RE: I am a pro-life atheist
February 27, 2012 at 5:51 pm
(This post was last modified: February 27, 2012 at 6:22 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(February 24, 2012 at 12:30 am)mavis Wrote: 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]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.
With you so far. Not thinking anyone is claiming it's okay to kill a fetus because it's not alive, though.
(February 24, 2012 at 12:30 am)mavis Wrote: 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.
Are you claiming that having a human genome is all it takes to be classified as a human being with all the rights and privileges thereof? I'm wondering because a biopsy qualifies as a human being under that definition. I wonder if you're going to go with 'unique human genetic structure' as a qualifier. That would mean identical twins aren't human, but there you go. If you want it both ways, I would suspect that the bit about it being genetically human is just a red herring and you really disapprove of abortion for a different reason.
(February 24, 2012 at 12:30 am)mavis Wrote: 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 don't think you've really derived your position from science, since it's brought you to the conclusion that a blastula without a single neuron deserves the same legal protection as a six-month-old baby. I don't think science alone can get you there. You're holding a microorganism sacred because it has human DNA. Why? HeLa cells have human DNA, and are pretty much only found as contaminants in labratories. Do we have some obligation to preserve them because they are helpless human beings?
Sorry to weigh in so late, I hope my 'insights' haven't already been done to death.
(February 24, 2012 at 6:59 am)Tiberius Wrote: The inconsistency I most notice with liberals is that they support abortion but oppose the death penalty. To her credit, Shell B is actually the anomaly on that issue, since she both supports abortion, and (to an extent) supports the death penalty. She's the only person I've come across who actually seems to care about being consistent; I wish there were more of you like that.
As opposed to conservatives who support the death penalty but oppose abortion?
The most shallow interpretation of that is that conservatives are inconsistent: they hold life sacred if it's a human zygote but not if it's a human adult. Of course that is just a strawman of their real position, which is that it is wrong to kill innocent life, but okay for the state to execute someone convicted of a capital crime. Not really that inconsistent.
I see you've gone for the most shallow interpretation of the pro-choice, anti-execution position: that they hold the life of a convicted murderer sacred but don't care if an innocent fetus is destroyed in an abortion. Again, the inconsistency disappears when you stop strawmanning: the pro-choice position is that the fetus has not yet developed into a person, so ending its life is not equivalent to ending the life of a fully human being who may have been convicted wrongly. Not really that inconsistent.
There are real inconsistencies: Pro-lifers often equate abortion with murder without advocating the full punishment the law extends to murderers against the pregnant women contracting for the services of an abortionist. Pro-choicers have difficulty explaining why we shouldn't make choices similar to abortion with severely brain-damaged people. That's where the grey lies on the abortion issue, not with differences in opinion on the death penalty.
BTW, I used to favor the death penalty, until I learned its deterrant effect is small and the chances of wrongful conviction are pretty high, considering the consequences of being wrong. My opinion on the death penalty is not, and never has been, related to my opinion on abortion. In that arena, I regard forcing a woman to bear a child against her will to be a form of enslavement, literally 'forced labor'.
(February 24, 2012 at 1:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Libertarianism does not call for the abandonment of the government, it calls for the limitation of the government to the protection of people's rights. This isn't an inconsistent position to have, since the right to life is ranked higher than the right to choose what you do with your body (when those rights come into conflict). Thus, the government should protect the right to life of the unborn child.
For the record, the reason the LP doesn't have an abortion plank in their platform is that the party is very divided on the issue, In other words, a lot of libertarians don't agree with Tiberius on this issue. There is not a definitive libertarian position on abortion, about as many see it as an unacceptable violation of the pregnant woman's rights as see it as an unacceptable violation of the rights of the fetus.
