Forgive me for another post but I was curious about your guys views on Abortion. So I present you with this argument.

Is the life of Alexander Fleming & Jospeh Lister worth 60 million extra people on the planet? I think it is, the discovery of antibiotics & antiseptics are an important benefit to everyone in the world.

When you commit an abortion(murder) you don't know who you're killing. You could be killing the next Lister, Fleming.

Your thoughts?

Mr. T,

There is no direct connection between atheism and abortion views. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. The rest of my response does not reflect the views of all atheists, though I think most would agree with much of what I'll say.

There does seem to be a strong connection between religious belief and a desire to ban abortions. I think this is very simply explained by the fact that religions need people to keep them going. If those people are poor and uneducated, then they're easy to rope in and make them life-long tithers. Religious leaders know that there is no god who can actually make people, so they have to control people's reproduction to get their tithers and ensure their incomes.

If you read the paper I cited in the other thread, you would know that religious belief in countries is correlated with higher abortion rates. I believe this is a causual relationship. It's very easy to see that religious based policies, such as banning contraceptives (the Comstock laws), interfering with their use, spreading misinformation about condoms (such as has been done by the Catholic church), terrorizing family planning clinics, sabotaging education about reproduction, faith-based abstinence only education, abortion gag laws, etc. etc. etc. You see that Christian groups in the US are systematically trying to get people created. Again, this it to make more tithers and get more money flowing to religion at the expense of people who are victims of this manipulation. Abortion bans and emotional manipulation of women who don't have the resources to raise a child are just part and parcel of this larger picture. If Christians would like to reduce abortions, as they claim, they should first stop meddling in other people's reproduction. They are merely trying to run a breeding program. AND completely evade paying for those little tithers.

It seems to me that if Christians would like to make more children, they should fund them. If someone like you would like to take responsibility for ~20 years of funding someone else to have a child, nobody is stopping you from doing that. How many of other people's children have you funded this way? If you think that each potential child is going to be an Albert Einstein, how many children have you created and fed?

The real question is that if Christians have so much conviction about this issue, why do they almost completely disappear once the child is born? The reason is that they know that evolution has programmed mothers to love and care for their children once they are born--at whatever the cost. Once Christianity controls the woman's reproductive organs until birth, it can play the part of the deadbeat parent. It seems to me that if an organization, religious or otherwise is going to meddle in someone's reproduction to create a child, that organization should be taxed to support that child. If we did that, you'd be amazed at how fast there would be new "revelations" from God about how Christian practices should be immediately changed. God doesn't really prove. He just steals credit.

If you think it's appropriate that our reproductive capabilities be maximized, how about completing the above policies and turn women into breeding machines. Harvest all of the eggs, there's no shortage of sperm, and with sufficient hormones, a woman can be implanted and bear children until she's in her 60s. Furthermore, each person sloughs off millions of cells each day. Those cells could be turned into clones, each with their own individual potential to be the next Lister or Flemming. By your reasoning, if we don't do this, we're sabotaging the future.

We can (and are) overpopulating the world. The Bible will always say, "Go forth and multiply". How much suffering and are you personally willing to endure so that dozens more people can be created?

--- There is no direct connection between atheism and abortion views. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. The rest of my response does not reflect the views of all atheists, though I think most would agree with much of what I'll say. ---

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods like you said. Without following a universal morale truth there is room for corruption.

--- There does seem to be a strong connection between religious belief and a desire to ban abortions. I think this is very simply explained by the fact that religions need people to keep them going. If those people are poor and uneducated, then they're easy to rope in and make them life-long tithers. Religious leaders know that there is no god who can actually make people, so they have to control people's reproduction to get their tithers and ensure their incomes. ---

Being poor & uneducated will leave you vulnerable to just about everyone else as well. These corrupt religious leaders you speak of are atheists like yourself. They don't believe in God, they don't fear the Lord because they think he doesn't exist. These in fact are corrupt atheists.

--- If you read the paper I cited in the other thread, you would know that religious belief in countries is correlated with higher abortion rates. I believe this is a causual relationship. It's very easy to see that religious based policies, such as banning contraceptives (the Comstock laws), interfering with their use, spreading misinformation about condoms (such as has been done by the Catholic church), terrorizing family planning clinics, sabotaging education about reproduction, faith-based abstinence only education, abortion gag laws, etc. etc. etc. You see that Christian groups in the US are systematically trying to get people created. Again, this it to make more tithers and get more money flowing to religion at the expense of people who are victims of this manipulation. Abortion bans and emotional manipulation of women who don't have the resources to raise a child are just part and parcel of this larger picture. If Christians would like to reduce abortions, as they claim, they should first stop meddling in other people's reproduction. They are merely trying to run a breeding program. AND completely evade paying for those little tithers. ---

The goal of these Christian groups is to secure "the family". Most parents are divorced now a days. If you make fornication easy to achieve then there is more room for temptation and more room for having babies out of marriage. On a side note, there are many families out there who are waiting on very very long lists to adopt babies.

And these Christians aren't meddling in peoples reproduction. They are saving someones life. Let's take Bob for example. Bob is 24 years old. His mom almost aborted him but a Christian group prevented it. Bob is very happy to be alive. Bob had a right to live and now he enjoys his life. That is the reality. There are many Bobs out there who are probably thrilled to be alive thanks to their parents not aborting them.

--- It seems to me that if Christians would like to make more children, they should fund them. If someone like you would like to take responsibility for ~20 years of funding someone else to have a child, nobody is stopping you from doing that. How many of other people's children have you funded this way? If you think that each potential child is going to be an Albert Einstein, how many children have you created and fed? ---

Death is not the answer.

--- The real question is that if Christians have so much conviction about this issue, why do they almost completely disappear once the child is born? The reason is that they know that evolution has programmed mothers to love and care for their children once they are born--at whatever the cost. Once Christianity controls the woman's reproductive organs until birth, it can play the part of the deadbeat parent. It seems to me that if an organization, religious or otherwise is going to meddle in someone's reproduction to create a child, that organization should be taxed to support that child. If we did that, you'd be amazed at how fast there would be new "revelations" from God about how Christian practices should be immediately changed. God doesn't really prove. He just steals credit. ---

(Look at your choice of words: "evolution has programmed".... Who programmed evolution? It is most likely an intelligent being did than just random chance.)

Our church has a program that helps single moms. It's ashame you haven't heard of these programs. It just shows how much more work needs to be done. This tax system you speak of is "welfare" it's already in place providing food stamps to people who need help feeding themselves and their kids.

--- If you think it's appropriate that our reproductive capabilities be maximized, how about completing the above policies and turn women into breeding machines. Harvest all of the eggs, there's no shortage of sperm, and with sufficient hormones, a woman can be implanted and bear children until she's in her 60s. Furthermore, each person sloughs off millions of cells each day. Those cells could be turned into clones, each with their own individual potential to be the next Lister or Flemming. By your reasoning, if we don't do this, we're sabotaging the future. ---

I never said maximized, I just said that once the mom is pregnant she shouldn't kill the baby. You failed to understand my reasoning by this ridiculous suggestion lol. I never said families should mass produce children. They should only have as many children as they can afford. If they go beyond this then there will be problems. To keep making children until 60 would be madness.

But ultimately death is not the answer.

Cloning is immoral. Why? Can you imagine what goes on during the alpha and beta stages of perfecting the method of cloning? It's experimentation on humans.

--- We can (and are) overpopulating the world. The Bible will always say, "Go forth and multiply". How much suffering and are you personally willing to endure so that dozens more people can be created? ---

Once you realize that life is about suffering you'll embrace every teaching of our Lord. The only way to grow, learn and appreciate the good things in life is to suffer. You need to know the bad in order to recognize the good.

The current world population is: 6,706,993,152 ... What is another 60 million people who can live to enjoy life of which one could be the next Fleming or Lister?

Mr. T,

Nobody has made the claim that atheism is a moral code. Many people have claimed that religious belief (and Christianity in particular) is the basis of morality. That claim is clearly false.

Are you claiming the current Pope and Martin Luther were atheists? What evidence do you have for your (silly) claim that religious leaders are atheists? This seems to be a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

As for securing the family, I would suggest that Christians leave other families alone. Again, Christians are not offering financial aid. They are just meddling.

Who the hell is Bob? For every "Bob" you list, I can list a child who grew up in a religious family that prayed instead of taking them to the doctor or who actively kill the child to make sure (supposedly) went to heaven. "Wanting to save children" is a lie. They want believers.

How many children of atheists (and other non-Christians) does your church support? You only help them if they're following your religion. Your charity confirms what I'm saying. What percentage of the children created by Christian policies is Christianity supporting? I think it's a small percentage.

Education, contraceptives, and family planning IS the answer (as many other countries have proven). Christians, as a rule, don't support these things. Christian policies increase abortions. You claim that Christians aren't meddling in other peoples' reproduction. Please, open your eyes!!!

Isn't this a fairly silly argument, not aborting a foetus because it might be Alexander Fleming or Joseph Lister? It might just as well be the next Genghis Khan or Joseph Stalin, and that's a debit of a few tens of millions right there.

You might consider this argument silly and spurious, but it is not more so than yours. If you want to debate abortion, this isn't the way to do it.

**** Isn't this a fairly silly argument, not aborting a foetus because it might be Alexander Fleming or Joseph Lister? It might just as well be the next Genghis Khan or Joseph Stalin, and that's a debit of a few tens of millions right there.

You might consider this argument silly and spurious, but it is not more so than yours. If you want to debate abortion, this isn't the way to do it. ****

I don't think you understood the scope and magnitude of the question. The discovery of antiseptics and antibiotics is something that will carry on for the rest of humanity.

**** It might just as well be the next Genghis Khan or Joseph Stalin, and that's a debit of a few tens of millions right there.****

You are implying that it may be feasible to murder and kill babies to eliminate the next stalin and khan.

Is a few tens of millions worth the possible sacrifice of something as important like antibiotics, antiseptics, electricity? You don't know who you are killing.

what will stop you from killing one fetus? Your question also implies that maybe all life should then cease by eliminating all babies.

The question is supposed to make you think, obviously something you weren't interested in doing so don't even bother responding.

Mr. T you argument is not valid, please consider the following.

When you say 'you don't know who you're killing' you seem to be implying that people are born with a fixed personal identity which is defined by something within them, but this is not the case.

Alexander Fleming was not 'born' destined to discover penicillin any more than Adolf Hitler was 'born' destined to invade Poland. Fleming BECAME a scientist when he attended the Royal Polytechnic Institution. Hitler BECAME the figure of modern history books largely due to his influences, the American Eugenics Movement among the most prominent.

It was not Alexander Fleming 'the man' who gave penicillin to the world, rather it was the proper application of the methods of science in the pursuit of common good that brought about the discovery of antibiotics. This happened THROUGH Fleming, not BY him. If not Alexander Fleming, then someone else in similar circumstances would have made the discovery.

The point is that ENVIRONMENT determines the resulting behavior of organisms, thus your argument is groundless. This is well established in the academic community and a central focus in behaviorism, social learning and social cognitive theory in psychology, as well as Epigenetic Control in the biological sciences. I suggest reading some of the works of B.F. Skinner, Albert Bandura and Bruce Lipton for a deeper understanding of the above stated concepts.

Furthermore the type of logic you are using to assume "You could be killing the next Lister, Fleming", will lead you down a slippery slope, so let me present YOU with an argument to illustrate why that is.

(HYPOTHETICAL): "Dr. T makes the claim that abortion is to be outlawed because some aborted fetuses possess the innate potential to discover antibiotics. After decades of scientific advancement his son, Dr. T 2nd, discovers the genetic mechanism by which this occurs. Years later Dr. T 2nd publishes research suggesting forced sterilization of populations that lack this genetic trait because sterilization would be preventing conception rather than aborting (or murdering as Mr.T would call it). In this situation we just replace one moral dilemma with another."

(Back to Reality): We know now that the Genetic Deterministic model taught in high school is not correct, or rather not fully developed. It is through EPIGENETIC control mechanism that genes switch on or off, and this is done in response to the ENVIRONMENT. So rather than adopting a 'pro-life' stance (often paired with a pro-death penalty) based on the logic of your argument (which proposes innate personal identities and predetermined lives), perhaps we should focus instead on reconstructing our global environment as to promote optimal development in health and wellness among all people. I believe the first step in building such a world would be to leave our religious ideologies and the rubbish that comes along with them (pro-life, homophobia, geocentrism, intelligent design, ect.) back in the dark ages where they belong.

Thank you for reading

This is all pretty ironic since Christianity brought about the total extinction of religious groups â€" like the Cathars. The Kwakiuti Indians discovered antibiotics. Penicillin comes from an actual mold used by Native Americans. Many Native American tribes are extinct today due to genocide.

I think people are not special. I am an antinatalist and think there are enough people on this rock. I get so sick of theists and atheist trying to get the moral high ground. I do not believe in god but all of are a bunch of idiots for spending so much time on, well what? Theists are ignorant and sometimes very stupid. Atheists present themselves as know-it-alls . My question is to you all is what original ideas have any of you have. Instead of quoting dead white guys think of something new and stop being so proud of something you did not think of. The only thing that I seen that resemble something original is this dictum I read on one of the message boards. Athen's dictum? Although, I think he was joking around, at least he tried.

How is it original? Its the same argument Creationists always make repackaged to sound different. God can't be understood/defined/known, is replaced by "Supernatural".

It still attempts to ignore the burden of proof, it still makes the same appeal to solipsism, and I think someone has a high opinion of himself with repackaging the argument.

Personally, I do not believe the rights of the unborn outweigh the smallest rights of the Mother.

If you want more detail I'd be happy to explain.

Other than that, I disagree with anyone that bring up overpopulation in the Abortion argument.

I feel it is a red herring, for example; We shouldn't help sick or dying people because the world is overpopulated.

I don't know if I explained that well.