Evidence for God from Science

""By Christian Beenfeldt

The recent ban on abortion in South Dakota is a victory for the "pro-life" movement--and thus, anti-abortionists claim, a victory for "the sanctity of human life." But is it?

The South Dakota law bans abortions in all cases except saving the life of the mother. Consider what this would mean for human life--not the "lives" of embryos or primitive fetuses, but the lives of real, living, breathing, thinking women.

It would mean that women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because it resulted from rape or contraceptive failure--or because the would-be father has abandoned her--or because the fetus is malformed--would be forbidden from doing so. It would mean that they would be forced to endure the misery of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of child rearing. It would mean that women would be sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children--thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, their chance of happiness. And it would mean that women who refused to submit to such a fate would be forced to turn to the "back-alley" at a staggering risk to their health. According to a World Health Organization estimate, 110,000 women worldwide die each year from such illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them.

Clearly, anti-abortionists believe that such women's lives are an unimportant consideration in the issue of abortion. Why? Because, they claim, the embryo or fetus is a human being--and thus to abort it is murder. But an embryo is not a human being, and abortion is not murder.

There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn't bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being--if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on--but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants--but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman's life to human potential of the most primitive kind? There can be no rational justification for such a position--certainly not a genuine concern for human life. The ultimate "justification" of the "pro-life" position is religious dogma. Led by the American Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists, the movement's basic tenet, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that an embryo must be treated "from conception as a person" created by the "action of God." What about the fact that an embryo is manifestly not a person, and treating it as such inflicts mass suffering on real people? This tenet is not subject to rational scrutiny; it is a dogma that must be accepted on faith.

The "pro-life" movement tries to obscure the religious, inhuman nature of its position by endlessly focusing on the medical details of late-term abortions (although it seldom mentions that "partial birth" abortions are extremely rare, constituting 0.17 percent of all abortions, and often involve a malformed fetus or a threat to the life of the mother). But one must not allow the smokescreen to distract one from the real issue: the "pro-life" movement is on a faith-based crusade to ban abortion no matter the consequences to actual human life--part of what the Pro-Life Alliance calls the "absolute moral duty to do everything possible to stop abortion, even if in the first instance we are only able to chip away at the existing legislation." This is why it supports the South Dakota law, which is the closest the movement has come to achieving its avowed goal: to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including the first trimester--when 90 percent of abortions take place. As the Pro-Life Alliance puts it: "We continue to campaign for total abolition."

The "pro-life" movement is not a defender of human life--it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness. Its goal is to turn women into breeding mares whose body is owned by the state and whose rights, health and pursuit of happiness are sacrificed en mass--all in the name of dogmatic sacrifice to the pre-human.

Christian Beenfeldt, MA in philosophy, is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead.""

Ayn Rand Institute calls this the philosophy on life

godslanguage wrote:Ayn Rand Institute calls this the philosophy on life

Objectivism is a highly depressing philosophy. It glorifies selfishness and seeks to elevate it to a virtue.

It's hardly surprising that they would endorse sacrificing human life on the altar of convenience.

Objectivism, as Ayn Rand puts it, is thought to be comparable to Epicurean philosophy (essentially hedonism). It's a flawed philosophy when the individual parts are considered, but the end result is fairly progressive and useful.

My thoughts.

godslanguage wrote:It would mean that women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because it resulted from rape or contraceptive failure--or because the would-be father has abandoned her--or because the fetus is malformed--would be forbidden from doing so. It would mean that they would be forced to endure the misery of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of child rearing. It would mean that women would be sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children--thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, their chance of happiness.

Right: children are 'enslavers'. As a 16-year-old, I take issue.
I notice no one is mentioning the joy children bring?

godslanguage wrote:And it would mean that women who refused to submit to such a fate would be forced to turn to the "back-alley" at a staggering risk to their health. According to a World Health Organization estimate, 110,000 women worldwide die each year from such illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them.

A much larger number of babies are coping with a staggering risk to their health in places where abortion is allowed.

godslanguage wrote:There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being.

As a relatively small boy, I take issue. This would mean that the larger and bigger someone (something?) is, the more human he is.
Ah! If this philosophy is ingrained in America, no wonder so many people suffer from obesity!

godslanguage wrote:Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird.

Not the stale, moldy Haeckel canard!

godslanguage wrote:Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn't bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being--if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on--but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants--but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

So...when does a thing turn into a human? And on what grounds do they say that 'capacity for consciousness' is what defines a human? Other people talk about 'self-awareness' -- thereby condoning infanticide up to 2 years.

godslanguage wrote:What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman's life to human potential of the most primitive kind? There can be no rational justification for such a position--certainly not a genuine concern for human life. The ultimate "justification" of the "pro-life" position is religious dogma.

'Sacrifice' originally meant something bloody. What is more like 'sacrifice' -- the 'mother's life' (which meant actually improve in quality) or the baby's life?
And do a Google search on 'Godless Pro-Lifers' and 'Libertarians for Life'.

godslanguage wrote:What about the fact that an embryo is manifestly not a person, and treating it as such inflicts mass suffering on real people? This tenet is not subject to rational scrutiny; it is a dogma that must be accepted on faith.

Wrong; it's philosophical. And I'd like to see that 'mass suffering' substantiated.

godslanguage wrote:The "pro-life" movement is not a defender of human life--it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness.

THEY are enemies of joy AND happiness AND life. (Who was the Life, again?)

godslanguage wrote:Its goal is to turn women into breeding mares whose body is owned by the state and whose rights, health and pursuit of happiness are sacrificed en mass--all in the name of dogmatic sacrifice to the pre-human.

So the State impregnates women?
And women can't choose when they get pregnant? They have no say in the matter of 'breeding'?

It's hardly surprising that they would endorse sacrificing human life on the altar of convenience.

Did Ayn Rand herself say she was for abortion? Because I read some of her books and in one of them she gives a scenario that was kind of similar to getting yourself pregnant (or in general getting yourself into trouble). Any way this guy has married some woman who he doesn't love, he wants to divorce her but she doesn't because he was sort of famous. So he didn't divorce her then because he wasn't going to sacrifice her happiness for his. And one of the major points from the book (at least what I got from it) was not to sacrifice or ask for sacrifices. So if you got yourself pregnant you shouldn't sacrifice your baby for your happiness, of course unless Ayn Rand ever made a point of an unborn baby having no feelings or is not human, but I didn't read that anywhere, maybe abortions weren't too big of an issue around her time.

And yes, Ayn Rand's theories are definitely not Christian because she makes many points in her book about God and people who are living for God, and there not meant to be good. She gets pretty harsh in some part of the book.

It would mean that women would be sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children

That's pretty weak… you could always put it up for adoption.

And it would mean that I am a slavemaster (I'm 16 years old). And subhuman as well (I'm relatively small and light --> less cells than most --> less human).

So according to the Ayn Rand Institute, I'm a subhuman slavemaster. Sounds like I'm a cruel alien. Worse -- they sound like Professor Umbridge from the Harry Potter books, who definitely detested centaurs...

Turgonian wrote:And it would mean that I am a slavemaster (I'm 16 years old). And subhuman as well (I'm relatively small and light --> less cells than most --> less human).

So according to the Ayn Rand Institute, I'm a subhuman slavemaster. Sounds like I'm a cruel alien. Worse -- they sound like Professor Umbridge from the Harry Potter books, who definitely detested centaurs...

Lol, yea, that's why I don't think her philosophy is that good. In her stories none of her model characters had kids. I myself don't want to have kids when I grow up either but I think when you form a philosophy it should be able to work with everyone not just a selected group. Not everyone can stop having kids or the human race will die out.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

godslanguage wrote:Ayn Rand Institute calls this the philosophy on life

Objectivism is a highly depressing philosophy. It glorifies selfishness and seeks to elevate it to a virtue.

It's hardly surprising that they would endorse sacrificing human life on the altar of convenience.

This is simply not true. Objectivism makes no decisions. It has no opinions. Objectivism cannot glorify selfishness. Objectivism can only observe selfishness and do nothing. Or observe unselfishness and do nothing. Objectivism is ultimate truth. But also ultimate apathy.

Why are these particular christians so pompous as to think they know absolute morality? Why are they so pedantic as to think that they have the right to control other people's lives? It is completely against christian morality and values. A christian should try to persuade, not force. A christian should be a friend, not an oppressor.

It makes me sick to think of the raped women that have to go through the agony of forced pregnancy because some holier-than-thou christian can feel smug.

It is things like this that are increasing the number of atheists, which is no good either.

RoyLennigan wrote:Why are these particular christians so pompous as to think they know absolute morality? Why are they so pedantic as to think that they have the right to control other people's lives? It is completely against christian morality and values. A christian should try to persuade, not force. A christian should be a friend, not an oppressor.

It makes me sick to think of the raped women that have to go through the agony of forced pregnancy because some holier-than-thou christian can feel smug.

It is things like this that are increasing the number of atheists, which is no good either.

It makes me sick that she was raped in the first place but even more so it makes me sick that she would be willing to return the Favour to her unborn Child!

bizzt wrote:

RoyLennigan wrote:Why are these particular christians so pompous as to think they know absolute morality? Why are they so pedantic as to think that they have the right to control other people's lives? It is completely against christian morality and values. A christian should try to persuade, not force. A christian should be a friend, not an oppressor.

It makes me sick to think of the raped women that have to go through the agony of forced pregnancy because some holier-than-thou christian can feel smug.

It is things like this that are increasing the number of atheists, which is no good either.

It makes me sick that she was raped in the first place but even more so it makes me sick that she would be willing to return the Favour to her unborn Child!

People die... get over it. You can't save everyone and don't even try when it is at the expense of an already living person. That infant doesn't feel, it won't remember. It isn't scared of death. It will only go back to where it was before it was improperly conceived.

Besides, the birth of that child will only be bringing into the world another person with genes which make them more susceptible to violence and rape. The abortion of this child is actually a good thing because it weeds out the seed of the raper. A child is not born tabula rasa. That coupled with the great possibility that the child will be unwanted will most certainly make for another rejected life that turns towards violence to seek attention.

RoyLennigan wrote:

bizzt wrote:

RoyLennigan wrote:Why are these particular christians so pompous as to think they know absolute morality? Why are they so pedantic as to think that they have the right to control other people's lives? It is completely against christian morality and values. A christian should try to persuade, not force. A christian should be a friend, not an oppressor.

It makes me sick to think of the raped women that have to go through the agony of forced pregnancy because some holier-than-thou christian can feel smug.

It is things like this that are increasing the number of atheists, which is no good either.

It makes me sick that she was raped in the first place but even more so it makes me sick that she would be willing to return the Favour to her unborn Child!

People die... get over it. You can't save everyone and don't even try when it is at the expense of an already living person. That infant doesn't feel, it won't remember. It isn't scared of death. It will only go back to where it was before it was improperly conceived.

Besides, the birth of that child will only be bringing into the world another person with genes which make them more susceptible to violence and rape. The abortion of this child is actually a good thing because it weeds out the seed of the raper. A child is not born tabula rasa. That coupled with the great possibility that the child will be unwanted will most certainly make for another rejected life that turns towards violence to seek attention.

If that is the case we should set off a nuke and blow the whole world up since we are told in the bible that we are all conceived in sin.

FFC wrote: If that is the case we should set off a nuke and blow the whole world up since we are told in the bible that we are all conceived in sin.

Then why is it a good thing we send certain people to jail? If we are all sinners, shouldn't we all go to jail, then? Or do you disagree with the judicial system?

Is it irrational to think that we can determine morality based on the situation? Why do we have to make so many people suffer to conform to what one ideal says?

People die... get over it. You can't save everyone and don't even try when it is at the expense of an already living person. That infant doesn't feel, it won't remember. It isn't scared of death. It will only go back to where it was before it was improperly conceived.

Besides, the birth of that child will only be bringing into the world another person with genes which make them more susceptible to violence and rape. The abortion of this child is actually a good thing because it weeds out the seed of the raper. A child is not born tabula rasa. That coupled with the great possibility that the child will be unwanted will most certainly make for another rejected life that turns towards violence to seek attention.

You are right People Die. People Also have choices... Why not kill Children up to 2 years old right. Seriously There is a way to kill them without letting them feel and they certainly will not remember. They are not scared of Death either. Why not allow Parents to have that decision since maybe it just isn't working out for them and they can quickly dispose of them.

Uh How do you know what the Birth of that child will bring? I guess that would be the Choice of the Parent who brings that Child up! The Seed of the Raper has nothing to do with the actions of the Child. A Child is born with a clean Slate to a certain extent. Genes only play a certain role in the conduct of a Child the rest is the perception and the Bringing up of said Child! Yet another how do you know? I know many Kids that were brought up in Rich Families that create that same life.

Summary: In the end it is US (Man) taking the life of a Created Being because we Feel or Believe that this Child will be just another Statistic.