        In the cases of the life of the mother I would hope that if the child can be born with a c section that they would use that option before turning to an abortion.

        • Kristine Kruszelnicki says:

          There are a certain number of pro-life atheists who make exception for rape. I am happy to work with those who wish to make obsolete the bulk of abortions and the circumstances that lead women to seek them. In the case of rape, I think the assault against her is truly horrifying, and I can understand why some believe that an abortion might alleviate some of a woman’s suffering. In fact, it’s most unfair that she should be put into a position of obligation toward a dependent child when she didn’t choose for that to happen. I also believe the rapist should be punished to the the limits of the law and made to suffer for what he’s done! Now if we don’t give the death penalty to the rapist in order to help the woman heal, do you think it’s fair to give the death penalty to the child who has a rapist for a father? That child has been brought into existence by the rapist but he or she is not the rapist. Might there perhaps be better ways of helping women heal than by heaping more violence onto violence?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>