pete from seven stars

Higher education does not have a monopoly on truth but atheists are conversant with a wide range of topics which include both science and religion. Most atheists know more about religion then most "believers".

As to the beginning of the universes, through the Big Bang theory, Hawkings put it very well. Religion is irrelevant to the science of how life began.

Assumptions are O.K. but they are not fact unless verifiable by science. Atheists are not prone to make assumptions about things that are not verifiable. "Belief" in any religion is an assumption that is not verifiable.

The science on abortion is this, there is more neural development in a chimpanzee than as a fetus which is not fully developed enough particularly in utero at early stages. In fact,
the fetus which is not developed does not have the feelings of a sentient developed mammal.

You can't compare a newly formed fetus with a human life such as an aged person.
The newly formed fetus is not developed enough to feel and think. The comparison
doesn't work.

The destruction of a fetus is not the destruction of a fully developed baby. In short,
a fetus is not a baby until it emerges as a living entity that can survive by itself outside of the womb.

What is immoral is the notion that is now claimed by Christine O'Donell and Sharon Angle
that a woman should give birth to a child when she has been raped.

The problem I see with the anti-abortionists is that they base their conclusions on theology rather than science. This will always work against them.

No woman wants to have an abortion. The idea that it is a convenient and pleasant experience is just not true. That accusation given women who have them is from those who hold theological views which really have no relevance to the formation of human life.