I'm an atheist. I believe in reproductive rights for women. I believe a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy no questions asked. Why should I have to also believe the nonsense that "life begins at birth"? It seems to me that a human being is created as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg. The DNA of a human being exists from that point onward. Are we so under the thumbs of the religious right that we can't say, "Yeah, life begins at conception. So what? The woman still has control."?

Tags: abortion, conception, feminism

Views: 1885

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So this thing with no heart, no brain, no jaw or opposable thumbs, no spine or sentience or nerves, this thing that we have to call an "it" because it doesn't even have a gender, you would call it human? Simply because it has the capacity to become human?  You're one of those people that doesn't kill bugs, aren't you?

Why not? Simply because those things aren't developed yet. A biologist studying it will be studying it as a human embryo, not something unknown.

But they treat it like an embryo, not a human. Because it's not. They wouldn't be like "Oh hello there Mr. embryo, let me just... shake your... your little hand there... and how are you today?" An embryo's a monstrosity. You know it is. If you saw it writhing in a garbage can, you'd put it out of whatever little misery it's barely capable of. Okay that's a little dark. How about this? You wouldn't treat a half-cooked pancake like a pancake right? Because it's not yet. It needs to cook more before you can call it a real pancake and treat it like a pancake.

How are these pancake analogies, they doing anything for ya?

No, actually, my position is that "It's a human embryo, but so what? The mother's control of her own body means that simply because it's in her doesn't give the state the right to control it. I simply ask that we talk about human embryos as unexceptional and that we speak of them consistent with way we would an embryonic squirrel, for example. Nobody is standing on their head to insist that squirrel embryos aren't squirrels or that they aren't really alive.

It's not that simple. Even after an egg is fertilized, it has to implant in the uterus before it ever has a chance to develop. Is it human yet? As many as 50% of all fertile eggs don't make it past this stage. A scrap of my skin has all my DNA, and with a bit of science, could be cloned to make a new me. Is every bit of my skin human with fully independent rights? The religious right's insistence that life begins at conception is bullshit, no more and no less.

If we were talking about an embryonic squirrel, no biologist would say, "I don't know what it is." They'd say "It's a squirrel embryo." In other words, "The embryo is a squirrel." It's just a stage in the life of a squirrel. It's sad to see otherwise intelligent people wanting to treat humans as if we are not part of nature but are special, as if we accept the Christian notion that people are a special case.

Who is against squirrel abortion?  I think it is up to the squirrel.

Certainly foxes aren't against it.

More squirrels for the stew.

@Dave G   "You have a strange definition of individual, if you are only considering genetic data. Identical twins are genetically identical, yet I doubt you would claim that they are not two seperate individuals."

 

In most cases, genetic data would be sufficient, however in the case of twins, there are many ways to determine that they are individuals. Even in the womb, they are next to each other for example. A dead giveaway that they are individuals.

 

I only bring up DNA as proof that they are human. I never proffered it as proof of individuality.

Actually, you did. Explicitly. "Genetically, it's an individual."

I think it really depends on how people define "living". I would say it's pretty widely accepted that fetuses are not conscious creatures, but they are certainly alive, and they are human just as anyone else is human, only in a premature neotenous stage of existence. Sure they're alive.

Does this mean the mother shouldn't be able to choose whether she aborts the child? People say that aborting a child is killing a human. Maybe it is - but they fail to consider the benefits vs. the costs. Perhaps this child is born into an underprivileged single mother's life. Will she be able to provide for it? Probably not. It wouldn't live a very healthy, long life if this were the case.

Then they say that there's the option of putting the child up for adoption. This is a good option in some cases. But, at the same time, the psychological consequences of separation from a child or primary caregiver at an early age are immense and can't be disregarded.

 

Of course this issue is completely divisive and full of polar opinions, so this is just my opinion and reasoning.

RSS

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 7 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service