Abortion is about Atheism and Religion
The abortion issue bugs me.
The reason is because it really boils down to whether a person is religious. If you don't believe in a soul, then there is no scientific way to justify whether a fetus/baby is a person or just living tissue without personhood. If you are on the pro life side, the strongest argument you can make is that the atheist side has no clear defining point. But that doesn't mean that the defining point is conception. A three day old embryo has no nerve cells much less brain cells. So it's definitely after conception for them. But then the clearest scientific evidence of personhood occurs after birth (6 months). Therefore, the law requires that if a fetus can survive outside of the womb, it must be considered a person. To the atheist, there has to be significant brain activity do declare the fetus a person.
But then what about the religious person? To this person, when exactly does the soul enter the body? These people are in a similar boat aren't they? Maybe the soul enters the body at some point after conception? What physical indicators should even be looked for? Nevertheless, it is most reasonable to assume (and I do mean assume) that the soul enters at conception since this is when a new living thing exists.
It boils down to this. Physical evidence of personhood only exists 6 months after birth. Both sides push the date before that but atheists have no supernatural resources to push it before significant brain development. Religious people have such resources, souls.
But what bugs me is that no one talks about this. Everyone tries to avoid this and make the argument about something else.
Pro life arguments are absurd.
They point to things like fingers the fetus looking like a human visually. Yes they actually do this. Why do they never realize that this is meaningless nonsense? The question for atheists is brain development, which is under the skin. Atheists of course know that the fetus looks human. If it continues to grow, it will be a human. Did you expect a zebra shape?
But it gets worse. Pro lifers actually just say that anyone who disagrees with them is a baby killer. They just proclaim it. Are you serious though? You don't have any scientific evidence to justify personhood without the supernatural resources of the soul. You are literally saying that you are right and justifying it with emotional attacks. This is the lowest form of argument and utterly despicable.
Pro choice arguments are also absurd.
These people actutally claim that children raised by low income single mothers or in and out of foster care should simply have never been allowed to be born. As a child of a low income single mother, let me just say that I am happy I was allowed to exist? Why is this even brought up at all? Have you taken an entire second of your time to contemplate the perspective of the other side? Or was that a half second too long?
The other silly argument claims that it's about female bodily autonomy. This one irritates me endlessly. They argue that if someone needs your organs, then you have no legal responsibility to donate them. This is true even if the person will die. This is an absurd comparison. We are talking about your children, not a stranger on the street. Imagine that a person sitting on the sidewalk asks you for money. Let's say that the person's life depends on your cash. You still have the right not to share your money with this person. But imagine that you have children (for some of you, this will be easier). These children are dependent on you buying food, clothes, soap, providing a house and so much more. If you do not provide these things, then your children are taken away and raised by the communities foster system. You might even face criminal charges. Children have a right to their parents money. Strangers do not. Children have a right to their parents bodies, strangers do not.
What is so horrible about this form of argument is that it utilizes sexism to push it's agenda. It makes men out to be oppressors simply because they can't get pregnant. Men aren't that way because they choose to be. Men have no choice. Like women, men are just born they way they are born. And yet men are depicted as violent oppressors just for the sake of what they believe to be unborn babies. So ignoring the armies of women who are pro life, we try to turn all of the possible resources of sexism into a tool to use just to get more pregnancies aborted. Pro choicers are literally stoking the fires of sexism just to get people to have less kids.
It's horrible. They even sometimes claim that overpopulation is a problem. But sociologists, farmers, and economists are entirely certain that it isn't. Then of course we have to look at whether a reduction in human population would fix climate change. And this leads to one of the dumbest arguments of all time. If only humans didn't do things to change the world, then the world would be "natural." Think of the logic of that. If what is natural is merely what happens when humans don't do anything, then everything humans do is not natural. If what is natural is always better than unnatural, then it logically follows that it is evil for humans to even exist at all. If I merely lay on the ground at night, then I am disturbing what would have been the case naturally. Here's an alternative idea. HUMANS ARE FROM PLANET EARTH. When humans exist and do things on this planet, it is natural. Somehow, when a beaver cuts down a tree it's natural, but when humans cut down a tree it's unnatural. Is this for real?
Rant over.
The reason is because it really boils down to whether a person is religious. If you don't believe in a soul, then there is no scientific way to justify whether a fetus/baby is a person or just living tissue without personhood. If you are on the pro life side, the strongest argument you can make is that the atheist side has no clear defining point. But that doesn't mean that the defining point is conception. A three day old embryo has no nerve cells much less brain cells. So it's definitely after conception for them. But then the clearest scientific evidence of personhood occurs after birth (6 months). Therefore, the law requires that if a fetus can survive outside of the womb, it must be considered a person. To the atheist, there has to be significant brain activity do declare the fetus a person.
But then what about the religious person? To this person, when exactly does the soul enter the body? These people are in a similar boat aren't they? Maybe the soul enters the body at some point after conception? What physical indicators should even be looked for? Nevertheless, it is most reasonable to assume (and I do mean assume) that the soul enters at conception since this is when a new living thing exists.
It boils down to this. Physical evidence of personhood only exists 6 months after birth. Both sides push the date before that but atheists have no supernatural resources to push it before significant brain development. Religious people have such resources, souls.
But what bugs me is that no one talks about this. Everyone tries to avoid this and make the argument about something else.
Pro life arguments are absurd.
They point to things like fingers the fetus looking like a human visually. Yes they actually do this. Why do they never realize that this is meaningless nonsense? The question for atheists is brain development, which is under the skin. Atheists of course know that the fetus looks human. If it continues to grow, it will be a human. Did you expect a zebra shape?
But it gets worse. Pro lifers actually just say that anyone who disagrees with them is a baby killer. They just proclaim it. Are you serious though? You don't have any scientific evidence to justify personhood without the supernatural resources of the soul. You are literally saying that you are right and justifying it with emotional attacks. This is the lowest form of argument and utterly despicable.
Pro choice arguments are also absurd.
These people actutally claim that children raised by low income single mothers or in and out of foster care should simply have never been allowed to be born. As a child of a low income single mother, let me just say that I am happy I was allowed to exist? Why is this even brought up at all? Have you taken an entire second of your time to contemplate the perspective of the other side? Or was that a half second too long?
The other silly argument claims that it's about female bodily autonomy. This one irritates me endlessly. They argue that if someone needs your organs, then you have no legal responsibility to donate them. This is true even if the person will die. This is an absurd comparison. We are talking about your children, not a stranger on the street. Imagine that a person sitting on the sidewalk asks you for money. Let's say that the person's life depends on your cash. You still have the right not to share your money with this person. But imagine that you have children (for some of you, this will be easier). These children are dependent on you buying food, clothes, soap, providing a house and so much more. If you do not provide these things, then your children are taken away and raised by the communities foster system. You might even face criminal charges. Children have a right to their parents money. Strangers do not. Children have a right to their parents bodies, strangers do not.
What is so horrible about this form of argument is that it utilizes sexism to push it's agenda. It makes men out to be oppressors simply because they can't get pregnant. Men aren't that way because they choose to be. Men have no choice. Like women, men are just born they way they are born. And yet men are depicted as violent oppressors just for the sake of what they believe to be unborn babies. So ignoring the armies of women who are pro life, we try to turn all of the possible resources of sexism into a tool to use just to get more pregnancies aborted. Pro choicers are literally stoking the fires of sexism just to get people to have less kids.
It's horrible. They even sometimes claim that overpopulation is a problem. But sociologists, farmers, and economists are entirely certain that it isn't. Then of course we have to look at whether a reduction in human population would fix climate change. And this leads to one of the dumbest arguments of all time. If only humans didn't do things to change the world, then the world would be "natural." Think of the logic of that. If what is natural is merely what happens when humans don't do anything, then everything humans do is not natural. If what is natural is always better than unnatural, then it logically follows that it is evil for humans to even exist at all. If I merely lay on the ground at night, then I am disturbing what would have been the case naturally. Here's an alternative idea. HUMANS ARE FROM PLANET EARTH. When humans exist and do things on this planet, it is natural. Somehow, when a beaver cuts down a tree it's natural, but when humans cut down a tree it's unnatural. Is this for real?
Rant over.
Comments
Post a Comment