Atheist Ethics and Abortion

Some atheists seem to have strongly held beliefs about a whole host of things that have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence any deity/god/supreme being. And they are not always as clear about the evidence behind  those beliefs as they could be.

 For example, there is the ‘supernatural’. Most atheists do not believe in any form of telepathy, extra sensory perception, reincarnation, out of the body experiences, (except where that feeling has been induced by science) or any form of life after death. The reason is that there appears to be little or no evidence to support such beliefs. 

And I say the same thing – show me the evidence. 

But there are other areas where atheists are expected (or perhaps more respected within scientific circles for a particular attitude), to have certain views as a part of their atheistic ‘persona’, such as being pro-abortion.

Says who? Just because most churches are anti-abortion does not mean that atheists should automatically take the opposite point of view. Let’s take it from the women’s health point of view. Women should have control over their own body, and that’s not in doubt, but the growing body inside them is a separate entity. The argument can be made that an unwanted child would not have a good life and would have been better not to have been born. The mother may have to interrupt her career. The rest of the family may have a bit less in terms of material comforts. The unwanted child may be treated badly (although surely death is the worst form of child abuse) or grow up in a deprived environment. The parents may be able to save up less towards their first house. 

All this is true, of course, and yet there is still the fact that the growing body inside the pregnant mother-to-be is not a part of the mother’s body it is a separate (but dependant) entity, and if given the chance to live would no doubt be grateful for being alive unless so badly abused that it were suicidal, or (and this does not follow) so badly brought up that the child grew into a criminal providing no contribution to our society. 

The fact is that most of us are grateful to be alive and are a productive part of our society. And who knows what an aborted child (or whatever you want to call it at various stages of development) would have grown up to be? Sure, it could have been a couch potato spending its most productive years in front of the TV, scrounging on benefits. But it could have become a doctor or nurse. Or a physicist teaching us about the universe that surrounds us. Imagine the test were available to Steven Hawkins’ parents to diagnose that the child would grow up to have Motor Neurone Disease. The advice would probably be to have an abortion. And yet Hawkins has proved to be one of the most important thinkers of the 20th and 21st centuries. A contributor whose unique mind has given us insights into sub-atomic physics, astrophysics, time, space, gravity, black holes, and many other areas of science which he has popularised through his painstakingly written books. The world would be a much poorer place without him. Should he have been aborted before birth to save him the pain that the illness that started to strike him down whilst he was still a student would bring him? I think most people would answer ‘no’. He is, incidentally, an atheist. And glad to be alive.

How many brilliant minds has the world lost through abortion? How many chemical engineers, doctors, physicists, inventors, researchers, architects, humanitarians, Nobel Prize winners, and ordinary people who nevertheless would have played some part in this world, have we lost through abortion?

So back to women’s health. It is definitely a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. HER BODY. But I don’t see how it can possibly be her right to choose what she does with little James or Sareem growing inside her. 

And what harm does the abortion cause to the woman having the abortion?

Women’s Health after Abortion

Some short extracts:

  • Abortion increases a woman’s overall risk of breast cancer by 30 per cent.
  • The risk is likely much higher in women who have a first abortion at a young age, or who have a family history of breast cancer.
  • Since 1957, 23 of 37 worldwide studies show an increased breast cancer risk with abortion, a risk as high as 310 per cent.
  • Ten of fifteen U.S. studies confirm the abortion-breast cancer link.
  • The biological rationale for breast cancer development is related to the woman’s unprotected internal exposure to estrogen when a pregnancy is abruptly terminated early in gestation.
  • The magnitude of the risk has, until recently, been hidden by studies of poor quality, many of which have failed to separate induced abortion from low-risk spontaneous miscarriage.
  • The medical establishment is often slow to accept and respond to emerging data, slowed further, in this case, by the conflicting politics of abortion.
  • Recent studies have connected a higher risk of cervical and ovarian cancers to previous abortions, though the degree of risk varies from study to study.
  • A consistent finding has been the protective effect of full-term pregnancies against the onset of cancers of the reproductive system.
  • Researchers have found a connection between abortion and rectal cancer.
  • With reproductive and rectal cancers on the increase in women, more studies are needed, specifically to examine the connection between abortion and cancer.
  • A large-scale, authoritative Scandinavian study establishes post-pregnancy death rates within one year that are nearly four times greater among women who abort their pregnancies than among women who bear their babies. The suicide rate is nearly six times greater among aborting women than among women who give birth. These findings refute the oft-heard claim that induced abortion is safer than childbirth.
  • There is an urgent need for independent studies of maternal mortality related to abortion, and medical facilities should be required to keep more accurate and informative records so that women may be better served in this area.
  • Women report pain levels that are usually much worse than suggested in pre-abortion counseling.
  • Severe pain after abortion is strongly linked to depression before and after abortion.
  • Pain can be a key indicator of serious medical complications, a fact not often told to women.
  • Pain levels reported by women may be dismissed or minimized in surveys conducted by abortion practitioners.
  • There need to be more independent studies on the connection of abortion to pain.
  • After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide and attempts at suicide; mutilation and various forms of punishment (including repeat abortions and sterilization); drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse; and eating disorders as a way of denying or minimizing the guilt, pain and numbness they feel. 
  • Women who abort often have trouble bonding with the children of future pregnancies and have a higher chance of eventually abusing them, which leads to a cyclical pattern of abuse-abortion- abuse.
  • It seems clear, given the frequency of negative behavioral outcomes for women after abortion, that more thought needs to be given to appropriate therapy for women (and their children) who are at risk.


How abortion hurts women | NRL News Today…/how-abortion-hurts-women/

Aug 23, 2013 – In addition to its risks to a woman’s physical healthabortion can have …  with her partner and others and can adversely affect men and children.

A short extract:

Psychological risks of abortion

In addition to its risks to a woman’s physical health, abortion can have negative psycho-social consequences. A 2011 meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems among women who had undergone abortions; nearly 10 percent of the incidence of psychological problems was directly attributable to abortion. These problems included anxiety, depression, alcohol use, drug use and suicidal behavior.

A large-scale Finnish study found that the suicide rate following abortion was nearly six times greater than the suicide rate following childbirth. Conversely, although abortion is sometimes justified on the basis of mental health, a 2013 study concluded that the termination of unintended pregnancies had no therapeutic psychological benefit.

Abortion can also damage a woman’s relationships with her partner and others and can adversely affect men and children. Many women and men now regret their decision to procure or encourage an abortion, and many seek support and help to deal with their grief.

Dangers should not be ignored


To go on, A Woman’s Right to Choose is the most common pro-abortion statement. However, what has become clear is that women are not being given the full right to choose because the majority of women who have abortions are not aware of the risks, both short-term and long term. It seems fairly clear that in particular private abortion clinics would be going against their own self-interest to fully inform abortion candidates of the risks involved. They’d lose money. A Swedish study on the first link above, shows that the majority of women given pre-abortion counselling and informed of the risks, chose not to go ahead with the abortion. So yes, give women the right to choose, but ensure that they are fully informed of the risks involved.

I’ve made the point here that abortion is a matter of women’s rights, but the right to choose should lead to a fully informed choice, not simply a choice that is made and carried out without being fully informed of the risks and the latest research, and that abortion may harm a woman far more than carrying on with the pregnancy. This is a matter of fact that every candidate for abortion should be made aware of.

Finally, you may want to read

John Bremner

Categories: Atheist Articles, Top Links | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fundamentalist Islam

Today Islamic fundamentalists once again proved that they have no place in civilised society. Free speech is a basic human right in the west and we must fight to defend it. So while nobody likes the idea of the state monitoring all our emails our telephone calls our twitter messages, text messages and other communications, I’ve come to believe that we have to give up the right to that privacy in order to allow fundamentalists and the radicalised to be identified.

I think anyway there is a basic misunderstanding involved. Nobody is listening to the sweet nothings you whisper to your lover on the telephone. It would take millions of people to monitor millions of people. It must be done by software identifying patterns of behaviour or trigger words keywords and codewords. So if you’re doing nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to worry about, on the other hand if someone is planning an atrocity it can only be a good thing that the authorities have some way of finding out beforehand and stopping it before it happens.

That however does not mean that we can afford to be complacent. Terrorists, unless they are particularly stupid terrorists, have ways of hiding what they are planning. But it must be the case that someone or some people outside the terrorist group will suspect that something bad is being planned so it is up to ordinary people to report that to the authorities. If you’re wrong no harm done if you’re right you may save lives.

The concept of neighbourhood watch should now include watching for suspicious behaviour. If everyone does that we can stop the terrorists in their tracks.

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is one of the toughest psychological effects to overcome because the internal conflicts that it creates can have social, cultural and life-altering implications. In other words, the effects of cognitive dissonance can disrupt every aspect of life. And it does. Soldiers who believe in the cause they are fighting for experience cognitive dissonance when they begin to see injustices in how their ‘enemy’ is being treated. People who get caught committing adultery experience cognitive dissonance when they have to try to bring together the hidden aspects of their life with the person they project themselves to be to others. Religious followers experience cognitive dissonance when their scientific education shows them that most claims of their religious books are scientifically false to the point of being absurdities.

Wikipedia says the following:

Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals largely become psychologically distressed. His basic hypotheses are listed below:

“The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance.”
“When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.”

Cognitive dissonance is therefore one important reason why people will cling to existing belief systems rather than allowing fresh information to change their minds. It is such a powerful force that people will fight and die rather than bear the psychological stress of realising they have been under a false apprehension. And of course people have different levels of self-awareness, with more intelligent people generally being more self-aware. But intelligence does not always help – we can fool ourselves easier than others can fool us, no matter how intelligent we are, and we tend to fool ourselves a lot to avoid cognitive dissonance. We fool ourselves about who loves us, about who is good for us, and about most of the things we care about. This effectively means that we are wrong about most of the things we think we are right about.

As Einstein said famously, “We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know.”

So where does that leave us in our constant battle against cognitive dissonance? I believe we can learn something from Einstein and the others whose giant shoulders he stood on. Accept that we know next to nothing for certain. Question everything. Be a sceptic. Do not believe others without finding out for ourselves. And accept that there is a kind of war going on between those who would rather close their eyes and ears than subject themselves to a cognitive dissonance that they would have to deal with. Some people have the courage to face reality, and others do not, and that is probably why religion perpetuates itself in our technological world. And why religious people will kill for their particular version of reality to be the one that comes out top.

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Spirit of Enquiry

Doubt is the basis of all scientific progress. Without doubt, there is no enquiry, and without enquiry, there is no progress. Every scientific advance we have made is because of the spirit of enquiry.

We have to question ourselves constantly. Even with an expected result in an experiment, the scientist thinks, “Perhaps this is not true. Perhaps I should investigate… Let me find something wrong, maybe an inconsistency, and look for another answer.”

Imagine if things were different. Imagine if scientists just had faith in their results. Imagine vehicles built by engineers who put them out to the public without any testing because they had faith in their designs. Without questioning, without doubt, without the spirit of enquiry, there can be no progress.

Assume you believe in one or other religion. The same questions should be on your mind. What you have assumed to be true may not be true at all no matter how much faith you have.

The worst that can happen when questioning any belief is that we find we were previously wrong. Ask the same questions as the scientist. “Perhaps this is not true. Perhaps I should investigate… Let me find something wrong, maybe an inconsistency, and look for another answer.”

In a scientist, this involves perhaps submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed magazine where people will look sceptically at the conclusions of the scientist, follow the data sets and follow the reasoning before deciding whether to recommend rejection or publishing.

For someone questioning their own religious beliefs, perhaps they should start by reading the works of people who can expose the fallacies behind religious belief systems, not merely reading reinforcing works by others of the same faith. Tough questions are needed.

Of course, some people are scared to ask themselves those questions because deep in their hearts they know that their beliefs have no basis in reality, but to quote Socrates, who took great pleasure in exposing people who pretended to know things that they could not possibly know, such as the mind of a god, “The life which is unexamined is not worth living”.

All I know is that I know nothing. Socrates

But those with the courage to question themselves, to question their beliefs, to question what other people say, may be surprised by the light that comes into their lives.

John Bremner

Categories: Atheist Articles | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Ricky Gervais on Atheism – You must see this!

This is worth watching. Both Ricky and his commenter make great points. You just can’t argue with them.

Categories: Atheist Articles, From the Web | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation Bias

Following the blogs, there has been a lot of discussion lately about the effects of confirmation bias on the thoughts and behaviour of those people of a religious bent. Confirmation bias causes people to seek out information that confirms their world view, and avoid information that conflicts with that view. It is effectively a form of ‘reinforcement’ thinking that can affect even those of us who feel that we are completely open-minded. When, for example, I read a book or watch a YouTube video that supports my opinions on religion and atheism, I feel a certain sense of satisfaction that others think like me, that I am not alone in my views, and that, whether or not I am correct, I am justified in thinking as I do.

Similarly, a scientist searching for a solution to a problem may seek out and find data that confirm his or her theory, ignoring the awkward details that do not match. That is confirmation bias, and the scientific mind is not immune to its effects.

Fortunately in science, every result that is to become part of mainstream science has to be repeatable, peer reviewed, and judged by experts who are non-biased. Faulty conclusions rarely make it through the morass of scientific scrutiny.

In the religious world, though, confirmation bias is not dealt with in the same way. Religious people rarely read the works of those who disagree with them, and may actively seek to have such material banned. They tend to have friends with the same mindset, choose partners who have similar points of view, and oppose, sometimes violently, free-thinking, freedom of speech, and secularism. Nobody within their peer group is going to point out any error in their conclusions about the world, any error of logic in their thinking, or the lack of data on which they based their conclusions.

One has to ask the question: why is this the case? The answer has to be that there is a fundamental difference in the approach of people of science and people of religion. Scientific knowledge is in a constant state of flux, always modifying and changing according to any new evidence that presents itself. Scientific knowledge has to be verifiable and to be able to be proven wrong if it is possible to do so. Some of it proves to be true, and we have thus made progress, bit by bit, learning added to learning, knowledge added to knowledge, with even Newton standing on the shoulders of giants, just to see a little further. That is progress.

Religion, on the other hand, is more or less fixed in opinion and fixed in what religious people think of as knowledge. That ‘knowledge’ generally comes from a book that may be a very disjointed collection of translated, reinterpreted, misinterpreted essays and works of fiction and mushroom enhanced delusions, from people who lived thousands of years ago in the bronze and early iron ages – the ages of superstition and magical thinking.

Science is generally rejected, there is little or no progress, and religious people seek confirmation of their opinions and beliefs from people with the same mind-set who are never going to contradict them. This is their confirmation bias. They sing songs and say prayers and give worship to their gods and prophets. That others do what they do confirms their biased belief that they are not wrong.

And yet, with no way of testing their beliefs, with nobody who within their own religion will challenge them, with no way to verify what they believe, and only reinforcement from their peers, confirmation bias ensures that their beliefs, however deluded, will never be exposed for what they are. Something that is untestable, unproven, unverifiable, and defended against any criticism, can never be knowledge and can only ever be belief. People have died for that belief rather than admit they could be wrong, but the people who have killed them have been those who had similar but slightly different beliefs. Atheists do not have the same mindset. Atheism is not a belief system that seeks to persuasively or violently convert others to the same mindset. Atheists generally don’t care what other people believe so long as they do not try to convert others to their beliefs, if such beliefs cannot be scientifically justified

Science and religion can never be reconciled, despite what religious apologists suggest. Science deals with facts. As religious beliefs are disproven, doctrine by doctrine by science, religious tenets that can be relied upon fade into non-existence. Science and religion are not different domains, because the supernatural is also a domain of science to be investigated and dismissed if there is no evidence for it.

That religion allows confirmation bias to affect the judgement of their followers instead of helping people to think independently and intelligently, is a bad thing about religion.

Categories: Atheist Articles, Bad Things About Religion | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

So who created the Jesus myth?

I thought readers might be interested in this story…

Jesus is a Roman invention

Categories: From the Web, Top Links | Leave a comment

The Ten Commandments of Rational Debate

The Ten Commandments of Rational Debate

The Ten Commandments of Rational Debate

Categories: From the Web, Top Links | Leave a comment

There is nothing wrong with religion…

There is nothing wrong with religion… Except their belief systems, their perpetuation by pedophile preachers, their teachings, bigotry, insane prophets, murders, holy books, (and I mean there are a lot of holes in them), lack of critical thinking and logic, tortuous histories, anti-science outlooks, indoctrination of the young, claims to be any kind of guide to morality, subjugation of women, hypocrisy, misused wealth, sodomising monks, divisive schooling, interference in government, self-righteous holier-than-thou crap, claims to know the answer to everything, the stupidest memes, the big daddy in the sky, and ‘intelligent design’, which really means, ‘It’s too complicated for me to understand, so everything must’ve been done by a supernatural power, using magic.’

Categories: Atheist Articles | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Animal Treatment

One of the major issues that I see as a bad thing about religion – at least within the three main Abrahamic traditions, is the speciesism that is integral to the belief systems. Whilst it is true that there are some ‘laws’ laid down for the treatment and slaughter of animals in these belief systems, they are in many cases treated with appalling cruelty, from Josua’s crippling of horses, to horrific ritual sacrifices  designed to satisfy the whims of a god who enjoys the smell of burning flesh.

 Humans are seen as the top species on the planet with the right to do whatever we like to lesser animals. This ethos has so embedded itself in our society that many people, even scientists, deny that other species have consciousness, feel emotion, or can love and feel pain in the same way that we do.

Thus, as a species, we use animals in any way we like. There are tortuous experiments worldwide designed to inflict pain to test animal resilience, and these experiments are widely reported in respectable journals which seem to have the attitude that anything done in the name of science, no matter how cruel, is for the general good. So rats are bred to have terrible genetic diseases that give the poor creatures a lifetime of suffering. Chemicals are dropped into the eyes of rabbits to test how much damage they do to the rabbits’ eyesight, and LD 50 experiments are still carried out dispassionately to test how much of a particular toxic chemical, pesticide, or drug it takes to poison half of a group of animals to death. (The other half are killed anyway, so as to make a fresh start for the next experiment). The suffering that the animals undergo is not even a consideration. No ethical committee considers the nausea, the stomach cramps, the fear, the hopelessness, the agony, blisters, abandonment, desire for freedom, terror of the unknown, headaches, joint pains, organ failure or whatever else is experienced by the animals that we use so unthinkingly.

So much for human superiority… It only takes a little observation to realise that all animals are as capable as we are of suffering, and although all animals do not have the same level of consciousness that we do, they are undoubtedly conscious. They may not be able to think in words, but they can and do anticipate, and they show empathy for each other. Their stress hormone levels rise, like ours, when they are subjected to stressful conditions. They will move away from something that inflicts pain on them. They mourn, sometimes to death, over the loss of a companion. They enjoy play, much as we do. They clearly care for their young. I have seen blackbird parents frantically searching night and day for their lost young, taken by a cat. Dolphins and whales will strand themselves to stay with a sick friend or relative. And most animals will fight to protect their young.

So the question comes to consciousness… And it’s something about which we don’t really have a good enough definition. But common sense can tell us a lot. If an animal can make a decision, it is necessarily conscious, because consciousness is required to make decisions. So a hedgehog that decides to go to sleep rather than forage for more food is conscious. A goldfish that makes a decision to chase another rather than come up for food is conscious. Creatures of all kinds, including ourselves, consciously choose a mate from what they see as the fittest of the contenders. A lot of instinct, and perhaps pheromones are involved, but there always comes a time to make a decision.

Man’s dominion over other animals is not therefore because we have a god-given right, or because we have consciousness and they do not. Rather it is because our evolution has given us a peculiar form of intelligence combined with a dexterity that allows us to dominate other species. It could so easily been different.

In this vast universe though, where there are as many galaxies as there are grains of sand on the earth, there must be intelligences that are as far above humans as we are above fruit flies. Where then the superiority of humans? We think of ourselves as conscious, but there could easily be conscious beings in this universe who restrict their views of consciousnes, as we restrict our views in homocentric ways, to beings who can create matter at will, who have the mental power to be what we think of as gods. Only gods can thus be conscious. Ironically, such gods would likely be atheists.

The superiority of humans is therefore a very blinkered view, perpetuated by religions founded thousands of years ago, when we did not realise there were other worlds, and our imaginations were limited by daily survival as desert nomads. That this blinkered viewpoint still limits the consciousness of people, causing endless suffering to species that we think are by right, under our dominion, to kill at will, to bleed to death and eat, to torture in the name of science, is without doubt a bad thing about religion and a disgrace to any conscious human, religious or not.

Categories: Atheist Articles, Bad Things About Religion, Judaism | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment