APB #2: Abortion is immoral if...

Abortion is immoral if we place a value on human life. If you are pro-choice, this blog post will be like nails on a chalkboard. I've found that most atheists are pro-choice, which doesn't seem reflective of a group of individuals that claim to be 'thinkers'. I believe atheists are pro-abortion (pro-abortion = pro-choice) because many of them are overly objective, and are unable to understand the value of human life beyond its superficial appearance. The matter that makes up a human being is surely not what gives it its value (the matter that makes up each person can't be worth more than $10)—no, it is potential and joy of experience that gives life its value. Pro-abortionists argue their case by dehumanizing (by objectifying) human life by labeling it as 'a mere ball of cells' or 'just a fetus'.  Pro-abortionists refuse to think of human life as being human life (which is obviously delusional).

Pro-abortionists often point to how millions of sperm die on a regular basis, and that each one of them is a 'potential human life' in the same way that an embryo or fetus is (similar argument is made using the eggs). Again, this is an attempt to minimize the disgusting act of having an abortion (the killing of offspring). And it's a poor argument. It's like saying that a bullet and gunpowder are completely harmless—ignoring the fact that if the gunpowder is in a copper shell with a bullet, it has the potential to kill. Alone, the sperm and egg are not a potential human life, but when combined, the product is. Human life is more than the cells that make it up. It is the potential of pleasurable experience that makes life worth living (it is why we work and sacrifice), and to get an abortion is to deny an entire life—typically for the sake of convenience.

Pro-abortionists—I tend to find—are immature and illogical (at least when confronted with pro-lifers). Here is a good example of this. In this video there is an off-duty police officer spraying pro-lifers (who are doing a peaceful demonstration) with water and vinegar 

(Part 1)



(part 2)

This probably would have been a bigger issue if it was a pro-lifer spraying pro-abortionists during one of their demonstrations. Gotta love the media bias. This incident occurred in Ventura California, and according to a news report, no charges were filed. However there is some "internal investigation" within the police department. 

Why so many atheists are pro-abortion

I would say from my own personal observation that most atheists are pro-abortion (i.e. pro-choice). If you have read my other posts on abortion, you would know that I am a pro-life atheist. This is because I see value in human life that runs deeper than the material it is composed of. Someone that is pro-abortion objectifies (in order to dehumanize) a young human life in order to make its destruction morally permissible in their eyes ("it's just a ball of cells, and so on). Atheists tend to be pro-abortion because they tend to be more objective, and this is good for some areas of thought (like science and economics), but bad in others (like the value of human life and morality). An atheist tends to be more objective than most people, and this is why they are unable to see the value of human life. Obviously not all atheists are objective to the point of not being able to value human life beyond the cells that compose its flesh and bones, but it seems that the majority are.

funny abortion comment on Yahoo News

On Yahoo News there is this story about a guy who's ex-girlfriend got an abortion, and he made a protesting billboard. (click me for story). Anyways, I just found this comment to be both an interesting point and kind of funny.

It's an interesting point because how many people alive today would choose (if they could) to have been aborted? Emo kids aside of course. 

Obama on abortion

What an answer, lol. Obama clearly struggles with the issue of abortion. It's good that he at least reflects on the issue. For me, I wonder if he is pro-life for political reasons or out of genuine personal beliefs—sadly it's hard for me to tell. If he is indeed pro-life, he really should take a firmer stance on the issue....a person is rather pro-life or they aren't, and it's odd to see a pro-lifer be that unconfident about their stance. 

British Study: "human fetus cannot feel pain before the age of 24 weeks" (Monica Potts vs. Janice Crouse + pro-life atheist response)

This study shouldn't really matter in the argument for whether abortion is right or wrong. Why? Well, it implies that it is okay to destroy a human life because it cannot feel pain. In other words, that if a human life can feel pain, we shouldn't kill it. By this logic it is morally permissible to kill anyone, just as long as they don't feel pain.

"we believe life begins at conception" -Dr. Janice Crouse

That isn't a belief, it is a fact—Monica Potts actually debates that life doesn't begin at conception—that is a complete lie, that is the start of a life, we already know this scientifically (duh?). Pro-choicers are very illogical—pro-life is the only logical choice to make for those that value human life.

"having an abortion can be the most responsible decision they can make for that child" -Monica Potts

The mental gymnastics she goes through to justify killing human life. First she dehumanizes human life to justify it, then she is concerned about that life's interests. You can't have it both ways Monica. To destroy a perfectly healthy life, full of potential, is NOT looking out for its interests, but the bank account of the mother. I don't understand why woman that don't want children just don't go on birth control methods (mixing them is an obvious thing to do) or get themselves fixed—I prefer the latter.

"I think abortion is as old as time" -Monica Potts

Yeah, I bet Tyrannosauruses got abortions all the time. And of course, according to "Ms." Potts, even a billion years ago bacteria were getting abortions as well. I'm sure "Ms." Potts knows everything that happened throughout time—she would have to. Sarcasm aside, what a complete tool-bag. Again, it is so easy to see through the bullshit that pours out of her mouth to justify the destruction of human life. I bet this "woman" got an abortion herself, and of course she needs to make it justifiable in her little mind. I believe woman that get abortions should be unable to be mothers in the future—they obviously couldn't care less about the safety of their own offspring (if they are willing to destroy it for the sake of financial convenience).

Pro-life is the logical stance to take for those that value human life, it is the stance atheists should take. Many atheists sheepishly follow what they believe is the "atheist position" on issues—for those atheists—I would look to point out that many prominent atheists are pro-life, one of the best examples is Christopher Hitchens...and of course there are many others. Either way, at least think about the issue of abortion, don't just accept the talking points of the liberals for the mere fact that they are liberals, it is important.

As soon as a person recognizes the dehumanization of human life, they should automatically resist it (peacefully of course)—it is reasons like this that should motivate atheists (and all compassionate individuals) to resist the selfishly driven pro-choice agenda by arguing against it utilizing reason. Atheists are in a great position to debate abortion because we can't be dismissed as easily—many pro-lifers are dismissed as being "religion nuts", "illogical", "old-fashioned", etc.

Abortion is immoral

I am a pro-life atheist. I have written many blog posts on why I believe abortion is morally wrong, and this is another one of them, enjoy (wrong word choice?)...

Another reason abortion is wrong, a reason that is not often brought up, is because it is the objectification of human life. Objectification is exactly the tactic used by pro-choicers, they claim that it is ...

"just a ball of cells"


"isn't self-aware"


"is no different than killing skin cells"


All arguments pro-choicers utilize immediately seek to objectify human life. An unborn baby (words like 'embryo' and 'fetus' are mere tools to objectify human life) is human life, there is no way around this with any intellectual honesty. Abortion is immoral, and so is attempting to argue in favor of it.

Pro-choicers view human life as merely an instrument for their own ends, and even objectify themselves for the sake of superficial pleasures and/or material gains. This is the sad reality for why most atheists are pro-choice.

Atheists often are too damn wrapped up in their own delusional objectivity (read this blog post to understand what I mean by this). They often have a hard time valuing human life beyond its perceived material worth. For example, many atheists try to dehumanize all human life as being 'mere chemical reactions'. Not to digress, but I would argue that in order to deem something valueless, this requires a methodology of assigning value in itself. I am unable to grasp how pro-choicers are unable to see the value of an unborn baby beyond its physiological makeup. Not only does this devalue the life of an unborn baby, it devalues all human life as being "mere objects" vunerable to the wrath of sociopathic individuals.

Objectifying human life has caused so much evil in this world (check out my post on evil). We must stop the objectification of human life. 

Pro-Life Demonstration

Today while going to class, there was this huge pro-life demonstration in front of the main building. They had approximately 3,700 balloons to represent the number of babies killed each day (I say 'babies' to avoid the dehumanizing labels pro-abortionists use). There was this "fact" on a sign that claimed that after 40 days there is brain activity. Also there was a sign that claimed 60% of the black babies in NYC are victims of abortion. It's good to see that sort of thing at a college campus - it's a great way to get people to visualize the numbers. The number of abortions per year is 1,370,000.

It's insane to think that abortion is still legal in the United States. Abortion is a genocide caused by heartlessness, and waged on the most vulnerable of our species. Yes, abortion is a genocide by definition. The only way to avoid it being labeled as a genocide is to dehumanize human-life (which can't be done with any intellectual honesty - or soul). 

Disturbing video of a live abortion.

 I think it's very important that people see videos like this. Pro-choicers down-play the humanity abortion victims by dehumanizing them with terms like 'fetus'. The woman should not have the "choice" to murder her own offspring; as this video displays perfectly, that baby is not part of her body, but is a completely separate organism (one that is very reliant on the loveless mother's sustenance). 

video demonstration of a suction abortion

This is a great demonstration for showing how disgustingly immoral abortion really is. It's a shame a video like this will turn off many atheists—wearing religiously associated clothing (background as well) causes many atheists to automatically buildup a structure thoughts to avoid the information he is providing. 

Peter Hitchens owns an atheist on abortion

Our imagination's ability to dehumanize others is the biggest cause of murder. It would be interesting if it were true that sex education causes more unwanted pregnancys and abortions. Our moral system needs some reworking, it seems very chaotic at the moment. Our society has based our moral-system on religion and became to reliant on it. Without "God" many do not know why we should behave morally. 

Christopher Hitchens is pro-life

Many atheists believe abortion is morally permissible. It's a case of atheists believing that if Christians have a moral stance, it must be wrong. I have found that most atheists that are pro-choice haven't given the issue much thought. To kill an 'unborn child' is murder (like the killing of any innocent human-life). Many pro-choice atheists believe that all intelligent atheists are pro-choice as well—as this video shows—that is far from the case. The people that support abortion believe that inconvenience is a good enough excuse for murder. 

Pro-Life Atheist (arguments for why abortion is wrong)

Needless to say, I am a pro-life atheist. It should also be needless to say that most atheists are pro-choice.

Abortion is morally wrong, and can be easily argued against using secular-reasoning. While moral-relativists will attempt to twist logic to justify its practice, they are unable to do so without completely devaluing human-life.

In the below video, Sam Harris fails to present an argument for why destroying human-life (albeit young) is morally permissible.

Firstly, he claims that every cell in "your" body has the potential for creating a new life, which is dodging the issue by creating a fictitious scenario. There is a difference between potential and actual occurrence (hindsight vs. foresight). An embryo is human life that is actually occurring. The said life would develop into a fully functioning human being (excluding death via disease and murder). By his logic it is morally permissible for a mother to kill her offspring regardless of age. She could potentially have gotten an abortion in the past (which is impossible outside of this warped logic), which is "morally acceptable" if we accept abortion as being moral. The life could potentially have not existed at all, so it is not wrong to end it if we use our imagination. Using the imagination to create scenarios of what potentially could have happened in the past can be used to justify anything. Obviously we should be looking at what is actually occurring, and leave fantasy out of the debate.

As far as consciousness is concerned, it is impossible (at the moment) to know of consciousness outside of the self. We see life that is similar to us and assume it must have it, but we cannot know for sure. The consciousness argument (i.e. lack of consciousness in an embryo) doesn't hold water for the simple fact that we do not know what consciousness is. It is impossible for us to determine scientifically what does and what doesn't have consciousness. But, let's say that consciousness exists subjectively only if we are able to remember it (for the sake of argument, obviously memory of consciousness does not equate to consciousness itself). Does lack of consciousness completely devalue human life/potential? Is it morally permissible to murder someone after knocking them unconscious (referring to the act of murdering the unconscious, not the act of knocking someone out)? Of course people that are knocked unconscious have the potential to be conscious, given enough time, and the same is true for an embryo/fetus.

With his morally bankrupt rational I could justify the murder of anyone. For example, let's say I have an annoying neighbor. I go over to his house and put an end to his life (without going into the details). Me putting an end to his life is not murder because his life potentially could have ended on that day anyways (or shortly down the road). Besides, everyone is going to die eventually, right? If it wasn't me that killed him, something surely would have eventually. As long as I remember to make him go unconscious, it is morally permissible to do whatever I want with him. This logic doesn't sound as great now does it? Human life should obviously not be valued on the consciousness it has at a particular moment (we all have to sleep).

The point here is that many pro-choicers use their imaginations to distract them from what is actually occurring (making murder an easier pill to swallow). They create fantasies in order to distract and justify their wicked beliefs (to themselves and others). When human-life exists and a person acts in order to put an end to that life, that is murder by definition (if the life agrees to be killed then that is euthanasia, which is a separate issue).

The reality is that an embryo is a human life in and of itself (a very dependent one, like most humans are in one way or another), and will grow into a fully functioning human-being if it is not murdered beforehand. Pro-choicers create fictitious scenarios and use word-play as a means of dodging the actual issue. This is one area within the atheist community that disappoints me. It shows that many atheists are as sheepish as anyone else. Anyone that actually thinks about what is occurring here should easily see how immoral abortion is. Sociopathic individuals will warp reality and logic to suit their own ends, regardless if human life gets in their way. Of course for the practice of abortion to be morally acceptable (as well as not a crime) pro-choicers must do everything they can to convince others that they are not actually destroying human-life. Pro-choicers use their imaginations as a means of diversion as well as a means of dehumanizing human-life (which can't be done with any intellectual honesty).

If you agree with this, share it on Facebook (see buttons below).

Christians also need to start using secular arguments for debating abortion, God is not a convincing argument for atheists/secularists. 

Atheist Richard Dawkins: "my reasons for being hostile to religion is that it...."

I disagree with Dawkins on the abortion issue. A person does not need to be religious to oppose the practice of abortion. Abortion is the destruction of human life -- life that would typically develop into a fully-functional human being (any arguments of moral-relativity merely attempt to devalue human life). People can imagine that all sperm cells/eggs have potential to create new life, but that chance is removed once the process is set into motion and human life is formed, and to end that life is murder (no way in getting around this). It's like a bullet and gunpowder have the potential to kill someone, but for it to actually occur is a different story. Many atheists oppose abortion (or have no strong stance on it), and Dawkins should be careful in associating atheism with the abortion debate (apples and oranges). 

Another Rant Against Abortion From An Atheist's Perspective

Abortion and abortion-rights is one topic that I (and most people) feel very strongly about. Very few atheists are pro-life, and most pro-lifers are religious—which is why I am strange in this respect, because I am strongly opposed to abortion (and in the spirit of being redundant, an atheist as well).

The way I view it, abortion is one of the most disgusting crimes against humanity that we have ever seen (the mass murder of unborn babies by the millions due to an inconvenience caused very often by a combination of stupidity and promiscuity). What makes it even worse is that many -- especially within the atheist community -- love abortion. They view abortion as a rebellion against the system, against nature, and against religion. Many atheists, when they see the religious strongly oppose an issue, they take the other side, assuming it must be right.

The reality is that -- while their is no known evidence for the existence of a god (or any other of the supernatural claims made by religion) -- this does not automatically mean that all of Christianity's views of what is moral is wrong in of itself (the moral itself, not the believed source).  A God not existing does not devalue human life, or the way humans should interact with one another. If anything, human life should be viewed as being even more valuable, and should be preserved with much more intensity (assuming we do have only 1 shot at life, etc.) . If human life is something that is precious (most people value their lives very highly), then how is a human life worthy of destruction due to the inconviences of mother? Isn't such a thought ridiculous?

Most babies are a financial burden on the parents in general, sacrifices must be made. Obviously to allow the murder of this life because the mother would rather have the financial freedom to piss away her money on shoes, etc. is a strange moral priority. Our society places a high value on human-life outside of abortion.

It's silly to think that this issue has anything to do with the woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body. An unborn-baby is not part of the women's body, and no-one should have the right to kill it because it doesn't have the ability to defend itself. No human-life with the ability to speak for itself would rationally desire to not exist.

As far as the argument that a fetus in the first trimester does not have the cognitive abilities of a fully developed human, this is another stupid argument. Does this mean that all human life should be valued based on the cognitive abilities it possess during a particular moment? Such as -- is a human life worthless when it is put to sleep under anesthesia? We know that a very young fetus will develop the cognitive faculties that we all possess (assuming it is healthy and allowed to live). Another example would be a coma patient that is unable to be cognitively aware of its surroundings (as they tend to be) -- is such a life worthless? Even though we know that many coma patients have the potential to be fully or partially functioning humans in the future, at that particular moment, they are not.

We have two outcomes when the question of abortion comes up.

1). Mother gets a doctor to destroy the young life.

2). Assuming the mother does not act on her desire to destroy the life, the baby is born, and develops to be -- in most cases -- a fully functioning, productive member of society.

The mother has to act to put an end to the potential of this life (which she views as a mere piece of flesh), and her motivations are 100% selfish (no human that is of sound mind would choose to not exist as a oppose to living in poor conditions and/or not be loved).

The reality behind this debate is that there are two sides, this is the summary of those two sides:

1.) Pro-life: Strongly value human life and its great potential.

2). Pro-abortion: Women and men that want to have sex without the consequences. They get off by literally cheating nature, and cheapening human life (along with the beautiful process that created it) by destroying the unwanted consequence out of a selfish desire to escape their moral obligation to preserve human life. Women that are pro-abortion seem very immoral (destroying human-life because it is personally convenient to do so immoral). At the college I go to, it is normal for a girl to have already had 1 or more abortions (this one girl that I am aware of  has had 4)

Think of all the lives that would exist today if they were not put to death for being a financial inconvenience.

That is another frustrating thing as well is the "financial inconvenience" nonsense (which is a huge justification/motivation) when many couples cannot have babies due to medical problems that would get so much joy out of adopting that baby.

If a women happens to get pregnant because she wants to have reckless intercourse, I see no reason for why seeing the pregnancy through, and putting the baby up for adoption right after is that bad (as oppose to destroying it). Actions have consequences, and when human life is created through an unwanted consequence, that should not create the justification to destroy that existing life.

Well that's enough ranting against abortion today. Even if you are an atheist (or not) that is pro-choice, do some soul-searching about this issue, it is very important. Don't just sheepishly pick a side because your political peers do (*cough* Democrats). Pro-life should be considered a position that most atheists find themselves on; it is very irrational to be pro-abortion (well, irrational if you value human-life).

Check out the Atheist Against Abortion Rights page, and please help support if you agree, thanks :)

Dr. Lile's Partial Birth Abortion Demo (plus a short rant against abortion)

For those that don't know, I am a pro-life atheist (a rare breed). This right here is a good demonstration of what actually happens during partial birth abortions. Anyone with a heart should feel disgusted knowing that this actually occurs in the United States, it is legalized murder. Not even just this, but abortion in general is legalized murder. Killing human life, especially in its most vulnerable state (in the mother's womb) is horrendous. The value of life should not be judged by how long it has been around, human life is human life. A woman should not have the right to murder her own offspring because it inconveniently lives inside her.

Dr. Lile's Partial Birth Abortion Demo (plus a short rant against abortion)

For those that don't know, I am a pro-life atheist (a rare breed). This right here is a good demonstration of what actually happens during partial birth abortions. Anyone with a heart should feel disgusted knowing that this actually occurs in the United States, it is legalized murder. Not even just this, but abortion in general is legalized murder. Killing human life, especially in its most vulnerable state (in the mother's womb) is horrendous. The value of life should not be judged by how long it has been around, human life is human life. A woman should not have the right to murder her own offspring because it inconveniently lives inside her. 

Abortion: Why It Is Murder!

Strong enough title? I am not exaggerating when I use the word 'murder', abortion is murder. What is killed in the women is a very young, very dependent, human-life. It cannot be denied that an unborn baby, regardless of how young it is, is human-life.

When that life is destroyed out of selfish interests, the mother will try to dehumanize the life that she destroyed (so that her murderous act isn't perceived as such).  She will tell herself: "well, it had no soul, and doesn't look very human". First of all, being that we don't know what a soul/consciousness is, we cannot know when a human has it—all we know is that humans do have it, not when they don't (memory =/= consciousness). Regardless if the unborn baby has it or not, that does not remove the fact that it is irrelevant; the human-life would, in the very near future, have it regardless. Does this mean that if human-life is not consciously aware, that it is okay to do whatever you want with it?

Let's say a women is unconscious, and a guy rapes her. Would this be morally acceptable (assuming she truly wasn't conscious at the time)? All of the pro-lifers (I think) would claim that to be highly immoral and disgusting! But the woman that was raped was not consciously aware of anything at the time. Of course, later down the road, when she wakes up, she will be horrified by what has happened to her body (unborn babies never have the chance to wake up).

Just because something is legal, does not mean it is morally justifiable. During WW2 it was legal to kill Jews, does that mean that killing Jews in Germany during that time period was okay in a moral sense? Absolutely not! Now, obviously pro-lifers are not Nazis, but they seem to have a similar moral rational.

Just because a human life exist within a mother, does not give the mother the right to kill it because it is inconvenient. Actions have consequences, and sex, like all actions, has certain consequences. For the people that engage in risky sexual behavior, they know the risk, and should have to live with the result. If the mother does not want to raise the child, she can put it up for adoption, but she has no right to commit murder!

There is nothing more innocent than an unborn baby. 

Tom Leykis - Abortion, God & Founding Christian Principles of the USA (Ask The Atheist)

I love this guy, he's so brutally honest. Slavery is a Christian principle, Jesus even endorsed it. Christians love to have their cake and eat it to -- they Romanticise everything. An atheist debating a Christian on religion is always a good subject for comedy.

Did anyone notice the Christian call Tom Leykis a 'master debater'? teehee.