Atheists should be pro-life

Atheists don’t believe in souls. They don’t believe God breathes live into a baby at birth.

Whatever life a baby has it has at conception. Basic 8th grade biology shows that a human life starts at conception. No life is added later. No scientist has ever witnessed a non living unborn turn into a human being at any stage other than conception.

Even Evolution shows the unborn is a human being at conception. Where did the zygote get her genes for her eye color? She got about 50% from her father and about 50% from her mother.


About thickmudd

A proud conservative
This entry was posted in Abortion, Politics, Pro-Chocie, Pro-life and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Atheists should be pro-life

  1. jonolan says:

    They won’t be though. The pernicious combination of total self involvement and virulent anti-Theism renders the Godless incapable of being pro-Life.

    The best that any Civilized Nation can do is to silence them by all means at their disposal that don’t directly endanger the constitutions upon which they’re built – and then only because it would set a bad precedent that could lead to later real problems.

    • thickmudd says:

      Thanks for your comment. They are hypocrites because they claim to follow science but when science is not in their favor they ignore it but they want to kill the unborn.

      • jonolan says:

        They’re also unwilling to apply history to abortion as well.

        The was a time in America when we decided that Blacks weren’t people either. Eventually we had a nasty war to decide whether or not that would be allowed to continue legally anywhere within our borders…

        Like science, when history is not in their favor they ignore it

  2. “Basic 8th grade biology shows that a human life starts at conception. No life is added later.”

    It isn’t a question of the life of the thing. It’s the question of the humanity of the thing.

    We’re omnivores, most of us. It doesn’t bother us when we eat a hamburger. It was once a live.

    Sperm is alive. Most aren’t terribly upset that we end up killing them by the millions.

    And most (yes, most) fertilized eggs end up being flushed out of a woman by her period because it wasn’t the right time of the month for implantation. What does that say about a potential god that it lets most of the human lives that begin at conception be flushed down the toilet?

    Is heaven full to the brim with spirits of fertilized eggs?

  3. thickmudd says:

    Just because most Zygotes are washed away and die a natural death doesn’t mean the ones that don’t die should be killed. Many born children die a natural death but this doesn’t mean it is justified to kill a a child at will just because some die naturally.

    Sperm is not a human being and doesn’t have the full set of human chromosomes. And doesn’t develop according to it’s own dna.
    A cow is non a human. Sadly unborn animals are given more protection than unborn humans. If you cause the death of even a condor egg you can go to prison.

    • “Just because most Zygotes are washed away and die a natural death doesn’t mean the ones that don’t die should be killed.”

      But if you view getting rid of the ones that are aborted by choice as murder, what about the ones that are washed away? Should women be put in jail for having their periods? If not, why not? Should they at least be convicted of manslaughter?

      • thickmudd says:

        No the ones washed away naturally die a natural death. They weren’t implanted plus they weren’t killed on purpose. They couldn’t implant by nature.
        Like some born babies stop breathing and die on their own. But if you stop them from breathing and they die you killed them by choice.

  4. thickmudd says:

    I agree with you jonolan. They ignore facts that might interfere with want they want to do.

  5. Cand86 says:

    Basic eighth-grade biology might explain the bare minimum you need to know about chromosomes and DNA recombination . . . but once you get into college science and medical school, you start learning that scientists and doctors have distinct categorizations- there are differences between fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. We understand that you can class them under these different terms because they are empirically different- based on development, stages, time frames. We have different words to describe the process- medically, pregnancy is what follows fertilization, when attachment/implantation into the uterine wall occurs.

    Is a fertilized egg “human”? From a scientific perspective, of course. It ain’t a freakin’ elephant in there. But I suspect you are using a different definition of “human”, one that connotes more than just species categorization . . . and that starts leading away from science, and more towards the subjective question of what constitutes “life”, “sentience”, “person”, etc. (one that, by the way, has answers all across the board, with both atheists and theists on each side).


    A pro-choice atheist

    • thickmudd says:

      Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant are just different names for different stages in the life cycle of a human being.
      Person is a legal term. It is not science. Anything that can sue or be sued is a legal ‘person’. New York City is a person under the law. So is General Electric.

      Sentience is something pro-choicers made up to justify killing the unborn. There is no science and no law saying sentience has anything to do with making it legal to kill. That Philly abortion doctor is charged with killing babies born during abortions. They weren’t sentient yet. It was still illegal to kill therm. Some people with Dementia are not sentient yet you can’t murder them either. People under anesthesia aren’t sentient yet you can’t kill them at will.
      At one time blacks were not counted as persons. In Nazi Germany Jews weren’t ‘persons’. Did this make killing them ok?

      • Cand86 says:

        “Person is a legal term. It is not science. Anything that can sue or be sued is a legal ‘person’. New York City is a person under the law. So is General Electric.”

        Exactly. The point I was making above was that you seem to be using “human” to connote definitions that are not strictly scientific.

        As to the rest of your comment, it’s interesting, but I am personally not very invested in questions of sentience or anything similar- my pro-choice stance is based on a more practical, pragmatic understanding of the issue than a philosophical one.

      • Agnostic pro-lifer and independent thinker says:

        ‘Science’ or psychology masquerading as science says my one year old has no conception of what a mirror is and that my dog doesn’t dream. I beg to differ. See recent research into the mind of toddlers where science says ‘oops we were wrong’ toddlers are actually a lot smarter and empathic than we thought. Allowing so-called experts to try and define ‘conciousness’ ‘personhood’ etc is a very dangerous road. It takes science many years to prove something that psychology wants to prove in a few simplistic experiments. It is not science in the traditional sense of proving something beyond doubt. Differentiation of life cycles does not change the inherent fact that once an egg is fertilized it now contains all the unique information for that unique child. Agnostic pro-lifer and independent thinker

      • thickmudd says:

        I agree with you.
        Personhood is just way to justify killing the unborn. It is not even a science term at all.

  6. thickmudd says:

    If you cut out an unborn at any stage and ask a scientist what species is this they will come back and say it is a Homo Sapien.
    Since anyone can have a different philosophical idea of which ‘humans’ are ok to kill we need to use science and not philosophy to decide.

    • Cand86 says:

      Was that comment directed at me? I assume so, although it wasn’t indented.

      Anyways, my response would be that in fact, you can certainly use science to determine the morality of abortion- but the existence of 46 chromosomes is a poor argument.

      To borrow from your example above, nobody’s rationale for opposing the Holocaust was “But they are homo sapiens!”. Rather, we could objectively see and understand their suffering and distress. Heck, if you’re on the pro-life atheist side, fetal pain would be a much better scientific argument, in my opinion, than “This has 46 chromosomes”.

      • thickmudd says:

        The reason for opposing the Holocaust is it is wrong to needlessly kill humans. It has nothing to do with pain. There are ways to painlessly kill humans. Even though it can be done painlessly it is still wrong to kill them.
        When you abort an unborn female because you want a son you are taking away all the choices she would have made in her life.

  7. Cand86 says:

    @thickmudd I see what you’re saying, I truly do, but I guess it goes back to the original argument then, where we part ways- while a fertilized egg is definitely part of “genus homo sapien”, I see discrete categories where you see a continuum (different stages in the life cycle), and I do not find a zygote’s and my common DNA configuration compelling enough to say that we are the same and therefore deserving of the same.

    But hey, agree to disagree, eh? Not to mention that, again, my pro-choice stance is based on a pragmatic approach that seeks as much reduction in unwanted pregnancy as possible, and safety in the remaining static percentage- instead of arguing that fetuses aren’t the same as babies (not criticizing that line of argument, some people do quite well with it, but it’s not as compelling to me).

  8. Jill says:

    Have met several athiests who were concerned with protecting life, even more so because in their ideology this is our one and only shot at it and there is no afterlife. Abortion is a human rights issue-I deliberately leave God out of the debate but inevitably proaborts will bring God up, using theology as a bait and switch-this is a red herring, since athiests don’t believe in God it’s a moot point to even bring Him into it and they expose themselves as hypocrites every time they do. Another point commonly and purposely overlooked by atheists is that atheism is subject to the same ridicule and dismissal as Christianity is. I suspect many a debater cares less about the issue of protecting life so much as the issue is a vehicle for hating on people of faith-I see blatant evidence of this on Twitter daily, which makes their faux moral high ground even more laughable.

    • thickmudd says:

      I am a non-denominational christian but I used to be an Atheist. I was always pro-life. Even when I was an Atheist I never attacked Christians but I have seen many other Atheists attack Christians. My father was Catholic though so I do have many Catholic family members.

  9. Jill says:

    Most of the athiests I’ve known IRL have been cool headed thinking and respectful folks. Militant athiests on Twitter are just looking for punching bags IMO, it’s obvious from their language their care less about the issues than the vehicle issues give them to hate on folks of faith. It just makes them look disingenuous-if there’s no God then I should pose no threat to them. And thei ‘keep your morality off me’ is easily counteted with ‘keep your immorality off me.’ We have a constitutionally guaranteed right to worship or NOT worship as we see fit. That’s all they need to know. If they don’t like it, I wish them safe and swift passage to Yemen. The founding fathers were all Bible scholars/teachers, and much of our system of jurisprudence is based on Jude-Christian ideology. But we know how much libs love their revisionist history. The facts are easily googled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s