system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: You can be anti-abortion without being religious. Also, being anti-abortion can be a perfectly valid, non-hateful, non-oppressive viewpoint

First, I'd like to say I purposefully didn't and won't use pro-choice/pro-life because they're extremely politically charged and biased terms. 

That said, why is being anti-abortion seen as so abhorrent? I get that if you think the position is religiously founded then it doesn't hold water but some people treat anti-abortion people like they have no ground to stand on no matter what. We can't say there's a philosophical/moral quandary at the heart of the issue without  religion playing a part?

I'm not anti science by any means. Flat earth is bullshit. With the Earth being round we can look at two different wells in two different parts of the world, see when the light hits the bottom, use the difference to figure an angle and determine the curve of the Earth.  "Creationism" in the sense that evolution isn't real is bullshit. We can point to the fossil record and see the transition. Anti-vaxxers are bullshit.  We just have to look at the difference between deaths from polio 100 years ago and deaths from polio 2 years ago. But we can point to actual empirical evidence in those cases.  Abortion is a completely different animal though.

The general consensus, it seems, is that at 24 weeks brain activity starts to occur. I think this is universally accepted. However, the trouble is that brain activity is when human life is said to begin from. And I don't know if that is necessarily provable and it's where I hope my mind can be changed. How do you empirically prove that? I don't think you can and I don't think that being on one side of a fairly arbitrary line makes you a good or bad person.
gpt
The idea of the line where "life begins" is a red herring. It only matters where "life begins" if you think that "life" is some kind of sacred thing presided over by a god. For those of us who don't have religious convictions, we care more about actual moral consequences in the real world: in other words taking actions that cause the least harm/suffering to other human beings.

The idea that abortion is 'always' wrong is an immoral position because there are plenty of scenarios where that idea leads directly to preventable harm and suffering. We can say that an unborn child has rights (including the right to live) but we must remember that so too does the mother, and in cases where the mother's health is threatened, the unborn child does not to get to infringe upon the rights of the mother by threatening her life. I'd suggest it would be highly immoral not to take action and save the mother's life in such cases.

If you are against abortion you are against the bodily autonomy of women, and furthermore you are suggesting that a being which - though alive - does not remotely have the capacity to suffer a grown adult does - should have rights that supersede that adult.

The sensible, secular and moral position on abortion is to accept that it's a complex issue and acknowledge that it is a moral good in many scenarios, so "choice" is the important thing. This is a moral issue, but it's also a health issue. It is not a spiritual issue, unless you believe in a spirit world.