Where do we start off on a discussion about reproduction? A scientific discussion about reproduction starts with the development of germinal cells in a fetus which develop on their way to become fully functional adult reproductive organs and from there on to conception upto the child birth. But what are creationist discussions concerned about, under the heading of "reproduction"? Their idea of human life is a gift from god, and any discussion about the manufacture of this gift is often suppressed by "god did it". So what is this gift supposed to be? Sperm? ovum? viable fetus? newborn? Creationists aren't heard of talking like "god gifted the man a sperm and the woman an ovum, from which they could conceive a zygote". So is it a viable fetus? No, because the knowledge of age of viability was not known in biblical times and jesus never bothered to get bible updated on this. Its not a newborn because there is a deadly idea called "anti-abortion". Creationists aren't heard of making distinctions between "zygote", "embryo" and "fetus" in their anti-abortion propaganda, perhaps because of their ignorance of human embryology (I take it that they are ignorant of human embryology because it is actually a telltale of human evolution). Now, even if you confront a creationist with the implications of the differences between an embryo and a fetus, they are unlikely to care because it cant be like god put the fetus in there. He obviously did put the embryo. So it turns out that the starting point of any creationist's discussion of "life" is that zygote which transforms into an embryo in no time.

 1) THE GIFTS THAT WERE MEANT TO BE TAKEN BACK How would you like if someone snatches away roughly 50% of the most awaited gifts that they sent to your doorstep? What if you learn that he snatches away some of those gifts as soon as he places them on your door? I m talking about this "gift" of life, which unknown to most people on earth, is taken away from the womb (aborted) 50% of the time, naturally, without human intervention. Most of these are due to inherent defects in the embryo/fetus that are incompatible with intra-uterine survival (let alone extra-uterine survival as a newborn). Since a creationist pro-lifer's contention is that it is a sin to reject a gift from god, I take it that they assume that god is in control of the gifting process. What do we infer from this? 
  1. god is the one of most inefficient manufacturers known sending you defective products 50% of the time. This single handedly shuts the painfully idiotic contention that "god is impeccable", "god has never failed". Needless to point out that their scriptures themselves are a "proof" that god has failed in multiple famous biblical tales. The fact that his own creation can thoroughly figure out his mammoth failures undermines pascals wager and threats of a hell. What if 50% of the entries into hell are erred?
  2. Some theists might want to try shifting the blame to Satan, conveniently forgetting that the implication is that Satan is actually more powerful than god, screwing up 50% of his gifts. It would be even more shameful for god to prevent us from ethically increasing that percentage by a few extra percentages. As much as your god finds babies tasty, the best chance he seems to have against majority of human-induced gift-screwing is petty impotent anti-abortion campaigns by Christians.
  3. since some of the embryos do go on to be born, it implies that all humanity's induced abortions combined are still not a match for god's abortion rates. God was and remains the greatest abortionist ever.
 2) GIFTS THAT WON'T WORK IN YOUR WORLD ( OUTSIDE THE UTERUS) Ok, we all know that god hates women, especially their reproductive tract, but since this article is not about it, we are not stressing here enough about how painful it must be for a woman to take all the care to make the fetus survive her uterus for 9months only to learn at the time of labour that the fetus had an abnormality which would make it incapable of survival outside the uterus. It actually sounds like, knocking on your door and handing the gift into your hands and seeing it vanish in front of you. This should hit you, if you were indifferent about the gifts that he took away without your notice, as cited in previous section. Ok atheists find abortuses tasty, but creationist do count an "embryo" as a person. Their usual explanations for human suffering "god is testing you", "god is punishing you", "god is preparing you for something great", are not applicable to the suffering of this fetus which a creationist values as equal to a person. What the heck are you teaching to an unborn who is gonna be born dead anyways? Why does god allow his "children" to pray for a safe 9months of pregnancy and a safe delivery and give them a dead-born child? Don't you see that god is a psychopath here? Would you go like "god works in mysterious ways" if that child was to be your first born after a decade of infertility? But no, for the sake of your delusional faith, you wouldn't have gone for an abortion if your fetus's incompatibility with extra-uterine life was known much earlier in the pregnancy. Face it, you value your faith and hence yourself, over the growth of this embryo/ fetus into a stillborn. And so that your helpless attempt to safeguard your faith, your determination to not see your own idiocy and hypocrisy, will drive you to prevent other women from aborting a fetus that wasnt gonna survive anyways.  3)GIFTS THAT WOULD HAVE A SHORT, MISERABLE EXISTENCE, IN YOUR WORLD It doesn't matter if your child was diagnosed with encephalocele, retinoblastoma that is making its survival outside the uterus short and painful. It doesnt matter if scientists find out ways to diagnose this earlier in the pregnancy. Christians would simply end the discussion saying "its still a life", "you still dont have the right to change nature". Each year, 5 million children die before reaching the age of 5yrs. What purpose is served in their miserable little life? The very same people who say that "god called my beautiful child because he loved them" also hold that god is omnipresent. How does an omnipresent god fail to have your beautiful living child by his side? How does an omnipotent god fail to find a less painful way of doing that? Why send them on earth when they die before even knowing what life is? How does it still hold that god is in any way, pro-life?< Some would hold that the suffering of the child is a lesson to the parents, conveniently forgetting the obvious implication of the child's life being lesser in importance to the parent. If god and his followers can see a child's life as of no worth but a lesson to others, how do they overrate this "gift lesson" over the life of the pregnant mother?



Atheistextremist's picture

These are interesting points.


It's obviously common for believers to give the credit to a god-thing while apportioning the blame to humans. Like you, I can't understand why believers don't take the lord to task for his casual slaughter of the genetically impaired. I am sure the answer from believers would be that humans caused the problems, that satan caused the children to die, that we were not meant to know. All these answers come spring-loaded with bullshit. 

Something else you keep touching on PS, is that god hates women and it's an interesting point. Given men created god to explain the inexplicable, then men must use religion to muzzle women, to control their reproduction. Before I typed this sentence out I wasn't sure why men would behave this way but now it's writ it seems clearer to me. 

The sexes definitely compete over reproduction - rights, support, access to superior genes. This contest and the way it is formulated in religious dogma exposes yet again the moral inconsistencies of monotheistic doctrine. Power ceded to the dominant party is labelled good. Resistance is labelled by the controllers of commentary as evil. 

God people denigrate moral relativism but I think embracing it is the only way to a pure and contextual expression of the phrase 'harm no other'. 




