UK Baby miraculously survives abortion [Archive]

Gio Takahashi

06-06-2008, 12:27

Finley Crampton really shouldn't be here. Although his parents would have loved another child, they knew their baby could inherit a life-threatening kidney condition ? and they couldn't take the risk.

After all, their first son had died of the condition and the second was born with serious kidney damage.

So when Finley's mother, Jodie Percival, became pregnant while on the Pill, she and her fiance Billy Crampton, 35, made the agonising decision to abort this child.

'Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby,' said Miss Percival, 25.

However, Finley had other ideas. http://www.neowin.net/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif And some time after the operation, Miss Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach.

Eventually her doctor sent her for a scan ? and she discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.

The child had survived the abortion and thrived in the womb. 'I couldn't believe it,' said Miss Percival. 'This was the baby I thought I'd terminated.

'At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed.

'I wrote to the hospital, I couldn't believe that they had let me down like this. They wrote back and apologised and said it was very rare.'

But a week later, another scan confirmed that this baby had kidney problems too, like the couple's previous children.

Miss Percival carries a gene which triggers multicystic dysplastic kidney ? which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby.

Her first baby, Thane, had lived for only 20 minutes after she was forced to deliver him prematurely.

Her second son, Lewis, now 20 months, was born with a similar condition. He survives on one kidney.

However, doctors told the couple from Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, that this child was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved a chance.

And in November, Finley was born three weeks premature, at 6lb 3oz.

He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.

'I knew if that operation hadn't failed he wouldn't have been there,' said Miss Percival, a hairdresser.

'I just couldn't believe that this child had got through it all and looked so perfect.

'He may need an operation but as only one of his kidneys is affected he can survive.

'I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he's here I wouldn't change it for the world.'

http://uploads.neowin.net/forum/post-37120-1212759752.jpg

source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024297/Mothers-anger-turns-delight-baby-survives-abortion.html)

Bloodcinder

06-06-2008, 12:30

I imagine it would be hard to tell your son that you once tried to abort him. That's a sad issue to have to deal with.

Charlie

06-06-2008, 16:01

Why do stupid motherfucking people get abortions? THAT'S FUCKING MURDER!

Anyone who disagrees can fucking hang themselves..

DoomKitty

06-06-2008, 18:12

*hangs self*

lol. That baby is a beast.

Bloodcinder

06-06-2008, 18:14

I think it would more accurately be manslaughter.

Seegtease

06-06-2008, 20:40

I imagine it would be hard to tell your son that you once tried to abort him. That's a sad issue to have to deal with.

Yeah, anybody being told they were an accident is bad enough, but to tell them you attempted murder on them, ouch.

But good call for the doctors. If the baby can survive an abortion, it can surely survive a petty kidney problem. The real dad must have been Chuck Norris.

But this says something really good for pro-lifers. People who decide to abort and use the excuse "the baby will just die anyway" need to really rethink their flawed reasoning. If there's a chance of survival, and there always is, take it.

Bloodcinder

06-06-2008, 20:41

If there's a chance of survival, and there always is, take it.

I agree. Think of any movie Sigourney Weaver's been in.

Killer_Man_

06-06-2008, 23:24

Why do stupid motherfucking people get abortions? THAT'S FUCKING MURDER!

Anyone who disagrees can fucking hang themselves..

What's a bigger crime, not be able to support the kid? Abandoning your kid? Your wife possibly dying even if they cut her open and take the child out? I mean I could think of good reasons why it would be better to abort then to have a kid. It's rather situational. I'd feel more guility or even pathetic if I couldn't fully support the kid or even abandoning my kid to an orphanage.

FFS, atleast they -tried- to do something. There is a lot of people who just kill the baby and throw them in dumpsters or even just leave the kid and disappear.

Charlie

06-06-2008, 23:28

It's still murder, no matter how you look at it. The ONLY time I would support it is if it's an immediate danger to the life of the mother, or if the kid's dead already for whatever reason.

Killer_Man_

06-06-2008, 23:31

I never said it wasn't murder, Charlie. I do agree with you on that, I'm just saying. I feel kinda half and half of what the parents agreed to do.

Seegtease

06-07-2008, 00:45

I'd feel more guility or even pathetic if I couldn't fully support the kid or even abandoning my kid to an orphanage.

Might as well take an AK downtown and take out all those friggin' homeless guys. I mean people with nowhere to go, better off dead right?

Aingeleag

06-07-2008, 08:07

Well... I think that's pretty crazy. I can't believe that he survived being aborted.. that's an amazing feat. But I agree with Bloodcinder... it'd be hard to ever try to tell your child that you tried to have them aborted. I can understand how they were reluctant to have another child after the results to their other offspring due to that gene she has.. but seriously.. then they should have taken extra precautions. Being on the pill don't mean much. In a case like that, yes abortion is a bad excuse to fix your problem.
There are some cases in which I think that abortion is appropriate, but seriously I'm tired of people using that as an excuse to clear their conscience of the responsibility. There's a difference between some things.
With myself having been a baby that doctors told my mom she should abort because she was too old, I just find some excuses awfully shitty.
I think in this case, the parents went about things the wrong was and were a bit foolish, but at least the baby will be alright in the long run.

Gio Takahashi

06-07-2008, 09:14

Just had a thought. Considering that this is an article, and it mentions his name, I wonder if the kid will find out through 'searching' his name when he grows a bit, before his mother tells him.

RonDo

06-11-2008, 15:29

Just had a thought. Considering that this is an article, and it mentions his name, I wonder if the kid will find out through 'searching' his name when he grows a bit, before his mother tells him.

Good point. Can't be too hard..how many Finley Crampton's are out there?

nijili

06-16-2008, 00:32

i dont really understand why she tried to abort him with the excuse she couldnt bear to loose another child... thats lame i dont want you to die so ill kill you instead. thats terrible, i mean id rather try to let him live then abort him, at least hed have some sort of a fighting chance. its really rediculous people who have abortions, and all these women who cant have children. its sad, i just think if you dont want your child then dont get attached, give birth and give them to someone who really wants a child. its just wrong. what else i dont understand is that when they abort babies they use a hook-like utensil to scrape the uterus, that baby would NOT look that normal if it was bashed around in the uterus like that. i find this story skeptical, where is your source? id really like to read it or find the sources on it... itd be interesting to see what the doctors had to say.

Killer_Man_

06-16-2008, 00:38

Um, don't they inject some sort of salt luqiud to kill the child then scrap?

nijili

06-16-2008, 00:42

tis possible but they still scrape which is why i DONT understand how it was not destroyed. i could be wrong but i just find it so hard to believe.

06-16-2008, 00:54

Abortion is definitely a touchy issue. There is a big difference between how things should be and how things are and because of that difference, I would prefer no abortions take place but in reality, situations arise that don't always fit a normal circumstance.
*Shrugs*

As long as a woman has fully weighed the consequenses and isn't using abortion as a type of birthcontrol (2 abortions in 1 lifetime should never happen) then I have to trust her to make the right decision. Judge Not, right?

nijili

06-16-2008, 01:05

i dont go by the "judge not" menatality but thats really a whole other issue in itself. dont you ever think its not fair that there are women and men with fertility issues yet there are so many women who just callously abort their children?

Seegtease

06-16-2008, 01:22

Judge not doesn't apply to this case. If a man is going around killing people, as a Christian I should be opposed to that, and I could go as far as wanting to make him stop. Judging? There's no judgment tied to the aggravation of somebody killing others.

06-16-2008, 01:32

I thought your resentment came from the judgment that you've declared abortion is the same as murdering. *shrugs*

All I'm saying is, while I don't encourage abortion, I also can't declare that it is wrong by default without understanding the situation and circumstances.

Seegtease

06-16-2008, 02:16

If it's not murder, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not just murder in "certain situations." It's either murder in all situations, or murder in none. It can't sometimes be okay and sometimes be wrong, unless murder is sometimes okay and sometimes wrong. And if its not murder, there's no reason to encourage somebody NOT to abort.

Arainach

06-16-2008, 03:01

There's a lot of absolutes there, and nearly every one is incorrect. Let's start from the top, shall we?If it's not murder, there's nothing wrong with it.There are plenty of ways things can be wrong other than "being murder".It's not just murder in "certain situations." It's either murder in all situations, or murder in none.Also not true since the circumstances surrounding various abortions are radically different. Just from a biological perspective, there's a huge difference between first trimester and when the embryo is viable, for instance.It can't sometimes be okay and sometimes be wrong, unless murder is sometimes okay and sometimes wrong.....or if it's sometimes murder and sometimes not, for instance depending on when the fetus becomes a viable, self-sufficient human.And if its not murder, there's no reason to encourage somebody NOT to abort.Blatantly and absolutely incorrect. If the abortion procedure was considered risky for the woman, you could encourage someone not to abort. If you felt that she hadn't considered all the options and psychological ramifications, you could encourage someone not to abort. If you're a bigot who feels women can't make their own decisions about their bodies and their contents and should have to have a man's consent in everything, you could encourage her not to abort. And on and on.

Killer_Man_

06-16-2008, 03:18

No one said it has to be a 'man's' decision. I don't think anyone is saying that. All they were saying is that, under certain circumstances it could be ok while other's not. Especially one who just does it and has no remorse. By that, using it as a form of 'birth control.'

I just feel there are reasons to and reasons not to, what my reasons are? For my own personal reason but I would never force my lover to abort or not to abort.

Nij: As my American gov't teacher said. It's sad that there are a ton of people who are trying to get kids(Via adoption or something) and people who try to get rid of them via abortion.

Arainach

06-16-2008, 03:28

I'm not saying abortion is great, magical, and happy. I don't think I'd ever push a woman to have an abortion. But I deeply believe and will continue to fight for every woman's right to make that decision for herself.

Bloodcinder

06-16-2008, 10:24

I'm going to modify something Ary said. There is another possibility which I mentioned before: manslaughter. Just like there is a plethora of classifications for the killing of a breathing human, always based on characteristics of the event such as motive, accountability, and responsibility, there may be different ways to look at abortion.

I certainly think there is a difference between a woman using the abortion pill in place of condoms, a diaphragm, or birth control and a woman who will die and take the baby with her if the baby is not aborted. While the former certainly seems wrong, the latter is a touchy issue. Let them both die or save one of them? I like to think that God can think for himself on these issues and knows how to judge right from wrong better than we do. I also like to think that God's not stupid, that he knows when issues have gray areas and he takes into consideration the fact that we're far less competent to decide these things than he is.

That said, I'm not going to project my God onto the Christian one. I'm never going to have any involvement with an abortion, so I won't have to deal with the issue. But I'd certainly encourage people not to engage in it.

Gio Takahashi

06-16-2008, 10:31

According to Catholic faith, if the woman is in danger from carrying the baby, then that is the situation where Abortion is allowed, after all if the woman dies, there's a good chance that the baby would die.

Seegtease

06-16-2008, 19:42

Also not true since the circumstances surrounding various abortions are radically different. Just from a biological perspective, there's a huge difference between first trimester and when the embryo is viable, for instance.

From a biological perspective, there's a huge difference between a child and adult. That doesn't mean the rules when it comes to killing are different between them. Of course 1 month and 8 months are very different, but just because it's in an earlier stage of life doesn't make it less human, just like a child is not less human than an adult.

....or if it's sometimes murder and sometimes not, for instance depending on when the fetus becomes a viable, self-sufficient human.

The fetus doesn't become a "self-sufficient human" until many years into life. Just because its own organs can support it doesn't mean it's self-sufficient. Furthermore, just because it is dependent on its mother's body to survive does not nullify its humanity.

Blatantly and absolutely incorrect. If the abortion procedure was considered risky for the woman, you could encourage someone not to abort. If you felt that she hadn't considered all the options and psychological ramifications, you could encourage someone not to abort. If you're a bigot who feels women can't make their own decisions about their bodies and their contents and should have to have a man's consent in everything, you could encourage her not to abort. And on and on.

I'll give you this one, since you're right that there are other reasons, but most of them wouldn't exist if people did not consider them human. After all, who can feel remorse or have psychological ramifications about something that isn't even a human, but just some blob? If they feel bad about it, it's pretty clear they feel it's human, and that it was a human killed. And I will also say that if an abortion could harm the woman more than just delivering, then I don't even consider that a decision. It would be stupid not to deliver, so that's why I didn't even consider that option.

Arainach

06-16-2008, 20:36

From a biological perspective, there's a huge difference between a child and adult. That doesn't mean the rules when it comes to killing are different between them. Of course 1 month and 8 months are very different, but just because it's in an earlier stage of life doesn't make it less human, just like a child is not less human than an adult.Yeah, actually, it does.Just because its own organs can support it doesn't mean it's self-sufficient.Actually, that's kind of the definition.

06-16-2008, 20:48

Heh, I gotta go with Ary on this one.

self-suf?fi?cient [self-suh-fish-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt, self-]
–adjective

1.able to supply one's own or its own needs without external assistance ^ (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=selfsufficient)

Seegtease

06-17-2008, 20:02

Okay, take a 2 month old, and let him sit out on the street abandoned and watch him or her "supply his or her own needs". If anything, that definition supports MY case.

And Ary, there's a fallacy there. If a child in the first trimester is less valuable than in the third, then an adult is more valuable than a child. Do you believe that?

Arainach

06-17-2008, 20:39

Self-Sufficient is in the biological sense, not the economic. You know full well what we're talking about, so quit playing stupid. Provided with the proper external nutrients, the toddler's body can take care of itself. The Fetus cannot.

And, no, an adult is not more valuable than a child because they are both fully sentient, self-sufficient beings.

Seegtease

06-17-2008, 21:51

Self-Sufficient is in the biological sense, not the economic. You know full well what we're talking about, so quit playing stupid. Provided with the proper external nutrients, the toddler's body can take care of itself. The Fetus cannot.

I'm not playing stupid, you're missing my point. The ability to survive one ones own, whether it be because of lack of organs, or lack of motor skills and survival knowledge, does not determine humanity, period.

And, no, an adult is not more valuable than a child because they are both fully sentient, self-sufficient beings.If being underdeveloped and dependent does make one "less human" or not human at all, then there is an inheirant difference between infants/children and adults in terms of value, as well. What gives you the right to decide where the line between humanity and non-humanity exists? If you can place it at 4 months, or wherever you happen to place it, what's wrong with placing that line at say, one year?

And before you say what gives me the right to decide that, I don't have to defend that because I put the point at the earliest possible point. Better to place it there than to place it later and possibly be mistaken.

Arainach

06-17-2008, 22:21

I'm not playing stupid, you're missing my point. The ability to survive one ones own, whether it be because of lack of organs, or lack of motor skills and survival knowledge, does not determine humanity, period.

If being underdeveloped and dependent does make one "less human" or not human at all, then there is an inheirant difference between infants/children and adults in terms of value, as well. What gives you the right to decide where the line between humanity and non-humanity exists? If you can place it at 4 months, or wherever you happen to place it, what's wrong with placing that line at say, one year?

And before you say what gives me the right to decide that, I don't have to defend that because I put the point at the earliest possible point. Better to place it there than to place it later and possibly be mistaken.Now you're just arguing philosophy. What makes us human? As far as I'm concerned it's our ability to be aware of ourselves and to think.

From a biological perspective, the fetus is not its own organism until it is biologically self-sufficient. Period.

Bloodcinder

06-17-2008, 23:04

After four or five years, haven't you guys finished arguing about abortion?

Gio Takahashi

06-17-2008, 23:06

Just one of those things that never end.

Bloodcinder

06-17-2008, 23:11

Yeah, I know. It's like they're Isaac and Ishmael, only both of them are white and taking ketamine.

Gio Takahashi

06-17-2008, 23:16

yeah something like that.

Arainach

06-18-2008, 00:31

I try to stay away from these things, but hell if I'm going to sit here and let him spew theology as scientific truth.

Killer_Man_

06-18-2008, 01:23

scientific truth.

Then scientifically, humans only produce humans via reproduction thus being, it's a human regardless of what stage the fetus is in.

EDIT:

Though, I think everyone knows that, I am not trying to be a smart ass. I just dislike it when many people I knew from high school and other places felt that the fetus wasn't a human or even a parasite. Which is kinda disturbing to me.

Arainach

06-18-2008, 02:13

Then scientifically, humans only produce humans via reproduction thus being, it's a human regardless of what stage the fetus is in.We only produce Chevy Impalas on this assembly line, but it's not an Impala until the final piece gets added. Even if you claim it's an Impala at an arbitrary point beforehand, it's certainly NOT an Impala throughout the entire assembly line. For a large part it's an arbitrary pile of bolts, wires, and hunks of Steel.

Want a bio analogy? Caterpillar -> Pupae -> Butterfly or whatever the cycle is. Butterfly is the only end result, but it's not a butterfly until the very last moment when it emerges.

Seegtease

06-18-2008, 02:37

I try to stay away from these things, but hell if I'm going to sit here and let him spew theology as scientific truth.

Actually my last post had no theology in it at all.

06-18-2008, 02:48

One could argue that your whole argument is based on a theological perspective.

If you never heard of Christianity and their stances on it, all that would be left is the science and the science doesn't support abortion definitively as murder which is why abortion is legal.

Seegtease

06-18-2008, 02:59

"If you never heard of Christianity and their stances on it, all that would be left is the science and the science doesn't believe that abortion is definitively murder which is why abortion is legal."

Fixed. Believing whether or not a child is a human at conception is not theological. It's not even Biblical, since I'm pretty sure the Bible says nothing about the exact point the child becomes a human. Sure, I believe it gets a spirit at conception, but I never mentioned that point once in this thread.

They cannot prove that killing a human in earlier stages is any worse, morally, than killing a human in later stages. And if you aren't going to take morals into it, then you have no reason for ever caring if said human dies in any stages of life. And if you do consider morals, then it's just as "theological" for one person as it is for another, by whatever definition of theological you happen to be using.

06-18-2008, 03:15

I'm just saying, without the influence of Christianity, all you can go by is fact and comparative definitions.

Your argument can only work if it's assumed that it's human at conception. All of your argument. If it's not human at conception, the moral shame of murder doesn't exist, religious or otherwise.

If you go by comparative scientific definition, a fetus at the beginning stages does not qualify definitively as a human. A definition of a human would not describe the condition of the fetus and therefore it must be conceded that a fetus isn't quite a human yet. If, at 50, we starting growing more organs we never had before, that metamorphosis would put us in a different definitive category as human. We'd be different than human. That's how you have to look at a fetus. It's in a whole different stage of "becoming".

Brighter minds than ours have tried to make a case for abortion being defined as murder and they have failed for a reason. Without religious influence and with only a scientific outlook, abortion cannot definitively be murder.

Killer_Man_

06-18-2008, 11:31

We only produce Chevy Impalas on this assembly line, but it's not an Impala until the final piece gets added. Even if you claim it's an Impala at an arbitrary point beforehand, it's certainly NOT an Impala throughout the entire assembly line. For a large part it's an arbitrary pile of bolts, wires, and hunks of Steel.

Want a bio analogy? Caterpillar -> Pupae -> Butterfly or whatever the cycle is. Butterfly is the only end result, but it's not a butterfly until the very last moment when it emerges.

Bio, doesn't work like that, I can understand the car thing. Since from it starting, it's 'worthless' hunk of metal can it be shaped into something useful.

Even then Ary, I am not argueing that women should have no right to do what they want with their body(Though I still hope if I am married she'd let me have a say in it but the decision was still ultimately her's.)

That, humans only reproduce humans. Dogs only reproduce dogs. Etc etc.

You can not say that when a male and female of a species gets together, that's it's just a bunch of cells, acting like a parasite upon the female of the species. I'm not even saying it's not murder or anything.

I am just saying that it is still every right a human but what you do with it, is up to you.

Bloodcinder

06-18-2008, 11:36

I always come back to the question, "Where is the line drawn?" Certainly it's not at birth. Everybody knows that third trimester fetuses can be just as developed as infants just prior to exiting the woman's body.

Again, I have no vested interest in this issue, but in my lifetime I'd like somebody to give a good answer as to where that line should be drawn: at what point in the womb the fetus becomes a viable human.

Gio Takahashi

06-18-2008, 11:46

That is a good question, at what point should it be considered human. For some it's a matter of perspective, for example, the heartbeat starts at day 18. Most people would consider the fetus would be a human at that point, even though it is quite early.

Arainach

06-18-2008, 12:22

Bio, doesn't work like that,Yeah. Actually, it does. Imagine that. I learned about that cycle in second grade.You can not say that when a male and female of a species gets together, that's it's just a bunch of cells, acting like a parasite upon the female of the species.I can and I do. Until it's self-sufficient, it's the textbook definition of parasite (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite).par?a?site
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

Bloodcinder

06-18-2008, 12:28

Definition number two refers to "a person," so you must be eschewing that one, and definition number three is inapplicable. That means you must be using definition number one. But that one refers to the organism being "of another species" than the host. So what species is the fetus of a human?

Arainach

06-18-2008, 12:40

A minor point; in fact, that's the first definition of parasite I've ever seen with that clarifiation. Most are phrased more like "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

Gio Takahashi

06-18-2008, 12:44

So when is it considered as a 'human'? At what point would you consider that 'parasite' to be human?

Arainach

06-18-2008, 12:49

When it's biologically self-sufficient. We've been through this.

Bloodcinder

06-18-2008, 12:57

Well, next time you make "textbook definition" a part of your argument, you might want to get a textbook that agrees with you. [Stuck-out-tongue face of playfulness.]

What Gio is asking based on what I was saying is the following: when does that self-sufficiency occur? The newborn infant is just as self-sufficient as it was as a fetus traveling through the birth canal, which is just as self-sufficient as it was as a fetus just prior to heading toward the birth canal. The self-sufficiency must occur at an earlier stage.

Seegtease

06-18-2008, 22:43

I'm just saying, without the influence of Christianity, all you can go by is fact and comparative definitions.

Your argument can only work if it's assumed that it's human at conception. All of your argument. If it's not human at conception, the moral shame of murder doesn't exist, religious or otherwise.

That's correct. But the idea that people constantly try to separate morals from religion, or more specifically, faith is completely ludicrous. Without a faith, morals do not exist. If humans are just a collection of cells working to function and thrive as a whole body, and nothing more, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing another human being. Life is meaningless.

But this is an extreme tangent from the subject, really.

Brighter minds than ours have tried to make a case for abortion being defined as murder and they have failed for a reason. Without religious influence and with only a scientific outlook, abortion cannot definitively be murder.

Like I said above, without religious influence and only a scientific outlook, nothing can be murder. Actually, I should say it can definitively be murder, but there is nothing wrong with murder.

06-18-2008, 22:59

I understand what you're saying a little more now, I think.

It's definitely an interesting point but I don't think it's viable in this situation just because I don't think morals are the sole product of religion.

If morals are "concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong" one could argue that the Law itself is a moral compass and not just American law but any man-made law anywhere to govern the conduct of a society.

Also, to say that murder wouldn't be morally wrong if religion didn't exist would be the same as saying Atheists don't put any value into human life, which we know is not the case. I'm starting to understand your argument better now, but I still can't help but disagree with it.

Seegtease

06-18-2008, 23:39

If morals are "concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong" one could argue that the Law itself is a moral compass and not just American law but any man-made law anywhere to govern the conduct of a society.Laws have been around as long as "religion" and thus cannot escape the influence. Laws are not a moral compass, though. They just force people to follow one. But in the end, it's entirely possible for a law to be created for a self-seeking purpose. If I kill the blacksmith, nobody can make my horseshoes in town. There does not have to be morals tied down to laws that a government creates. Usually is, but not a prerequisite.

Not to mention, when somebody obeys a law, it's not because they feel bad about breaking it, it's because they will get punished. It's self-survival. You kill, you go to jail. Not worth it. It has nothing to do with morals on that level.

Also, to say that murder wouldn't be morally wrong if religion didn't exist would be the same as saying Atheists don't put any value into human life, which we know is not the case. I'm starting to understand your argument better now, but I still can't help but disagree with it.I don't think that. They clearly DO have values, I just cannot explain why outside of having a God-given conscience that is there whether they believe in God or not.