And that accusation* is often used as a kind of fog spread over the debate to conceal the injustice of the basic pro-abortion principle, namely, that the right of a woman not to be pregnant is greater than the right of an unborn child not to be killed. — John Piper
Piper really has, in this sentence, distilled the entire debate into one question: Is the right of a woman not to be pregnant greater than the right of an unborn child not to be killed.
Is it?
Deeper still: where do we ‘get’ our rights? (If we actually have rights, why? If not, why do we suppose we have them?) Love to hear your thoughts. Atheists, in particular. Leave a comment.
*The accusation is that Christians don’t do enough to support mothers in crisis or unwanted children after birth – an accusation Piper argues is not just fog, but also incorrect.
« Un-meaningless Sentences Abortion: A Question of Rights (Part 2) »
As an atheist – a foetus, an embryo, a zygote…. NOT a real person.
We are not of the belief that the instant the sperm hits the egg all of a sudden a soul enters the zygote – at that point it’s just not a person.
As an atheist I am constantly angered by the theistic attempt to push their beliefs on women. You need to realise that not everyone believes a few cells is a real person – it’s just a few cells. It’s the potential for a person, but then so is every sperm and every egg, trillions of which don’t go on to join and make babies.
Still, as an atheist don’t be thinking I agree that abortions should happen whenever the woman wants without question. There needs to be support in the form of therapy or whatnot to be certain the woman won’t later come to regret her decision and sink into depression. The therapist however should under no circumstances try and push a religious agenda on the person – it the rest of a real person’s life we’re talking about here.
So a summary of my beliefs on abortions.
In the case of rape – no questions asked. Just do it and get the poor woman to therapy ffs.
In case of danger to mother – as above.
In case of severely malformed or disabled foetus – As above.
In case of a teenager under 16 – talk to parents (maybe) and possibly therapist. Make sure the stupid bitch learns about contraception, saying ‘no’, whatever needs to be done.
In case of woman – therapy to ensure it’s the right decision for her. Again, no religious fundamentalist counsellors pushing their beliefs.
The best way to prevent abortions though is for the religious fundamentalists to wake up to themselves and realise that whether they like it or not, teens are going to have sex. Preaching at them or having school classes that ONLY deal with abstinence is fucking useless. Kids need to be EDUCATED about safe sex, contraception AND abstinence, they don’t need to be INDOCTRINATED about how they’re evil if they make naughty with Billy in his ute.
Overall an abortion shouldn’t be up to what the religious right says. It should be legal, it should be rare, there MUST be support.
Keep your religion off of their ovaries.
OH! I’ve heard the pointless argument many times, “What if Jesus was aborted” or “what if Einstein was aborted”
How about “what if Hitler/Stalin/whatever was aborted”. Or one they might enjoy “what if Darwin was aborted”
Thanks healy, good to get another perspective on here! Hope you stick around.
You make a good point: we do need to educate more. Though, most agree that the best form of contraception is abstinence – regardless of religious beliefs. (Not to mention STIs).
And you are right to point out the fallacy in the “What if Beethoven was aborted?” argument. It shouldn’t be used (and is listed as such by many anti-abortion advocates.
You don’t believe that, at conception, all of a sudden a soul enters the zygote – at that point it’s just not a person.
When does it become a person? At which point?
I’m not asking that as a rhetorical device, I really want to know where you think it becomes murder.
You say a fertilised egg is just a ‘potential person’, justifying this by reference to those sperm and eggs that did not meet. But this is invalid since that they have fertalised is precisely the distinction I would draw.
not everyone believes a few cells is a real person
Not every abortion is of a few cells. In fact, none are. By the time any abortions happen, it is no longer ‘a few cells’. In fact, the latest legal abortions are shockingly human.
I’d love to hear your reply. To finish:
“As an atheist I am constantly angered by the theistic attempt to push their beliefs on women
As a theist, I am constantly angered by the atheistic attempt to push their beliefs on women.
Furthermore, as a theist, I am constantly angered by the atheistic attempt to push their beliefs on babies.
Keep your religion off of their ovaries.
Oh, one more thing: Healy, what is your answer to the question in the post “where do we ‘get’ our rights?”?
We are not of the belief that the instant the sperm hits the egg all of a sudden a soul enters the zygote – at that point it’s just not a person.
As an atheist I am constantly angered by the theistic attempt to push their beliefs on women. You need to realise that not everyone believes a few cells is a real person – it’s just a few cells
Indeed? And when does it become a person? At 24 weeks? Why not 23 weeks and 6 days? At 20 weeks? Why not 18 weeks? Is it a dog? A cat? No, it’s a human life in its very early stages!
I think the ‘its not a person’ arguement is absolute rubbish. In fact, most doctors who perform abortions will freely admit that they are destroying a human life, they just believe that that human has less right to life than the mother has the right to not be pregnant.
The first ultrasound I had showed us Anastasia at 7 weeks gestation. And she was very clearly and obviously a human baby forming.
I wonder if we should show no sympathy women who are devastated by a miscarriage, if after all, it wasn’t anything more than a bunch of cells…
Still, as an atheist don’t be thinking I agree that abortions should happen whenever the woman wants without question. There needs to be support in the form of therapy or what not to be certain the woman won’t later come to regret her decision and sink into depression.
Why would she? We’re talking about a bunch of cells aren’t we? So how is it any different to cutting out a tumor? Why should anyone need therapy or support? You’re not being consistent with your own position.
Make sure the stupid bitch learns about contraception
Again, you’re being inconsistent. In one breath you demand respect for women’s ovaries, and in another you describe a teenager who may have made mistake as a ‘stupid bitch’. So do you really respect and value women?
Kids need to be EDUCATED about safe sex, contraception AND abstinence, they don’t need to be INDOCTRINATED about how they’re evil if they make naughty with Billy in his ute.
Absolutely, and most Christians would agree with you. Christians don’t sit around shouting about how evil everyone else is- they realise that they are evil as well, and know the forgiveness God makes available to them in Jesus.
Keep your religion off of their ovaries.
And keep your secular humanism away from mine.
FUN! An angry respondent! I miss having those over at my blog. I’ll try to answer your comments.
First, when I say stupid bitch I don’t mean she’s stupid for “making a mistake”. I’m talking about the sort of teenager that sleeps around, regularly “forgets” to use some form of protection, things like that. I don’t mean poor Sally who might have a drunken one night stand or whose condom breaks – I mean the sort of girl whose measurement of self-worth is based on how many or how easily she can get a guy into bed. Like the girl I once knew who lost her virginity at 12 and by the age of 16 had simply lost count of the number of sexual partners she had. That would be my definition of “stupid bitch”.
You say I’m inconsistent for saying an embryo is not a person then saying mothers need support. You obviously didn’t think your comment through. For a start, some people (like, say, you?) DO think of their embryo as a person. Some people don’t, but they still would feel guilty or depressed after an abortion because it was a potential person. The therapy or support is for those women most at risk of either getting an abortion for the wrong reasons (they want a child, but their boyfriend won’t love them anymore) or for the women who can’t have a child at that stage in their lives but still feel guilty about getting an abortion.
At the end you say “and keep you secular humanism off mine” you obviously don’t understand what “choice” means. Pro-choice is about keeping EVERYONE’S hands off of ANYONE’S ovaries. I wouldn’t want to influence your choice – you want to keep the baby go ahead, why should I care? I care when choice is taken AWAY.
I realise my statement “just a few cells” is wrong. It’s better to say “floppy sack of foetus-shaped meat” really. It might look like a baby but it’s not yet one – I can’t really explain it to you without getting into “oh but it has fingernails and a heartbeat and whatnot” but my stance is it’s not a person yet. I suppose I would say it becomes a person when the brain is not only functioning but starts to process things like heat, light, sound… Not when the brain is first formed, but when it starts to get put to use. I feel uncomfortable with the thought of ripping a foetus out when that foetus can feel things and can hear what’s going on. Before that, I feel about as much as I would switching off a brain-dead person’s life support: not very.
Hayes yes the most affective form of contraceptive IS abstinence (although as Christians you surely don’t believe it COMPLETELY prevents pregnancy right?
but that doesn’t change a few facts. Firstly that contraception does prevent most pregnancies, that adequate protection does prevent STI’s, that teenagers are probably going to have sex regardless of your abstinence teaching and most importantly (probably) that a lot of Christians out there (conservative ones) want to teach ONLY abstinence and completely ignore any other form of protection. For example look at America: there’s a fund over there, whereby states get money granted to them from the government (or is it schools get money from the states? whatever) to go towards education… But ONLY if they teach Abstinence-Only sexual education programs.
For the safety of the children, to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions, education about sex MUST include contraception and sexual safety from things such as condoms.
There are religious groups who actively promote abstinence-only education programs and are offended by the inclusion of modern preventative measures. Obviously I don’t think you’re all like that but you have to admit it does happen.
Just did a bit of reading: first brain stem activity occurs in usually at 54 days after conception, EEG readings at 12 weeks.
That’s around the time it starts to be a person – when it has a brain that actually does something.
Hayes:
As a theist, I am constantly angered by the atheistic attempt to push their beliefs on women.
Furthermore, as a theist, I am constantly angered by the atheistic attempt to push their beliefs on babies.
It’s not an attempt to push our beliefs on women… It’s an attempt to push CHOICE on them, to push AWAY the beliefs of the religious conservatives. It’s not about telling women everywhere to get abortions, it’s about saying they CAN.
Secondly regarding that post, babies don’t have religions. It’s not really like my mother who says I was baptised Catholic therefore I’m a catholic for life… Religion is not something that is inherited from the parents – they make their own decision either consciously or subconsciously when they’re old enough.
I’ll state again though – pro-choice is not about pushing beliefs on women. You pro-lifers can keep your ovaries, can keep your babies – that’s your CHOICE. To claim that we’re pushing beliefs on you is stupid – ProLife are the ones pushing their beliefs on the ovaries. They’re the ones saying “you must do this”. We say “you must make up your own mind – it’s your choice”
*whew* how’s that?
P.S. I haven’t read the post yet Hayes about where we get our right but we sure as shit don’t get them from the bible. The bible has things like “kill unruly teenagers” and whatnot. I would say we get our rights from recognising as human beings what constitutes a healthy and desirable way to live. Of course I’m not an expert on the subject, but those who claim to derive absolute morality or a perfect set of rights from the Bible either haven’t READ the bible or simply ignore the parts that invalidate their claim.
OH! Another thing.
If a doctor is going to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim because of their religious beliefs then they sure as kitty hell better refer them on to someone who will allow it right away.
The practise of preventing emergency contraception in rape cases because of religious concerns is disgusting to me.
As disgusting as muslim women in England training to be nurses and doctors who refuse to bare their arms past the wrists because of their religion is also disgusting. If your religion prevents you from cleaning your hands and forearms properly or from actually doing your job, you should choose a different profession. People shouldn’t be put at risk because their doctor thinks their religion is more important than safe medical practices that protect their patients. Not really relevant here but still….
And how does the number of sexual partners impact the decision to abort?
haha good call. That’s one pregnancy I think the ‘what if beethoven…?’ question works for
So a baby is a person “when it has a brain that actually does something.”
Seems sort of arbitrary, doesn’t it? What about when it can feel pain? When it can support itself independently of its mother’s womb? At the moment of contraception?
Here is my point, and my point in regards to where are rights come from as well: what is your authority on these arbitrary decisions? No atheist has ever shown to me that their authority is anything higher than their own opinion.
No, I don’t think we get our rights from the Bible either. But where do you think we get them from? Why are our rights greater than those of a monkey?
And by what authority have you claimed that?
Moment of conception: No
Support itself independantly of mother’s womb: Yes
Feel Pain: sort of
Our rights are only higher than that of a monkey because it has been decided to be that way.
A good thing to think of though… The notion of “rights” is a completely invented one. Animals in the wild don’t have “rights” nor do they attempt to claim so to each other. Monkeys do not scream at each other about their right to free howling or to bear pointy twigs…
“Human rights” are the same as “animal rights” in effect they are simply inventions of humans who wish the same “rights” applied to themselves. One might also say the human rights are the result of the collective human experience. In a world without people the notion of “rights” simply wouldn’t exist.
As to the first point you bring up… Not sure what you’re talking about. I said a stupid bitch who goes around having unprotected sex to feel popular and/or cool doesn’t impact the decision to abort – it impacts the likelihood of pregnancy and there needs to be education to prevent such crap. I’m not saying “once a teenager has 20 sex partners all pregnancies should be aborted” or “once a teenager has unprotected sex with 15 people, all pregnancies should be carried to term” I was saying if a teenager is, for all intents and purposes an OpenSource free-as-in-beer prostitute, then something needs to be done to stop or prevent that sort of behaviour.
As to “what is my authority on decisions” what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that because you believe in God you have more authority on the issue of abortion than I do? Than a hindu does? Are you saying Christians should be the ultimate authority on everything? Where does YOUR authority come from, from God? Because he hasn’t really made an appearance lately. The apparent use of God as the authority figure on any issue stems only from particular interpretations of your religious text, not from direct and divine interference at any time since the Bible (I’m assuming here that you’re of the belief that the bible is divine revelation) nor from any facet of modern reality.
I haven’t claimed where we get our rights from by any authority, especially not a supernatural one. As I said I’m not an expert on ethics or morals. I did do a course on philosophy in University (as part of my SOFTWARE ENGINEERING degree, no idea why) and I know enough to say rights equate to ethics and morals and that ethics/morals are a complex issue with different interpretations. I would claim no distinct authority exists besides natural humans rules of behaviour.
Also to clarify my “sort of” position on whether or not feeling pain makes a thing human…
Pain is a tricksy thing to pin down. If you cut a coma patient and their body twitches, do they feel pain? Or does the sensation of pain require conscious acknowledgement of it?
Example: go under general anaesthetic, get cut open. It “hurts”, there’s “pain” that you are “able” to feel… But you don’t, you’re not conscious.
Just an example, not an expert either on the requirements for a biological construct to feel pain.
haha 3 comments… confusing to respond to. The third is a clarification, so I’ll just ignore it. The first two, I’ll treat together:
No. Not more authority. I was just wondering where you claim your authority to be from. The question of whether one authority is higher than another can’t be answered until we know each authority.
As far as I can work out, in these two comments you have denied that humans or animals have any rights at all. “The notion of “rights” is a completely invented one”. And your basis for this is your opinion.
Is that a fair summary?
What progress! Humanity is certainly advancing towards a more civilised existance!
Humanity is advancing to become more civilised. I was simply saying that “rights” do not exist independent of their application by sentient beings. It’s not like photons which exist whether or not we can see them… Rights exist only because we make them do so.
Authority though? The authority that implements rights is the government, or the UN, or collective will. If there’s no unifying force to implement human rights, those rights disappear. Like in Sudan or any other African country where the government has become powerless and the UN is useless on the issue, human rights disappear.. There’s no authority enforcing them.
So my authority on where we gets human rights is one or a combination of the following…
*State or government
*Naturalistic implementation of collective emotion
*Collective will of the people
In a more transitory fashion the authority that decides on rights are the governments, or the people, stemming from applications of ethics and morality. Remove ethics or morality or emotion from consideration and rights also disappear.
They are, as I said, purely human inventions.
I don’t think that answers the question.
“The authority that implements rights is the government, or the UN, or collective will”
I listened this week to Eleanor Roosefelt’s speech on the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The delegates who drafted that document did not believe they were giving or creating anything. They believed instead that they were recognising something already existing, already inherent in humans.
That document set out the rights that we have. But it did so from a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family (taken from its Preamble).
My point: they did not create or invent rights. They recognised them.
What did they recognise in us?
Not really sure sorry hayesy, sounds like they were just trying to sound nice and historic. But still, rights don’t exist if they’re not implemented. But answer my question: without people, do animal rights exist? If not, where do they come from?
I realise my statement “just a few cells” is wrong. It’s better to say “floppy sack of foetus-shaped meat” really. It might look like a baby but it’s not yet one – I can’t really explain it to you without getting into “oh but it has fingernails and a heartbeat and whatnot” but my stance is it’s not a person yet. I suppose I would say it becomes a person when the brain is not only functioning but starts to process things like heat, light, sound… Not when the brain is first formed, but when it starts to get put to use. I feel uncomfortable with the thought of ripping a foetus out when that foetus can feel things and can hear what’s going on. Before that, I feel about as much as I would switching off a brain-dead person’s life support: not very.
We know that at 8 weeks gestation a baby can feel pain, suck its thumb, and responds to light and sound. Almost all abortions happen after 8 weeks. So really, by your own admission, you ought to be uncomfortable with the vast majority of abortions.
First, when I say stupid bitch I don’t mean she’s stupid for “making a mistake”. I’m talking about the sort of teenager that sleeps around, regularly “forgets” to use some form of protection, things like that. I don’t mean poor Sally who might have a drunken one night stand or whose condom breaks – I mean the sort of girl whose measurement of self-worth is based on how many or how easily she can get a guy into bed. Like the girl I once knew who lost her virginity at 12 and by the age of 16 had simply lost count of the number of sexual partners she had. That would be my definition of “stupid bitch”.
Wow, and it’s supposed to be Christians who are judgemental! And what if her sleeping around is the result of her developing an inappropriate understanding of what it is to feel loved due to, perhaps, being sexually abused as a child? Still such a stupid bitch?
If a doctor is going to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim because of their religious beliefs then they sure as kitty hell better refer them on to someone who will allow it right away.
Do you have any statistics that actually back up your supposition that a significant number of rapes end in pregnancy? In a lot of instances, any baby conceived will probably be miscarried as the woman’s body is completely traumatised. But should a pregnancy result, why punish the child for it’s fathers sin?
Why is adopting a baby out never given the slightest thought?
Keep your religion off of their ovaries.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that that’s exactly how slave traders answered Abolitionists (a great many of whom were Christian). Black people aren’t human. Keep your religious beliefs about the equality of all people to yourself.
I’m sure adoption is considered and if the mother is fine with that then more power to her, give her unwanted baby to a family who can’t have children. I keep trying to tell you it’s not about telling a woman what they can AND CAN NOT do – pro-choice is about telling a woman simply what she CAN do. It’s about CHOICE, as opposed to being told “Do what my religion tells you or else, regardless of whether or not that’s what your religion tells you to do”.
If she’s sleeping around due to emotional imbalances caused by previous traumatic experiences she still needs help. However, people who think Intelligent Design is real science are stupid regardless of whether or not they were bought up in a religiously-constrictive manner – the circumstances do not alter the presence of stupidity. Yes she’s still a stupid bitch – she should seek professional help, not professionally seek unprotected sex and if the people around her allow it to continue then they’re stupid too.
It doesn’t matter how many rapes result in a pregnancy. What matters is that some do, and some of those women are denied emergency contraception due to religious intolerance. Do YOU have statistics that show that all rapes are PHYSICALLY traumatic? You might be surprised to discover not all rapes are violent. For example rapes whereby the perpetrator spiked the victims drink. Not physically traumatic – emotionally obviously, but there’s no way to say her body is “completely traumatised”. In a fair number of rape cases the attacker was personally known to the victim such as someone she thought to be a friend.
And in that case it’s not punishing the child… Emergency contraception doesn’t kill babies, it “kills” a zygote usually I think by preventing it from attaching to the uterine wall or some other mechanism. I don’t personally have a womb so my knowledge of the biological mechanisms isn’t exactly detailed in this regard.
HA! Just thought of something from your beloved bible about punishing a child for the sins of the father. Stolen from the internet:
: Exodus Chapter 20
: (5) You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, (6) and showing mercy to thousands of those that love Me and keep My commandments.
: Numbers 14
: (18) The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation.
: Deuteronomy Chapter 5
: (9) You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, (10) and doing mercy to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments.
: Jeremiah Chapter 32
: (17) Ah, Lord Jehovah! You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and stretched out arm. Nothing is too great for You. (18) You show loving-kindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their sons after them.
Obviously those bible quotes are most likely taken out of context without much bearing on our current debate, but if religious people can interpret the bible in a myriad of ridiculous ways why can’t I?
“It’s interesting, isn’t it, that that’s exactly how slave traders answered Abolitionists (a great many of whom were Christian). Black people aren’t human. Keep your religious beliefs about the equality of all people to yourself.”
You don’t know much about the history of the slave trade in America do you? Read up a bit, find out how many people used the bible to justify the practice of slavery.
Clarification: Both sides used the bible and religion to justify their views on slavery – just saying using that as an example to defend your religion is pointless.
,i>You don’t know much about the history of the slave trade in America do you? Read up a bit, find out how many people used the bible to justify the practice of slavery.
No not really, I know a lot more about the abolition of it in England, and more specifically William Wilberforce’s contribution to it.
Do YOU have statistics that show that all rapes are PHYSICALLY traumatic? You might be surprised to discover not all rapes are violent
Didn’t say that. Just because it wasn’t violent doesn’t mean there won’t be a physical reaction. (Take shock for example)
But I still think rape isn’t a decent argument. Just did some research that suggested only 0.03-0.07% of abortions are carried out after the woman has been raped. In fact less than 4% of abortions are carried out on the grounds of serious medical or psychological concerns.
HA! Just thought of something from your beloved bible about punishing a child for the sins of the father.
There is sooo much I could say here, but frankly, I can’t be bothered, you’re not asking questions you actually want to know the answer to, you’re just interested in scoring points.
those who claim to derive absolute morality or a perfect set of rights from the Bible either haven’t READ the bible or simply ignore the parts that invalidate their claim.
Which parts would they be?
You don’t know much about the history of the slave trade in America do you? Read up a bit, find out how many people used the bible to justify the practice of slavery.
And then read how important Christianity was its abolition (eg William Wilberforce), and even more so racial groups. Read about how Martin Luther King Jr. preached in churches encouraging, not the adoption of more secular ideas, but a return to the real position of the Bible. (Listen to this for more.)
You might like to read the end of Luther King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech – the part following the famous ‘I have a dream’ section:
* Which parts would they be you ask Mich?
The parts regarding slavery, the part where Lot is going to hand over his virgin daughters instead of allowing people to rape his male visitors. The part where unruly teenagers should be stoned to death, women on their period should be avoided for 7 days… The parts where upon visiting a foreign city to find they’re praying to a different God they should be put to the sword…
There are plenty of instances of insanity in the Bible. Things we in our modern society would consider immoral.
* I did say religion and the bible was used on both sides of the debate Hayes.
* Yes Michelle I want to score points, because there’s not much chance of me changing your mind is there? And I hate religion so there’s no way you’re going to change MY mind, so we’re really just arguing for the fun of it
I guess that’s the difference between us Healy, I think people who think differently to me are misguided or wrong, but I still respect them and listen to what they have to say. You think people who disagree with you are stupid.
I also respectfully suggest that if you want to argue about the Bible intelligently, you learn the meaning of the word context.
Anyhow, it’s been illuminating, if nothing else, and I’ll take my leave from this discussion at this point, as I actually don’t find arguing ‘for fun’ particularly enjoyable when it comes to this subject. Abortion doesn’t anger me, it breaks my heart.
If you’re talking about the passages about “the sins of the father”…
# Healyhatman
February 21st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Obviously those bible quotes are most likely taken out of context without much bearing on our current debate, but if religious people can interpret the bible in a myriad of ridiculous ways why can’t I?
If you’re talking about the passages where it’s said to stone stubborn teenagers to death… You’re taking the Sheik Al Hilali defense there, claiming bad comments or passages to be “out of context” either you take all of what the bible says or, like I said, you ignore the parts that in today’s modern society are considered insane, Like killing people who work on the Sabbath.
But this argument has gone on long enough, you’re right, move over to the “science as God” discussion with me and Hayes I’m doing much better over there