Given the extremism in the U.S. today, I think this topic requires a much more detailed and well-thought out post. This post contains information that may be relevant anywhere, but is deliberately U.S. focused. I am a U.S. citizen. I am seeing increasing extremism in my country. I am appalled by the treatment of women in the U.S. today. Increasingly, we are passing legislation that turns women into incubators. I only wish that The Handmaid’s Tale were more far-fetched than it actually is.

These days, I’m even seeing people on the reddit sub /r/atheism arguing from a non-religious standpoint about why they think the anti-choice stance makes sense. I can’t understand that and want to have an answer on hand ready to explain all of the very many reasons why the so-called pro-life but really pro-fetus, anti-choice, and anti-woman stance is horrifically cruel and cannot be supported rationally.

Note that this is an amalgam of posts I’ve written on reddit. I’m going to attempt to concatenate them together and edit them into a coherent whole. I hope to succeed.

The first thing to understand is that the pain receptors do not form until the 24th to 26th week. So, by definition, there can be no pain or suffering from any abortion before that time. From the linked article:

Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks’ gestation.

The second thing to understand is that there are birth defects that can’t be detected until the 24th week, which is almost a month after most of the abortion bans in this country that are now being pushed to 20 weeks or even earlier. Performing an ultrasound to look for defects at 20-22 weeks is fairly standard and has a high rate of success in finding birth defects.

There are birth defects that cannot be detected in the first trimester. And some, including Down’s Syndrome may not be detectable in the first trimester even though it sometimes is.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html

It’s good that we can detect most birth defects by week 22 because, as mentioned above, the neural development required to actually feel pain does not form until at a minimum the 24th week.

This means that if not for all of the stupid 20 week abortion bans being passed in a huge number of states, we’d be able to save those poor fetuses from developing pain receptors and put them out of their misery before their misery even begins, i.e. before they are sentient (able to feel).

The third thing to understand is that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.

The majority (67.0%) of abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and 91.5% were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation (Table 7). Few abortions were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation (7.2%) or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.3%).

Or, at least if our laws were reasonable, they would be! The abortion restrictions in place today and the closures of abortion clinics that often cause women to travel tremendous distances to get their abortions do delay abortions pushing them later and later toward and sometimes beyond those same 20 week ban times.

The fourth thing to understand is that absolutely NO ONE is pro-abortion. The people who call themselves anti-abortion (or pro-life) in the U.S. today unfortunately also support a variety of policies that increase unwanted pregnancy and the need for abortion. They push things like abstinence only sex education. Science based sex ed delays onset of sexuality and increases use of birth control. Also, availability of birth control reduces the need for abortion. But, the same people opposing legal abortion are pushing back against requirements to provide insurance coverage for birth control. So, all of those policies that make it harder to get birth control or more expensive only increase unwanted pregnancy and the need for abortion. This means those screaming most loudly about stopping abortions are often the ones supporting the policies that increase the need for and number of abortions.

The fifth thing to understand about abortion is that “partial birth abortion” is a political term, not a medical term. The procedure is called intact dilation and extraction (IDX). It is used very rarely and almost exclusively to save the life of the mother or to remove dead fetuses in women who have had miscarriages. This is not an elective procedure.

In 2000, although only 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States were performed using this procedure, it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate.

Patients who are experiencing a miscarriage or who have fetuses diagnosed with severe congenital anomalies may prefer an intact procedure to allow for viewing of the remains, grieving, and achieving closure. In cases where an autopsy is requested, an intact procedure allows for a more complete examination of the remains. An intact D&E is also used in abortions to minimize instruments introduced into the uterus, therefore reducing the risk of trauma. It also reduces the risk of cervical lacerations that may be caused by the removal of bony parts from the uterus, or retention of any fetal parts in the uterus.

That we made this procedure unavailable in such cases has likely caused a lot of suffering in this small percentage of cases and done nothing to help women or prevent abortions.

The sixth thing you should understand is that almost 15 times as many women die per 100,000 childbirths as do per 100,000 abortions. So, forcing women to carry to term and deliver a baby will result in the deaths of women. The mother’s life is always at much greater risk from childbirth than from abortion. This is a crucial point in this debate.

U.S. mortality statistics for women in childbirth versus abortion:

The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

Translation: For every 1,000,000 women you force to carry to term, instead of 6 women dying, 88 women will die. Requiring a million women to carry to term will kill 82 more women than allowing abortion.

This death sentence for pregnancy is not to be taken lightly.

The seventh thing I’d like to point out is that declaring a fetus to be a person means that a woman who miscarries can be charged with murder. This is not hypothetical. Purvi Patel has already experienced this first hand. She has the dubious distinction of being the first woman in the U.S. to be arrested and convicted for what was most likely a miscarriage. Later the conviction was overturned. Note that the claim was that she induced an abortion but there were no traces of abortifacients in her blood.

For those who think forcing a woman to carry to term is OK, please understand that forcing a woman to carry to term is literally wrongful imprisonment. Anything she does that might remotely endanger that fetus puts her at the same risk as Purvi Patel. You’re robbing women of their lives for the duration of the pregnancy, enslaving them to the well-being of their fetus, a fetus that may be the result of rape.

And, that rapist may then sue for visitation rights or even custody in large swaths of the U.S. Really. It sounds like a joke to most reasonable human beings. But, take a look at the maps in this article on the subject. At first glance at the first map, one might think that this is a problem only in 7 particularly bad states. But, that’s 7 states explicitly allowing a rapist to get custody! Again, custody, not just visitation, which is horrific enough. But, then there’s the third map in the article showing all of the states where the rapist must be convicted in order to lose rights. And, this includes liberal states like New York and California and many others.

There is simply no way to grant a fetus any right to life without denying a woman her right to life. Until birth, only one of them can have rights. I’d grant rights to the person we know is sentient and intelligent, the woman.

We can and should take strong steps to reduce the need for abortion. We can and should implement science based sex education. But, we’re doing the opposite today in the U.S. with abstinence only education. We can implement programs that make birth control freely available and free to all. But, instead we’re making it tougher to get and more expensive.

So, our current political situation is based on increasing the need for abortion while reducing access.

Our choices are

1) Change all of our policies to reduce the need for abortions OR teach girls nothing about sex, involve them in creepy mock-marriages to their fathers, tell them that they are only of value to the world if they keep their hymans ’til marriage, make contraception expensive and difficult to get and thus increase the need for abortions.

2) Keep abortion safe and legal while making it as rare as possible OR make it illegal so that women die in back room abortions performed with coat hangers.

Abortions will be done legally or illegally. Desperate women take desperate actions. Making abortion illegal is already proven not to reduce abortions, just to increase the death rate of those abortions.

So, for those who want to reduce abortion, don’t make it illegal. Just advocate scientifically valid sex education and availability of birth control. It’s really that simple.

The video made by a staff of three beat out videos from such major organizations as BBC to win the best video showing the interaction of big cats and people.

Be forewarned, there is a disturbing scene that does show dead snow leopards.

But, the outlook for this program is fantastic, especially since it is run by the community that it helps and that in turn helps the snow leopard to survive.

Livestock Insurance: A Game Changer for People and Animals

On some not-too-distant day, it will become clear that our civilization has become so reliant on highly efficient, wondrously intelligent machinery that we simply do not need that many people to work in traditional jobs. There will be plenty of wealth to go around, but not that much work. Unless we want millions to starve or go homeless or riot in the streets, our society will need to guarantee a minimum income for everyone by letting all citizens share in the vast wealth created by robot labor.

Robots, not immigrants, are taking American jobs

This debate discusses a wide variety of issues, including genetically modified organisms, agriculture, environmentalism, extinction, quality of DNA from preserved extinct animals, morality, animal welfare, legal issues, etc.

For a sample, just consider the question, if we brought back a mammoth (or mammophant) from extinction, is it automatically an endangered species? What is its “natural range”? What are its natural habitat and food? Is it moral to bring back a species adapted to the arctic in an age of climate change?

P.S. Neil is a bit out of his element on this first Asimov Debate that is NOT related to cosmology, astronomy, or astrophysics in any way. But, as he points out Isaac Asimov wrote about a variety of sciences, some of which did not even really exist at the time he wrote about them, such as robotics. So, de-extinction is perfectly within lines to honor the late Isaac Asimov who spent many hours at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Enjoy.

What’s Missing From This Photo of Politicians Deciding the Future of Women’s Health?

Go ahead … guess.

Nevermind, I’ll just say it. Sausagefest!

What trash can could be better for the purpose?

P.S. Garbage man. Garbage man. Does whatever a garbage can.

P.P.S. I’m not asking that anyone send money. I just think it’s funny.

Formally, I classify myself as a gnostic atheist, meaning I know there are no gods. Most atheists (from what I read online) appear to be agnostic atheists, people who are without gods but who do not claim to know there are no gods. Some people who fit this description simply call themselves agnostic. But, on formal forums, like reddit’s atheism subreddit, all who are without gods are atheists and agnostic or gnostic is a statement of whether they know or have doubt. Similarly, they allow for agnostic theists, those who believe in god(s) but have some doubt.

Regarding knowledge:

In no other area of discussion do we expect certainty or proof when we speak of knowledge. Nearly all knowledge, outside of mathematics, is empirical knowledge, gained by empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

After Immanuel Kant, in philosophy, it is common to call the knowledge gained a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge).

This is the type of knowledge we use when we say that we know that if we drop a ball on the surface of the earth, it will fall. I don’t hear a whole lot of people telling me, you can’t claim to know that because you can’t prove it. But, indeed we cannot. We know the ball will fall because it has done so the last gazillion times we performed the experiment.

For some reason, most people expect that if you say that you know there are no gods, that this one case of knowledge requires certainty. We do not require certainty from any other type of knowledge. Why do we demand certainty to state knowledge only when we are discussing knowledge of the existence or non-existence of gods?

Why this one?

Nowhere in the definition of knowledge does it ever specify that we must have 100% certainty.

So, when I say I know there are no gods, I mean it the same way that I know the ball will drop or that I know the planet on which we live will continue to rotate through the night causing the appearance of a sunrise in the morning, even if it is blocked by clouds. Night will become day as the earth rotates. I know it. You know it. We cannot prove it to 100% certainty. We only know that it has always done so before.

Classifying gods:

To begin our discussion, we have to classify gods. This way we can address different claims of gods individually.

Deist God:

I’ll call the first type deist, because that’s the most common form of belief in this type of god. Though, this god is also often discussed in philosophy as the prime mover. The Deist god put things in motion and left or became inactive or died or whatever. Regardless, the god who put things in motion and left is not here now. So, even those who believe in this sort of generic prime mover still essentially believe we live in a gods-free universe now. From a functional standpoint, they don’t expect any more god-related activity or behavior than I do as a gnostic atheist.

As such, this type of god hypothesis makes no testable predictions. A universe with such a god is indistinguishable from a universe with no such god. So, in addition to the point made above, from a scientific standpoint, we can call this a failed hypothesis, meaning that it fails to meet the criteria to be a scientific hypothesis.

Personal Gods:

Then there are personal gods. These gods are reputed to take action beyond just the creation of the universe. These are gods who demand or expect worship. They take action based on the saccharine adoration of their sycophantic followers.

If we can show statistically, that there is no effect from the saccharine adoration, worship of, and self-enslavement to such a deity, then we can show that the hypothesis that gods do respond to prayer is false and that this particular type of god does not exist.

That test has indeed been performed. God, if s/he exists does not, in fact, respond to prayer.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-prayer-prescription/

Intelligent Designer God:

One common hypothesis about god is that s/he (or they in the case of multiple gods) designed things. The Abrahamic God in particular, which is the most commonly discussed deity in my area of the world, but far from the only one, is even said to have created us in His image. (I do not know why anyone would assume that a god who birthed a universe is male rather than female. That makes little sense to me. But, so be it.)

If we can show that design did not take place, then we can show that there is no intelligent designer.

So, we can look for flaws in the “design” of our universe or ourselves. Looking for flaws in ourselves is the easiest thing to do because we actually know rather a lot about our flaws. And, from the human-centric standpoint that is very common among members of our species, we are the pinnacle of god’s creation (for an obviously self-centered and self-aggrandizing reason). So, we should be the least flawed creatures in the known universe.

Far from it.

For some reason, most male mammals, including humans, have nipples. These serve no reproductive function in human males. Though, some of us derive sexual pleasure from having them touched. I’m not sure how many religions would consider this a worthwhile feature.

Back pain. 80% of humans will experience back pain at some point in their lives. I know I do. Our back pain is evidence of our recent evolution from knuckle-walking apes. Their spines are straight and cause them no pain. But, we weren’t designed as bipeds. Rather we were kluged into it through evolution from quadrupeds. So, unlike bipedal birds, we have a lot of structural problems from our curved and recurved spine.

As an evolutionary kluge, it is functional enough. But, it is certainly bad design.

Knee pain. All the same applies to knee pain. Though, I don’t know the statistics on how many of us experience knee pain.

Hernias. The males of our species are particularly prone to hernias. These are caused by the fact that our testes start out up in our abdomens, where they are in the fish from which we evolved. But, for mammalian purposes, we need them to be in external sacks in order to regulate the temperature for sperm production, which must be slightly cooler than the rest of our body’s temperature.

So, if all goes well, at about 9 months old, our testes drop from our abdomen to our scrota leaving a cavity that makes us vulnerable to hernias.

Of course, good design would mandate that the testes just start out in the scrota where they belong in mammals. But, since all mammals are in the taxa sarcopterygii, the family of lobe-finned fish, our testes must drop and our risk of hernia is increased.

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

Though I know of no health problems caused by this bit of obvious bad design, it is a rather amusing piece of evidence that there was no designer. It’s a silly piece of human anatomy. Watch this video to see just how extremely silly this down and back nerve gets in a giraffe!

Empirical Arguments:

The laws of physics work. Every single time. Our most tried and proven theories such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not have exceptions in them. There are limits to the ranges at which they work, just as there are with Newton’s (so-called) Laws of Motion. But, within the realms for which they are defined, they always work.

We don’t need exceptions in our laws of physics for when some god or other intervenes.

If you drop a ball while standing on the surface of the earth, it will fall to the ground. Every single time. This is just what it means to be a scientific theory. We actually don’t have any proof that this is so. It just keeps on working every time we perform the experiment. This is how science works. It is all empirical.

With the exception of mathematics, which does in fact have proofs, everything we know about our world is empirical.

If you believe in god(s), you will never know whether the ball will fall to the ground when you drop it. Seriously. You don’t. If you believe there are god(s), you must believe that one of them might catch the ball and hold it suspended in mid-air, or cause it to fall up, or cause it to go sideways and hit you in the eye. You have no clue what will happen next in a godinfested universe.

Thank God there are no gods! /snark

Judgement Day God:

Many people believe in what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call Judgement Day God (JDG).

They worry that JDG will judge them for not believing correctly and thus will damn them to hell for eternity. There are many specific sets of rules about how to be judged worthy of heaven from the various religions, most notably the Abrahamic religion (deliberately singular), centered around a JDG.

All of these sects, subsects, and religions say that you must follow their specific instructions or burn forever. And, the instructions of each contradict the instructions of the others. So, it’s impossible to get it right.

Scary!

Or, is it?

Here’s the real question regarding a JDG, what is the likelihood that the creator of the universe is a psychopathic sadist?

This is the crux of the matter, pun intended.

In order for any god to create a hell in the first place, or even to allow one to be created, god must have at least some pretty serious sadistic tendencies. But, to actually send people there for eternity, not just until they repent, and to do so for the sole crime of non-belief or of following a wrong set of rules, is just plain psychopathic and sadistic with overtones of narcissism and cruelty beyond human imagining, or more literally, right out of the worst of human imaginings.

Now, I admit that such a god might not be possible to actively disprove. A universe in which the vast majority of the volume of space would be lethal in about 30 seconds? A JDG might find this amusing. A planet where 99% or more of all species that ever live go extinct? A JDG might find this entertaining, like watching gladiators fight lions. A basic body plan that causes 80% of people to suffer from back pain at some point in their lives? Hilarious, right?

So, perhaps all that’s left for this type of god is an argument from personal incredulity.

Is there even the remotest possibility that the creator of the universe deliberately created us to torture the vast majority of us for eternity?

Or, perhaps I can also add to the incredulity the question of whether such a god is worthy of worship? Is this a bad plot line for the ultimate horror movie? Do you really see a way to avoid such a god?

If there were such a psychopathic sadist as creator for the universe, would there be One True Set of Rules of the One True Religion will escape Hell? A sick fuck of a deity who would set things up this way would probably take the most pleasure in torturing precisely the people who worshiped correctly.

Remember, this is the same god who, according to the tradition of all of the Abrahamic sects, created the tree of knowledge with the best fruit in the garden, said eat all the other fruits but not this best fruit of all that will give you what humans crave most, knowledge.

Then the sick fuck sent a talking snake to convince them to violate the rule and eat the fruit. So, of course they did!

And, this psychopath jumped out from behind a bush and yelled “Gotcha!!”

I’m not personally capable of believing in a god who taunts people into doing bad things then yells gotcha. There’s nothing anyone could do to appease such a god.

More importantly, if someone managed to find some hard scientific evidence that such a god exists, I would cease to be an atheist. But, I would not become a worshiper of such a god. I would become a misotheist instead.

Such a god is worthy of contempt, scorn, and hatred, not sycophantic worship.

Again, thank God there are no gods! /snarkety snark snark

Conclusion:

None of the above types of gods exist in our universe today.

TL;DR: Deist God is already assumed not to exist or be powerless today, leaving us in a gods-free universe now. Personal gods are shown not to exist by the lack of effectiveness of prayer. Intelligent Designer gods are shown not to exist by obvious bad design. The concept of a psychopathic Judgement Day God who would set things up as necessary for there to be a hell and a judgement day is beyond ludicrous. There is no action you could take to prevent a sadistic JDG from torturing you, were there such a creature. Be glad there’s no evidence of this creature.

There are no gods.

P.S. Show me a single shred of hard evidence and I’ll reconsider. I’m not going to deny hard scientific evidence. But, if anyone does find any hard evidence, I might become a misotheist.

Stephen Bannon Is a Fan of a French Philosopher…Who Was an Anti-Semite and a Nazi Supporter

Video may be NSFW depending on your work place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB8-n4YrWHQ 

Christian activists are furious about these shoe adverts