Where do we start off on a discussion about reproduction? A scientific discussion about reproduction starts with the development of germinal cells in a fetus which develop on their way to become fully functional adult reproductive organs and from there on to conception upto the child birth. But what are creationist discussions concerned about, under the heading of “reproduction”? Their idea of human life is a gift from god, and any discussion about the manufacture of this gift is often suppressed by “god did it”. So what is this gift supposed to be? Sperm? ovum? viable fetus? newborn? Creationists aren’t heard of talking like “god gifted the man a sperm and the woman an ovum, from which they could conceive a zygote”. So is it a viable fetus? No, because the knowledge of age of viability was not known in biblical times and jesus never bothered to get bible updated on this. Its not a newborn because there is a deadly idea called “anti-abortion”. Creationists aren’t heard of making distinctions between “zygote”, “embryo” and “fetus” in their anti-abortion propaganda, perhaps because of their ignorance of human embryology (I take it that they are ignorant of human embryology because it is actually a telltale of human evolution). Now, even if you confront a creationist with the implications of the differences between an embryo and a fetus, they are unlikely to care because it cant be like god put the fetus in there. He obviously did put the embryo. So it turns out that the starting point of any creationist’s discussion of “life” is that zygote which transforms into an embryo in no time.
- God is the one of most inefficient manufacturers known sending you defective products 50% of the time. This single handedly shuts the flawed proposition that “god is impeccable”, “god has never failed”. Needless to point out that their scriptures themselves are a “proof” that god has failed in multiple famous biblical tales. The fact that his own creation can thoroughly figure out his mammoth failures undermines pascals wager and threats of a hell. What if 50% of the entries into hell are erred?
- Some theists might want to try shifting the blame to Satan, conveniently forgetting that the implication is that Satan is actually more powerful than god, screwing up 50% of his gifts. It would be even more shameful for god to prevent us from ethically increasing that percentage by a few extra percentages. As much as your god finds babies tasty, the best chance he seems to have against majority of human-induced gift-screwing is petty impotent anti-abortion campaigns by Christians.
- since some of the embryos do go on to be born, it implies that all humanity’s induced abortions combined are still not a match for god’s abortion rates. God was and remains the greatest abortionist ever.
It doesn’t matter if your child was diagnosed with encephalocele, retinoblastoma that is making its survival outside the uterus short and painful. It doesnt matter if scientists find out ways to diagnose this earlier in the pregnancy. Christians would simply end the discussion saying “its still a life”, “you still dont have the right to change nature”. Each year, 5 million children die before reaching the age of 5yrs. What purpose is served in their miserable little life? The very same people who say that “god called my beautiful child because he loved them” also hold that god is omnipresent. How does an omnipresent god fail to have your beautiful living child by his side? How does an omnipotent god fail to find a less painful way of doing that? Why send them on earth when they die before even knowing what life is? How does it still hold that god is in any way, pro-life?<