Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

[The GM]

Hey all,
I have a question that I’d like to be tackled from the philosophical POV. I’m not going to judge right or wrong, moral or immoral, but this has been digging at my brain for awhile.
From talking to atheists here and IRL, the general consensus seems to be when you die, that’s it, you’re worm food. Do not pass go, do not collect a pleasant afterlife. I’ve also read some atheists here say that they value life more than the religious person because this is your one and only shot, there’s no reincarnation, no afterlife, no way to make up for what you didn’t get done this time around.
If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control? Let’s leave medical necessity out of the equation. If this is indeed your only shot, how is it moral or ethical to deprive someone of their only chance at living their life?
Thanks in advance for your view points.
Oh, and to keep this thread on topic please remember this thread isn’t about whether the current law is right or wrong. Nor is the thread about bashing someone else’s beliefs. I have a genuine curiosity about this particular topic and am trying to learn something here.

 

[toddjh]

If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control? Let’s leave medical necessity out of the equation. If this is indeed your only shot, how is it moral or ethical to deprive someone of their only chance at living their life?

If a person never existed in the first place, they're not being deprived of anything. There's no one there to be deprived. Make sense?

Otherwise, there's no reason to focus on abortion in particular. Every single sperm and egg combination is a potential person. Every time a woman goes a month without getting pregnant, it means that a potential human being is being deprived of their life. And god forbid masturbation -- millions die!

Since most atheists believe that human consciousness is created by our brains, they are comfortable saying that a fetus without a certain level of brain development does not possess that "special something" that makes an organism a sentient being. No developed brain, no consciousness. No consciousness, no person. No person, no one to be hurt.

Jeremy

 

[Gulliamo]

I'll take this one topic at a time...

I’ve also read some atheists here say that they value life more than the religious person because this is your one and only shot, there’s no reincarnation, no afterlife, no way to make up for what you didn’t get done this time around.

Exactly. Like Emimem said, "You only got one shot, do not miss your chance" so do it right. The world is not going to end in Rapture any time soon so don't screw up the planet for those you leave behind.

If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control?

Simple. Humanity is greater than the individual. I hate to use the phrase "population control" because I know it will draw fire but let me paraphrase...

Wildlife regulators occasionally release significantly more deer hunting licenses than usual. Why? Because if the population grows too quickly it will destroy the entire herd. If there are too many deer one year the next will be out-of-control and the following will result in mass starvation, malnutrition, etc.

Before I get hit from every side by a barrage of mortar fire I will state that I am NOT directly comparing humans to deer.

Now... If a young couple accidentally gets pregnant a few years before planned it could cause them to drop out of college, get low wage jobs, have more kids, have more problems, divorce, raise a bunch of dysfunctional, uneducated, social disasters. Whereas one well timed visit to the clinic could postpone all of this and lead to a prosperous, educated, society contributing family.

That being said... I do not condone "late term" abortion except where necessary. I do not condone repeated clinic stops out of convenience. (As in "Oh, I'm pregnant again, I'll stop by the clinic during lunch. Can I borrow $300?)

I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if the churches had not placed such a stigma on birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!!

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

If a person never existed in the first place, they're not being deprived of anything. There's no one there to be deprived. Make sense?

Otherwise, there's no reason to focus on abortion in particular. Every single sperm and egg combination is a potential person. Every time a woman goes a month without getting pregnant, it means that a potential human being is being deprived of their life. And god forbid masturbation -- millions die!

Since most atheists believe that human consciousness is created by our brains, they are comfortable saying that a fetus without a certain level of brain development does not possess that "special something" that makes an organism a sentient being. No developed brain, no consciousness. No consciousness, no person. No person, no one to be hurt.

Jeremy

Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot. Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?

From http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

and

The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

An atheist claiming they value life more than a religious person, whether truly or not, is not the same as claiming the they value life above all else. It is not inconsistent to claim that, in general, one values life more highly than another, but in the specific case of abortion, there are things one values more than the life (?) of the fetus.

One could value the freedom of choice of the mother; the presumed quality of life of the mother, the baby, and possibly the father, the mother's parents, etc. were the fetus to be carried to term; the presumed drain on society that the birth of an unwanted child could conceivably cause.

Or, more simply, one could just cycle back to wondering at what point along the way the fetus develops its claim to a human life worth respecting.

 

[Christian]

An atheist claiming they value life more than a religious person, whether truly or not, is not the same as claiming the they value life above all else. It is not inconsistent to claim that, in general, one values life more highly than another, but in the specific case of abortion, there are things one values more than the life (?) of the fetus.

If the fetus is not a person, then this is a valid point.

One could value the freedom of choice of the mother; the presumed quality of life of the mother, the baby, and possibly the father, the mother's parents, etc. were the fetus to be carried to term; the presumed drain on society that the birth of an unwanted child could conceivably cause.

All this falls apart if the fetus is person.

Or, more simply, one could just cycle back to wondering at what point along the way the fetus develops its claim to a human life worth respecting.

Yes, what is the criteria? Scientific?

An atheist (I believe) should take the strictly mechanistic view, right?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Christian
If the fetus is not a person, then this is a valid point.

Even were we to assume the fetus was a person for the sake of argument, it does not necessarily mean an pro-choice atheist who asserts he values life in general more than a religious person is wrong. He would value the life of fetuses demonstrably less, true, but that is but one type of life.

All this falls apart if the fetus is person.

I don't think it does. Saying you value something more than another does not mean you value it above all else. It is possible I value life more than you, yet value freedom more than life.

Yes, what is the criteria? Scientific?

Not entirely. Though scientific knowledge must inform any decision we make, it cannot serve as final arbiter. We have to draw a line. Science does not provide such neat edges. Many want the line drawn at conception. Some want the line drawn at birth. Most seem to want it somewhere in the middle. Wherever it gets drawn, by policy, is going to piss someone off. (I think we're wandering off-topic here, though)

 

[The GM]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Gulliamo
I'll take this one topic at a time...
1. Exactly. Like Emimem said, "You only got one shot, do not miss your chance" so do it right. The world is not going to end in Rapture any time soon so don't screw up the planet for those you leave behind. Simple. Humanity is greater than the individual. I hate to use the phrase "population control" because I know it will draw fire but let me paraphrase...


2. Now... If a young couple accidentally gets pregnant a few years before planned it could cause them to drop out of college, get low wage jobs, have more kids, have more problems, divorce, raise a bunch of dysfunctional, uneducated, social disasters. Whereas one well timed visit to the clinic could postpone all of this and lead to a prosperous, educated, society contributing family.

3. That being said... I do not condone "late term" abortion except where necessary. I do not condone repeated clinic stops out of convenience. (As in "Oh, I'm pregnant again, I'll stop by the clinic during lunch. Can I borrow $300?)

4. I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if the churches had not placed such a stigma on birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!! [/QUOTE]

I've numbered your points for ease in reply.
BTW, *Love* that avatar. I have it hanging in my office even as we speak, signed by the artist and everything.
Hmkay, on w/ the show.

1. Would you say that the many are more important than the one if it hits close to home? For instance, it's better for the 'good of humanity' that your husband or wife die because if they don't ten other people will die instead? When you use this particular arguement you completely close off the rights and responsibilities of *individuals*. Without individuals, society ceases, of course. Shouldn't the betterment of individuals be the priority here?

2. Or if a young couple gets preggers accidentally, maybe he works like a fiend and she finishes school. Maybe they have a bright, intelligent, beautiful, well adjusted kid who is consistantly at the top of the class. Maybe that young couple also builds a home, has two cars and three point five cats and a retirement fund. You could even stretch it to say that the young couple learns from their indescretion and has no more unplanned pregnancies. Know anyone like that?
Isn't personal responsibility what really makes a successful life happen? Children or no, isn't it the tenacity of individuals that makes life a success?

3. Okay, but how often is too often? One abortion? Two abortions? Three? When does it cease to be moral?

4. I would agree if you said this instead, "I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if individuals had taken personal responsibility and used birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!!


I'm not picking on you persay, just looking for clarification on your thoughts as well as sorting my own.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A fetus is not a person. 'Nuff said.

 

[The GM]

Why do you say that, Thai?

 

[Gulliamo]

Re: Re: Re: Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot. Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?

The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being.

I think you (they) are confusing the use of the word "different". Biologically my appendix is different from a hangnail. That doesn't make the hangnail special. The truth is we terminate life, complete with brainwaves and heartbeats, on a daily basis (often called "Pulling the Plug"). This has never been my criteria for life. In fact my attorney has a piece of paper that says if my criteria are ever met the plug will indeed be pulled, brain waves and heartbeats are irrelevant.

 

[Gulliamo]

1. Would you say that the many are more important than the one if it hits close to home? For instance, it's better for the 'good of humanity' that your husband or wife die because if they don't ten other people will die instead? When you use this particular arguement you completely close off the rights and responsibilities of *individuals*. Without individuals, society ceases, of course. Shouldn't the betterment of individuals be the priority here?

2. Or if a young couple gets preggers accidentally, maybe he works like a fiend and she finishes school. Maybe they have a bright, intelligent, beautiful, well adjusted kid who is consistantly at the top of the class. Maybe that young couple also builds a home, has two cars and three point five cats and a retirement fund. You could even stretch it to say that the young couple learns from their indescretion and has no more unplanned pregnancies. Know anyone like that?
Isn't personal responsibility what really makes a successful life happen? Children or no, isn't it the tenacity of individuals that makes life a success?

3. Okay, but how often is too often? One abortion? Two abortions? Three? When does it cease to be moral?

4. I would agree if you said this instead, "I am relatively certain that a LOT of abortions would never have to happen if individuals had taken personal responsibility and used birth control and contraception. And when the hell are we going to get male birth control?!? I am sick of leaving all the choice and responsibility up to the women!!!

I'm not picking on you persay, just looking for clarification on your thoughts as well as sorting my own.

1. This, as with every human life decision, has to be taken on a case by case basis. Above I stated that I would prefer my own life be taken than to "live" in a suspended state. I would also choose an abortion over a life of misery. Your are correct that the society rides on the backs of the individuals. Which is why I believe this to be a choice that should be up to the individual to decide, not up to the society to decide for them.

2. Again, the individual has to make the decision. If a person can look inside of themselves and their partner and see people who will fight the odds and come out not only on top but stronger for it then they can make the decision to keep the baby. If a person looks at their "partner" and sees someone who will abandon them at the first sign of trouble, someone unwilling to struggle, fight and sacrifice, or someone who is abusive then they can make the decision suited for them.

3. I haven't figured out "how often is too often". I also haven't figured out "how late is too late" (within the pregnancy). Is it 1 month? 3 Months? 6 Months? I'm not sure...

4. I've seen way too many young people made to feel ashamed for taking birth control, buy condems, or otherwise doing the "right" thing. This is often pressure from religious parents or friends. Regardless-->Coming from a person like me --> That 99% success rate for birth control pills isn't all it is cracked up to be anyway.

[edited #4]

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you say that, Thai?

A vital component to being a person is sentience, as well as personality. A fetus has neither of these traits.

 

[Gulliamo]

A vital component to being a person is sentience, as well as personality.

At what point, pre or post natal, does one develope sentience? Third trimester? 3 years old?

 

[thaiboxerken]

At what point, pre or post natal, does one develope sentience? Third trimester? 3 years old?

Long after birth. Perhaps you should talk to a doctor about this.

 

[The Cats Venm]

Personally, I believe that a woman has the right (or should have the right) to do what she wants to a fetus/baby while it is still inside of her.

Now I also think that a woman would be very ill-advised to have a late term abortion unless it was absolutely necessary for whatever reason (high risk of death, for example, though there may be other reasons). The evidence shows that late term abortions can have major negative side effects for the woman, and as such they should never be considered lightly. I just feel that it should be up to the woman to make the final educated decision, rather than make it outright illegal, no matter what.

As for the value of life, I value the life of those already born more than I value the life of those not yet born. I would prefer to work toward the betterment of the world based on how it is, rather than aspire to idyllic moral absolutes (like 'all life should be preserved at all costs').

Does this make me immoral? I don't know. I just want to live the most pleasant life possible, and I believe that one way to reach that goal is to extend that aim to everyone. The golden rule in a non-literal sense. If I am good to others, they are more likely to be good to me.


On a somewhat-similar-but-not-at-all note, I also think people should be allowed to terminate their own lives. Though again, it should be a decision made carefully, and I appreciate the risk that some could abuse this freedom, and use it to conceal murder.


Sorry for going off topic, but I've never written down my thoughts on this subject before, and it was quite interesting trying to find the right words to express it.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions.

Oops.

The median section of human foetal brain during the third month shows the brain divided into 5 ventricles; not yet formed are the cerebrum, cerebellum and pons. The requisite structures for measurable brain wave activity aren't even there until around 126 days.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot.

Right. The point at which "science," as you say, shows that a fetus has that critical level of brain development is at about five or six months. I am opposed to abortions occuring after that. Fortunately, almost none are performed after that point, and those that are are usually done for medical reasons.

Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?

No, I don't think DNA has anything to do with it. I think it's possible for a sentient being to not even have DNA (e.g. aliens or artificial intelligences), and also for two separate intelligent people to have the same DNA (identical twins). "Distinctness" is completely irrelevant to the abortion debate.

Jeremy

 

[Ratman_tf]

Hey all,

From talking to atheists here and IRL, the general consensus seems to be when you die, that’s it, you’re worm food. Do not pass go, do not collect a pleasant afterlife. I’ve also read some atheists here say that they value life more than the religious person because this is your one and only shot, there’s no reincarnation, no afterlife, no way to make up for what you didn’t get done this time around.

That's my take on it. (Not the part about athiests valuing life more that religious folks, that's a rather tasteless dig on the part of some atheists, IMO.)

If all of that is so, how can and does an atheist support or approve of abortion when used as birth control? Let’s leave medical necessity out of the equation. If this is indeed your only shot, how is it moral or ethical to deprive someone of their only chance at living their life?
Thanks in advance for your view points.
Oh, and to keep this thread on topic please remember this thread isn’t about whether the current law is right or wrong. Nor is the thread about bashing someone else’s beliefs. I have a genuine curiosity about this particular topic and am trying to learn something here.

I don't believe that the cluster of cells growing in a woman's body is a human being until about the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Any more than an unfertilized egg or sperm is a human being. (Or a hunk of hair or fingernail, for that matter.)

So I think abortion is acceptable up to about the point where the fetus's brain is developed enough to support human brain activity.

Personally, I think abortion is an undesirable method of birth control when there are alternatives like condoms, the pill, etc... that avoid all this controversy. But from my purely intellectual viewpoint, it's not a human being until about the sixth month when the brain starts to develop the ability to think like a human.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Re: Re: Re: Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

Ok, so if science shows that a fetus has that certain level of brian developement then your point is moot. Also, if DNA shows distinctness, your other point is moot, right?

All creatures with brains have brain waves. But which ones have distinctly human brain activity?