A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

reply to post by Bone75


I can make this very simple...

If you eat eggs, you believe in abortion. Simple as that.

An egg is nothing more than a chicken fetus not brought to term. Why shouldn't the chicken fetus have rights but a human fetus should??

Seriously though, there are several good reasons to have an abortion. Genetic defects, danger to the mother, forced pregnancy (rape), and yes, even for birth control.. some people just aren't meant to be parents... and if they are willing to get an abortion, they obviously aren't ready to have and care for a child.

However, please, PLEASE lets stop calling it pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion... I am pro-choice, and that's really what's at the heart of the argument. If you want to live in a free country, you must respect the freedom to make a choice about what happens to/in your body. As much as it sucks that a man can't stop a woman from aborting a pregnancy should the father want it and the mother doesn't, its the right way to do it. Let women choose!

I am an Objectivist and subsequently I am an atheist. I believe in abortion up to a certain point and here is why;


Abortion from an Objectivist's Worldview

What is considered life? That I believe is the first question that should be answered. And once it is answered by whomever, will determine their reply to the OP question.

If a person believes life is when a living being or organism of any sort begins to grow on its own without direct input, then that could conclude life begins at conception.

If a person believes life is when a organism has its own thought and awareness of its existence then that would conclude life begins when the child is very young, varying ages depending on whomever you ask. I remember the earliest of my life when I was 2.5 years old. I saw my little brother with my mom when she came home from the hospital.

If a person believe life is when a organism or being is able to survive on its own, well that can mean many things. A baby cannot live on its own not even till its grown to about 5+ years old. Even some adults cant live on their own at 20 years old in their parents basement.

A baby can breathe on its own when it is born out of the womb, that could constitute when life begins, but before it is being supplied via the mother inside if not it would die. And for something to die, it must first have life.

And if a person believes life doesn't exist that we are all mere atoms, and electrons with chemical reactions in our heads and that we breathe air and die and return to the ground, then life doesn't exist in that sense. And therefore you aren't killing a life, just ending some cell divisions that are fed by a host.

When it all comes down to it, life to a person is their own perception. And my belief is that life begins at conception. When you put 1 egg and 1 sperm together and they grown into 2 cells and then multiply, that is life people. Human looking or not, your whole body is filled with cells, and that being inside a mother is human no matter which way you look at it.

I didn't use the word contraception in any of my posts

I used the word contraceptives

That is a matter of semantics and a weak attempt at word play.

So basically you are saying that you don't mind committing murder, but you do mind which weapon you use?

How about if someone’s weapon of choice is a condom and it breaks at a crucial moment and the female gets pregnant. Would that be justifiable? After all they were Responsible enough to try to prevent it. And, it follows your example. . .. They were using a Contraceptive as a form of Contraception and had an Epic Fail.

My point is that those words are damn near interchangeable.

Weather the egg is prevented from fertilizing or dealt with after wards is a pretty thin line. Especially when you are arguing specifics about contraceptives. It is like you are playing both sides of the fence and being vague as hell. I was wondering why your opening statement was like 2 sentences long and lacked content.

I will tell you why you won't answer the other 2 questions. .. . It is because they will cause you to compromise your position again. You are telling your self that those are impossible circumstances, but, if they ever happened you would agree that it is o.k. .I could give dozens of those scenarios and you would feel like you had no choice to but to agree. Just like the first scenario. Although you believe that if it was only .01% of the people it happens to you still agreed but hated to admit it. It is hard to argue a position when you yield any point.

I can feel your frustration that irresponsible people use it as a means to evade responsibility but you have to look at the bigger picture. There are hundreds of millions (More probably several billion) of females on the planet that are having their rights chiseled away everyday. If you support chiseling at those rights I can see that you are not going to be very popular.

Maybe if you were a female and could relate to any of that you might be inclined to lean to the more popular side of that argument.

reply to post by Bone75

Dear Bone75,

I admire your attempt, but I don't think it is possible to have an abortion "debate" on ATS. Correction, I don't know how to set up an abortion debate here. The abortion side seems to be primarily, "You can't tell me what to do with my body." Well, the government certainly can. Roe v. Wade granted states the right to impose restrictions after the first trimester.

The problem is two-fold. One, people don't agree on definitions. Two, people put different weights on their rights.

For example "Human life." Some Mod was asking for facts. Fine, the facts are that medicine accepts the idea that human life begins at conception. There's really no argument there.

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George -

fallibleblogma.com...

The same position is held by doctors at Harvard, Mayo, and many others, including the inventor of the ultrasound machine. (quotes available)

Note that the doctor says they lack "only a suitable environment and nutrition." That's all any of us lack. Under the argument that a baby can't take care of itself without care and feeding, many of the elderly, the very ill, the mentally impaired, some homeless, could all be seen as not "human life."

Besides it makes no sense to say that "it" is part of the woman's body. If that were the case, then women would have four arms, legs, ears, and eyes. Half of the expectant mothers would have a penis.

Pace whichever Mod posted earlier, it's not a question of facts. It's a question of belief. Some believe that a woman's desire takes precedence over the baby's right to life. Roe v. Wade didn't find that. Even that dramatic, condemned, decision found that the state had the right to step in and protect the baby's rights in the third trimester.

When I look at the arguments for abortion (outside of self-defense) I only see emotional beliefs. Oh, they're real arguments and have managed to persuade courts and politicians, but they're not debatable because they're not based on facts.

Me? I face up to the reality we're dealing with. I hope change in any direction is slow, because that is less disruptive to society. But I try not to get to involved in these "discussions" because it's now dealing largely with slogans and debunked, but powerful, arguments.

You know, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe this thread will turn into something. "Hope springs eternal...."

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

I didn't use the word contraception in any of my posts

I used the word contraceptives

That is a matter of semantics and a weak attempt at word play.

So basically you are saying that you don't mind committing murder, but you do mind which weapon you use?

How about if someone’s weapon of choice is a condom and it breaks at a crucial moment and the female gets pregnant. Would that be justifiable? After all they were Responsible enough to try to prevent it. And, it follows your example. . .. They were using a Contraceptive as a form of Contraception and had an Epic Fail.

My point is that those words are damn near interchangeable.

Weather the egg is prevented from fertilizing or dealt with after wards is a pretty thin line. Especially when you are arguing specifics about contraceptives. It is like you are playing both sides of the fence and being vague as hell. I was wondering why your opening statement was like 2 sentences long and lacked content.

I will tell you why you won't answer the other 2 questions. .. . It is because they will cause you to compromise your position again. You are telling your self that those are impossible circumstances, but, if they ever happened you would agree that it is o.k. .I could give dozens of those scenarios and you would feel like you had no choice to but to agree. Just like the first scenario. Although you believe that if it was only .01% of the people it happens to you still agreed but hated to admit it. It is hard to argue a position when you yield any point.

I can feel your frustration that irresponsible people use it as a means to evade responsibility but you have to look at the bigger picture. There are hundreds of millions (More probably several billion) of females on the planet that are having their rights chiseled away everyday. If you support chiseling at those rights I can see that you are not going to be very popular.

Maybe if you were a female and could relate to any of that you might be inclined to lean to the more popular side of that argument.

First off, if I gave a damn about popularity I would've abandoned this thread long ago, don't ya think?

Secondly, there is a HUGE difference between contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, and those that don't. I am very much grounded in my understanding of when a human's life begins. The moment of conception, and the moment of death are the only definite places to draw a line between a man's existence and his non-existence. Any other argument is pure speculation. So don't tell me I'm being vague when I'm being as specific as one person could possibly be.

Now as far as your examples of rape victims and accidental HIV infections go, I'm willing to bet the family jewels that you are neither of them. In fact, I'll go even further and bet that you've never even met or talked to someone who was raped and had an abortion as a result.

These abortion debates always go the same way, you folks immediately jump to rape, incest, and medical necessity for the shock value in order to draw attention away from the fact that 98% of abortions are carried out because "I'm just not ready", or "I don't think Joe is ready to be a Dad", or "I'm starting college in a couple of months", or "This is gonna ruin my career".

reply to post by charles1952


Hey Charles. I have to admit that I often cringe at the site of your avatar in one of my threads because I know that I'm about to get a healthy dose of reasoning that I might not have thought of myself. I've even had to go back to the drawing board on a few of my out of the box ideas because of it (though I'll never admit publicly which ones ).

On this one I'm going to have to agree with you again... I don't think an abortion debate is possible on ATS. Take this thread for example, my one request was that we keep our religious beliefs out of it, and of all the different posters in this thread the only one that just HAD to do it was a moderator... go figure.

Most of the rest ACT as if they have no idea what separates a sperm cell from a fertilized egg, and the remainder actually don't.

What I've learned from this thread so far is that the door swings both ways. By asking people to refrain from using religious beliefs in this debate, I've managed to isolate myself from what would be considered my support base. This may not have been a fruitful endeavor for me, but its certainly an interesting one.

reply to post by Bone75

Dear Bone75,

Don't be scared, I love you, man.

I wouldn't be worried about your support base. Abortion, as an issue, has been around long enough so that any person opposed to it for religious reasons should have a good supply of non-religious reasons to oppose it as well.

There just haven't been coherent arguments for abortion that I've seen. Consider that smashing an eagle egg is a federal offense, but a human egg can be smashed at will.

There's no scientific reason to say that a fertilized egg isn't a human life. Society is reluctant to kill people who are out and breathing on their own, but even that is being attacked. There are inividuals who claim that a baby isn't really a person until age 2, or 4, or whatever. There are also those that say babies with birth defects should be killed, even outside of the womb, to save them from having a poor quality of life. Post-birth abortion is a hot topic in "ethical" circles.

And, of course, from the other side of life, euthanasia, and denying treatment to those who would not get a significant extension of life, are both popular. England already has it in NIH, and we'll have it in Obamacare.

The only things I can see being argued are "You can't tell me what to do," and "I made a silly mistake and I don't want to take responsibility for it." Sure, rape gets brought up, and society seems to accept abortion there, but the kid is innocent, why bump him off?

I know a woman who has a special desire to work with special needs kids. She's adopted seven. Home schooling has done wonders, even brought about some medical miracles. I've had one of her kids run across the room and give me a hug. She suffered a claw hammer attack to her skull about the age of two, the doctors were sure she would never have any recognition of the world outside, and could never, ever, walk.

Instead of federal day care for everybody, why not have federal assistance for adoptive parents?

I'm frightened to think that people are becoming valued simply for what they can do for somebody, and if it's not enough, just rub them out.

I'm over 60, and I'm pretty sure we'll see the day when someone says to me, "Sorry, but you can't have this treatment, the government has decided it's not cost effective." Remember Colorado Governor Lamb, who was probably most famous for his saying that old people have a duty to die?

You don't need religion to argue against abortion, just a sense of the value of human life. For some reason, Obama and his drones killing everybody in a certain radius comes to mind. "Who cares if they're innocent people." Or, even the Benghazi deaths and Hillary's infamous comment, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

It's going to be an even more ugly world.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Bone75





It is a parasite because it cannot survive without it's host.

A human parasite but still unable to survive without it's maternal host.

reply to post by Bone75


Well hang on. You are the one that said you didn't want religion involved and now you say that you don't want

rape, incest, and medical necessity for the shock value

Involved either.
You are saying that you want to have a debate but you want to make all of the rules. That is really pathetic.
The fact that you have been so vague leaves allot to be desired. Go back and read your opening argument that contained 2 sentences. That makes for a weak ass argument.

My position is that abortion and contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs should be illegal. I think its murder and it should be stopped.

You really could stand to have made a better case than that. You have already admitted that you would commit murder for the sake of a retarded girl and most certainly would agree to the other 2 scenarios I posed as well. Regardless of the Shock and Awe you have yielded your argument.

As far as knowing someone goes, I do in fact know 2 persons that had to get and abortion because of a rape. One just so happened to be a mentally retarded girl that was raped by her caregiver. Instead of making blanket statements that you assert as facts you had better have the facts.

I consider this argument a total loss for your side. You have failed to support your position and have yielded your argument. .. . Over a retarded girl.

That was a hell of a try and you sure do have balls coming in here and taking on a barrage like that.

I really do admire you standing your position like you have, but you are supporting the elimination of a females rights because you personally hate it when someone gets an abortion that doesn’t have a "Valid" reason.

That is Wrong on so many levels.

While I am on the fence concerning abortion, morality aside I can easily understand both sides of the argument.

My analogy about the fetus/person argument is to simply try to get people to imagine their breakfast. When you make an omelet, you are in essence eating a fetus/baby chicken, but one normally doesn't think of the common store bought egg like that.

But what if this fell in your skillet?



Would you simply say, ''What an interesting omelet this will make.", or scream, "OMG there's a baby chick in my skillet slowing frying!"

Both sides have a valid argument. The Pro-Lifers contend that life begins at conception; true to the point that at fertilization you unequivocally have a unique collection of DNA that has never existed on this Earth. The Pro-Choicers on the other hand are correct to the extent that that those cells are nothing more than a parasite up to the point that the collection of cells can exist outside of the womb.

I suppose it comes down to the semantics of when one defines 'viability'. As for me I believe that there is a veritable cornucopia of ways to prevent pregnancy should the two consenting individuals be intelligent enough to use them. Too often what-if scenarios and straw men are used by both sides that wind up making both arguments look crass an childish.

My personal opinion would be Abortion should not happen after 5th weeks (Spinal Column attaches to Brain Center and limbic system come into effect), after that i believe it is a human organism with conscious state.

Then again, i think if people wait 5 weeks to let the baby grow and get abortion because its inconvenient or other excuse is is pretty dumb in a ethic kind of way.

During Health concerns, the carrier should be priority, the baby can be replaced.


Contraceptives should be allowed.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Just to be clear, I said that under those circumstances I would be more inclined to "mind my own business ". In other words, I would be more inclined to keep my opinion to myself. I did not say that I would condone it, so stop trying to twist my argument.

The fact is that the scenarios you've listed do happen (though I'm not sure about the nurse being gang raped by a bunch of retarded guys), but they are extremely rare and they do not represent the bigger picture you eluded to. The excuses I provided are much more realistic examples of why women have abortions, but you don't seem to want to talk about those as long as there's a rape victim to exploit instead.

reply to post by Bone75


No, you are evading those examples because they cause your argument to Not hold water. In addition you "Minding Your Own Business" would indicate that you would turn your head the other way while a murder is being committed. I am not twisting your words. It is what you have said.

Regardless of the Rare Circumstances they do in fact happen and can't be discounted to support your weak argument.

If you are willing to turn you head for one murder then how can you argue that you won't turn your head for another?

EDIT:
By the way, I did talk about those other reasons, but just because you hate like hell that someone commits murder for an "Invalid Reason" doesn’t make it o.k. to eliminate a females rights.

P.S. .. I sure am glad that you haven't been elected to an office that is responsible for making laws.

reply to post by Agarta

Originally posted by Agarta
Well if a woman makes the choice not to bring children into this world for whatever reason than birth control should have been the first choice, ie; not fertilizing in the first place.

And for most women who don't wish to become pregnant, birth control is their choice. But again, saying how someone else SHOULD live their life is a position of applying your morals to another person. In an ideal world, people who did not wish to procreate would always use birth control and that birth control would be effective 100% of the time. But neither of these is true, because we do not live in an ideal world. Our existence is imperfect. We are imperfect. Birth control is imperfect. And yet, we all have to do the best we can with what we have.

Believing in birth control or not is the choice. If one does not, then they must stand by that choice.

Now, it's gone beyond what other people SHOULD do, to what they MUST do... I think you're way over the line of sticking your nose in other people's lives. It's a COMMON behavior these days and what causes a LOT of the conflict. Ever heard of "Live and Let Live"?

Why is it that only the woman may choose whether that life will be a benefit to life on this planet or not.

Because her body is the vessel that will carry and give birth to that life (which carries medical risks to HER life) and most times, she will be responsible for that life for her entire life.

How many great minds will never come to be because a woman CHOOSES that the life she HELPED create is not worth allowing to live?

And how many rapists and murders and Hitlers are never born because she wisely chose to get an abortion? That fairy tale goes both ways. Listen, when YOU are pregnant, you can decide for yourself.

I realize that in the case of rape(or failed birth control) birth control is not always an option and therefore the right to choose to keep or not IS the womans right,

Why shouldn't she be forced to birth it? Murder of an innocent child is murder of an innocent child. I'm always amazed at how quickly anti-choice people are willing to kill the baby if it came from rape... I would not be. I would have that baby.

When the technology you speak of exists, and when science finds out more about a "soul" we can revisit this discussion. Because if there is a soul, abortions happen in the form of miscarriages to perfectly healthy fetuses all the time and this thread is specifically NON-religious.

P.S. Be safe through the storm. My thoughts are with you and those in your area.

Thank you. This is the monsoon season and they happen almost daily. Quite a light show last night just before the fireworks.

Jesus christ, why does every man and his dog have an opinion on this issue. No human being has the right to tell another human being what they can and cannot do with their body. What I do not understand is why so many people think that they have that right. Why do they think they can dictate what a woman does with her body?

If you think you have the right to dictate what someone does to their body, then you are monumentally messed up. Not a single person has that right, no matter what your beliefs. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's right. And regardless on your beliefs of when life begins, whether it be immediatly after sperm has penetrated the egg, or it's when fertilization begins, you still DO NOT have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies. Even if YOU beleive there is life inside of them, you still DO NOT have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do. How hard is it for people to understand that?

If someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be pregnant (for whatever reason), they have the right to an abortion. Women should have the ability to access any form of contraceptive they believe necessary. Telling people what they can and can't do, just because it upsets you that they don't believe in the same thing, is not cool. The world needs to grow up and stop meddling in peoples personal lives. You must be seriously bored or deranged to care so much about what someone else does.

What really is sad about the entire argument is that no matter what side, there is no shortage of pure, unadulterated hate spewing forth, under the guise of an 'educated stance', aimed at the other side.

reply to post by Bone75


How does a contraceptive harm a fertilized egg? Can you explain this please.

reply to post by tovenar

Originally posted by tovenar
but if you have them in a womb, one of them at least, will probably become a human person.

Then put the fertilized eggs in a womb in a lab. They'll be just fine, right? Fact is, it takes a LOT more than a womb to form a human being. And a woman is a LOT more than just a womb. Not everyone wants to admit that, but it's true.

reply to post by Bone75

But you are advocating just that.


It is your stance that if a woman uses anything to cause the loss of a fertalized egg as murder, then the burden is on the state to prove that she did such. And ultimately, that would mean that a woman who is pregnent, and then does have a miscarriage, would automatically be suspect of such a crime, until all of the medical testing is done to show how such occured.

While you are correct that the new term is spontaneous abortion, I prefer the old term of miscarriage, as there can be no doubt in what I am saying.

But back to the point, if a woman is pregnent and then ends up not pregnent, how do you prove that she did or did not take anything or do anything to cause the miscarriage from happening? Do you propose that a woman who is pregnent end up having to do the old style lay about, watched 24 hours a day to make sure that she did not do anything to jepordize that new life? Do they have to register and then go in for a forced check up just to make sure that the potential baby is going to be all right?

And another fact that is danced around, is that not every woman wants to be a mother or have children, or even like children. And there is a serious problem in the medical community that you did not even bother to talk about or look at, and that is that a young woman, who does not want children, has to jump through hoops to try to get sterilized. It is a real fight for any young person to even get that proceedure, to the point of discrimination. So you tell me, what is a young couple suppose to do, if the means for sterilization is at the point of discriminatory, if not for contraception?