I am a pro-life atheist

[mavis]

I consider myself an atheist, and have identified as such for most of my adult life. I know atheism does not imply any political affiliation, but most atheists on these forums seem to, by consensus, espouse liberal-leaning views. I just thought it would be interesting to offer the argument that made me, as a freethinker first and foremost, to believe scientifically that life begins at conception:

I am a physician and a professor of anatomy and physiology. The scientific definition of life involves six characteristics. First there must be metabolism—a series of chemical reactions in support of life. Secondly there must be growth. Third there must be differentiation—different parts of the organism or even different organelles of a single cell must develop to perform specific functions. The fourth criteria is movement. This can be movement of the entire organism or movement of parts of the organism. The fifth criteria is responsiveness. This is not the same as consciousness. It means that the organism can detect changes in its environment and respond to these changes. Finally a living being must undergo reproduction. This can be the reproduction of the entire organism or of specific cells. Clearly, an embryo at conception meets all the objective scientific criteria of life. While the mother supports these functions with her womb, her body does not direct these functions. The embryo accomplishes these life functions independently. The only question to ask then is what kind of life is the embryo at conception. The only answer is human life. The genetic code is in place to define this life as fully human. So now the question is does this vulnerable human life deserve protection. To declare any class of humans as unworthy of protection makes all humans vulnerable. It gives the powerful authority to destroy the weak.

I'm also curious if fellow atheists here are of a like mind on this very contentious issue. I believe my position is derived from a sound scientific basis, without any theocratic or sexist dispositions influencing my thought process. I believe arguments that frame pro-life individuals so narrowly are dishonest deflections and fundamentally unscientific.

[Rev. Rye]

Here is where I diverge:

Step 1: Why is human life particularly valuable, besides the fact that we are humans ourselves?
Step 2: The best answer one can come up with that makes human beings unique is our ability (or at least potential) to think rationally.
Step 3: A conditio sine qua non for (or inevitable byproduct of) thinking rationally is measurable brain activity in the cortex.
Step 3.5: The end of life is defined with brain death. Why should its start not be defined the same way?
Step 4: Since there is no credible evidence of any fetal cortical activity before about 150 days, it makes sense to say that human life truly begins around that time.

For what it's worth, I got the basis of this argument from Carl Sagan's essay on abortion: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
That said, I placed the beginning about a month before Sagan did, but it's still worth reading.

Also, here's another resource: http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/Brain_Waves.htm

Here's my 2 cents, anyway.

[Whateverist]

Here is where I diverge:

Step 1: Why is human life particularly valuable, besides the fact that we are humans ourselves?

You had me at step one. I would ask those who find every human life unbearably precious if there is any upper limit to the percentage of the earths' biomass which can be made up by humans? Since our inability to hold ourselves in check in this regard imperils the entire web of life on which we depend, can we at least make an argument based on our self preservation that too much of a good thing isn't so good? It is a damned shame if the only ones who get to decide this question are human. Can we please get over ourselves just a little bit?

Honestly I would be in favor of offering a cash incentive for any woman early on in a pregnancy who doesn't really want to have the child to have her uterus vacuumed. Better still if she (and her partner!) just use proper protection but hey, it's never 100%. Every unborn human life we have the humility to destroy tips the balance of the biomass toward something not only more sustainable, but also something more fair for all the creatures on this planet who don't have any say in the matter.

[Abracadabra]

Hi Mavis,

Whilst I'm a strong atheist toward certain religions, I'm actually a deeply spiritual person. I can't say that I 'believe' in spirit in an absolute sense. I'm too empirically-minded for that. So I must remain agnostic in a spiritual sense, even though I intuitively lean in that direction. I also feel that a spiritual essence to reality is plausible even within the boundaries of current scientific knowledge and understanding.

Having said that, I have very practical views on abortion from both a moral and a pragmatic point of view.

The Moral Point of View:

I personally feel that it's basically immoral to use abortion simply as a method of irresponsibility. In other words, if a person has no desire to produce a child, they should go to every length possible to not become pregnant, even if that includes abstinence. Whatever it takes. I'm firm believer in not taking pregnancy lightly.

So I frown upon the causal use of abortion as just a quick fix for someone who was too irresponsible to avoid getting pregnant when they didn't intend to. To me, that kind of utterly irresponsibility is itself immoral.

So I do not support the use of causal abortion at all. Precisely how that should be worked into any laws is a whole other question.

Having said the above, I do believe that there are legitimate reasons that a woman may choose to have an abortion. One such obvious case would be if the pregnancy occurred due to forced rape. Another potential reason could be that the mother's health is in risk should the pregnancy be carried to term. Another possibility could be that the fetus itself is clearly seen to be grossly deformed before birth. I personally feel that if the mother chooses to terminate, that should be considered in those cases.

In other words, I'm sympathetic to various reason to consider abortion.

Now let's move on to your question:

When Does Life Begin?

Personally I feel that's the wrong question. Even an unfertilized egg is 'alive' in the sense that it is a 'living cell'. The same could be said for the sperm cell. So life was already underway long before the sperm and egg meet. Moreover many sperm cells die, and so do countless egg cells.

So evidently lots of sperm and egg cells die all the time and no one is too concerned about that. When they start to get concerned is when the sperm and egg combine and now contain a single sell that has all the genetics and machinery capable of growing into a potential human being.

But is that single cell a "human being"? I would say no.

I'm in agreement with Dr. Lee M. Silver on this view. He has a really nice course called "The Science of Self" that you may find quite interesting:

You can find the course here:

The Science of Self

(By the way, this course goes on sale for about $69 at least once a year) You might also obtain this course via inter-library loan. It's a wonderful course concerning genetics and the human genome, as a doctor I think you'll find it quite interesting. By the way, this is not a documentary. It's a college-level course taught by a professor giving lectures from behind a podium. I highly recommend this course (albeit I do not personally agree with all of Dr. Silver's views)

A fertilized egg is not a human being by far. It's merely a cell that has the potential to become a human being. So I personally take the stance that a 'human being" is not created at conception. It takes far more than this to make a human being. So I do agree with Dr. Silver on this specific point.

Precisely where I would draw that line is hard for me to say. But I personally feel that I would draw the line very near the end of the process rather than near the beginning. Certainly not prior to the development of a fully functional brain. So that would be quite far removed from the moment of conception (as you seem to be using as a marker).

~~~~

Again, keep in mind that I'm not supporting casual abortion.

~~~~

None the less, I feel that abortions that have legitimate grounds should be considered for much of the development of a fetus. I personally do not view the termination of a fetus to be the same as killing a human being.

In fact, if we're going to speak in terms of a "Person" then the fetus does not become a "Person" until very near the actual moment of birth.

~~~~

As a Matter of Politics:

As a matter of politics, where would I personally draw the line?

Now we leave the realm of morality and move into the realm of the responsibility of government. Does the government even have a responsibility to an unborn "citizen". Well, technically no. In fact, a fetus isn't even a "citizen" until it's been born. Only at that time does it become an 'individual' citizen.

So from a purely governmental point of view I would say that the government has no responsibility at all toward unborn babies. They simply aren't yet citizens of the state. And thus the state has no responsibility toward them.

Now, of course, that could be changed by law. However, if we change the law by demanding that a fertilized egg = a "citizen" of the state. Then we open up a whole can of legal worms that would become an extreme nightmare for everyone involved.

All of the sudden a pregnant woman would become both "landlord" and "housing" to a "citizen of the state". The state could even create a "womb tax". In fact, they probably would do just that to create revenue to deal with this new "citizen" (a fertilized egg).

It would be a litigation nightmare to be sure. I would certainly vote against it. Especially against using a fertilized egg as the start of a new "citizen" of the state.

From a purely political point of view I would go precisely to the other extreme. I would just leave things as they currently are. A baby does not become a "citizen" until the umbilical cord is cut and the baby is an 'Individual Person". Prior to that, it's just a part of the mother's body.

~~~~~~~~~

That's my political views on that.

~~~~~~~~~~

However, like I say, there does exist a problem where people might just take abortions for granted and use them instead of popping birth control pills, or whatever.

So, I realize that there are complex problems in between the extremes.

But I'm certainly against government putting their foot down demanding that a fertilized egg represents a human, and to abort it represent "murder".

That is unnecessary extremism, IMHO.

But I can see people arguing that various lines be drawn at say, a certain state of brain development in a fetus, or maybe brain activity (if that can be easily measured).

But even then, if the state starts making 'citizens' out of unborn babies, that's going to create some serious litigation problems.

So I don't know what the answer is in terms of politics and litigation. But there's no way that I would support or vote that a mere fertilized cell should be considered to be a fully recognized human being. That's just far too early in the process to be realized, IMHO.

That's way beyond realistic, IMHO.

~~~~~

Thanks for bringing up the topic and allowing me to share my views on this highly controversial subject.

[mavis]

In my view, that is tantamount to murder. That you would have it financed is even more disturbing -- albeit refreshingly honest.

The argument about population levels and sustainability leaves any and all ethics at the door. At best you're dishonest in ignoring most of the science in favor of a simplistic worldview with regards to human population, though. One could reasonably extend your argument to advocating for the removal of all humans who are deemed unproductive or useless wastes of space (the clinically braindead, for instance).

[Tiberius]

Hey mavis ,

Nice to know there are more pro-life atheists out there. I have been one for quite a while now. It was Christopher Hitchens + an understanding of rights / liberties that finally convinced me.

[Abracadabra]

Step 3.5: The end of life is defined with brain death. Why should its start not be defined the same way?
Step 4: Since there is no credible evidence of any fetal cortical activity before about 150 days, it makes sense to say that human life truly begins around that time.

Those are extremely good points right there.

A single fertilized cell would certainly be "brain dead".

So to define human life at conception has no rational basis at all.

I'm 100% in agreement with you on that one.

---

In my view, that is tantamount to murder.

If you're attempting to argue that to abort a few cells at conception equates to murder, I think you're going to have a lot of opposition to that.

That's an extremist view that really has no justification at all, IMHO.

I would certainly fight that tooth and nail myself just on principles of humanity.

For you to demand that all unwanted babies must be taken to term. Is the same as demanding that unwanted humans must be brought into a world where they are not wanted even by their own parents!

I would question the morality of that very thing myself.

[Minimalist]

There are 7 billion people fouling this planet.

We've got enough.

[Whateverist]

There are 7 billion people fouling this planet.

We've got enough.

The voice of reason.

[Abracadabra]

There are 7 billion people fouling this planet.

We've got enough.

The population is also growing rapidly. So the more "birth control" the better, even if some of it is done via the belated methods of abortion.

One thing I do favor is controlling birth before it gets to the point of pregnancy.

~~~~

In fact, here's something I thought about, but I'm sure it would met with huge public rejection and controversy.

But I was thinking that all children should be made sterile just before they reach an age of sexual maturity. (in a reversible way of course) From what I understand such things are easily possible with today's medical technologies.

Then in order to have children they would need to actually go to the doctor to become sterile again. Or better yet, just have all pregnancies via in vitro fertilization processes. That would do away with accidental pregnancies altogether.

We have the technology to make that a possibility. The only real question would be a political one. Could it be put into law?

I'm sure people would fight that one big time. But it sure would save a whole lot of unwanted pregnancy problems and pretty much make the need for abortions a thing of the past (save for perhaps a deformed fetus, or other medical problems). But there would not be anymore accidental pregnancies by people who don't want children. They simply couldn't have children without going and getting in vitro fertilized.

That may actually be something that humans might consider in a future time. But if any politician brought something like that up right now he would be stoned to death on the spot for merely suggesting it.

But at some point humans are going to have to control population rates. Planet Earth simply isn't big enough to hold projected populations.