On abortion

Of course, we have no evidence that our existence consists of anything other than an incomprehensibly complex series of chemical reactions driving our bodily function and our consciousness. We like to imagine ourselves as being further from a symbiotic cluster of cells than other life on Earth, but we are really not that much further.

The zygote at conception is defined by nothing other than a beautiful, extensive chemical reaction. This reaction continues as the zygote-turned-embryo grows and divides, then differentiates. There is no direction in this synthesis from an external mastermind, and the small organism perceives nothing, mostly because the matter which is necessary for it to perceive does not yet physically exist in an organized system.

We do not know this as a certainty, but science's ability to grow artificial organs in a laboratory convinces us that these series of chemical reactions occur without any form of intervention.

Science does not claim certainty, but the church does. The church claims that it has been granted the knowledge of god. Who knew that the knowledge of god was so variable with time? The church's "knowledge" in the 17th century that the universe revolved around the earth was ludicrous relative to science and is now ludicrous relative to the church's "knowledge” today. How can the church, possessing God's infinite wisdom, change their mind on the opinion of these problems? Science can change its opinions because science implies continuous change and discovery. But the religious cannot claim this and they do not — they claim that their knowledge was given by god. Then how can they have different opinions through time? And if they have had different opinions through time, then they must concede today that they are not necessarily correct about their present opinions because these may turn out to be false as well. But too prevalently, religion does not do this, instead manipulating the axioms of nature to their will in order to prove their points.

Perhaps before the Scientific Revolution, the claims of the religious could be taken as serious speculations, or reasonable explanations of phenomena. (It would be easier to concede this if the Christians had not brutally slain millions for heretically contradicting these "beliefs," but alas!) As many of these hypotheses became invalid with the technologies and ideas of the Scientific Revolution, trust in the church should have crumbled, and new hypotheses — even those just as preposterous — should have risen. But, somehow, these same ideas persist several centuries later. These ideas are no longer beliefs, but false facts and lies perpetuated by a few who recognize their invalidity but fear their loss of control over a significant proportion of the Earth's population who live in their alternative reality.

Darwin: "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science for they often endure long; but false hypotheses do little harm, as everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path toward error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened"