Can An Atheist Be Pro-Life?

[TripleB]

I'm an atheist and I'm pro-choice. In my mind, pro-life stances are based on a religious viewpoint because some religions say a zygote is alive because God put a soul at inception.

From a scientific standpoint, I've always said, "if it's alive, you could take it out, put it on the table, and it'd still be alive. But since you can't, it's clearly not." At the 6th or 7th month mark, you *may* be able to surgically excise it and keep it alive. Hook it up to a neonatal ICU at $20,000 a day for a few months, flip a coin and at that point you may have life, albeit likely with significant birth defects that will last for life.

I'm not trying to bash anyone's religion and I can see the viewpoint that if you believed a fertilized egg was implanted by God with a soul, then you would want to protect that soul and Pro-Life makes sense to you, even if it means violating the woman's right to her own body.

However, if that's the sole basis for Pro-Life, then I have a problem with it because it comingles Church and State because the argument hinges on God being real.

Is it possible for an Atheist to be Pro-Life? If so, what is the argument that person would place in effect?

Am I misstating the religious Pro-Choice argument that a soul is in the fertilized egg and that's why it's alive?

I'm a big believer in freedom of religion, and a bigger believer in separating from State. On the extreme side, you get Sharia Law (I'm not referring to it as "extreme" in reference to Islam itself, I am referring to an extreme comingling of Church and State - I personally find Islam no more or less extreme than Christianity or Scientology).

Is there a non-religion-based argument against abortion? Absent from religion, is there an argument that a fertilized egg is alive that an atheist might use?

If you're Pro-Life, is it genuinely possible to believe it's "OK" to have an abortion in limited circumstances such as rape or a medical condition that threatens the life of the pregnant woman? In my mind, If I was Pro-Life, I would think no abortion could ever be permitted under any circumstances because life is life, whether it originated from an incestuous rape or consensual sex. Or are the "Pro Life" politicians who allow for exceptions in special situations just saying that to avoid turning off the Pro-Choice crowd?

Are Libertarians split on the abortion issue or are they almost exclusively pro-choice?

Irrespective of this incident issue, [and I'm not saying this is the case in the abortion issue... which is why I asked the initial question], the big question I have is *if* there was an issue where the only justification is "God said so" should that stance be considered valid? For example, if the Pro-2nd Amendment put forth the sole argument of "We have God Given rights to defend ourselves and the Bible has references" then should this argument be allowed if it's based solely or primarily on a specific religious belief?

Hopefully I'm not offending anyone by the way I am speaking about this topic; I'm trying to be sensitive. I'm curious to hear RuralEngineer's take because I saw him mention he's Pro-Life but otherwise a staunch Libertarian.

[Tyler]

Interesting question.

I'm a pro-life libertarian, but I am also Christian so religion does influence my beliefs. (EDIT: RuralEngineer makes a good point below, and I'd still be pro-life even if I wasn't religious.)

I offer this link with the disclosure that I searched for this only after reading your post and have not read it in detail.  But it seems like a potential interesting resource to your question.

Libertarians for Life: http://www.l4l.org

[RuralEngineer]

We covered this ad nauseam in a different thread recently.  Essentially what the multi-page discussion boiled down to is it's more dependent on your definition of life than on religious grounds.  Christians don't oppose abortion because it says to in the Bible (to my knowledge it's not mentioned), they oppose it because they believe the fetus is alive and innocent life must be protected.  I've met Christians (including family members) who are pro-choice because they don't believe a zygote or early term fetus is alive.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm not much of a Christian either.  Not anymore at least.  My objections to abortion are based solely on the idea that innocent human life is worth saving where possible.  The majority of human embryologists agree with me, as I cited in that other thread.  You can dig through this if you want to know more about my views, as well as those of several other forum goers.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/in ... c=3619.105

[edsanville]

I'm an atheist, but I don't have an opinion on the abortion issue.  The problem is, I understand both viewpoints.  If you believe abortion is murder, then obviously there is no justification for it (unless you have no problem with murder in general).  Otherwise, it's a simple matter of pragmatism, considering what would become of unwanted offspring, a woman's right to control her own body, etc.  The two sides of this issue are really speaking two different languages, in a way.

Honestly, I don't think science has anything to say about this issue.  It's a moral issue, not a scientific one.  Is a fetus alive?  Of course it is, but that's not the important question here.  A dog is alive, an ant is alive, a tuberculosis bacterium is alive.  Remove a grown human from its proper climate, ecosystem, etc., and it too will die just as quickly as the fetus. 

Philosophically, it all depends on where you draw the line when it comes to entities that "have a right to live."

I love and respect science, and I've dedicated a good portion of my life to it.  However, it rubs me the wrong way when people try to use science to "prove" that their opinion is the only logical one. 

[MachineGhost]

I don't think the conception of the soul animates the anti-abortionist, unless you believe they're all just extreme right wing fundamentalist wackos.  That might hold true for the most vocal and violent protestors willing to kill, but not in general.

Even if science could somehow pinpoint the exact moment a soul is transplanted into a zygote/embryo/fetus, do you think that would change the nature of the debate?  How about when science proves that anything alive is a soul, even the bacterium living deep underground living on chemical reactions?  Abortion is an emotional/hubris issue, not one of facts.  Humans have no problem killing off alive life forms, soul or not, that they feel they are superior too.  Pragmatism has to rule the day or hypocrisy will reign.

[TripleB]

Honestly, I don't think science has anything to say about this issue.  It's a moral issue, not a scientific one.  Is a fetus alive?  Of course it is, but that's not the important question here.

I respectfully disagree on both counts. I believe that a fetus is not alive. And I believe that it is the important question.

In my mind, if a fetus is a living human, then abortion should be illegal and disallowed 100% of the time.

However, I personally don't believe a fetus is alive. If you remove a fetus/embryo/zygote from the womb and put it on the table, it will not "continue to be alive" because it was never alive to begin with. It requires the connection to the mother to provide it with oxygen, energy, and transfer waste out of it. If the fetus were alive and a separate living entity from the mother, then a surgical procedure could be performed that removed it, and handed it over to the State for safe keeping just like a mother with an infant who didn't want it could hand it over to the State to put it in an orphanage.

In my opinion, the argument solely boils down to whether the zygote/embryo is a living human.

[edsanville]

I think we're speaking slightly different languages here.  In your post, I see three different terms being used interchangeably.  Respectfully, consider:

I believe that a fetus is not alive. And I believe that it is the important question.

Scientifically, a zygote is considered alive.  An embryo is considered alive.  A fetus is considered alive.  Even a single sperm cell alone is considered alive.  The scientific definition of life is broad enough to include everything from bacteria to humans, from individual cells to entire organisms.  Most people would say that being "alive" is necessary but insufficient to confer the "right to life."

In my mind, if a fetus is a living human, then abortion should be illegal and disallowed 100% of the time.

Scientifically, a zygote, embryo, and fetus is composed of living human tissue.  It is unambiguously human, because every living cell in a zygote, embryo, or fetus contains the full complement of human DNA.  Your arm is also composed of living human tissue, but has no rights on its own.  I guess most people would then agree that being "living human" is again necessary but insufficient to confer rights.

However, I personally don't believe a fetus is alive. If you remove a fetus/embryo/zygote from the womb and put it on the table, it will not "continue to be alive" because it was never alive to begin with. It requires the connection to the mother to provide it with oxygen, energy, and transfer waste out of it. If the fetus were alive and a separate living entity from the mother, then a surgical procedure could be performed that removed it, and handed it over to the State for safe keeping just like a mother with an infant who didn't want it could hand it over to the State to put it in an orphanage.

Is the fetus a "separate living entity?"  Whether a fetus is a "separate" living human is a vague enough question that it becomes unanswerable unless you clarify the definition of "separate."

Is it a "separate living human entity?"  Not as you've defined it here, because it could not survive outside the mother (without an artificial means).  But, by that definition, anybody who is currently on life support should not be considered a "separate living human entity."  If you remove them from the machine, they will die.  And yet, in our society, they still have rights.  If you define "separate" as able to survive outside of a womb without artificial means, then you exclude some people who are universally agreed to have rights.

That's why I believe it's a solely moral issue.  Playing around with scientific definitions, I feel, is missing the forest for the trees.  It all comes down to which entities you subjectively believe are entitled to "rights," and which are not.

That's why I think the abortion debate will never end, for as long as the human race exists.  Science answers many questions, but not these types of questions.

I don't mean any disrespect, either, as I'm a libertarian (huge surprise there) and generally agree with the spirit of your posts, TripleB.

[brick-house]

triple b wrote:

However, I personally don't believe a fetus is alive. If you remove a fetus/embryo/zygote from the womb and put it on the table, it will not "continue to be alive" because it was never alive to begin with. It requires the connection to the mother to provide it with oxygen, energy, and transfer waste out of it. If the fetus were alive and a separate living entity from the mother, then a surgical procedure could be performed that removed it, and handed it over to the State for safe keeping just like a mother with an infant who didn't want it could hand it over to the State to put it in an orphanage.

In my opinion, the argument solely boils down to whether the zygote/embryo is a living human.

However, if you do not remove the fetus the natural progression is a baby.  If a 65 year old is an accident and needs machines, surgeries, and medicine to live in the hospital bed until his/her body recovers - is that person alive? 

The natural progression of the fetus is aborted by a deliberate human action step.  The natural death of the 65 year old is aborted because of deliberate human action like surgery, machines, and medicine.  Who is more valuable to society the unborn fetus or the 65 year old? 

IMHO, I favor life for both the fetus and the older people.  Abortion cannot be a pleasant decision and experience physically and spiritually for a woman.  I just pray less folks use abortion as birth control and more folks adopt...

[TripleB]

However, if you do not remove the fetus the natural progression is a baby.  If a 65 year old is an accident and needs machines, surgeries, and medicine to live in the hospital bed until his/her body recovers - is that person alive? 

The natural progression of the fetus is aborted by a deliberate human action step.  The natural death of the 65 year old is aborted because of deliberate human action like surgery, machines, and medicine.

The disconnect here is that the 65 year old in an accident does not need to force himself on someone else to survive on machines in the ICU. You don't have to chain another human being down to the ICU against their will, and force that human's kidneys to filter the 65 year old man's blood.

I'm saying, "sure, remove the fetus, hand it over to the hospital, let them put it in the neonatal ICU, but don't require the woman to carry it inside her against her will."

If it can survive in the neonatal ICU, then great. If not, then it wasn't alive.

[Pointedstick]

If it can survive in the neonatal ICU, then great. If not, then it wasn't alive.

Scientifically speaking, it was indeed alive. Perhaps you should instead say, "If it can survive in the neonatal ICU, then great. If not, then its life didn't merit preservation."

[Xan]

TripleB, I agree with much of what you say on other topics, but on this one it sounds like you're twisting the definition of "life" into a pretzel in order to justify a position you've already decided on.  In other words, I think your definition of "life" came about after you decided that it's A-OK for people to kill their in-utero babies, not before.

[TripleB]

TripleB, I agree with much of what you say on other topics, but on this one it sounds like you're twisting the definition of "life" into a pretzel in order to justify a position you've already decided on.  In other words, I think your definition of "life" came about after you decided that it's A-OK for people to kill their in-utero babies, not before.

Interesting possibility. All humans are susceptible to that kind of thinking. It helps avoid cognitive dissonance. i.e. "If a zygote is alive then Abortion should be banned. I want Abortion to be legal, therefore a zygote is not alive."

I'll have to look at myself introspectively and consider that possibility.

[brick-house]

triple b wrote:

The disconnect here is that the 65 year old in an accident does not need to force himself on someone else to survive on machines in the ICU. You don't have to chain another human being down to the ICU against their will, and force that human's kidneys to filter the 65 year old man's blood.

I'm saying, "sure, remove the fetus, hand it over to the hospital, let them put it in the neonatal ICU, but don't require the woman to carry it inside her against her will."

If it can survive in the neonatal ICU, then great. If not, then it wasn't alive.

How is the fetus removed?  Are machines and doctors used?  You seem to be saying it is okay to use machines and doctors to deliberately remove a fetus (that if not removed will naturally progress to a baby) and thus make that fetus dependent on machines and doctors.  If the machines/doctors cannot then save the fetus, then what - garbage can? 

Again, I pray that less folks use abortion as birth control and more people adopt....

[k9]

From a scientific standpoint, I've always said, "if it's alive, you could take it out, put it on the table, and it'd still be alive. But since you can't, it's clearly not."

So, what about fishes ?

The problem is, it's not a scientific problem. It's a moral, philosophical one. There's no right, scientifical answer on these questions. Sorry :/

[TripleB]

For those who believe a zygote/embryo/fetus are alive, should it be illegal for a pregnant woman to:

smoke cigarettes?
drink alcohol?
abuse drugs?
engage in unprotected sex which might lead to a new infection that gets passed to the baby during childbirth?
engage in extreme sports that might result in a miscarriage?
fail to take prenatal vitamins?

In my mind, if the fetus is considered a protected life entity, then it deserves all the same protections a baby does. If a woman does something to poison a baby that will result in a development defect, that would be a criminal action punishable by prison.

Thus, I would think one would argue to impose criminal negligence against a pregnant woman who engages in any behavior that is likely to be harmful. Curious to hear thoughts on this, and if so, where the line would be drawn?

[Storm]

TripleB, for the second time, I find myself totally in agreement with you.  I'm actually quite amazed...

If we take the "every zygote is a precious thing that should be preserved no matter what..." we quickly reach a ridiculous extreme position that can best be summed up by this funny skit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

[RuralEngineer]

TripleB, for the second time, I find myself totally in agreement with you.  I'm actually quite amazed...

If we take the "every zygote is a precious thing that should be preserved no matter what..." we quickly reach a ridiculous extreme position that can best be summed up by this funny skit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Strawman.  A sperm is not an organism, it lacks a complete set of DNA as does the egg.  A zygote is a complete organism.  Whether that organism is worth saving or is entitled to rights is a different argument.  I find much more sympathy for the argument that a zygote or fetus is a living organism, but is at the level of a fish or a lobster and is therefore accorded less/no rights than any argument where it is not a living organism as there is no scientific support for this.

[MachineGhost]

Thus, I would think one would argue to impose criminal negligence against a pregnant woman who engages in any behavior that is likely to be harmful. Curious to hear thoughts on this, and if so, where the line would be drawn?

This reminds me of how filing and paying income taxes is voluntary, but it must not be willful intent to be non-prosecutable.  Abuse of any kind of life is rarely non-willful intent.  Even so, there are secondary criminal charges for ignorance.

[rocketdog]

From a scientific standpoint, I've always said, "if it's alive, you could take it out, put it on the table, and it'd still be alive. But since you can't, it's clearly not."

FWIW, I'm a pro-choice Libertarian atheist as well.  Now that we have that out of the way, I think you have a bizarre idea of what constitutes "life".  By your definition fish, plants, and your brain aren't alive either, because if you take the fish out of the water and the plant out of the ground and your brain out of your skull and put them on a table, they'll all die.  I hope we can all agree that's an illogical definition of "life". 

Just because something is dependent on something else to survive doesn't mean it's not alive.  In fact, ALL of the higher animals are dependent on other living things in order to survive.  Humans can't survive without consuming living plant and/or animal material (or formerly living material).  We can't survive on metals, minerals, gases, or other non-living substances.  So does that mean we're not alive, because we depend on other living things for our survival?

One definition I found defines life as "a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction."  So if you want to get all technical you could say that an embryo and/or fetus only possesses the first 3 of those qualities and therefore is not "alive".  But then you're stuck having to explain why pre-pubescent children are alive if they can't reproduce either. 

Just thought I'd throw my $0.02 out there...

[edsanville]

Now that we have that out of the way, I think you have a bizarre idea of what constitutes "life".  By your definition fish, plants, and your brain aren't alive either, because if you take the fish out of the water and the plant out of the ground and your brain out of your skull and put them on a table, they'll all die.  I hope we can all agree that's an illogical definition of "life".

I tried to say this before.  I get the impression that when he says "alive,"  he really means "sentient."  Virtually nobody (including all biologists everywhere) defines "life" to exclude any of those things.

[TripleB]

Here's a new twist. Suppose I modify my viewpoint to believe the zygote is life. I'm tempted to do so based on some of the arguments in this thread which make sense.

Would a valid argument for Pro-Choice be:

Although the zygote is alive, the mother has greater "rights" than that of the zygote and thus has the right to terminate the zygote's life.

There's already a precedent for this in society in self-defense laws. If someone breaks into my home with intent to harm me, I have the "right" to murder that person in my home. We are both alive, but my right to life trumps his right to life because his continued life would result in my death or disability.

[Pointedstick]

Here's a new twist. Suppose I modify my viewpoint to believe the zygote is life. I'm tempted to do so based on some of the arguments in this thread which make sense.

Would a valid argument for Pro-Choice be:

Although the zygote is alive, the mother has greater "rights" than that of the zygote and thus has the right to terminate the zygote's life.

There's already a precedent for this in society in self-defense laws. If someone breaks into my home with intent to harm me, I have the "right" to murder that person in my home. We are both alive, but my right to life trumps his right to life because his continued life would result in my death or disability.

I do believe you just discovered the orthodox pro-choice position!  IMHO, there's a lot going for it. Society already make these kinds of "my right trumps yours for X reason" justifications in many cases, self-defense included. That said, self-defense is easier than abortion because the attacker is clearly a Bad Person™ who most would agree deserves whatever violence he gets from the defender. But zygotes or even fetuses have done nothing wrong, so it's a much tougher argument to swallow, even if you subscribe to the belief that its right to life is trumped by the mother's right to do what she wants with her own body. The moral dimension of deserving what it gets it absent by reason of its innocence.

[TripleB]

Seems legit to say that one could argue the mother's right to life trumps the right of the unborn zygote.

Here's an analogous situation (in my mind at least, although it's likely a strawman fallacy):

Suppose there was identical twins. One goes into acute kidney failure. The other has two perfectly working kidneys. A pro-life argument would border on "the twin should be forced to give one kidney to the other, else the other will die."

Especially in situations of rape, one can argue that a woman did everything possible to not get pregnant but got pregnant for no cause of her own. Should the pregnant woman risk her own life and health to carry the zygote to term at her own expense?

[Xan]

I don't believe that even the most ardent pro-lifers have ever proposed a law banning abortions in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.  You're right that there's a life-versus-life question there, and it is always up to families and their doctors to work through that tragic situation.

The real question is, does the mother's "right" to be more comfortable for nine months than she would otherwise be trump the baby's right to be alive?

[Pointedstick]

Suppose there was identical twins. One goes into acute kidney failure. The other has two perfectly working kidneys. A pro-life argument would border on "the twin should be forced to give one kidney to the other, else the other will die."

I don't think so; the other twin is innocent of any wrongdoing and, if unborn, cannot consent to the operation; therefore it would be a violation of its rights. So much about the pro-life position resolves around the innocence of the unborn, much moreso than any utilitarian argument about life maximization. If that were the case, pro-life people would be universally against the death penalty.