Phillip and Enigma's arguments are unfortunately running together in my mind, due to my lack of sleep, so I'll respond to them individually once I have the chance.

Ahh sleep - I remember it well. Seems like I haven't had a decent night of it since my kids showed up. I was just saying to my wife the other day, how ironic that we expend so much energy trying to get the kids to take naps and go to sleep on time, and in our younger days we were the same way - but now I could only wish for someone to demand I take a nap!

It seems that due to the length of the thread, possibly some things are being asked that were already answered, and there are some interesting points. I hope to get to some of this stuff over the weekend as workload is killing me next two days. What are chances my team lead will add nap time to the project plan?;)

While I've always loathed the fallacious claim that direct experience of something is required to comment on it ("you haven't been through it so you don't understand"), I must say that a couple of the arguments on this topic seem to be characterized by a singular and inexplicable lack of empathy for pregnant and potentially pregnant women. Phillip and Enigma's arguments are unfortunately running together in my mind, due to my lack of sleep, so I'll respond to them individually once I have the chance.

The War on Terror (like most wars) requires sacrifices of civilians who didn't volunteer for them, more over once you have volunteered for the army you can't suddenly desert or disobey orders...

I want to prevent others from killing fellow human beings. I suppose in a way that is forcing them to do what I think is right. I make no apology for that.

Yes, but soldiers volunteer for this duty. As I said, one should be allowed to make great sacrifices if that is their choice. You want to force others to do what you think is right.

BTW, sorry for assuming that you were American. In the UK that may be considered somewhat of an insult, but over here it is a great compliment. ;-)

Human development may not be an illness, but pregnancy certainly has all the signs of one. A pregnancy can involve great hardship, pain, incapacitation, and, in some cases, permanent injury or death.

Do you really want to force that upon anyone?

But in terms of abortion it is indeed a done deal, when the sperm joins with the egg we have human development, and nine months later a baby. Acting under the illusion that we do not understand this is irrational.

In any terms, we will have a baby in nine months less than half the time. I don't call that a done deal, and you're asserting that this is irrational on my part?

Human development is not an illness. What's with these continued odd analogies - mosquitoes, tumors, etc?

Perhaps that they exhibit many of the same symptoms, like pain, nausea, vomiting, and the possibility of severe complications, perhaps death. The similarities are striking. It seems as though you're using your own incredulity to avoid some legitimate questions.

I have noticed that most people cling to this existence, which would be strange if it were value neutral.

Those would be the people that have been alive and conscious for quite some time, most of whom have put in quite a bit of work to make their existence favorable for themselves. My guess is that one of the big reasons that people are so protective of their lives is that they've put in so much work and are in the process of reaping the rewards of said work, such that dying would be thought of as cheating them out of what they've earned. On the other hand, it seems that life-hating is much more common among those of around high-school age, which would make sense under my hypothesis, as people at that age have much more work to put in before reaping the rewards of an established life.

But, for someone who hasn't started along that path, I still assert that it's a value-neutral proposition, with the chances for great pleasure and satisfaction, as well as great suffering. I would also speculate that those who think life is particularly great are the ones who have best utilized the coping mechanism of counting the hits and forgetting the misses.

Oh well, I doubt either of us is going to change anyone's mind here, so this is likely all I'll have to say on the matter.

I argue that indeed something decisive does happen at conception […] we are talking actual human development and a baby in nine months. It's a done deal.

Um, no, it's not. If my self-education is anywhere near accurate, the proportion of fertilized eggs that fail to implant is in the range of 50-80%. Somehow, I consider a chance of less than 50/50 to be far from a done deal. Now, are those millions of "deaths" each year as undesirable as the deaths of the already-self-aware? Should we halt research into cancer or heart disease, so we can deal with this recurring grand-scale tragedy?

I already addressed this in the thread but will briefly again. The issue is abortion - as in the active intervention to end human development. We understand that not all pregnancies progress for various natural reasons. But in terms of abortion it is indeed a done deal, when the sperm joins with the egg we have human development, and nine months later a baby. Acting under the illusion that we do not understand this is irrational. Regarding medical funding, money is currently spent on both post-natal issues and pre-natal care. Again it is spent on pre-natal care because we understand human development and acknowledge the implications.

Thus, if one can kill a mosquito or a mouse to keep from getting a disease that will haunt one for perhaps a couple of weeks, and perhaps for the rest of one's life, why is it unethical to kill an early-development fetus to prevent the illnesses of pregnancy and the risks of childbirth? (As far as I know, it's still much more dangerous to the health and life of the mother to give birth than to have an abortion.)

Human development is not an illness. What's with these continued odd analogies - mosquitoes, tumors, etc?

It seems self-evident to me that existence is a value-neutral item: it can be positive or negative, depending upon your actions, the actions of others, and happenings beyond the control of anyone. And it also seems obvious that non-existence is value-neutral (since a non-existent entity, by definition, can experience nothing, whether good or bad).

I have noticed that most people cling to this existence, which would be strange if it were value neutral. If equally positive or negative, it seems to me that half the worlds population would be voluntarily ending it. Looking around, the evidence doesn't seem to support your claim. To the atheist this existence is the ultimate scarcity, since we understand this is our only existence for all eternity. But I guess we could take a poll here - a show of hands for those who think their existence here on earth is a negative and would rather not exist?

It seems self-evident to me that existence is a value-neutral item: it can be positive or negative, depending upon your actions, the actions of others, and happenings beyond the control of anyone. And it also seems obvious that non-existence is value-neutral (since a non-existent entity, by definition, can experience nothing, whether good or bad).

As such, I call on those who are arguing that our only "chance" for existence should be preserved at all costs, to defend their premise that one value-neutral state (existence) is intrinsically better than another value-neutral state (non-existence), to such a degree of certainty that someone who makes that decision for a not-yet-thinking being has committed an act worthy of being considered unethical or illegal.

Most people frown on killing another living thing without reason (and rightly so, it would seem). However, most people also have no problem with killing living things that they believe to pose a threat to them. For example, a housefly, a bee, or a mosquito could easily be carrying any number of germs, viruses, pain-inflicting body parts or chemicals, or other unpleasantries, so it's generally not considered unethical to swat said pests. Likewise, there seems to be no major contingent of non-whackjobs calling for an end to mousetraps or rat poison, which can also serve to keep possibly-disease-bearing animals from diminishing our quality of life.

Thus, if one can kill a mosquito or a mouse to keep from getting a disease that will haunt one for perhaps a couple of weeks, and perhaps for the rest of one's life, why is it unethical to kill an early-development fetus to prevent the illnesses of pregnancy and the risks of childbirth? (As far as I know, it's still much more dangerous to the health and life of the mother to give birth than to have an abortion.)

The only reason that seems to be brought up is the right to life of the embryo/fetus/whatever stage it happens to be at. For that argument to stand, two issues must be resolved: 1) What makes that potentially-disease-or-death-inducing embryo/fetus/whatever any more worthy of life than a potentially-disease-or-death-inducing rat or mosquito that happened to find its way into my home? and 2) If your answer to the first question is one of potentiality, why are you not outraged over all of the potential lives that are caught in condoms, killed by spermicides, or fail to implant for whatever reason, be it "natural" or chemically induced? What about the fact that the rhythm method is quite possibly a bigger killer of fertilized eggs? Is that also unethical?

---

Oh, and re:

I argue that indeed something decisive does happen at conception [...] we are talking actual human development and a baby in nine months. It's a done deal.

Um, no, it's not. If my self-education is anywhere near accurate, the proportion of fertilized eggs that fail to implant is in the range of 50-80%. Somehow, I consider a chance of less than 50/50 to be far from a done deal. Now, are those millions of "deaths" each year as undesirable as the deaths of the already-self-aware? Should we halt research into cancer or heart disease, so we can deal with this recurring grand-scale tragedy?

But that is exactly how a woman's body treats a developing fetus. Some women have such aggressive immune systems, that they will always miscarry. Their body rejects the fetus, considering it foreign tissue, which it is.

If there is a situation where a particular woman's body rejects a developing fetus, it should not be extrapolated to turn human development into a disease. I would recommend looking at it for what it is - human development. Not trying to equate it to a disease or tumor.

I have a son, whom I love dearly, that my life carried for 8 1/2 months. She endured terrible nausea, leg pain, back pain, headaches, high blood pressure, and just managed to avoid being bed-ridden for the last month or so of the pregnancy. But she did all this willingly.

As an atheist, I understand this is my only existence for all eternity. I place incredible value on this existence, and by extension the existence of others. If there were significant pregnancy related health concerns regarding a woman, then it would be in keeping with this view to consider abortion. Regardless of this discussion, I think your wife's decision regarding the pregnancy, in spite of the threats to her health, is an example of what is best in people.

That is the difference. A person should be able to make terrible sacrifices for what she believes is important, just as my wife did. But you should never force someone to make a terrible sacrifice for something that you believe is important. How is that anything but slavery?

In this discussion I have not advocated forcing anyone to do anything, rather I have argued what a person should do, specifically pointing out what is rational in light of our atheism. I am trying to arrive at a position for atheists regarding abortion. I have given argument why I consider certain positions irrational or rational in keeping with our atheism.

Certainly as stated previously, I do not have all the answers concerning implementation in a social system. But I do think one of the key ingredients is to begin by advocating for the incredible value of our existence, something we as atheists are uniquely qualified to do, particularly as we don't have an eternal afterlife to fall back on.

You support the War on Terror: that involves some sacrifice ordered by leaders from their people.

The state should not intervene to prevent organ transfer. Nor should it intervene to prevent pregnancy continuing. If a private party other than the individuals concerened intervenes (by prevention), they may be guilty of murder and the state should deal with that appropriately