I am a pro-life atheist

[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.