WMN: t3_25jy2j_t1_chi03cg

[TITLE]

CMV: Opposing abortion in the first three months is a lot harder for an atheist than for a Christian.

[Abstract_Atheist]

I raised this point in /r/PoliticalDiscussion and apparently it's a controversial issue, so I thought I would defend it here to expose myself to the arguments of the other side. This is not an issue I have studied in detail, so I am open to having my mind changed. I think a Christian has a fairly easy time of deciding what to believe about abortion, provided that they take the Bible to be inerrant. The Bible, or the interpretation of the Bible that a suitable authority uses, says that abortion is wrong, so it's always wrong. Maybe we could make a few exceptions in extreme cases like rape, but it is certainly not acceptable to have an abortion to make the mother's life easier. An atheist, on the other hand, will typically have a very different epistemology. Most atheists will base their position on abortion on their perception of the evidence and their own moral convictions. This makes it much harder to oppose abortion during the first three months because a fetus lacks a number of important features during that time frame; it is not conscious until 24-28 weeks, for example ([source](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/)). The mother's rights clearly take precedence here. I have restricted this CMV to the first three months because I realize that an atheist might be able to make a reasonable case for banning abortion at a later stage in the pregnancy. I don't have a position on that issue, myself, but I think abortion in the first three months should be pretty cut and dry for an atheist. Edit: Some people are confused about what I believe. I am an atheist, as my username should indicate, and my personal position on abortion is that it should definitely be legal for the first three months. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[AutoModerator]

**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/abortion#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *[I am a bot](/r/AutoModerator/comments/q11pu/what_is_automoderator/), and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[badnews4u]

Speak for yourself

[Momentumle]

I have a few points that I would like you to weigh in on, to see if I have misunderstood your view. You seem to assume that atheists are more rigorous in their exploration of facts, I don’t think that is always the case. /r/theredpill seems to be mostly atheists, and their relation to scientific facts are at best questionable. Furthermore, you seem to assume that all reasonable atheists will arrive at a conclusion that is in favor of abortion. Hitchens, which is one of the big shots over in /r/atheism, was anti-abortion.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> You seem to assume that atheists are more rigorous in their exploration of facts, I don’t think that is always the case. /r/theredpill seems to be mostly atheists, and their relation to scientific facts are at best questionable. [END-CITE]I'm certainly not claiming that all atheists are perfectly rigorous in their evaluation of facts. Rather, I'm claiming that it's harder for an atheist to arrive at the conclusion that abortion in the first three months is wrong, because they tend to have a more fact based epistemology. [STA-CITE]> Furthermore, you seem to assume that all reasonable atheists will arrive at a conclusion that is in favor of abortion. Hitchens, which is one of the big shots over in /r/atheism, was anti-abortion. [END-CITE]I'm not familiar with Hitchens' reasoning for that position.

[SinceAntiquity]

This is true, its a bit harder for us atheists to be against abortion in the first three weeks, since we don't believe in a soul. Personally I'm mixed on this, but it should interesting to note that Christopher Hitchins is actually pro-life, he said something along the lines that he believes in concespts, so to him that the embryo will be human is an argument for him, he says it better find it on Youtube.

[sillybonobo]

It depends. If you ascribe to certain arguments, such as Don Marqui's 'a future like ours', then there is no more difficulty. In fact, it is not much harder to defend an anti-abortion stance at < 3 months than in the second or third trimester. The appreciable differences in fetal development are minimal (at least morally relevant ones) and a regress argument is rather easy to get going. I would even go so far as to claim the success of philosophical, secular regress arguments against abortion is what is leading many defenders of abortion to rethink 'after birth abortion' as well.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> It depends. If you ascribe to certain arguments, such as Don Marqui's 'a future like ours', then there is no more difficulty. [END-CITE]Can you explain his argument? [STA-CITE]> In fact, it is not much harder to defend an anti-abortion stance at < 3 months than in the second or third trimester. The appreciable differences in fetal development are minimal (at least morally relevant ones) and a regress argument is rather easy to get going. [END-CITE]A regress argument is not tenable. It is like saying that a seed is a tree because it will eventually grow into a tree. A full grown tree is a tree, and a slightly younger tree is still a tree, and a slightly younger tree than that is still a tree, and so on, so a seed is a tree. It's an absurd way to argue.

[sillybonobo]

[STA-CITE]>Can you explain his argument? [END-CITE]Not in detail now. The gist is that the fetus has a future like ours, and thus deserves protection. You can see the argument here: http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf [STA-CITE]>A regress argument is not tenable. It is like saying that a seed is a tree because it will eventually grow into a tree. A full grown tree is a tree, and a slightly younger tree is still a tree, and a slightly younger tree than that is still a tree, and so on, so a seed is a tree. It's an absurd way to argue. [END-CITE]Only if your regress argument is as flatfooted as that. Of course, you can make a convincing argument that there is no substantive moral difference between a born baby and a fetus Birth-1 day and so on. You don't need to claim that the fetus is a **full-blown person**, you just need to claim that there is no morally significant difference was you regress. Essentially, the fetus deserves the basic rights of any person because the necessary conditions for its basic rights obtain at the early stages.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> Not in detail now. The gist is that the fetus has a future like ours, and thus deserves protection. [END-CITE]My initial response, based on your description, is that I don't see how having a future is enough to give something rights. A potential person is not the same as an actual person. But I haven't read the full article at this point. [STA-CITE]> Only if your regress argument is as flatfooted as that. Of course, you can make a convincing argument that there is no substantive moral difference between a born baby and a fetus Birth-1 day and so on. You don't need to claim that the fetus is a full-blown person, you just need to claim that there is no morally significant difference was you regress. [END-CITE]How is that different from arguing that a seed is a tree? [STA-CITE]> Essentially, the fetus deserves the basic rights of any person because the necessary conditions for its basic rights obtain at the early stages. [END-CITE]What are "the necessary conditions for its basic rights?"

[sillybonobo]

[STA-CITE]>My initial response, based on your description, is that I don't see how having a future is enough to give something rights. A potential person is not the same as an actual person. But I haven't read the full article at this point. [END-CITE]The argument doesn't require that the thing in question is a person at all. The claim is that the morally relevant condition to have a right against being killed is that an organism has a future like ours. [STA-CITE]>How is that different from arguing that a seed is a tree? [END-CITE]Well let's be careful here. I was posing the question to the person who claimed that, for instance, it is not permissible to kill a baby after birth but that it was permissible to kill a fetus prior to birth. The question was, what is the morally significant difference between the two. It is generally accepted that a fetus one day from being born and that half a be one day after being born have no significant moral difference. Thus the regress can get started with no requirement to call the fetus a PERSON. The only requirement is that the fetus shares certain facts with people, and those facts confer the protection against being killed. And come to think of it, your example about the seed being a tree is only counterintuitive in a certain light. A seed having been planted in the ground does share something significant with a tree, as does a sapling, as does a sprout etc. I think you are too caught up on the idea that anybody attacking abortion has the claim that the fetus is a full-blown person. They don't. All we have to maintain is that the fetus shares certain moral facts with people which provide the rights in question.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> The argument doesn't require that the thing in question is a person at all. The claim is that the morally relevant condition to have a right against being killed is that an organism has a future like ours. [END-CITE]I've finished reading the article, and you're right that that particular criticism of mine was off target. However, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has offered a [rebuttal](http://sites.duke.edu/wsa/papers/files/2011/05/Reply-to-Marquis-on-Abortion.pdf) to Marquis' article. The gist of the article is that there is a difference between neutral losses and moral losses. A neutral loss is a loss of something that the loser did not have a moral right to, and a moral loss is a loss of something that they did have a right to. An example of a neutral loss is a runner losing a race to a faster opponent. Sinnott-Armstrong revises Marquis' principle to say that it is morally wrong to cause someone the moral loss of their future, and asserts that Marquis has not shown that the fetus' loss of its life in an abortion is a moral loss. We can imagine plausible cases in which someone could suffer the neutral loss of their future, but not the moral loss of their future. For example, suppose Bob is sick and has a medicine that he needs to take every day or he will be seriously ill for nine months and suffer all sorts of repercussions for his career and family life. However, Alan has a more severe version of the same disease which will cause him to die if he does not take the same medicine every day, and comes to Bob to beg for the medicine. If Bob refuses to give Alan the medicine, is that a moral loss for Alan? Sinnott-Armstrong suggests that it isn't a moral loss, or at least that it isn't clearly a moral loss. Anyway, I would suggest reading the whole article. [STA-CITE]> Well let's be careful here. I was posing the question to the person who claimed that, for instance, it is not permissible to kill a baby after birth but that it was permissible to kill a fetus prior to birth. The question was, what is the morally significant difference between the two. It is generally accepted that a fetus one day from being born and that half a be one day after being born have no significant moral difference. Thus the regress can get started with no requirement to call the fetus a PERSON. The only requirement is that the fetus shares certain facts with people, and those facts confer the protection against being killed. [END-CITE]We pass through a gray area, but that doesn't mean that there are no black and white cases at the extreme ends. It is wrong to kill a newborn infant, it is not entirely clear whether it is wrong to abort a fetus in the last three months or so of the pregnancy, and it is clear that it is not wrong to abort a fetus in the first three months of the pregnancy. [STA-CITE]> And come to think of it, your example about the seed being a tree is only counterintuitive in a certain light. A seed having been planted in the ground does share something significant with a tree, as does a sapling, as does a sprout etc. [END-CITE]Are you seriously arguing that a seed is a tree? [STA-CITE]> I think you are too caught up on the idea that anybody attacking abortion has the claim that the fetus is a full-blown person. They don't. All we have to maintain is that the fetus shares certain moral facts with people which provide the rights in question. [END-CITE]What moral facts are those?

[moonflower]

As others have said, there is nothing in the bible about abortion, and in any case, Christians are in exactly the same position as atheists regarding where they get their moral instruction from ... basically, they both come to their conclusions by listening to trusted advisors and then considering their own thoughts on the subject. An atheist can value a human life just as much as a Christian can.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> As others have said, there is nothing in the bible about abortion, and in any case, Christians are in exactly the same position as atheists regarding where they get their moral instruction from ... basically, they both come to their conclusions by listening to trusted advisors and then considering their own thoughts on the subject. [END-CITE]So why do so many pro-lifers oppose abortion on religious grounds? [STA-CITE]> An atheist can value a human life just as much as a Christian can. [END-CITE]Of course they can.

[moonflower]

They oppose it on religious grounds because they trust their family and community and religious leaders to interpret the bible for them and tell them what to think

[Abstract_Atheist]

That's my point.

[moonflower]

Then your argument doesn't hold up, because that's exactly the same as atheists do - they get their morals from the people who they trust

[Abstract_Atheist]

Good point, but I think atheists tend to rely less on the people they trust than religious people do. Atheists don't have a culture that says "believing everything in this book unquestioningly is the most important thing in the world." Also, I think that the people atheists trust are more likely to be in favor of legalizing abortion.

[Russian_Surrender]

[STA-CITE]> Atheists don't have a culture that says "believing everything in this book unquestioningly is the most important thing in the world." [END-CITE]Christians don't have such a culture either. I said it much more lengthy in another post, but your perception of Christians does not reflect reality and it results in your view being based upon a false premise. Your view is no different than a Christian claiming "atheists have no logical reason to be morally opposed to killing innocents since they have no authority figure upon which to base their morality".

[moonflower]

When you say ''I think atheists tend to rely less on the people they trust than religious people do'' that's just you being prejudiced ... I think atheists grow up getting their morals from their family and community just as much as Christians do. And if you think atheist parents and communities are more likely to be in favour of abortion, that is shifting the goalposts and changing the argument completely to one of ''I think people are more likely to be in favour of abortion if their parents are in favour of it'' and it no longer has anything to do with religion.

[NaturalSelectorX]

[STA-CITE]> The Bible ..... says that abortion is wrong, so it's always wrong. [END-CITE]Please go read the bible. When it does talk about abortion, it is clear that killing a fetus is not the same as murder. [STA-CITE]> Maybe we could make a few exceptions in extreme cases like rape [END-CITE]How can you make an exception? Abortion is always wrong, right? It seems that your personal morals are leaking into this decision.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> Please go read the bible. When it does talk about abortion, it is clear that killing a fetus is not the same as murder. [END-CITE]That's interesting, but many Christians do not interpret the Bible that way. [STA-CITE]> How can you make an exception? Abortion is always wrong, right? It seems that your personal morals are leaking into this decision. [END-CITE]I'm not a Christian, as my username should indicate to you. I am merely reporting what some Christians believe. I agree that there are inconsistencies in the belief system they hold.

[NaturalSelectorX]

[STA-CITE]> That's interesting, but many Christians do not interpret the Bible that way. [END-CITE]Therefore, the only reason it's easy for Christians is because they are using their intuition over the facts in the bible. Do Christians have an intuition that Atheists lack?

[Abstract_Atheist]

It seems that way. It's much more common to find Christians opposing abortion on religious grounds than it is to find atheists who oppose abortion, at least in my experience.

[bameadow]

Does OP assume that opposing abortion is a morally superior position? If not, then what difference does it make? This post makes my head hurt... no offense OP.

[Abstract_Atheist]

Good point. I'll edit the OP to make my personal positions clear.

[bameadow]

cool. It may also just be me. Sometimes it takes me a while to get things.

[Abstract_Atheist]

I don't think so. I've gotten other comments that seemed confused about my positions.

[Russian_Surrender]

The bible doesn't say anything about abortion. The bible doesn't mention abortion. When the bible was written, the concept of abortion didn't exist (at least in nothing that resembles modern-day abortions). The bible says killing is wrong. If you believe abortion kills a human being, then it is fairly easy to oppose it. And I'm fairly certain that most atheists believe that killing (innocents) is wrong, regardless of what anyone else, or any book, says.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> The bible doesn't say anything about abortion. The bible doesn't mention abortion. When the bible was written, the concept of abortion didn't exist (at least in nothing that resembles modern-day abortions). [END-CITE]Fair point. [STA-CITE]> The bible says killing is wrong. If you believe abortion kills a human being, then it is fairly easy to oppose it. And I'm fairly certain that most atheists believe that killing (innocents) is wrong, regardless of what anyone else, or any book, says. [END-CITE]We kill things all the time. We even kill human things all the time, whenever we scratch an itch and wipe out a few of our skin cells. Not everything human is a person with the right to life. At best, a fetus is a potential person, but a potential person is not an actual person and does not have the same rights.

[_MrObvious_]

"At best, a fetus is a potential person, but a potential person is not an actual person and does not have the same rights." I see this all the time and I don't understand. This simply is assumed to be true. Why does a potential person not have rights?

[ProfQuirrell]

[STA-CITE]>We even kill human things all the time, whenever we scratch an itch and wipe out a few of our skin cells. Not everything human is a person with the right to life. At best, a fetus is a potential person, but a potential person is not an actual person and does not have the same rights. [END-CITE]I want to note that you've done something sort of tricky here with your language and understanding of biology. "Human Being" and "Person" are very distinct concepts. The term "human being" usually refers to a genetically unique organism of human origin. A fetus is, certainly, a human being (just one in the very early stages of development). A skin cell is not a human being (if you don't believe me, please refer back to your high school biology textbook). A sex cell is not a human being, though the zygote that is created upon the merging of two sex cells is a human being. Shifting the argument from "it is wrong to kill a human being" to "it is wrong to kill a person" is an important difference and you ought to note the change and define your concept of personhood and why you think your definition correct and useful. EDITED FOR CLARITY

[Abstract_Atheist]

You have unfortunately begged the question by asserting that a fetus is a human being. It is human, no doubt, but that it is a human being is much more debatable. This is the anti-abortionist predicament: either they agree that the fetus is merely a cluster of human cells, in which case it probably doesn't have rights, or they assert that the fetus is a human being, in which case they beg the question. It seems better to just back off from the "human / human being" line of argument altogether.

[ProfQuirrell]

I have not begged the question. I nowhere agreed that the moral rule was "it is wrong to kill human beings"; I merely want to point out that "human beings" and "persons" are distinct concepts and should not be used interchangeably as you have done. And if you are using "human beings" and "persons" to refer to the same thing I think you should have a word that can differentiate between a zygote and a skin cell since they are, biologically, very different.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> I have not begged the question. I nowhere agreed that the moral rule was "it is wrong to kill human beings"; I merely want to point out that "human beings" and "persons" are distinct concepts and should not be used interchangeably as you have done. [END-CITE]Is that true? What is an example of a human being that is not a person? [STA-CITE]> And if you are using "human beings" and "persons" to refer to the same thing I think you should have a word that can differentiate between a zygote and a skin cell since they are, biologically, very different. [END-CITE]Are the differences relevant to the abortion debate, though?

[ProfQuirrell]

[STA-CITE]>Is that true? What is an example of a human being that is not a person? [END-CITE]I usually see pro-choice advocates using a *fetus* as an example of just that, but defining terms is always a problem in these kinds of discussions. My definition of "human being", as above, is **a genetically unique organism of human origin**. It's an easy concept with good scientific backing. My definition of "person" is a conscious being that knows itself and knows of its own existence. There are a *lot* of different definitions of "person" used in these kinds of debates. Feel free to substitute in your own definitions as you please; I'm happy to use your terms. [STA-CITE]>Are the differences relevant to the abortion debate, though? [END-CITE]Well, every discussion is different, but usually when I have this conversation people dismiss the moral worth of a fetus through direct comparisons to skin cells and the like when it seems obvious to me that they are very, very different. But since I haven't had the pleasure of this conversation with *you* before I'm not sure if it's something we would need to discuss or not. Now, a lot of people try to frame this as a rights issue, but I'm not sure that's the most useful way to go about this as nailing down the definition of "human right" and what sorts of things have them and how we know what rights human even have is just a mess. Really, the moral question that is key is "What sorts of things are wrong to kill?" *That* is not a trivial question. What makes killing wrong? What sorts of characteristics does a thing need to have before we shy away from killing it? Is consciousness necessary? This is where it's important for us to know what you mean by "person", "human", "human being", "human thing", etc and it frustrated me that you used those terms, to my mind, interchangeably. Of course, you've been perfectly cordial so far and you used "begging the question" in the logically correct sense and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that. :)

[Russian_Surrender]

[STA-CITE]> We kill things all the time. We even kill human things all the time, whenever we scratch an itch and wipe out a few of our skin cells. [END-CITE]I guess I should have clarified that the bible says killing **humans** is wrong. [STA-CITE]> Not everything human is a person with the right to life. At best, a fetus is a potential person, but a potential person is not an actual person and does not have the same rights. [END-CITE]That's right. But it is an opinion that can be equally analyzed and formed by either an atheist or a Christian. Your entire view seems to be based upon the fact that "Christians have a book that tells them that killing innocent humans is wrong", while atheists have nothing comparable to that. My point is (and why I feel your view is wrong) that neither Christians nor atheists need a book to tell them that killing an innocent human is wrong. Either person can come to that conclusion on their own, based upon their own, personal moral code. Having it written in a book has 0% impact on that analysis and decision - for both atheists and Christians.

[Abstract_Atheist]

My position is not that it's easier for a Christian to conclude that killing innocent people is wrong than for an atheist. My position is that a Christian is more likely to apply that rule to the case of abortion if they have an authority figure that they trust telling them that abortion is wrong. This is why I was careful to add "or the interpretation of the Bible that a suitable authority uses" in the OP. Maybe your position is that Christians who don't have an authority figure telling them that abortion is wrong are in the same position as atheists, so I shouldn't have generalized my claim to all Christians. But I don't agree that I need to restrict my claim, because a Christian, in most cases, has conceded the premise that the Bible or an interpreter of the Bible has automatic authority over what is right or wrong. (God is infallible, so he doesn't need to provide evidence.) Even if they don't draw the conclusion that abortion is wrong, it is much easier for them to do so when they are operating on that premise and there are so many prominent evangelical Christians going around saying that abortion is wrong.

[Russian_Surrender]

Ahh, I see... While it may not encompass your entire view, I think it would be easier to debate the issue if you limited your view to "modern day Catholics". Pope Francis [has condemned abortion](http://www.lifesitenews.com/pope-francis-calls-abortion-an-abominable-crime-in-strongest-remarks-to-dat2.html) quite explicitly. So if you were to limit your view to Catholics, would it be fair to phrase it something like: "Opposing Abortion is easier for Catholics because they follow the word of the Pope, and the Pope says abortion is wrong". To extend that to your more broad view, would it be fair to phrase it as: "Opposing Abortion is easier for Christians because they follow the word of the bible, and the bible says abortion is wrong". I think the first one, limiting it to Catholics, is more precise because it avoids the debate over whether the authority (the Pope or the Bible) states that abortion is wrong. It seems there is no debate over the Pope's position, but there could be debate over what the bible says about abortion. By limiting the discussion of the view to Catholics, we can avoid the debate over what the bible says. [STA-CITE]> a Christian, in most cases, has conceded the premise that the Bible or an interpreter of the Bible has automatic authority over what is right or wrong. [END-CITE]I think this is where you have a disconnect in your view. Like many (Christians and non-Christians), you make a fairly big assumption about what Christians believe and what they consider an "authority". Rare is the modern-day Christian who unquestioningly follows the bible as an infallible authority. Rare is the modern-day Catholic who unquestioningly follows the Pope as the infallible authority. So, your view is based upon one of two inaccurate premises: 1. A large portion of Christians actually believe the bible to be "the final authority" or, 2. Only people who accept the bible as the "final authority" are *truly* Christians, meaning that you're position is focused upon a very, very small portion of people who refer to themselves as Christians. So, if your position is based upon #2, then your view is probably accurate. If people determine their lives and their moral codes based upon what someone else tells them their moral code should be, then it is much easier for them to defend *any* of their views (abortion or otherwise). All they have to do is say "but the authority tells me this, and the authority is always right, so my view is right". I don't think there are many people who live their life and determine their morals like that. So I think what you're really referring to in your OP is the group in #1 that *refer to themselves as Christians*, regardless of whether you or anyone else would consider them to be Christians. That group forms their opinions and moral codes in the same exact manner that atheists do. Based upon life experience and their own assessments of right and wrong. And both groups are in the exact same position when it comes to defending their views (on abortion, or anything else). To the extent a book supports the view that they form independent of the book, they *may* use the book to support their position. But another person in this thread provided support from the book to show that the bible supports abortion, so the book can really be used to support any position if you want to make it support that position. *Edited to attempt to clarify*

[Abstract_Atheist]

I'm going to give you a delta, because this is a very sympathetic reading of my view and it integrates most of the concerns I've raised so far in this thread. &#8710; The question is really about how many Christians take the Bible or a suitable authority to be the final word on moral issues, and how many Christians tend to form their moral convictions based on reflection and life experience. One of my premises in the OP was that Christians and atheists have fundamentally different epistemologies, but you seem to be challenging that assumption. According to [this poll](http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx) by Gallup, 30% of Americans take the Bible literally, word for word, and a further 49% think that the Bible was inspired by God but is not accurate word for word. A lot of them probably don't take their religious beliefs all that seriously, but this does show that a substantial proportion of Christians claim to think that the Bible is authoritative. It's not just a wacky, fringe view. Again, [this poll](http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx) by Gallup shows that 46% of Americans think that God created humans in their present form, and 32% think that God guided the course of human evolution. I would interpret this as evidence that most modern Christians take the Bible and other suitable authorities as a legitimate source of knowledge about scientific matters, and probably moral matters as well. Again, we don't know how many of them take their stated beliefs seriously, but the evidence suggests that they have significant respect for the Bible. So it seems to me that Christians are much more vulnerable to being seduced by the arguments of the anti-abortion side, provided their leaders make anti-abortion arguments, than atheists, because they accept the Bible as an authority.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Russian_Surrender. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Russian_Surrender)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[Russian_Surrender]

Thanks. I tend to take some surveys like that with a grain of salt. I think a lot of people answer the way they *think* they should without regard to how they actually feel. Hell, [96% of Americans think they are smarter than average](http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/average-americans-think-they-re-smarter-than-the-average-american-20140512)

[Not_Pictured]

[STA-CITE]> My position is that a Christian is more likely to apply that rule to the case of abortion if they have an authority figure that they trust telling them that abortion is wrong. [END-CITE]Which authority figure is that? [STA-CITE]> Even if they don't draw the conclusion that abortion is wrong, it is much easier for them to do so when they are operating on that premise and there are so many prominent evangelical Christians going around saying that abortion is wrong. [END-CITE]So basically your argument is "people who have no logical basis for their ethical system are more likely to agree with others who also have no logical basis for their ethical system because of the popularity fallacy (argumentum ad populum) and/or appeals to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate)"?

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> Which authority figure is that? [END-CITE]Anyone who opposes abortion and is in a position of authority with respect to a group of Christians. [STA-CITE]> So basically your argument is "people who have no logical basis for their ethical system are more likely to agree with others who also have no logical basis for their ethical system because of the popularity fallacy (argumentum ad populum)"? [END-CITE]Something like that, sure.

[Not_Pictured]

I would argue you defined the group you are talking about and the topic itself far too narrowly. Otherwise, no disagreement.

[Abstract_Atheist]

Cool. Thanks for the conversation.

[BlinkingZeroes]

[STA-CITE]>I guess I should have clarified that the bible says killing humans is wrong. [END-CITE]I think you may need to clarify further here. I'm reluctant to derail the line of conversation, but it must be noted that rather than say killing humans is wrong, the Bible outlines many, many instances where killing is not only right, but is demanded. A couple examples: [STA-CITE]>Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) [END-CITE]& [STA-CITE]>All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) [END-CITE]Of which there are many more examples.

[Russian_Surrender]

That's fine. No real need to take this down a religious debate (or, worse, a debate over biblical interpretation). The OP's contention is that a Christian's opposition to abortion is easier to defend because they have a book to tell them that killing innocent humans is wrong. If your contention is that the book doesn't even say that in the first place, then it only further derides the OP's position. As under this scenario, atheists and Christians are both in the same place: neither has a book telling them that abortion is wrong. So both a Christian and an atheist will be equals in their defense of abortion opposition, as neither has a book to support their position.

[BlinkingZeroes]

And on this, I believe we agree.

[CowboyProgrammer]

[STA-CITE]> The bible doesn't say anything about abortion [END-CITE]It sure does! http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

[Russian_Surrender]

Odd link that I didn't read all of, but I did do a word search and the word abortion did not appear in any of the bible quotes. As I said, the bible says nothing about abortion.

[CowboyProgrammer]

Ah, ctrl-F didn't work, so it must not exist in context. Gotcha.

[Russian_Surrender]

I said "abortion is not mentioned in the bible". You claimed it was and provided a link to allegedly prove it. The quotes from the bible on the link you provided did not mention abortion. Unless you have other information, it seems that my original statement is not refuted by your link. I conclude that I was correct and that "abortion is not mentioned in the bible".

[KimJongUnsGirlfriend]

Abortion is simply a medical term for the removal of a pregnancy. In context, the passages do support the termination of pregnancy or the 'cleansing of a womb' (not a quote, but a paraphrase).

[Russian_Surrender]

I did take the time to read through the passages. I understand how someone looking to interpret them in a particular way, could certainly interpret them the way you are suggesting. I wouldn't interpret them that way. Actually, without researching the context (which I'm not interested in doing) of the passages, I couldn't really interpret them at all. Just seemed like gobblygook to me.

[kairisika]

The bible clearly states that life begins before birth, and it clearly states that murder of a human is wrong. Combining those two gives a pretty clear position on abortion. An atheist must come up with their own reasons to determine when life begins, and whether murder is okay if it begins before birth.

[jmsolerm]

[STA-CITE]> The bible doesn't say anything about abortion. The bible doesn't mention abortion. When the bible was written, the concept of abortion didn't exist (at least in nothing that resembles modern-day abortions). [END-CITE]As far as I remember: * The Bible instructs an "infidelity test", making the pregnant woman drink an abortive substance, and God makes it work or not depending on who the father was. * Causing a miscarriage or killing a newborn is treated as a property crime, and a monetary compensation suffices. Not even "an eye for an eye".