Michael Egnor #fundie

Michael Egnor #fundie egnorance.blogspot.com

(On whether natural miscarriage justifies abortion.)

Even in atheist fever swamps, the belief that the natural occurrence of an act justifies the intentional commission of an act has rarely if ever been accepted. Even Stalin (a faithful atheist) didn't justify the Holodomor by asserting 'Hey, a lot of Ukranians die naturally, so what's the problem with starving a few million of them?'. Even atheists aren't so depraved as to invoke natural death to justify intentional killing. Except, it seems, in the abortion debate.

...

The afterlife will bring good that justifies the bad. If we are to understand the whole of good and evil, we must consider the eternity of man's existence. If a miscarried child enjoys eternity in heaven with God, then the net effect of the miscarriage is good, not evil.

73 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Even in atheist fever swamps, the belief that the natural occurrence of an act justifies the intentional commission of an act has rarely if ever been accepted."

You're missing the point.

I don't mention natural miscarriages to justify abortion. I do it to point out that your god (taking for granted he actually exists for the example) is, by far, the largest cause of abortions. Thus, you have no defensible position to say that "abortion is wrong" since your god apparently does it on quite a regular basis.

"The afterlife will bring good that justifies the bad."

Yes, yes. The last bastion of hope for the theist when all of his other arguments are shown to be faulty is the old, "You'll get yours in the end!" tripe.

"If we are to understand the whole of good and evil, we must consider the eternity of man's existence."

Mankind has not, does not currently and will not exist eternally.

"If a miscarried child enjoys eternity in heaven with God, then the net effect of the miscarriage is good, not evil."

Then what the holy fuck are you bitching about?

old comment by Canuovea

Meh, he has a point, in a way.

First off, the natural occurrence of something does not justify the act of causing that same thing. Murder is bad, even if death is natural.

And again, IF, you think the zygote, whatever, is a person, THEN it is murder even if countless zygotes die naturally. I don't think this, but to some degree it is a logical position.

Even abortion sending a child to heaven isn't good in the same way as murder sending someone to heaven isn't good. Notice Egnor talks about the net effect... well, maybe the "net effect" is good for murder too, just not as good as a natural death. Ditto for miscarriages and abortions.

Stalin did go to seminary school. Okay, but many atheists started off with a religious background, are we to say they aren't really atheists? Stalin almost certainly was. What that has to do with the morality of atheism, though, I see nothing.

Anyway, the thing is... IF you believe god designed everything, including how the world, and babies and zygotes, work, THEN god is, in a sense, responsible for the "deaths" of most zygotes. The same argument can be actually modified to reflect a kind of... predetermination, actually. Interesting stuff.

old comment by Canuovea

#1347351

As far as I personally agree with that, there are reasons for the pro-life position that are logical and understandable.

Also, argument from analogy can be dangerous.

The point isn't entirely that the zygote simply has potential, like an empty lot, but that if left alone it would conceivably (heh, conceive) grow into a sentient human.

Buildings don't build themselves, it requires a conscious choice of others, continuously so, to keep building. A zygote does not need the conscious choice of the mother to keep growing. But we still have the choice of whether to stop it or not (now anyway).

Of course, choosing to stop the zygote from developing isn't a natural choice, but I personally think that is somewhat of a fallacy if you say it isn't natural so you shouldn't do it.

Still, without human intervention the zygote has a decent chance at becoming a foetus and then becoming a sentient human.

I'll toss out an argument by analogy, despite my disdain for them. Yes I am a hypocrite. You plant seeds for a garden but, a rodent digs up and eats the seeds. The rodent hasn't just dug up and eaten the seeds, it has also destroyed your garden.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

I will say this. The argument that abortion should be acceptable because of natural miscarriages makes about as much sense as the idea that accidental death justifies murder. If only Egnor had stopped here; then I would have completely agreed with him. But he had to go on to say that atheists are all immoral (it isn't even true that they're all pro-choice, nor is it true that all who are pro-choice are atheists) and that dead babies are ultimately a good thing because they'll go to heaven. By that logic, why not just force everyone to convert to Christianity and then kill them immediately after their sins are forgiven? That way no one will ever go to hell again. Fundies never seem to think this through...

@ #1347351:

I don't mean to derail this thread into a debate on the morality of abortion (my views on the subject are different from most people's on this site, but I know I won't convince anyone here) but your analogy has a problem. It would work just fine if you were arguing against a religious fundie who believes that contraception is bad, but there is a difference between contraception and abortion, one which is significant enough to make the analogy not work. By your analogy, abortion would be constructing the foundation of a building, but then halting construction and creating something else. A fetus (or embryo, or zygote) already exists as a genetically-distinct being in some form, even though it isn't sentient. What you are making look absurd is the argument against contraception, because as we all know, spermatozoa and ova do not have a seperate biological existence. So I'm just saying that you need a better analogy if you want to argue this point.

old comment by whoanelly

Atheist fever swamps? I've never been to one. Does anyone know what the fuck he's talking about?

The point we're trying to make with the miscarriage thing is that your Gawd commits infanticide (in your book) quite often, and that since miscarriage is a frequent reality, it is impractical to refer to abortion as murder-because what are you going to do? Charge a woman with manslaughter every time she miscarries?

Also, how is Stalin a "faithful atheist"? That's a huge oxymoron. We're atheists. We don't have faith in a doctrine or higher power. Thus . . . we're ATHEISTS.

PS, you have to wonder if Michael Egnor knows the connotations of his blog's (or board's, whatever) name. Or maybe he does, and he's just one big epic poe.

old comment by

You can argue that an infant who does not draw breath has not been given a soul, but that means a misscarriage or stillborn doesnt go anywhere.

If you say an unborn has a soul, then it is tainted by original sin , and if unbaptised it will go to hell for an eternity of torment.

You might weasel on the unborn never being offered the chance to accept jesus, and try to say that Jesus accepts them in heaven , or maybe they get sent to another place than hell but thats not really supported biblicly , or is it ?

either way, the infant is not committing a sin by being aborted, and since its legal in the USA its hard to see where the parent has committed a sin because if legal then its not murder. Maybe the parent could be blamed by God but there is always repentance.

old comment by J. James

1: Stalin was an atheist, but more importantly, he was a fucking communist dictator. How does that not factor into this? Even Lenin, also an atheist, commie dictator, essentially held the opinion of "Fuck that guy, he's batshit insane." Furthermore, Stalin's atheism reflects poorly on atheism like his belief that the world is round reflects poorly on those that also believe it is. That is, IT FUCKING DOESN'T.

2: Abortion isn't even close to what people consider to be amoral, so long as you realize it's biological context. To illustrate, this

image

is the progression from human zygote to blastocyst. Actually, I'm lying. Only one of those is human, the others are a chicken and a fish. Guess which one's which, I dare you. Which is my point: these are just cells. More of these "human lives" die when you spit or shed or take a shit or rinse your hair or have sex or peel a scab than die in an abortion. These cells are not people, nor does their genetic individuality mean JACK SHIT. First off, personhood comes LATER, that much is clear. As for the second, some people may take exception to that part. But consider this: there are samples of cancer cells and brain tissue and whole organs and skin grafts that are alive to this day, in some cases decades after that person is dead. Just because their kidney, or liver, or heart, or any other cell are still alive does that mean they're still alive? Fuck no! They're just cells! Not people! Not alive! Why is this so hard for people to get?

old comment by Pule Thamex

It's well known that if we would only believe in a non-existent invisible sky fairy, then we would be morally strengthened, we'd be ethically sound and we would have holy wisdom rub off on us.

There are many bonuses to the belief in a non-existent ghost-man type thingy, for instance, we would also be able to stand tall as heroic misogynists, we'd be perfectly adept at lying for fantasy figures, we'd be able to get by, to an extent undreamt of by educated people, simply by being simple and by maintaining our ignorance. We would also be immensely empowered to willingly engage in aggressive and bullying behavior and be well placed to persecute people we disagreed with.

Therefore, we can trust the assertions of a sky fairy believer with regard to the thorny problem of abortion.

old comment by = POPE =

@ Canuovea #1347351:

"... there are reasons for the pro-life position that are logical and understandable."

"Logical" is a stretch. Mostly, they are emotional, and personal. I don't think anyone has a big problem with that. It's when you try to thrust your beliefs upon others that you come off as nutty as paint-throwing PETA fanatics. The hypocrisy of the, "right to birth" Hawk types aside, by all means teach your children what you believe. If you insist that they believe it too, then you are a megalomaniac interested only in a little automaton copy of yourself.

"The point isn't entirely that the zygote simply has potential, like an empty lot, but that if left alone it would conceivably (heh, conceive) grow into a sentient human."

Left alone, it would die. It has a parasitic relationship to the host female. This statement also ignores the artificial state of human technological society. Without all the leverage technology brings to bear, the human population would be much smaller and the infant and maternal mortality rate would be around 50%.

"Buildings don't build themselves,..." etc.

See above. It takes a village.

"Still, without human intervention the zygote has a decent chance at becoming a foetus and then becoming a sentient human."

Again, check on infant mortality rates in 3rd world countries and get back to me.

"You plant seeds for a garden but, a rodent digs up and eats the seeds. The rodent hasn't just dug up and eaten the seeds, it has also destroyed your garden."

From an Engineering standpoint, the rodent has destroyed/negated only the work you have put in so far. Your statement above denies the additional work necessary to bring the garden to fruition. The emotional impact of seeing the destruction is caused by the loss of the imagined, Platonic Ideal garden in one's head. Once this aspect is understood, this actually becomes a reasonable analogy for what goes on in a right-to-lifer's head.

old comment by Canuovea

POPE,

Hmm. Well, I do suppose the analogy is flawed. Not really a surprise.

Let me see if I can defend the logic of such a, uh, possible position.

If the zygote is left alone it will not, necessarily, die. It will, almost certainly, die if removed from the uterus, but that isn't the point. The point is that, if left to develop, it will fairly likely become a sentient human.

There are only two things which will stop this. A natural occurrence, which can happen to anybody at any time, so that isn't an argument. The other thing is a choice by the mother to interrupt the process.

A choice by the mother to end the process is legal, but from their perspective it is analogous to murder. Which does follow.

In sum: the zygote will develop, or die, naturally without the woman's intervention. Hence, so long as it is in its environment, it has potential on its own to develop.

The woman does not give her consent to allow the zygote to grow, it does that all by itself, but uses her body to do so. As such, this is rightfully called parasitic, but that doesn't change the fact of zygote potential.

As for infant/zygote mortality... it doesn't really pertain to the technical potential the zygote has. Sure, the potential infant may die, but it may not as well. We are all potentially seniors, but we won't all make it.

Of course, we don't treat 30 somethings as seniors. But... there is a logic there, you just have to accept the premises, but the two of us do not.

old comment by SpukiKitty

"If a miscarried child enjoys eternity in heaven with God, then the net effect of the miscarriage is good, not evil."

Well, if that's the case, then you have no excuse because the same would apply to an abortion. Therefore, you have just shot down your argument!

Now! Time to quit this anti-abortion jazz & focus on IMPORTANT things....Like poverty, crime, violence, disease, etc. Stuff Jesus talked about!

And like others have said...most abortions, like 99.9% involve weird cell thingys & teeny weenie embryo doodads the size of a pinhead.
I confess, even I get weirded-out by abortion...if it involves a well-formed, totally viable late-term fetus-baby. Even then, it's only in BIG RARE EMERGENCIES WHERE MOM'S IN DANGER & IS THUS A "NECESSARY EVIL"...a grim sacrifice one must make.

And about the "Fever Swamp" comment...are atheists Swamp Thing monster people or something?

[IMG]http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx200/BarbarellaSteele1975/th_swampthing4.jpg[/IMG]

Michael "The Egnorant" Egnor's Perception Of Richard Dawkins.

old comment by tmarcl

the belief that the natural occurrence of an act justifies the intentional commission of an act has rarely if ever been accepted.

I actually agree with this. If, in fact, abortion should be considered murder, then you're right, using the natural act of a miscarriage does not justify the intentional act of murder. In fact, for a pro-life argument, this one is actually pretty good.

If a miscarried child enjoys eternity in heaven with God, then the net effect of the miscarriage is good, not evil.

Why does it have to be either or? Why is it not simply neutral? Neither the mother, fetus, or any outside influence conspired to cause the miscarriage. It just happens. Same thing with any calamity, sometimes. Including natural disasters. Sometimes, bad things just happen.

I think the biggest problem with the abortion debate (and any debate really, when it involves religious belief) is that religious adherents too often assume things are black and white. Either something is good or it is evil. It's either of God or of the devil.

Until this stops, there can never be a reasonable discussion of abortion, or any other belief (such as natural disasters being punishment by god).

Michael Egnor #fundie egnorance.blogspot.com

73 comments

Confused?