…and this is a 
PZ Myers: godless babykiller
Category: Godlessness • Reproduction
Posted on: April 15, 2006 8:50 PM, by PZ Myers
Forgive me, for I am guilty of the sin of false pride. I'm wont to judge Christians by the worst of them, and in contrast, to regard atheism as the refuge of the more worthy. I am chastised by the existence of The Raving Atheist, however, who shows me that godlessness is not necessarily correlated with rationality. He's a useful reminder that a reasonable philosophy is not a guarantor that one is on the path to a truth.
If you haven't been following along, The Raving Atheist is definitely an atheist, but he's also an odd duck who has gone a bit unhinged on a few subjects. He's strongly anti-choice, believing that the individual is specified at the instant of conception, in an argument that parallels the idea of ensoulment…but isn't. He's an atheist, after all. He's chummy with a very bizarre character, Dawn Eden, who thinks sex is icky and is even more loony about abortion. Lately, his arguments have taken an anti-feminist twist, and the quote of the day he's got up right now from Jill of Feministe is deplorable in its use of the dishonest ellipsis.
I've argued with him briefly about his idea that human identity begins at conception—I think it's nonsense. I say that humanity is something that emerges gradually and is far more complex than having the right number of chromosomes and a certain set of genes: information is added continuously during development, and it's a serious mistake to think everything that defines you is already present at conception. It's worse than a mistake; I think it trivializes what it means to be a human being, reducing it to cartoon genetics. The Raving Atheist disagrees, and makes a bad argument.
Professor Myers does not pinpoint which moment he believes to be the true beginning of human identity, mathematically, genetically or otherwise. But his criteria do not appear to be all strictly scientific. Responding to a Feministe poll, he stated that he's "in favor of voluntary late term abortions (where premature birth would impose severe economic hardship, for instance), and can even consider situations where infanticide is ethically tenable." So at least part of the "complex process" of computation of human life involves dollars and cents, something well outside the competence of developmental biologists.
Well. This amounts to little more than saying a) Myers holds a position I dislike, and b) developmental biologists can only have informed opinions about developmental biology (but of course, he also chooses to disregard those.) Those claims do not support his thesis that conception is the instant of definition, nor does it address my argument that there is no sharp demarcation.
A few lame counterarguments aren't worth addressing, but the Raving Atheist then proceeds to step over a line, one I'm not going to let go without sharply disagreeing.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting things again. To be charitable, I'll assume that at least post-birth, he's not talking about the impoverished but only the "undesirables" (wink wink). Having grown up surrounded by 'tards, I'm in considerable sympathy with him here, but an unmagical sense of caution grips my non-soul. There are some decisions that might best not be delegated entirely to the professors, the gene counters and the bean counters.
That is contemptible.
No, I'm not talking about culling the undesirables. If you want to find someone who is dead set against eugenics, who thinks we do not have the right to dictate who lives and dies, who is opposed to all interference by the state in reproduction, well, you're reading his weblog right now. While the Raving Atheist is sympathetic to the idea of killing the "'tards," I am not; I do not judge the worth of a human life by its IQ or health or how many fingers and toes it's got. I'm also not one of the "gene counters" who defines humanity by the adequacy of its chromosome set, an accusation that is particularly ironic considering its source.
Let me clarify the comments that have thrown the Raving Atheist into a tizzy. I am in favor of legal late term abortions. That does not mean I want to impose them. I believe strongly that the decision is entirely that of the woman bearing the fetus. I also believe that the 'cult of the fetus', of which the Raving Atheist is a charter member, drives people to make bad decisions that are ridiculously wasteful and destructive. It can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a premature baby. While people should have the right to invest that much of their life in a fetus, we should also recognize that that is an expenditure that can destroy families rather than maintain them.
As for infanticide, it has been a reality throughout human history. Women have made that difficult decision over and over again, not because they like killing babies, but out of necessity. I do not think a few million years of stressed and desperate mothers are guilty of an ethical lapse; they've done what was right and needful. Infanticide is a reasonable thing to do if 1) you have no other way to control fertility, and 2) you are so impoverished that the life of an infant must be balanced against your life and that of other members of your family. That is not an endorsement of infanticide, but a recognition of reality, and a refusal to damn people who have been compelled to make painful choices.
(By the way, while I think the instances of justifiable infanticide in America would be extremely rare, our Republican overlords are working hard to generate the conditions where both of my prerequisites are increasingly common.)
I think the Raving Atheist's interpretation was unwarranted and misleading, verging on outright dishonesty, and I think his sympathy for killing "'tards" is repellent, but I'll say one thing for him: he isn't quite as insane as other people out there. A couple of other blogs have picked up on his idea, and gone even further in their hysteria.
Blogs like Uncommon Descent, and its odious Igor, DaveScot. I'm sure the Raving Atheist will be pleased at the common cause found with some Intelligent Design lunatics. For instance, this interesting sentiment:
That's the question for PZ and people like him. In PZ's world there's nothing underneath our subjective attempt to make sense out of it. At the end of the day it's all an illusion. So here we have a man who KNOWS there is no such thing as morality, yet he can't stop talking about it nor can he stop believing in it.
You see, we atheists are intrinsically amoral, with no deity to guide us, which of course explains how I can advocate butchering babies.
Never mind that I'm doing no such thing, or that one can be a moral being without believing in the lies of priests. Despite his fetal derangement, I suspect the Raving Atheist can still see the flaw in that argument.
Oh, and speaking of moral beings…here's DaveScot.
Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don't believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication.
Eh. I've had much more serious threats. All this does is say something about DaveScot. Something…unsavory. Shortly after he made that comment, another person chimed in:
How horrifying. For anyone who has held a newborn baby in their arms and experienced the exquisite sensitivity and vulnerability of these tiny creatures to talk in such brutalized terms about them just makes the blood run cold. Where are the women in these men's lives?
In case you're confused, she isn't horrified about the brutal language directed at me—she's horrified that I'm pro-choice. You know, once we human beings get taller than 3 feet and sprout hair and teeth, then it's OK to pound them to a bloody pulp.
For the record, I love babies and kids, and have been happily married to a woman who also loves babies and kids. We've had three of oour own, and I also come from a large family. I value children as people, not as bags of genes. What makes my blood run cold are these mindless ones who reflexively defend any gestating scrap of tissue with 46 chromosomes, and willingly throw full grown women and men who oppose them onto the bonfire of their cultish delusions.
Comments
Dead set against eugenics, you say? You say "If you want to find someone who is dead set against eugenics, who thinks we do not have the right to dictate who lives and dies, who is opposed to all interference by the state in reproduction, well, you're reading his weblog right now"? Like hell. Try this (from this link:http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/anencephaly_and_right_wing_moralizers/)
"There are much more difficult cases. What if the fetus was diagnosed with 'merely' a case of myelomeningocele that meant it would be paralyzed, require extensive surgeries, and would be a crippling financial burden? The average cost per year of maintaining a child with myelomeningocele is approximately $70,000, and that drain never ends. People with severe spina bifida can be intellectually and socially capable, fully human, but a young family with limited resources ought to have the privilege of making a choice about whether to shoulder the responsibility before the fetus has acquired those mental capacities. I presume we now have a government that will force families to take on that burden, but will refuse to pay any part of the price."
You reduce humnanity to its economic viability -just as you did in this article as well- and you are talking eugenics, whether you like it or not. The Nazis were no different; wishing to get rid of the "racially and culturally undesirable." You advocate the removal of the "economically undesireable". Repellant.
Oh, and a good biologist such as yourself ought to recognize the fact that there IS a means of controlling fertility: It's called not having sex.
Or is it just all about instinct?
Posted by: compass | April 15, 2006 9:07 PM
Wow. I understood TRA to be anti-choice but I had no idea about the other stuff. You certainly made your case much more calmly, and I dare say intelligently, than I would have if he had implied such things about me.
Posted by: tng | April 15, 2006 9:10 PM
Read carefully. Note this crucial statement:
That is not about eugenics. It's not about me or you or the government or the church telling people that they must abort or must support -- it's the choice of the individual.I knew some clueless bozo would come along and bring up Nazis. I'm impressed that you did it in the very first comment.
Also, as a good biologist, I recognize that abstinence is not an option. Sex is a natural and important part of biology, and is also an important component of being human. Why do you deny our humanity?
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 15, 2006 9:14 PM
compass, you apparently simply stopped reading at the point where you found something you could attack Professor Myers for. If you'd read on, you would find that he said:
And in the post you don't link to, PZ never once said that the government should force abortions for children with myelomeningocele, only that it should be an option available to the parents. He was pointing out the amorality of forcing parents to have children they are completely incapable of caring for.
Posted by: Skemono | April 15, 2006 9:18 PM
Wow. Is DaveScott supposed to be a christian? To paraphrase Bill Maher the other week, if he thinks Jesus ever had a good word for beating someone to a pulp, then you might as well belive bunnies lay painted eggs.
Dawn Eden always strikes me as a bit naive, with her obsession with married sex and pregnancy. Being married and currently 7 months pregnant, I can say that sex after marriage is exactly the same as sex before marriage, except your catholic mother-in-law no longer gives you dirty looks when you come over for dinner.
And any woman who waxes prosaic about pregnancy has never spent weeks bent over a toilet puking, exhaused, and craving a slurpee and those little wasabi peas while weeping with hormone induced guilt about not being able to go to work.
Posted by: plucky punk | April 15, 2006 9:21 PM
So, you advocate people should stop having sex. That's the end of humanity right there. At least the Nazis only wanted to remove a portion of humanity - apparently you want all of humanity to die out. Repellant.
Posted by: eric | April 15, 2006 9:22 PM
Compass,
Ummm, for lack of a better way to put it, I think it's a sign that one's a "'tard" (to borrow from the Raving Atheist) to suggest that allowing for a family to chose whether they want to have a child that'll effectively have no brain and will likely live a short and unpleasant life is akin to Nazi eugenics.
In addition, the suggestion that financial matters are of concern in cases like the one you bring up is not a matter of reducing the value of life to a monetary value, it's a recognition of reality. Many families simply can't afford to pay $70,000 to keep a child alive. This isn't PZ's fault, it's the fault of a for profit health care industry.
Finally your suggestion of not having sex makes no sense in the context of your argument. Granted, abstaining is a means of birth control but what does it have to do with whether one should abort an embryo that will develop to have a condition that will likely lead to it having a life that is marked only by it's brevity and suffering? By your reasoning if we want to avoid having children with severe congenital defects we should all remain chaste, which quite frankly is stupid.
Posted by: CK | April 15, 2006 9:22 PM
"Oh, and a good biologist such as yourself ought to recognize the fact that there IS a means of controlling fertility: It's called not having sex."
Or getting raped, presumably.
Posted by: plucky punk | April 15, 2006 9:24 PM
So does this mean, PZ that we self-identified "Progressive Christians" (you know, the ones at the peace demonstrations and candlelight vigils) are okay by you?
Posted by: beth | April 15, 2006 9:41 PM
Excellent point, CK. The anti-choicers heads just explode at the thought that sometimes, people CHOOSE to abort pregnancies even though the child would be very much wanted.
I'm sure they would all be willing to step up and provide the money and resources to care for babies with severe congenital defects, just like they are always so willing to provide care for pregnant mothers and other children.. Oh wait, never mind.
Posted by: Stacy | April 15, 2006 9:45 PM
I used to read the Raving Atheist, but I just can't anymore. I don't agree with his anti-choice stance, but I could read an anti-choice writer who had given his position serious thought and defended it civilly. Unfortunately, RA instead tends to defend his stance with sneering sarcasm and odious analogies, and has never (as far as I can tell) given his position any more thought or justification than "I wouldn't have wanted to be aborted," a rather ridiculous argument since by the time there is a you to express it, abortion is no longer a possibility.
It's not even his anti-choice stance that turns me off as much as his general attitude of insensitivity, nastiness and spite. I've never shrunk from calling out the evils of religion when I see them, but calling ordinary theists "Godidiots" does not help. This sort of behavior just reflects badly on all of us nonbelievers and feeds the apologist stereotype that atheists are hostile, bitter people.
For all these reasons and more, I recommend that people in search of a good atheist blog visit mine, conveniently accessible by clicking on my name below. ;)
Posted by: Ebonmuse | April 15, 2006 9:49 PM
You are correct to call it a cult of the fetus. It is cult-like, especially in the in-group/out-group relations. This is why members of the cult can be so cavalier about violence against those who think differently. (The irony is that they claim to be against violence to the vulnerable fetus.)
It is also a cult in the sense that its members are bound together by an ideology that is sensible only to those on the inside. It is only a certain theological view or a simple-minded philosophy that explains why abortion and birth control are wrong. Those of us who are without such ideological commitments, who approach family planning from a rational perspective, find the justifications of the cult entirely unconvincing.
They are cult-like in their unscrupulous manner of changing opposing viewpoints into grotesque straw men. To acknowledge that decisions about fertility take place in a political economy is transformed in to a Nazi-esque commitment to "removal of the economically undesirable."
Finally, they are cultish in the sense that their identity rests on an unspoken hostility towards material existence and sensual experience. (That is, they are anti-pleasure.) How else to explain the obsession with sex? We don't need contraception, they seem to say, because the only morally correct way to control fertility is to not have sex. Wanting to have sex without fertility is perversion. What is that except a crazy anti-pleasure cult?
Posted by: Timothy Shortell | April 15, 2006 9:51 PM
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 15, 2006 10:04 PM
"Oh, and a good biologist such as yourself ought to recognize the fact that there IS a means of controlling fertility: It's called not having sex."
Excuse me? Perhaps this is an option in your sad little world, but in my world (i.e., the "real" world) sex is part of being human and having a normal relationship with a potentially fertile partner. I am completely cognizant of the fact that I risk becoming a father (regardless of birth-control that we may be using), and take full responsibility for that.
The decision to abort, if it comes to that, is none of my damned business. It is about how my partner feels *at that particular time* because it is her body that little zygote is implanted in, not mine.
We consider this a reasonable risk in return for a full and loving relationship. This is commonly referred to as A Normal Relationship Between Adults. Look it up.
What is implicit in statements like this is that the assumption is one partner is supposed to withhold sex from the other, or making sex contingent on conception. So, one is supposed to punish your partner unless and until she produces offspring?
For once I wish these ridiculous creeps would wake up and smell the coffee and stop proscribing arbitrary and artifical moral demands upon a simple evolutional mechanism.
Posted by: clvrmnky | April 15, 2006 10:14 PM
I would just like to take this moment to comment that it really shows in every position in any argument that PZMyers takes that there is obvious thoughtfulness and an aim at virtue. Bravo.
It's refreshing to see an absence of knee-jerk metaphysics and straw-manning of critics. What if our elected officials acted this way?
PZ's comments on this matter remind me of an excellent book that more people should read called *The Worth of a Child* by Thomas Murray. It might be a little touchy-feely, but it's an adult discussion of abortion and certainly doesn't use the word "tard."
Posted by: joe | April 15, 2006 10:22 PM
The contempt shown for living people by wingnuts combined with their almost blind adoration for fetuses and braindead people on life support betrays their sense of life.
They love fetuses, the braindead, etc. because they have no mind and no identity and are thus not "corrupted" by being real living human beings. They are blameless because they aren't fully aware.
Real living human beings on the other hand are disgusting filthy sinners who are perfectly ok to torture, beat, and kill. Witness their endless revenge fantasies, genocidal apocalypse fantasies, and *love* of war. You are beautiful and worthy of love when you're a fetus, but when you grow up and get an identity then you're cannon fodder.
They aren't pro-life, except in some strange disassociative sense. They love potential life, or some abstract concept of it that has nothing to do with reality. They hate real *actualized* human life.
If you think about the implications of Platonic idealism, which is really all western religion is, then the reasons for this will become clear pretty quickly.
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | April 15, 2006 10:27 PM
As a pro-life atheist, I try to keep it a simple "veil of ignorance" argument... something along the lines of, "let's roleplay a mother and an unborn child. You decide whether abortions should be legal and I'll decide which role you get to play." Given enough time to make a more rigorous argument, I usually outline an argument based on liberal principles: governments are instituted for several purposes, one of the most important of which is a defense of the defenseless. If you have to decide when someone is worthy of defense under law, it's a good idea to broaden your criterion as much as possible; liberals have always been the ones pushing for recognition of human rights as a basic entitlement of humanity. No one here would deny that an unborn child is human, and alive -- the question is merely whether these characteristics constitute a human being worthy of legal protection, and I'm leery of instituting any further criteria since there are plenty of people already born that would fail most of the ones I can think of.
It's a damn shame that so many of the pro-life arguments are so tied up with religion, not to mention a disrespect for the truth (abortion and breast cancer, anybody?). Being a pro-life atheist Texas liberal certainly gives one insight into the variety of opinions that exist in each of those subgroups. ;^)
Posted by: William | April 15, 2006 10:49 PM
Aw... An atheist who doesn't fit the mold you think all atheists should fit into. B-o-o-h-o-o.
I guess he's not a "true atheist," eh? Wonder if he's a Scotsman...
Posted by: JMcH | April 15, 2006 10:50 PM
I guess JMcH couldn't even read as far as the third sentence before jumping to a false conclusion.
Typical.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 15, 2006 10:59 PM
Hello William,
It's good to see a rational pro-life atheist, as opposed to people like RA. Allow me to offer some thoughts:
This is a good argument, and I'm glad to see it expressed civilly. Here's why I don't agree with it:
Let's try an analogous argument: let's roleplay a mother and a child that has not yet been conceived. You decide whether contraception should be legal and I'll decide which role you play.
Do you object to this? I certainly would. I reject this argument's premise that anyone can take the position of "a child that has not yet been conceived" - that's a category fallacy. By definition you can't imagine yourself in such a position, because anyone in such a position, literally, does not exist. I would certainly hope that no rational policy-making process would be forced to take into account the interests of nonexistent people.
I believe the situation with abortion, at least early-term abortion, is the same. I do not agree that a fetus should be classified as a human being before the brain develops, because at that point the primary trait that constitutes a human - namely, characteristically human thought - does not yet exist. Until that trait develops, the fetus simply is not a human being, and as such, cannot have rights equal to those of existing humans. (How this bears on the question of whether a pregnant mother should or can do things harmful to the growth of the fetus is another story.)
Posted by: Ebonmuse | April 15, 2006 11:13 PM
I guess JMcH couldn't even read as far as the third sentence before jumping to a false conclusion.
Typical.
Simply emulating the behavior of you and your ilk, PZ. I thought you'd be flattered.
Posted by: JMcH | April 15, 2006 11:16 PM
While the Raving Atheist is sympathetic to the idea of killing the "'tards," I am not
While I can understand why a low-blow would be met with a low-blow, let's let intellectual honesty reign. He was obviously using (characteristic) dark humor - Step back and it's clear no parties here want innocent people to die.
The 'Culture of Life' exemplified by fetus fondlin' Santorum, and the perverse Republican antics over Terry Schiavo is a truly screwy world-view. This is underlined even further because ALL the people you find with this world-view, where entities in the hinterlands of human existence are demanded unambiguous human status, show much less sympathy for humans that are, well unambiguously human. Death Penalty? "Fry the fuckers. Even rapists and child molesters." Torture? "If you want to make an omelette. . ."
How about animal rights? "Vegetarians are wackos and pussies." Seriously, read the El Salvador article from the Times. These people are more worried about securing the welfare of, and are granting more rights to, microscopic clumps of cell matter than fully conscious, thinking, feeling women!
In fact that's why I can't take the metaphysics of pro-lifers seriously - they're just too disingenuous and mixed up. The day I start meeting large contingents of pro-lifers who would never eat meat or use animal products, because they realize there are complex, thinking, feeling animals on the other end of that action and they can functionally empathize with them, that's when I start taking this manufactured blastocyst empathy seriously. If you can't even sympathize with a fully sentient farm animal then why should I believe you've managed to tap into the subjective life yearnings of an inanimate zygote?
Posted by: Jason Malloy | April 15, 2006 11:21 PM
PZ,
You forgot the rest of my quote from Uncommon Descent. It's the best part in my opinion because it has a high irony content.
"Sounds like an irrational religious belief. A form of psychosis maybe?"
Posted by: Lurker | April 15, 2006 11:25 PM
Ebonmuse: well put. This is the same stance on abortion I take.
I also think it can be a choice that only the parents of the child would have a right to make. To me, the woman who aborts a fetus who would be born without a face or a brain or other genetic abnormality is the same as the family member who elects to take a loved one off life support. (although in some of the more fundamental circles that's bad too...)
Hope that makes sense. It's late for me and I'm in the grips of third trimester insomnia.
Put simply, being pro-choice is about individual choice, not forced eugenics or baby killing or whatever. I've always felt in a sane world places like Planned Parenthood would be everybody's favorite charity. It's called Planned *Parenthood*, not Planned Abortions for All Because We Hate Babies.
Posted by: plucky punk | April 15, 2006 11:30 PM
JMcH: PZ said "If you haven't been following along, The Raving Atheist is definitely an atheist, but he's also an odd duck who has gone a bit unhinged on a few subjects."
How is that an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, as you seem to be claiming? PZ never claims RA isn't a true atheist, and then he spends the rest of the post explaining the "unhinged" business.
Posted by: Stacy | April 15, 2006 11:36 PM
Stacy, it's because JMcH reads only selectively, when he can muster up the brainpower to read at all.
Posted by: Martin | April 15, 2006 11:52 PM
Wow, PZ.
I'm a biologist myself (master's level), almost done with my 1st year
of medical school, and also hold the opinion that unless you are raped
or otherwise coerced, sex is a choice
I didn't realize that by my personal abstinence I had removed myself
from the human race. I know you'd disqualify me because I don't
believe in your belief in positive liberty, the importance of the
state in the individual's life, and probably for being an agnostic
because I see atheism as much a belief state as belief in god. But
really, my ability to keep my thing in my pants makes me not human?
I find myself alternately agreeing with what you've said and shaking
my head at the inherent contradictions in your stance. As a raving
'phenotypist' many of the posts on my blog deal with the fact that the
product of our genes is the smallest part of who we are,
whether speaking biologically or from a more humanistic perspective.
But unlike you, I don't see why the same protections, rights, and
privileges you wish to extend to adults you are unwilling to
give to children. In my mind, it should be the opposite way.
Children are defenseless, they are still learning, becoming
self-actualized people. Adults on the other hand, have the logical
and rational capacity that we can and should hold them responsible for
their actions and responsible for their own destiny.
My personal belief is that life begins at conception. But i'm at
least intelligent enough to understand that that is nothing more than
belief. Which is why, once an ardent pro-life demonstrator, I
restrict my arguments specifically to late term abortion.
There's a point at which the anti-life (heh, see I can play with
adjectives too) stance becomes biologically untenable. I was born a
full 5 weeks early. Completely fully formed and back at home with
mommy in the normal amount of time.
According to you and your ilk, there's a substantive difference
between me and a baby who, other than location deep in mommy's womb,
is identical in all tangible aspects.
You give me reminders every day that people can be wholly rational and
logical about one thing (science) while being completely irrational
and unwilling to challenge one's beliefs in another (politics).
Dogmatic about your atheism, dogmatic about your politics.
It's really a beautiful thing.
Posted by: IndianCowboy | April 15, 2006 11:57 PM
clevermonkey,
if she does get pregnant (hopefully it'll come when yall are ready, and not unexpectedly), do you believe she has the right to hold you liable for any of the future costs, both economic and temporal?
If you do, then it is your business. Because her 'choice' directly impacts you.
Also, in my world, there are actions and there are consequences. One partakes in an activity with full knowledge of the possible outcomes. When I go bouldering, I know bad things can happen (and nearly have). When I go hiking, I could be mauled to death by a big brown bear (and nearly have). When I go down to the casino and gamble with 500 dollars, I could lose 500 dollars.
Sex, when between two willing partners, is a risky activity. It's a risky activity that could not only impact the two lives involved, but a new life as well. Like all risky activities, when you engage in it you should be cognizant of the consequences. "I like sex" is not a valid argument with regard to abortion. Pregnancy is a possible outcome. The fact that it's an outcome you don't want is not a valid justification for allowing abortion.
I got no problem with contraception of any kind. And while I have a personal problem with early abortion, I wouldn't restrict it. But aborting a healthy infant (and they are infants) at 7 or 8 months is morally objectionable in the extreme. It's funny, but European law for once is a sterling example of how rational abortion law should look. They don't take the dogmatic position yall do, defining abortion as legal until such point as an infant could survive outside the womb.
I'd also note that justification of late term abortion and infanticide is extensible all the way up until you reach legal majority. If you all are really arguing that there is nothing morally wrong with killing a 15 year old, that's one thing. If there's a difference between infanticide or 3rd trimester abortion and killing a 12 year old, you need to tighten up your arguments considerably
Posted by: IndianCowboy | April 16, 2006 12:21 AM
You have to understand that atheism can be either an active "I declare that there is no God!" or a more passive "I don't believe there is reasonable evidence to believe in God". Active atheism is a belief state. Passive atheism is not. Do you believe in Santa Clause? Are you an Santa Clause agnostic? I could very well argue that you can't disbelieve in Santa because there is no positive proof for the non-existence of Santa. Does that mean you are a Santa agnostic? No, you are a passive disbeliever in Santa - you know there isn't any good reason to believe in Santa. You disbelieve in the existence of Santa, just like the (passive) atheist disbelieves in God, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: BC | April 16, 2006 12:32 AM
IndianCowboy: I personally have never seen a pro-choice advocate argue in favor of aborting a healthy fetus at 7 or 8 months because the parents gambled on a risky behaivor and lost.
Am I missing something? This sounds like yet another strawman to me, and comes perilously close to the misogynist sterotypes flung about by many a fundie.
I'd think the amount of women saying "I'm getting an abortion at 8 months because I'd rather get a mani-pedi" is going to be relatively small compared to the amount of women who get late-term (which, and I could be wrong, I thought meant 2nd or 3rd trimester, not just 3rd trimester) abortions because they've made the agonizing decision not to give birth to a child with anencephaly (for example) or because of risk to the life or future fertility of the mother.
Also, *any* discussion about abortion that doesn't mention what happens to the victims of rape who get pregnant is, in my opinion, incomplete. Simplistic arguments like, just don't have sex, etc., ignores the experiences of an overwhelming number of women in the world.
Posted by: plucky punk | April 16, 2006 12:36 AM
P Z Myers wrote:
Define "people" and explain how the "people" stage can be reached without passing through all the preceding "non-people" stages.
It seems to me we went over this ground in the "Black & White" thread back in March and, reading those posts, it seems that this Raving Atheist character and I agree that the individual begins at conception.
Besides (to quote from a previous post):
Posted by: Ian H Spedding | April 16, 2006 12:46 AM
I was going to say the same thing, Ebonmuse. You can easily twist these arguments into something absurd. Another example: "You are a woman with n children. You are deciding whether to have another child. You decide whether the mother should attempt to conceive another child and I'll decide which role you play (mother or unconceived child)." In this case, there is a limit where people would start to say, "Ok, if the mother already has 10 children, I think the burden of another child would outweigh the benefit of being born." But, that means that all women should have 10 children (or some similarly high number)! And those people who argue the more simplistic "I wouldn't want to be aborted" (note that the phrasing makes no mention of the burden on the mother) should argue the similar absurd statement that "If I was an unconceived child, I would want to be born". But, if that's the case, then every woman should make every effort to turn every viable egg into a baby.
You're adding on some implicit categorization here. The government does not and cannot defend the defenseless - which includes everything from farm animals to sperm to fetuses. When you say that it should, what you really mean is that the government should defend the defenseless *people*. But, then you get into the issue of what is a fetus. PZ says that personhood develops over time. Fetuses are partway between sperm (which are defenseless and which we have no intention of defending), and a defenseless person (which maybe the government should defend). It all depends on where you think a fetus lies on the continuum.
Posted by: BC | April 16, 2006 1:08 AM
I give you a lot of credit for even trying to reason with him. I gave up a while ago, but occassionally still dropped by to argue when he decided to quote me creatively. I've since called it a day with the RA, and don't even bother reading his site anymore. Really, it's a fight you can't win -- when he claims to deplore "Godidiots" then spends his time licking Dawn Eden's asshole, you realize that something just isn't right.
Posted by: Jill | April 16, 2006 1:12 AM
Plucky, aborting healthy infants at 7 or 8 months gestation is exactly what PZ mentioned in his post:
No mention made here about health of the infant, just about personal circumstance. And here he's actually talking about 'post term abortion'
Can you show me stats? Do they even have stats about how many late term abortions are done for reasons of health (mental health don't count, too easy to fudge numbers and diagnosis) rather than convenience? I haven't seen any. And like I said, I used to be an activist and a debater at a pretty big university. Which is why I didn't say that most late term abortions could be avoided or were done for reasons of convenience. The straw man isn't my argument but the argument that because of this specific (and rare) instance all abortion should be legal.
As for exceptions, my entire pro-life stance is predicated on a few things:
1. The two parties involved in the process of copulation are both willing participants in a mutually agreed upon activity.
2. At some point in pregnancy there is no difference between an infant and a fetus; therefore at that point either the fetus must be treated as an infant under the law, or infants must continue to be treated as fetuses (i.e. abortable).
3). The infant/fetus/whatever is capable of attaining a state of adult independence, majority, and treatement under the law.
If any of those three conditions are violated, then my argument no longer stands and there is no moral issue WRT abortion.
The interesting thing about Hindus is that although we believe in a right to live, we also believe in a right to die. (and yes, agnostic hinduism has a long and storied tradition). I wouldn't bring a child into the world that would have a painful, short life, and die at 7. It hurts the child, it hurts us.
But no matter how poor I was, I couldn't abort a healthy fetus. When I was born, know how much my parents made? 6000 dollars a year. We lived like that for a while before Dad finished his PhD and got a real job. 6000 dollars a year with a newborn (which in today's dollars is about 10k, IIRC). Not a whole lot.
Posted by: IndianCowboy | April 16, 2006 1:21 AM
Dawn Eden wrote some really, really good liner notes back in the day.
Pity she developed this new hobby.
Posted by: David | April 16, 2006 1:23 AM
First of all, define "living" in this case. We just had a discussion over here of whether or not infants and fetuses could even feel pain, which is a significantly lower level of cognition than self-awareness, and I really do believe there is a viability argument to be made. Nobody but nobody gets third-trimester abortions unless something's really wrong; not very many people get them at all. The numbers are just tiny, something like 800 per year in the US.
Secondly, the reason I get to deny the parasite in my womb the opportunity to have a life is that I was here first and it's still inhabiting my body, with very real potentially life-threatening consequenses for me if I carry to term or delivery, whichever comes first. What are maternal mortality rates in the US? They're scarily high, compared to other industrialised Western countries, but that's still not the point. More women die in childbirth than from abortions, but I guess it's more important to you to make sure that the clump of cells gets a shot at the world instead of allowing the already living, presumably adult woman to make the decision for herself. The way you folks talk about it, you sound as though you're all men. In my books, that means you don't get an opinion on the subject, let alone a vote or veto.
(If you don't like abortion, don't leave your gametes in other people's bodies, some way or another. Otherwise, chew on it. And keep your laws off my internal organs while you're at it.)
PZ, you've got an infestation of stealth misogynists hereabouts, and some of them are not so stealthy at all.
Posted by: Interrobang | April 16, 2006 1:26 AM
BC, totally agreed. I see little difference between passive atheism and agnosticism, which is why I made the comment that atheism is a belief state. Defined as you have, my criticism applies only to active atheism. And what I tend to see from PZ (recalling the one where they talk about the down sides of rabid atheism among evolution-supporters in the political debate), is the active kind.
Passive atheism isn't something you trumpet aloud as a major part of your ideology, IMO. Active atheism is. PZ routinely makes the pronouncement that "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" which is active atheism. Passive atheism is, as you said, passive. Active atheism, is a strident harsh, and slightly maniacal screaming with no regard for evidence.
Posted by: IndianCowboy | April 16, 2006 1:31 AM
Bravo to Mr. Ian Spedding. To set the record staight, I was not advocating "gene counting" in any way, shape, or form. In fact, to the contrary, I was advocating the opposing direction of thought. The mere fact that cell division is not always perfect, (trisomy 21), does not in any way diminish the fact that an egg and sperm at conception (zygote) have the same number of chromosomes as me or anyone else. A human (homo sapien)is classified as having forty-six chromosomes, a zygote at the moment of conception has 46 chromosomes, where is the cognitive dissonance with that fact. Those who adhere to the pro-life or anti-murder (just playing your word game) viewpoint, simply believe that each person has the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Is it not true that the terms or definitions of abortion versus murder are not dictated by only a few centimeters of a mother's uterus at 7 months of age. In the womb at 7-9 months, it is classified as abortion, outside the womb during the same time frame would be termed murder. If the same doctor who performed a late term abortion were to deliver the baby either as a pre-mature birth or to full term, and then after the same doctor raised the baby to show the parents "it's a boy or it's a girl," and were to then turn to remove or suck the brains and organs out of a baby, he would be viewed as a repugnant criminal commiting a heinous crime. I pose the question one more time, does a few centimeters of skin make that much of a difference between a "fetus" and a baby, or of an abortion and a murder? In closing, granted there are cases in which a pregnancy is due to the fact that a rape took place. Many of the writers want to use a birth defect that occurs as a reason to opt for abortion. But the majority of abortions are due to conveniece because either two people were to incompetent to protect themselves, too lazy, or simply just didn't care. And then guess what, most of the time the taxpayers get to pay for one very expensive "condom."
Posted by: Pascal's Wager | April 16, 2006 1:40 AM
i was going to reply to interrobang but then decided his/her thinly-veiled dogma and spittle-flecked tirade wasn't worth my effort.
And now for a retarded pronouncement of my own:
Anyone who supports the justification of alimony and child support is a man-hater.
Posted by: IndianCowboy | April 16, 2006 1:43 AM
I find the concept of late-term elective abortion disturbing. ... but I know how unlikely it is to happen at all, unless, of course, we put all sorts of obstacles in the way of early abortions, like waiting periods...
I don't find the concept of first-trimester abortion to be significantly more disturbing than contraception or, say, the rhythm method.
And since we all know that your base emotional reaction is the only real criterion anyone uses when deciding this topic, I'm in favor of clearly delineated laws preventing (only) third-trimester elective abortions... as long as they aren't as absurd as, say, the partial birth abortion ban was. (A procedure that simply had no advantages whatsoever for elective abortions, and that was normally done for cases such as hydrocephaly, where the fetus is close enough to non-viable as makes no difference anyway...)
I wish the first sentence of the last paragraph was sarcasm, but I honestly don't think I've seen a single meaningful argument (aside from the economic one PZ has presented) on either side that doesn't stem from emotional distaste.
(Although I will note there is one key difference between "post-natal abortion" and third-trimester abortion - by and large, the former can be obviated via adoption. Of course, our adoption system is in rather a lot of trouble too, but...)
Posted by: Michael "Sotek" Ralston![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 16, 2006 1:53 AM
To be fair, IndianCowboy, I don't think PZ was talking about any sort of situation that would be likely to happen in the US or other 'first-world' country (too sleepy to think of more politically correct term...) I think he was thinking more of the type of infanticide that has happened throughout human history in subsistance-type cultures with no other method of birth control.
One of us is probably misreading him. (If its me, PZ, please correct me.)
Do I have stats? Well, no. I'd be interested to find some good data on abortions in the second or third trimester for health reasons. Apparently, the CDC doesn't keep track of this sort of thing.
This Wikipedia article, however, does mention some rough estimates on late term abortion in general, stating '1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later' and 'number of abortions past 24 weeks to be 0.08%.' According to my pregnancy book (paraphrasing from memory) a baby born before 26 weeks has less than 50 percent chance of survival.
The article goes on to mention a survey of 420 women in 1987 who had abortions at 16 weeks (well before viability, but at a stage where the so-called 'partial birth abortion' would be indicated) and these were the reasons given:
Two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy."
71% responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," (note: happens all the time, happened to my cousin...happened on the episode of ER room reality show I was watching last night)
48% said "found it hard to make arrangements," (understandable when in many states there is just one clinic open only on every other tuesday and you can only get an abortion with a note from your mommy while jumping on one leg)
and 33% said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." (again understandable when domestic abuse is so prevalent...)
The responses of 420 women almost 20 years ago is not exactly a good sampling...but none of those responses say anything like "I suddenly changed my mind because it's bathing suit season."
Also, I don't think mental health is hard to prove. Don't they do it in courts of law all the time?
I'm currently 7 months pregnant and also working on my degree, so I understand your parents predicament more than you realize. But I also understand that it's *my* choice, and I do not have the right to force anyone to be pregnant. And congrats to you on being celibate, you have excellent self control. But to assume that most people, especially Americans, would be able to excercise the same is beyond naive.
Look, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm going to change your mind. And I don't care that you're against abortion, so I don't care *to* change your mind. (It's called pro-choice for a reason...no one who is pro-choice wants to force abortions on anyone.)
But I'd thank you kindly to keep your personal beliefs *out* of the choices I make for me and my family.
Posted by: plucky punk | April 16, 2006 1:56 AM
Pascal: You have made a claim of fact.
I do not believe your claim of fact.
Present a neutral source for your claim, or I will be compelled to assume you are a deliberate liar.
Specifically, prove that taxpayers EVER pay for abortions (I find this exceptionally improbable), prove that it happens in the MAJORITY of cases (over 50%, say), and prove that the majority (again, over 50%) of abortions are "due to convinience". I'll even give you a little bit of leeway and assume that, say, 15-year-old girls get abortions due to convinience, and not because raising this fetus would prevent them from being in a position to rase children with the actual care and love they deserve.
Just show that at least 50% of abortions are elective (ie, not due to hydrocephaly or other health-related issues), and that taxpayers pay for at least 50% of abortions.
If, of course, you're not lying.
Posted by: Michael "Sotek" Ralston![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 16, 2006 1:59 AM
While I am an atheist, atheism isn't my belief; it just comes from trying to take a rational stance on the world. I think this attempt at rationality is right, morally right. Giving up on rationality is immoral in my view, and it leads to all kinds of serious problems in the world.
That's why I take atheism, evolution, and similar topics seriously. Not so much because I think the world hinges on what people think on these issue, but because it hinges on how people think about them, whether they really think.
Posted by: chuko | April 16, 2006 2:01 AM
PZ, as an atheist evolutionist with a craving for biology, let me first say that I love your blog and I read it every day. However, I find your point of view on this contemptable and infuriating, to put it mildly. I'll try to hold back on my anger as I explain why.
As an atheist, I certainly don't believe in any kind of ensoulment. I don't look at a clump of unspecialized cells, for example, and ascribe any particular value to it. I've read somewhere that about 78% of such clumps of cells perish at this stage. I don't hold a funeral, nor even a memorial. I'd be a hypocrite if I said it had the same value as an adult human.
On the other hand, I don't necessarily view a 30-week-old fetus as a valueless mass of organs that can be discarded, like an appendix, at its mother's whim. Is it so hard to see the difference?
My only child was born after 32 weeks of development, at 3 lbs. 15 oz. Her lungs were a little under-developed and so she needed to be placed in an oxygen chamber for a few weeks, and she needed to be fed through a tube for a while. Other than that, she was a perfectly normal baby.
I've tried very, VERY hard to understand the point of view that the value of a child this developed is only in the eyes of the mother. I simply can't do it. From the moment I saw my daughter, I knew she had a value that was all her own, that no one, not even I or my wife, could take away.
How did I "know" this? Well, it's very complicated. Because I am not a theist, I don't have the luxury of having an ancient book or prophet telling me exactly what to do. I have to actually to put some *thought* into my morality. As a moral atheist yourself, PZ, I'm sure you know the feeling.
Somewhere between the "clump of cells stage" and the "fully-developed human" stage, we have to draw a line, and that line basically describes the point at which the human in question has an intrinsic value of its own, rather than a value that is ascribed to it (or not) by its mother. Where do we draw that line?
On what basis do we draw a line at all? Some people like to use viability as their basis, or perhaps sentience, or perhaps the ability to perceive pain. All of these seem to make sense, because much of what makes us human is our ability to think, feel, live independently, breathe, grow, etc.
But these development-based standards are difficult to work with because, as you said, development happens gradually, and so there is often no single moment that you can decide upon.
Some people use other standards, like "the moment that the umbilical cord is cut" or "the moment that the baby takes its first breath". The nice thing about these is that it is very easy to draw a line at a specific moment. However, the problem with these standards is that they seem arbitrary to most people. Is a full-term baby that is inside the womb during labor really all that different from a full-term baby that just took its first breath? If you can define the difference between "life" and "human life" using such insignificant events, then you must not ascribe much value to human life in the first place.
This is in no way meant to be my treatise on the morality of abortion. If you'd notice, I never specifically mentioned where I personally draw the line, and that's because that's not the point. I have no intention of convincing you of my point of view.
My only point with this post is to make the point that this is a very complicated issue, involving many conflicting interests (such as the right of a baby to live versus the right of a woman to have control over her body), and many different value judgements (such as the value of viability, the value of sentience, the value of a child's first breath, and so on). I think it should be ESPECIALLY difficult for atheists like you and me, who actually have to think these things through because we don't have an ancient book or prophet to prescribe our morals with one-sentence commandments. I personally have a very difficult time deciding what values are important, and how to prioritize those that are.
So I don't really appreciate it when, after spending so much time pondering these things and approaching the topic with care and sensitivity, to be considered an unhinged member of the Cult of the Fetus. I know you didn't call me this directly, but as someone who believes it's not such a great idea to abort third-trimester babies (huge understatement), I feel the sting of your remarks.
PZ, it seems to me that, even if you don't agree with me and the other atheists who have expressed pro-life views here, you ought to AT LEAST understand where we are coming from. I find that most pro-choice people do, and so in most debates like this I usually take on the "I respectfully disagree" attitude.
But here, I called your views abhorrent and contemptable, not because you simply disagree, but because you don't even seem to possess an ability to see where people like me are coming from, and you even go as far as to denigrate us, and that's just fucking pathetic.
I guess, one thing we can both agree on is that atheism is not necessarily correlated with a lack of pig-headedness.
Posted by: Frank Sullivan | April 16, 2006 2:04 AM
which is why I've changed my stance on early abortions. But, as I said, there comes a time in a pregnancy when the 'not a baby' stance becomes no longer tenable.
Fortunately, it appears that very very few abortions happen at that point. So it sounds like we should just legislate em away. And then I'd just shut up, wouldn't I? I just see no reason why we can't move to a European model. Which I find more logical and rational than either my old stance or yalls. It's about the only case I can think of where I find something to laud about European legal and political philosophy.
Also, your stats harmonize pretty well with what I remember.
and as for the celibacy, it really ain't no thing. it's the attitude that people can't have self-control that makes us not have self control. I have a friend who won't have sex with a girl unless he's willing to raise a child with her, which even though he's had more partners than he can count on both hands, means he's functionally and morally equivalent to me.
I hold by the belief that man is the creator of his own destiny and not subject merely to the whims of his hormones and desires. If we're to allow him license in one area, why not all?
But that's a huge digression, so it'd be better for the discussion if we ignored it.
Posted by: IndianCowboy | April 16, 2006 2:06 AM
Indian: The issue with laws banning late-term abortions is that they've tended to ban the *necessary* ones.
Posted by: Michael "Sotek" Ralston![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 16, 2006 2:09 AM
IC: One could make that arguement regarding alimony. Child support isn't about the woman getting money, it's about the child. Most men seem to forget that fact when they whine about it. Of course, so do some women receiving the money.
I think PZ's point on infanticide was not an endorsement, but an understanding. He said it wouldn't be necessary in modern America (unless the Religious Wrong keeps up their antics). He also wasn't willing to condemn the countless generations before us that may have chosen to kill a baby that could not be fed to save a whole family. No one should have to make such a choice. In our land of plenty, it's hard to understand such a necessity.
Posted by: DiscordianStooge | April 16, 2006 2:11 AM
Having grown up in a family with parents who fostered kids with multiple disabilities I kind of don't like the word 'tard. That and fat are pretty much the only real swear words at my house.
If medical economics is used as a reason to abort, then just maybe the economic policy is a bit skewed and should be evaluated if that is what people want. If there are ways to prevent things like spina bifida (folic acid) and we can jigger genes to avoid other anomolies in fetuses, then why are these not being done more, since there are economic repercussions faced by parents of kids with disabilities?
I have met people who are passionate about both sides of the debate. I have met pro life women who have opened their homes to teen mothers who have been abandoned by their own families when they get pregnant. I have friends who have had abortions and are adamant that it is the best decision they could have made at the time. Faced with my own unplanned pregnancy I chose to have my kid. As an adopted kid with a congenital heart defect I probably cost the system a bit when I was born, but I have paid that debt back by raising good citizens and working and paying taxes.
I am not sure what the best solution is, but I do know that the vagina police in El Salvador are not a future I want for my children. Please read the NY Times Pro Life Nation if it is still up. It was heartbreaking, and stupid, and sick and wrong. And full of religious "good intentions" that have criminalized choice for all but the very rich.
I would be sick if my daughter was raped and she was pregnant and she begged me not to carry the child to term, but I could not help her. I would not know what to do if a child I carried had no brain. I have had friends that this happened to, and for months their lives were on hold while they awaited the inevitable.
Some would say that our morality is based on how we treat the least of these. Others who purport to follow this philosophy don't seem to care much for the least of anyone - unless they believe like them or have the possibility of doing so.
I have a hard time with heroic medical intervention at the end of life. I have also seen the consequences of heroic medical intervention at the beginning of life. Sometimes it is not pretty. Cerebral Palsy, seizures and even worse- what is the right thing to do? Is technology partly to blame for our situation?
As for the Culture of Life- the Catholic Church is at this moment fairly consistent in its message- they are against the death penalty very firmly and have spoken up against unjust wars. The traditional religious right in America are not so even keel. While they rally behind babies and Terry Schiavo they also want criminals to die and support the war in Iraq. This is a bit schizophrenic.
Maybe we ought to discuss technology as it relates to pre term babies. Is it right or fair to play god in this circumstance? Is it right or fair to keep grandma chained to a bunch of life support machines because we can't bear the thought of her leaving- even though many of those who fight the hardest are supposedly the most assured they will meet their loved one in Heaven.
With genetics and all of that- are we trying to avoid imperfection? Are disabilities imperfections? What disabilities are imperfections?
And why is this post and thread so damned hard to read? I have more questions now than when I started.
Posted by: anonymous | April 16, 2006 2:19 AM
IndianCowboy: if you were to change "late-term abortion" (a non-medical term which is too vague and can include 16 week pregnancies as well at 32 week pregnancies) to some sort of reliable definition of viability that can't be manipulated by the fundies, and then provide some sort of governmental program to care for the unwanted children (in my state, there is IIRC a law that allows women to leave children at hospitals or some other such place without fear of prosecution...i think it's called a safe haven law? someone correct me...) that is better funded and monitored than the foster care programs in this country, then I'd probably agree with you.
But since I live in a country run by irrational fundamentalists I think it is too dangerous to 'legislate them away.' ESPECIALLY if the legislation does not include exceptions for the life or health (mental or otherwise) of the mother, or for rape/incest.
Also, I'll ignore your hormone digression, except for the brief statement that I don't necessarily disagree with you (i guess), but I don't expect EVERYBODY, especially, say, horny teenagers, to live up to these high standards.
Posted by: plucky punk | April 16, 2006 2:21 AM
Personal beliefs of the citizenry are often very welcome in regard to the choices we make about our families.
We believe that people who create children should be financially responsible, so we legislate and enforce - whether those people choose to make such commitments or not.
We believe that dependent spouses (or not) should be taken care of financially in the case of divorce.
We also believe that children should be fed, clothed, educated and cared for and we are willing to enforce those beliefs when they conflict with the way people choose to raise their families.