I am a pro-life atheist
February 24, 2012 at 12:30 am
(This post was last modified: February 24, 2012 at 12:35 am by 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.
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.
