Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
50% of women are pro- life, and the majority of unborn babies are female, it has nothing to do with women's rights, it has to do with defining life.
I'd really like to know where your statitics comes from, because I remember reading a survey many years ago and it was approx. up to 60% men pro-choice (pro-freedom for women), and more than 85% women in my country.
And please, enough is enough, let's CUT the HYPOCRISY off:
Abortions have always been performed and they will always be!!! No matter what men decide about it. Even in countries where it's sanctioned with death penalty, abortions still exist, because there are women who simply don't want to have babies (regardless of the cause that motives that), because we are not beasts, but human beings with complex emotions, complex reasons and complex lives.
I talked about this in another tread. If you prohibit abortions, only rich women will get abortions. In my country, during Franco's dictatorship, abortion was forbidden. Does this stop women from getting abortions? NOT TO RICH, because they used to travel to UK to get one if they need it, but POOR women, who actually needed more than anyone, had to carry on with unwanted pregnancy, or have to get an abortion in hidden private facilities, with non-proffesional staff, on unhealthy conditions and serious risk of infections or even death.
So what we are really talking about is EQUALITY, same opportunities. If you guarantee a reasonable period to get one, there's no need to create unequality or unnecessary riks for anyone. A woman who doesn't want to become a mother will try everything in her power to avoid it. Even desperate actions. Some even get suicide.
So I beg you all to stop being so cynical about this issue. As Chimp reminded you, at the end of the day, it's OUR bodies.
Beautifully said Angiebot, Some of these comments are staggering.
It makes me despair at the world!
I cannot see how anyone could ever tell another person what they can do with their bodies,
And it's even more staggering when it comes from certain religious parties who's very belief structure
has murdered and persecuted people for thousands of years, including infants.
The hypocrisy is outstanding, But luckily I live in a place and time where no man can tell me what I can and cannot do,
let alone with my own body.
I actually used to see abortion the same way. Like, it's gonna happen one way or another, why not just allow it?
Then if we go down this road, we could apply the same to say, driving over the speed limit. People are gonna drive over the speed limit but that doesn't stop it from being wrong. Or stealing when you're out of money and have no job? Or killing a spouse when you're angry. The laws acknowledge that rights do have a limit. It stops when someone else's right begins. In the case of abortion, even if it is rampant, even if the rich can afford it, it doesn't stop the act from being wrong as it still refuses the child the right to live.
Schnozz, I already went over this- 13 weeks is plenty time to get an abortion. If you wait past that, I think you already made your decision. If you still don't want the lid, I believe this would justify the government paying for the period of time in your pregnancy left, then sending it to a state run foster home. I'm normally opposed to government action, but if its that or having them be poisoned and their brains sucked out with a vacuum cleaner, at least we can save them from being poisoned, but if the government is going to raise them I can't say much for them not having their brains sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.
Just because the law may be broken doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. This is not like the issue of drugs or alcohol because those do not directly harm anyone else. Into the second term of a pregnancy, we are no longer talking about just the woman's body- back in the day they used to teach doctors that, with pregnant women, they actually had 2 patients.
Like I said before, if you want to prevent a human from coming into existence, you do have the right to do whatever you want with your body, but once it becomes a Hunan, the entire situation changed and this my body' thing becomes a strawman fallacy.
Schnozz, I already went over this- 13 weeks is plenty time to get an abortion. If you wait past that, I think you already made your decision. If you still don't want the lid, I believe this would justify the government paying for the period of time in your pregnancy left, then sending it to a state run foster home. I'm normally opposed to government action, but if its that or having them be poisoned and their brains sucked out with a vacuum cleaner, at least we can save them from being poisoned, but if the government is going to raise them I can't say much for them not having their brains sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.
Just because the law may be broken doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. This is not like the issue of drugs or alcohol because those do not directly harm anyone else. Into the second term of a pregnancy, we are no longer talking about just the woman's body- back in the day they used to teach doctors that, with pregnant women, they actually had 2 patients.
Like I said before, if you want to prevent a human from coming into existence, you do have the right to do whatever you want with your body, but once it becomes a Hunan, the entire situation changed and this my body' thing becomes a strawman fallacy.
50% of women are pro-life. Good. Most people Don't vote consistently. That does not impact the rights of others to vote.
Right- chimp man, the point was this isn't a women's right issue. It isn't 'men trying to control women,' if men could get pregnant I doubt many of our opinions would change. But even assuming it were true, and men are all pro life because they can't get pregnant, I could say that pro choicers are only pro choices because they've already been born. Directors law is pretty much universal I suppose.
I am an extreme civil libertarian. I would give a woman same same rights to evict a squatter as any landlord. As I said, it is a private property matter.
That's the problem chimp, you are using this rationalization in a completely different way. If a woman agrees to rent to someone, she cannot kick them out until they either don't hold up on rent or they leave. If a woman agrees to get pregnant, she agreed to have a baby live in her for 9 months, and cannot just "evict" it arbitrarily.
This is very poor analogy to be using but the womens right and property issue is correct,
also consider the health implications for women, things that can go wrong that can be potential life threatening -
Anemia, Mental disorders, Ectopic pregnancy, Fetal complications, Gestational diabetes, Severe blood pressure issues, Hyperemesis gravidarum, Placenta Previa, Placental abruption, Preeclampsia, Bacterial vaginosis, Cytomegalovirus, Group B strep, Hepatitis B virus, Influenza, Listerosis, Parvovirus B19, UTI, Toxoplasmosis, Haemorrhage, Placenta Disorders, Pulmonary embolism, PE, DVT, Sepsis, Amniotic Fluid Embolism and far, far more!
So to make a gunshot decision over something like this is completely stupid and displays a gross lack of intellect.
If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, that is her choice, but if she wants to kill it once it formed, that has nothing to do with women's rights.
One way to look at it, is a fetus is a collection of cells, cells that remain wholly dependent upon other working groups of cells, just like all other parts of the mother, (grouping of cells) and all of these groupings of cells are dependent on the function of the rest of it to survive.
Yes, a fetus represents the possibility of a separate group of cells that can eventually function on their own w/o the cellular systems that makes up the mother. But until that point, the fetus is more or less just another grouping of cells reliant upon the whole.
Sure you can point that fetus is different dna in the cells, foreign dna, but any med student can tell you there already is plenty of foreign dna, (mainly in bacteria, viruses, and other parasitic or symbiotic organisms) in our body. Some of which are critical to our survival.
A fairly decent line to draw from this is: when a fetus has a decent chance to survive outside the mother's womb, is when we can begin to stop calling this genetic union forming a human, to an actual human. With advanced medical technology we can get to as little as 24 weeks where a baby has a good chance to live a full healthy life. This is the cut off point of most doctors attempting to save the baby. Earlier then that survival is possible with the best doctors and medical equipment but chances of a long healthy life drops below 10%
The conversation gets more interesting with our rapid pace of medical advancements. It is entirely possible within the next 100 years medical technology could advance to the point that a baby can be born w/o a mother at all, a lab fertilized egg is grown in a manufactured sack that imitates a woman's womb. And that these babies are more likely to survive to healthy
"birth" then the old fashion way that we humans utilize today.
This raises the very real ethical dilemma (to people who believe fetuses are humans at the moment of egg fertilization,) in the future, in light of this technology of: "is having sex for a baby the old fashion way" murder? Because somewhere around 20-40% of all fertilized eggs do not even survive past a few days in the natural process?
Some women due to hormone imbalance or something else, can produce healthy eggs that can get fertilized, but because of some sort of flaw or mismatch, cannot easily create the environment in their womb where the fertilized egg can actually survive. Is that murder if the woman knew this, but wanted to keep trying for babies until a fertilized egg is accepted and survives?
Many birth control methods usually, but not always stop fertilization of an egg, but they do make it unlikely that if an egg does get fertilized the fertilized egg does not survive. Murder?
After scanning through the arguments, I've noticed that a lot of terms are misused or misrepresented:
What is a fetus if not a human person living in his/her mother's womb? When has viability, sentience, or ability to live outside the womb been a criteria for a being human? The only consistent definition of when human life begins is when we place it at the time of conception (not implantation; not when the fetus is viable; not when a brain is formed and definitely not before the sperm fertilizes the egg)
What is murder? One commenter asked if masturbating should be considered murder. Another said that if the fertilized egg doesn't implant and dies naturally, it's called murder. These two do not constitute murder. The first action kills the sperm cells (which are NOT human beings; they're human cells), while the second is simply an unfortunate event where someone dies (not murder).
Conception (or more technically fertilization) is a rather complex process with lots of steps. With that in mind, I have 3 questions:
1. At the point of conception. This isn't a multi stage process
2. No, it would not be.
3. Yes, it would be as conception has already happened and life is already present
You use the term conception. That is frequently a word that has god connotations. Is the point that the egg accepted the dna material and the presence of the "winning" sperm and successfully wards of the other sperm (hardens) as the point of conception?
If medical technology advances to the point that artificial forms of fertilized egg implantation has higher fertilized egg survival rates than the natural rate (20-40 percent of fertilized eggs naturally do not survive to viability,) is it a form of mass human genocide to not force all women to get eggs implanted using this technology instead of the natural way?
Put another way, if a fertilized egg = human life, and we know of a way to save 20-40 percent of all brand new human life and choose not to enforce this new safer method are we allowing 10's of millions of "human lives" die because we want to allow people to have babies the old fashion way? That we do not have the political will or the capital to do a special in vitro implantation process?
You hold that a fertilized egg is human life, and human life is sacred and should be protected, that a fertilized egg holds all the same rights and protections that should be afforded to anyone that is already born age 0 to as old as one can live.
Certainly if their was a new viral disease that will kill 20-40% of all five year olds alive in the next 48 hours, and a technology existed that could reduce that number to 1% and if parents refused to allow that technology to be used on their child they would be considered as murdering their child through neglect if that child dies?
But you also see that forcing every couple to have special in vitro implantation of a fertilized egg would be absurd right? That unprotected sex where an egg may get accidently fertilized and subject to the old fashion 20-40% odds of death, would have to be outlawed because it would be murder through neglect? Where do you draw the line?
Don't forget many forms of birth control also have additional effects that further reduce the odds of fertilized egg surviving if sperm/egg manage to surpass the primary effects of birth control preventing egg and sperm meeting in the first place. Also many forms of birth control are not even 95% effective. The only way you could reliably make sure you do not murder "life" through neglect is to practice abstinence, your entire life. All because medical scientist figured out a more effective way to insure viability/fertility.
Are you ready to stand behind your "life begins at fertilization" if it means never having sex again? You would be a hypocrite as soon as you had sex, even protected sex.
Perhaps instead you can begin to see that a fertilized egg is not a human, it is simply just the possibility for one.
The nice "pretty" line theist like to use as the moment human life begins, as god wills it really falls apart when examined.
Oh, and that medical technology? It already exists, it does not reduce implantation failure rates to 1% but it is already lower than the 20-40% via the natural process. Simply due to fertility doctors being able to set up better conditions and timing for egg implantation.
"If medical technology advances to the point that artificial forms of fertilized egg implantation has higher fertilized egg survival rates than the natural rate (20-40 percent of fertilized eggs naturally do not survive to viability,) is it a form of mass human genocide to not force all women to get eggs implanted using this technology instead of the natural way?"
-This is exactly why IVF is not endorsed by the RCC. Leaving religion aside, I'd say yes, which is why I don't agree with IVF or other artificial ways of fertilization. Humans aren't toys that should be manufactured. They're humans.
But you also see that forcing every couple to have special in vitro implantation of a fertilized egg would be absurd right? That unprotected sex where an egg may get accidently fertilized and subject to the old fashion 20-40% odds of death, would have to be outlawed because it would be murder through neglect? Where do you draw the line?
-Say fertilization using IVF has a 100% success rate (which it doesn't). Remember that several eggs are fertilized but only one (or two) will be implanted. So the 20-40% chance of death would still be preferable to the 100% chance of one egg being implanted and 100% chance that the other fertilized eggs would be thrown away as well. Kinda like saving one but killing 5.
"Are you ready to stand behind your "life begins at fertilization" if it means never having sex again? You would be a hypocrite as soon as you had sex, even protected sex."
-Well, surprise! Looks like I am a hypocrite. Doesn't change the fact that my action was wrong. I'm actually currently living a chaste life. That actually doesn't mean I'll never have sex again. Just after marriage.
"Perhaps instead you can begin to see that a fertilized egg is not a human, it is simply just the possibility for one."
-Where then do you draw the line? At the point of fertilization, the fetus has complete human DNA (distinct from his/her mother), his/her sex is already determined at the point of fertilization, it's growing (living), which leads me to believe that at fertilization, what we have is a living human being.
Okay, imagine the technology (and it is likely around the corner) that they do not need to IVF 6 eggs and implant one, but fertilize 1 egg and implant it, in conditions where it is far more likely that the egg will implant in the womb and reach maturity.
So you are okay with, knowing that there are ways to increase a woman's fertility so that a fertilized egg is less likely to die, that you do not take these methods, and that fertilized egg does indeed die. That you through neglect just murdered your own human kid. Or if unintended fertilization occurs, that your kid, "lived" then died a few days later, and you never even knew about it.
You say a fertilized egg is a human. So if through neglect on your part, if your theoretical 5 year old kid dies (also a human), due to a preventable 20-40 percent 48hour kill rate condition/disease, no big deal, "I am a hypocrite." It would be like sending your kid to play with another kid that has smallpox, and you did not bother to immunize your kid first, then your kid falls within that 20-40% odds and dies 48 hours later. Oops? Oh well?
If i worked at a fertility clinic, and there was a fridge with 1000 fertilized eggs awaiting implantation, (say each one was going to be used,) and I turned that refridgerator off, did I just murder 1000 humans? I am at the exact same level of "wrong" as someone that blew up a building and killed 1000 humans?
There are rare cases when babies do not have a determined sex even months after the moment of fertilization. There are rare cases where a male, (y chromosome) develops immunity to the "y" chromosome, and is a female for all intents and purposes except they have a y chromosome that is suppressed. Not human even in adulthood? (Androgen insensitivity syndrome)
Turner's syndrome results in just a single x chromosome. Zygotes with this develop into mostly female traits. But already you have to change the definition of "sex" determination to include xx/xy abnormalities. Or not call those people "human."
Humans stop growing, especially at old age, and begin to typically lose height and mass, especially at extreme age. Not human?
A dead person still has a sex, and dna distinct from mother and father. A dead person is still a human? Obviously not, so you cannot use "sex" and dna from mother and father to define a human. A dead person is not growing anymore, but we already had the problem of old people that stop growing but begin to overall shrink.
Again define human. You will find it impossible to include a fertilized egg in the definition of a human w/o having ridiculous other situations creep into the definition.
What about identical twins? At what point do you consider identical twins in a fertilized egg to be 2 different "humans"? How do you determine that? How about conjoined twins? If twins are "human" at the point of conception, but before the "egg" split, you are saying in your definition of human, that twins are 1 human, triplets are 1 human, I could murder quadruplet twins but by your human definition I only murdered one person.
I could keep poking more and more holes in the "the moment an egg is fertilized by sperm = human." But I will stop here and let you respond to this list.
"Okay, imagine the technology (and it is likely around the corner) that they do not need to IVF 6 eggs and implant one, but fertilize 1 egg and implant it, in conditions where it is far more likely that the egg will implant in the womb and reach maturity."
-The problem with IVF is that it commoditizes babies (or humans). When humans normally start their life in their mother's womb, they now start it in a petri dish. If that tech is available, I'd still not be able to afford it and prefer the old natural way. It's also more fun. (Also, we're getting into crazy hypotheticals here.
"You say a fertilized egg is a human. So if through neglect on your part, if your theoretical 5 year old kid dies (also a human), due to a preventable 20-40 percent 48hour kill rate condition/disease, no big deal, "I am a hypocrite." It would be like sending your kid to play with another kid that has smallpox, and you did not bother to immunize your kid first, then your kid falls within that 20-40% odds and dies 48 hours later. Oops? Oh well?"
- I don't see how this analogy works. If there is a way to increase my child's survival, (say, in the mother's womb), I'd definitely do it but I'd do so while in keeping with nature. There are pills which help with conception. I would rule out certain ways of saving my child like killing another child to get parts. Again, I don't see the analogy as I would still send this 5 year old hypothetical child to the hospital for treatment. Actually, for starters, I'd have him vaccinated.
"If i worked at a fertility clinic, and there was a fridge with 1000 fertilized eggs awaiting implantation, (say each one was going to be used,) and I turned that refridgerator off, did I just murder 1000 humans? I am at the exact same level of "wrong" as someone that blew up a building and killed 1000 humans?"
- It depends why you turned the refrigerator off. Was it just out of spite or hatred? In that case, yes! It doesn't make you any better than a terrorist. Were you negligent in your job? I dunno. You'd still piss off a lot of people.
"There are rare cases when babies do not have a determined sex even months after the moment of fertilization. There are rare cases where a male, (y chromosome) develops immunity to the "y" chromosome, and is a female for all intents and purposes except they have a y chromosome that is suppressed. Not human even in adulthood? (Androgen insensitivity syndrome)
Turner's syndrome results in just a single x chromosome. Zygotes with this develop into mostly female traits. But already you have to change the definition of "sex" determination to include xx/xy abnormalities. Or not call those people "human.""
- I may have failed to include these people by saying "has a sex". But it doesn't stop these people from having human DNA even if they're not "normal"
"Humans stop growing, especially at old age, and begin to typically lose height and mass, especially at extreme age. Not human?"
- They're definitely human. Actually look up the definition of living things. They're characterized as having the following characteristics: metabolism, growth, reproduction, response to stimuli, adaptation to the environment. As I understand, old people still do grow but at a rate much slower than what they're body needs to maintain their shape and form.
"A dead person still has a sex, and dna distinct from mother and father. A dead person is still a human? Obviously not, so you cannot use "sex" and dna from mother and father to define a human. A dead person is not growing anymore, but we already had the problem of old people that stop growing but begin to overall shrink."
- A dead person is still a human. Why do you think we treat their bodies with dignity with a funeral? They're not living if that's what you mean.
"What about identical twins? At what point do you consider identical twins in a fertilized egg to be 2 different "humans"? How do you determine that? How about conjoined twins? If twins are "human" at the point of conception, but before the "egg" split, you are saying in your definition of human, that twins are 1 human, triplets are 1 human, I could murder quadruplet twins but by your human definition I only murdered one person."
- Twins, conjoined or identical, are two distinct human beings. Before the split it was one person. Afterwards, it's two, even if the split is imperfect. But both their lives started at the point of fertilization. Something simply happened (the split) which made this one life, two.
So neglect of a child's chance at life is fine if it is "nature" even if scientific methods can reduce or eliminate this.
Murdering 1000 fertilized eggs is the same as murdering 1000 people, got it.
A person is something that has human dna from both a male and female.
You can be dead and still be human. I am guessing that is not what you meant at all. Do you honestly think a dead person should have same rights as a live person? I sure hope not. Respect is given to the body, but a dead person surely is not part of the definition of a human person. Not part of the definition of a human person when trying to explain a fertilized egg is a human person with all the rights a human person should have, like not being murdered.
I thought you were saying all human life begins at the moment of fertilization. If the twin split occurs after life begins, the 2nd twin life begins when exactly? The moment of fertilization even though the split happened after you say? How does that work? God planed for 2 souls and 2 human beings from the beginning? Both souls and human lives resides in 1 fertilized egg until it inevitably (to god) splits? If god plans all this out, god also just plans on 30-60% of all babies ever born to not survive past 1 years old? Changes his mind a lot? His plan is to create life then wipe it out again a few days later w/o the parents ever knowing (in the 20-40 percent odds a fertilized egg does not properly survive in the first few days?) What is the point of that? God works in mysterious ways?
You know what is a lot more simple and makes tons more sense? There is no god, a just fertilized egg does not constitute as a human and thus does not have full human rights.
So far your requirement to be considered human is: it has dna from its mother and father, it is living. Well, as others explained, their are all kinds of parts of me that meet those requirements, my toenails, my hair, my pinky, pretty much any part of me that has cells would fit your definition of human. Does my toenail have all the rights of a human? If I toss my toe nail in the fireplace did I just murder a human? Ofcourse not. We need to add more to the definition of what a human is. Bad part for you is, as you add to that definition, you begin to exclude a fertilized egg.
I also assume you add to your definition that the parent dna is human parents. So we can safely exclude all other animals and other living things.
I'm curious where you got that I mentioned God had a hand in any of this? I understand that most of the people on here are atheists and the topic being brought forward was not religious in nature and as such, I tried not to include God or the Church (I may have mentioned the church in passing but that wasn't my main point). I understand that the issue on abortion isn't an atheist vs theist one (as such I tried not to include God in the equation). There exist anti-abortion atheists, and pro-abortion Christians.
http://www.secularprolife.org/ --> here they are if you're wondering.
Let's take God out of the equation and focus on human beings. Abortion is simply a violent act against the youngest members of our species. They aren't potential human beings. They're human beings.
Unfortunately, the core of the argument is what is human life. Many people define human life bring soul and god into it.
If you want to leave god out of this, that is great.
It makes the question of "when is a twin, that was not there at fertilization but shows up later, a "person?"
You can not say that a fertilized egg is a 1 to up to 15 human persons, (15 being the highest verified case.) That sounds a lot more like a vessel that can contain 1-15 fetuses 1-15 fetuses that could become human beings. Of course survival rate of any of those fetuses drops precipitously the more of them their are. I do not think you can find anywhere in the definition of a human person as one that could potentially split into up to 1 or more copies of themselves, let alone 14.
Okay, let's put it this way. Human life starts at fertilization. However, there exists a time frame after fertilization, where this single human life, becomes two or three or more. Does it take away from the humanity or the fetus before or after the split? No. It was alive before the split, and it became two after.
The way you're framing the situation, you're ignoring the fact that human life undergoes different stages. It just so happens that there exists a point when humans are very very young (newly conceived) that the fertilized egg may split from being one human life into two.
It's kind of a separate topic. If you can save more lives, but need to use evil or questionable means, then you probably shouldn't.
There is a difference- chance is fair, abortion is deliberate
Since you didn't answer the question, I'll rephrase it:
The fertilization of a human egg is a complex process that can be described by a series of events. Which exact event is "conception"?
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say that conception is a series of events. Conception happens once the egg is fertilized by a sperm. That's the exact event of conception. Not implantation, which is another separate event altogether, if that's what you mean.
I did not say that Jon.
I said fertilization is a complex process. You told us life begins at conception and conception happens during fertilization (or something like that, I can't seem to pry that information out of you).
My question to you is "at what specific step during fertilization does life begin"?
Again, you lost me. Conception happens at fertilization. These two events are the same - this is probably the source of confusion.
Fertilization isn't a multi step process. I had to check myself with some online sources but it's a single step.
Pages