Saturday, December 11, 2010

God the abortionist


Colorado voters went to the polls in November 2010 and rejected Amendment 62, the Fetal Personhood Initiative, by 71% to 29%. The failed initiative was an effort on the part of extreme anti-abortionists to confer legal “personhood” on fertilized eggs (“from the beginning of biological development”) under the state constitution. Under Colorado's constitution, the rights of personhood specifically include “acquiring, possessing and protecting property,” ready access to the courts, and “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” (Certainly it would be an injustice if a fetus were to purchase a choice piece of real estate and then lose it without due process of law.)

Personhood Colorado, the organization sponsoring Amendment 62, was quite forthright in its intentions: “It will make sure that children in the womb are treated exactly the same as children outside the womb.”

That is, abortion is murder.

I know that quite a few people purport to believe that. They accept that a legally entitled person exists before birth and want it recognized in law. And those legal entitlements supposedly exist from the moment of conception, when a human being exists as no more than a one-cell fertilized egg. The conceptus is supposed to be accepted as a full-fledged person.

Unless God kills it, of course. Which he apparently does at least one-quarter of the time. This is, of course, difficult to determine. Other estimates suggest that as many as half of all fertilized eggs perish.

That is, God aborts them.

But he never seems to get credit—or blame—for being the greatest abortionist of all.

It's odd.

A family member suffered a spontaneous abortion last year (and “suffered” is the right word). Early in her pregnancy, she lost the incipient twins she was carrying. The emotional impact was great. She praised God for helping her through the crisis.

This year she has a new pregnancy and it appears to be going better than last year's. She posted a note to family and friends:
we are very excited to announce that we saw a strong heartbeat and a perfectly healthy little baby this morning during our ultrasound. we are expecting a little blessing this summer! thanks for all the prayers, god is so good!
All the credit. None of the blame. It puzzles me. Abortion may be murder, but it's okay if you're a deity.


Jens Knudsen (Sili) said...

" “It will make sure that children in the womb are treated exactly the same as children outside the womb.”"

To be fair. God kills all children out of the womb as well.

Zeno said...

I agree, Sili. We should be fair to God and give him credit for all of his killings. Do you think he has a den or game room where he displays the mounted heads?

The Ridger, FCD said...

Check the WaPo magazine this weekend. A woman tells a man that he should have made/let (it's unclear) his wife carry her non-heartbeat-possessing baby to term. She claims "[my position is] the more compassionate one for the mother, for whom an abortion is an added trauma, and for her helpless child, for whom nine months in the womb will be the only life he or she knows."

She seems not to care that pregnancy is a stress, actually fatal in some cases, on the woman, and that carrying a baby to term that will die as soon as it's born, knowing that is going to happen and yet having your body preparing you for a live baby, is "less traumatic". Plus, she thinks the "baby" "knows" "life" inside the womb.

One wonders what reason she thinks there is for God to do that to someone. Or two someones, I guess.


Kathie said...

Furthermore, Ridger, once a fetus is "non-heartbeat-possessing," how can the woman say it even has life? (Unless she's married to Rick Santorum, one supposes).

Kathie said...

Zeno, didn't the Great Huntress Sarah write a letter to her children in the voice of God, when she was pregnant with her Down syndrome baby?

Improbable Joe said...

I guess you don't talk bad about someone who you think can and will torture you forever on the slightest whim.

I'm sorry for the pain your family has suffered, and the extra pain that must come from watching them play make-believe with an imaginary person through such a rough time.

Kathie said...

One other issue (so to speak) that needs to be addressed is that dead fetal tissue allowed to remain in utero can sometimes lead to infection in the woman, endangering her health, if not indeed her life. And magical believing aside, no way is the fetus going to revive.

Zeno said...

Oh, Kathie, why do you even bring up stuff like that? Everyone "knows" that the mother's eternal soul is more important than the health of her physical body. Anyway, her rights are completely subordinate to those of the imaginary person inside (whether viable or not).

The fanatics will be happy to explain all that to you, I'm sure.

Jens Knudsen (Sili) said...

"Do you think he has a den or game room where he displays the mounted heads?"

I don't know. But I suspect he as alot of jars with foetuses standing around.

Miki Z. said...

If you confer personhood on a fertilized egg and then it develops into mono-zygomatic twins do the twins need to petition for a separation of legal personhood?

Zeno said...

Sili: But I suspect he as alot of jars with foetuses standing around.


Sili, you shock and horrify me: "a lot" is two words!

Kathie said...

The following article -- by a Baptist minister from Alaska, no less! -- might be of interest.

"Young Christians are deserting the faith":

In relevant parts, the author observes that:

* "Churches are no longer intellectually challenging. More and more of our young people are college-educated."

* "Churches are no longer leaders in broad moral and ethical discussions. Young people have grown weary of churches that cannot get past issues such as homosexuality and abortion."

* "Churches are no longer visionary. They have remained focused on saving souls for the next life and offering rituals tied to perpetuating theologies that no longer seem relevant to many young people."

DRmcburney said...

One day denying the Personhood of a fetus will be held in the same derision as denying the Personhood of a black woman, (and won't you all look like Klansman that you are at heart).

I see a lot of ignorant heathens here raging against a god whose personality you you mistakenly assert, (even while you assert he does not exist). Your argument is with John Calvin and those who believes God controls everything, not with the Living God who created everything, and gave us freedom.

Oh, and as for "torturing those who reject him in Hell forever". You got that part right. He will, and I as a Christian will thank Him for it! See you on Judgment Day!

DRmcburney said...

One day denying the personhood of a fetus will be held in the same regard as denying the personhood of a black woman was. And you all will be revealed for the Klansman you are.

Your arguments are better leveled against Plato, Aristotle, John Calvin, and those who believe their ridiculous assertion that God controls everything. The Living God created us to be free. (Even free to be fools as the comments by you ignorant unwashed heathens prove).

And as for the "torture you in Hell forever" part. That much you are correct about. He will, and I will thank Him in Christian love.

Zeno said...

Thanks for stopping by, DRmcburney, and demonstrating quite compellingly what jerks some Christians are. I especially like how you equate Christian love with eternal torture. A god who does that deserves all the contempt he receives.

In your wisdom, perhaps you can clarify something for me. When Peter said "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34), did he mean to say "no respecter of personhood"? God's slaughter of the unborn suggests this might be a more accurate reading.

DRmcburney said...

Again Zeno, you assert that a god who does not exist slaughters children.

Does he or does he not exist?

Answer this and perhaps I'll entertain your assertions about his personality.

Zeno said...

Goodness, Doug, what a silly man you are. God is your problem, not mine. You worship a supposedly infinitely loving entity who kills perhaps half of the fertilized eggs resulting from human reproduction and perpetually tortures those who survive his initial depredations ("acts of God") but don't accept him in adult life. Don't you see a tiny contradiction in your concept of your deity? It's part of the reason some of us don't believe in such a ridiculous notion.

I would mock your intelligence, but I suppose you would then demand that I accept its existence.

Escuerd said...

"Again Zeno, you assert that a god who does not exist slaughters children."

Some people have an ability, usually gained through acts of sorcery or other demonic means, to entertain beliefs that they don't accept as true. The price for such "gifts" is high, though, and people who don't denounce them and repent before it's too late will surely face the eternal torment they so justly deserve.

(CAPTCHA = relighwa)

DRmcburney said...

Escuerd, you are obviously educated beyond your intelligence. But your use of multi-syllabic words must make the teachers at your special school smile.

I entertain ideas about Allah that I don't believe, but I do not attribute actual historical deeds to Allah, because he never existed.

Zeno attributes abortions to the God of Israel, and then asks questions about His personality. leading me to question Zeno's atheism.

I hope you understand. You may need to ask one of your teachers for help.

Anonymous said...

"Does he or does he not exist?"

The god I don't believe in is perfectly capable of both existing and not existing.

Your god sounds pretty bush league.

Kathie said...

No, no, no! DRmcburney, Zeno does NOT attribute spontaneous abortions to any god. He points out that those folks who believe in a god, in order to be logically consistent, must accept that their god causes numerous abortions (miscarriages, if you prefer).

And your ad hominem attacks against posters with whom you disagree only decreases the likelihood that you can persuade them of your opinions. Unless that's what you're hoping for, of course.

cody said...

I watched "Lake of Fire" recently, and it raises many wonderful points in the debate over abortion rights. (I was drawn in by a youtube video of Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer's contributions to the documentary---I highly recommend watching that video at least.)

Chomsky rightly points out that "pro-lifers" ought to be equally concerned with the vast amount of child suffering & death throughout the world, and anyone who doesn't can't be taken seriously in the abortion debate. (65 people starve to death every minute; 100,000 a day, about 1/6 of those are children---this doesn't include the massive suffering due to other preventable illness.)

DRmcburney, you should avoid personal insults, they make it harder for opponents to take your position seriously. Also, you should understand that Zeno doesn't actually think some god is inducing miscarriage, but merely pointing out that IF the god many proponents purport exist, THEN miscarriages seem to be a problem. (There are other ways out of this dilemma: god might not be powerful enough to prevent abortion, or he might do it intentionally cause he likes that fetus so much; these are hard arguments to swallow: who wouldn't choose to interfere with "god's plan" whenever that plan removes our hope for a child?)

This is essentially the tired old problem of evil, and to those who have seriously contemplated the matter, the only solution that allows one to preserve both a sense of humanity and a notion of empirical truth is to reject the notion of a supernatural god. (Misotheism/dystheism were reasonable solutions when we didn't know anything.)

"You know what I'm gonna tell god when I see him? I'm gonna tell him I was framed."

DRmcburney said...

You call God a prolific unjust killer and then accuse me of ad hominem? I merely pointed out that those who speak such things are ignorant, unwashed heathens.

You use the word "if" in regards to God's existence, so you confess you are ignorant. You reject the cleansing forgiveness of Jesus Christ, and are therefore unwashed. And you reject the Living God of Creation, therefore you are by definition heathens.

Nothing ad hominem, just harsh. I don;t want to hug you and tell you Jesus loves you and that we're all God's children. Because you are not, nor does Jesus love you. (He loves everyone enough to offer an opportunity for salvation, but those who reject Him he will cast into hell... and that's not very loving. In fact it looks like hate to me).

Rom 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

Miscarriages and evil are only a problem for those who accept the definition of God put forth by Plato, Aristotle and John Calvin. (Sadly most Christians, and most heathens alike).

Those of us who know God know that He created man free, man rebelled against him, bringing sin and death into the world. And rather than destroying everything and starting again, God has chosen to be merciful and allow His creation to continue, (in a fallen state that is not His fault). He has also provided a way to escape the inevitable destruction of the fallen universe in the person of Jesus Christ.

So if you want to debate the nature and existence of God, you should take the time to find out who He says He is, not what you hear from money grubbing, guilt mongering "evangelists".

And if you will answer the following question with even a modicum of humility I will consider continuing with you:

At what point would science dictate society confer legal personhood upon a child?

Zeno said...

DRmcburney: I will consider continuing with you

Who says any of us want you to continue with us? You're a pompous time-waster who thinks he knows the mind of god and sententiously lectures us on it. Apparently you are unable to discern that many people reject the notion of god because of their knowledge, not because of their ignorance. Quoting Bible verses we already know won't change our minds.

Keep a mirror handy the next time you denounce someone as "guilt-mongering."

DRmcburney said...

Pompous Zeno? And are you implying I make you feel guilty?

Please answer the question:

At what point would science dictate society confer legal personhood upon a child?

The Ridger, FCD said...

Science doesn't dictate. Science is a tool for understanding the universe. But, there's only spot where the Bible even remotely addresses abortion. (Essentially, the book says breath is life.) If a man beats a woman badly enough that she miscarries, he has caused no harm. Check it out - shouldn't be hard for you if you know the book. Clearly the Bible thinks the unborn aren't people.

Kathie said...

"Atheist Ads on Buses Rattle Fort Worth":

The religionists are all for advertising till a group who disagrees with them decides to advertise their own message.

Then the religionists get all knicker-knotted: they think it's OK to offer religious messages based on their imaginary friend and his followers, but get offended when rationalists offer messages based on [gassp!] REASON and scientific thinking.

Yep, it's a lot whole harder to manipulate people who think logically than those who follow out of mere blind faith that fails to stand up to logical scrutiny. And I didn't need an imaginary friend to tell me so, either.

Kathie said...

Oh, and saying "if" re the existence of a god is not ignorance.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of ignorance, since belief in any god requires checking one's brain at the door first (i.e., the suspension of logic and reason).

DRmcburney, with all your gullibility, perhaps you'd feel really secure in the so-called "church" of the scientolocult, or the late Jim Jones' cult. No reason or free will required, just blind obedience.

Zeno said...

As Kathie pointed out, not everything is a scientific question. Birth is the one reasonably clear point on the continuum from conception to independent existence where personhood can be attributed to a human being with minimal ambiguity. Anything earlier is debatable. The fetal-personhood lobby is willing to curtail a woman's personal agency in order to decree that an unborn human has equal (or greater) status. Most of these people are devout god-bots who don't bother to reconcile their belief in a deity with the billions of spontaneous abortions that have occurred in the human population. How convenient for them.

DRmcburney said...

Mr. Ridger, you may want to re-read:

Exo 21:22 "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

DRmcburney said...

Science indicates that there is unique human DNA present in the single cell blastocyst within about 6 hours of fertilization. So, if we are a civilization established on the proposition of equality before the law, this is where science dictates we grant personhood.

Science does dictate you fool! The understanding science gives us dictates action on the part of those who are sentient, and not gullible morons who follow fairy tales and the lies of rebellious men.

Since none of you have the stones to assert when a human being should be granted human personhood, I'll leave you on your own personal highway to hell.

cody said...

DRmcburney, science does not dictate whether murder is right or wrong (there is no objective "best" to start from). Science does tell us that we've evolved as very social animals, and social groups carry along a certain distribution of moral behaviors, one of which tends to be a widely agreed upon forbidding of murder.

Personally: I'd always put the life of the mother above that of the baby--a newborn baby knows nothing of the world, and although pain and suffering require no knowledge, the degree of pain and suffering to which one can experience seems (to me) to grow with one's awareness and knowledge of the world. (But I am open to opposing views, if they make intelligent arguments--that doesn't include ancient story & rule books written by ignorant goat herders.)

Now that I've answered your question, could you answer one of mine? The two verses before the one you quoted, Exodus 21:20-21, "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the others property." (I'm using the TANAKH because I don't have a KJV around anymore.)

I assume you agree with this passage, (since you're pretty gung-ho about the rest), so do you support the right for humans to own other humans as property? And to beat them within a day or two of death? And why would you accept such a vile god into your heart?

I would gladly burn in hell in protest of your god. (If I could be convinced that it exists.) It is tragic that you are so taken in by him, and fight so fervently for such a psychopathic dictator.

cody said...

Ha ha, I should have gone back even further: Exo 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are."

Exactly what Chomsky is talking about: how can you take a book's advice on the morality of abortion when on the previous page it's giving us instructions about how to sell our daughters as slaves, and how to beat our slaves, describing them as property? So civil rights, women's rights; these were against god's will? And people want to claim such a god is "just", "compassionate", "loving"?

This is why so many sects are not "true" christians anymore; why there are 38,000 schisms of christianity—because when you look at this stuff closely you can't agree with it. So you make up some twisted interpretation or you quote some other part that contradicts this part, or you outright lie to yourself and/or others about what it says or means. And it really annoys the hell out of the rest of us, who often are genuinely concerned with the wellbeing and suffering of humankind—we have to watch you people pour resources down the drain in the name of ancient stories about an immoral supernatural creature.

Sorry for getting so worked up about this, it just feels absurd to see someone using the internet to express their support for the bible.

Kathie said...

Zeno, logic requires that one test for any theory using the scientific method. So if one wants to know whether there's any god(s), first one states the null hypothesis -- that there is no god -- then attempts to disprove the null hypothesis by fining scientific evidence to the contrary. Oops, there is no scientific evidence to contradict the null hypothesis. Sorry, DRmcburney, you lose. And don't worry about hell, because there's no evidence it exists either: once you're dead, you'll just be dead. Permanently. What a relief!

Margaret said...

Fetal Personhood? So these folks want to get Social Security numbers for fetuses and have prospective parents put the fetuses on their tax returns as dependents?

Interrobang said...

Here's a question I want the pro-forced-birth crowd to answer: What about the woman's personhood? Why should her rights to her own body be subordinate to someone who isn't even born yet?

If someone comes into my house and I don't want them there, I can throw them out myself or have the police come and remove them, but if someone comes into my body and I don't want them there, I'm supposed to risk my life feeding and housing them until they decide to leave? Madness.

Disturbingly Openminded said...

Margaret ~ I put pretty much that exact question to someone once and he agreed that fetuses SHOULD be counted as dependents.

Me: Aborted fetuses too?
Him: Of course not!
Me: Why not? Don't you think they were human too?
Him: People shouldn't be rewarded for having an abortion!
Me: Should people be rewarded for having an out of wedlock child when they are 15 years old?
Him: Of course not!
Me: So are you opposed to the tax exemption for that?
Him: Umm.....

Internal consistency. They don't value it.

DRmcburney said...

Interrobang: If someone comes into your house and you don't want them there you do not have the right to kill them.

And if our society had the right priorities we would be able to relieve the selfish and the short-sighted of the responsibility of carrying unwanted children.

Surely medical scientists could develop the ability to take even a single cell embryo from conception to something like birth with an artificial womb.

And there are waiting lists to adopt infants, so these kids could be placed with parents.

Would you all then stop calling for the killing of unwanted children?

DRmcburney said...

you all ask me not to engage in ad hominem, but then allow patently stupid comments like this to be posted, making it difficult for me to contain my intellectual contempt.

But I will try.

Are you aware that unborn children were considered persons in North America for the better part of 400 years, and none of the ridiculous scenarios you assert ever occurred.

Personhood is about ending legalized child killing. Nothing more and nothing less.

Before child killing was legalized, promoted and paid for by gov't, the unborn were granted neither soc sec #'s or dependent status.

Even your straw men are pathetic!

Disturbingly Openminded said...

"Before child killing was legalized..."

In our society (which includes our British ancestors), things are legal unless specifically prohibited. Consequently, abortion was not so much legalized as this particular government intrusion on individual freedom was restricted.

Besides, your history is wrong. "Quickening" was the standard understanding of when life (personhood) began. James Wilson, one of the founders, goes on at some length about the superiority of the English common law in his essay, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals." With respect to fetuses, he wrote: "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb."

The Catholic church used the quickening standard from the 4th century C.E. (Augustine) until Pope Pius IX decided in 1869 that ensoulment occured at conception. I've heard some people argue that the laws of the US are based in part on Christianity so maybe the view that dominated Christianity for most of its history had some tiny impact on U.S. law.

Anti-abortion laws in the US got their start in the 1820s and 1830s. Abortion was broadly and widely illegal in the US for less than 100 years.

But little of that actually matters. I don't care what the the founding fathers, the Catholic Church, or state legislators of the post-Civil War era thought about abortion. I'm not bound by their opinions and decisions. (And I'm guessing you aren't either: do you think abortion is okay because the Catholic Church said so for 1400 years?)

Restricting access to abortion is primarily about attempting to reassert patriarchal authority over girls and women. (That's why incest is often regarded as a permissible exception by anti-choicers; they want the male to have the choice.) Our society is way, way, way beyond that silliness.

Zeno said...

Surely medical scientists could develop the ability to take even a single cell embryo from conception to something like birth with an artificial womb.

Apparently science is on the verge of enabling us to rescue even the teensy-weensy one-celled "babies" who the theists believe are being slaughtered by their god. I guess medical scientists will then be superior to the theists' god.

DRmcburney said...

OK, point taken on history. I've been enlightened by you to the views of those I'd not considered before. Thank you.

May I ask 2 questions of you?

Is it ever wrong to kill an innocent person.


DRmcburney said...

Zeno: As far as I know science is not on the verge of preserving the lives of the smallest among us. (If that is the case I'd like to know about it).

But I believe that if there were a Kennedy-esque challenge to do so, we could do it in a decade or less.

And again, please don't confuse the determinist view of God propagated by Greek philosophers and Calvinists with the Living God of the Bible.

In doing so you short change yourself, and those with whom you converse.

Anonymous said...

@DRmcburney sez:

"Interrobang: If someone comes into your house and you don't want them there you do not have the right to kill them."

Actually, that's called a "home invasion", and most (if not all) states consider it sufficient to invoke self-defense, like attempted rape or murder.

cody said...

DRmcburney, "calling for" is a mischaracterization of your opponents. Pro-choice supporters (typically) want to minimize the number of abortions, and would prefer a world in which abortion never had reason to be considered. We also tend to believe that such a world cannot exist, or at least won't for the foreseeable future. (And outlawing abortion doesn't stop people from considering it—it makes them consider more dangerous methods by which to obtain it.)

We don't have enough adopting parents right now, let alone if every child were carried to term. (And we're ignoring health consequences to the mother or child as sufficient reasons for abortion.) I agree with you that it'd be wonderful if every baby could be saved and raised by loving, capable, adopting parents, but the world is not how I desire it to be, and it's unrealistic to think health issues can be completely eliminated.

Why is it wrong to kill a human being? Because human beings have certain capacities, thinking, they are aware of living, and can want to go on living. This isn't true of an unborn human being.

So yes, I believe most instances of "killing an innocent person" is wrong, but so is child abuse, so is forcing a woman into child birth despite negative health consequences; I believe having a baby you cannot support financially, or cannot give a reasonably happy life to for any reason (could even be mental), is even more wrong (and cruel) than abortion. I'd rather a fetus be aborted than raised by parents who can't afford to take care of it properly, or even simply don't love & want it, or would mistreat it.

I've tried to inform you of my views when you asked, so I reiterate, could you answer my question about why I should take a book that explicitly endorses slavery into my moral considerations?

Disturbingly Openminded said...

"Is it ever wrong to kill an innocent person."

A. Sure, killing an innocent person is often -- probably usually --wrong.

B. Of course, killing an innocent person is often perfectly acceptable.


A. If nothing else, self-interest. Amongst the moral precepts I try to live by is the that goes "don't do to others as they don't want to be done unto." I'd like other people to follow that precept as much as possible in regards to me. It seems fair and equitable to me that I do the same.

The precept is not absolute. There are situations where I will do unto others even though I know that they don't want me to.

B. Warfare is an example where killing innocent people is acceptable. Every commanding officer knows that certain orders will result in the death of soldiers under his or her command. (To be clear, I am NOT talking about killing enemy troops.) I imagine there are situations where the C.O. knows exactly which soldiers are going to die.

While I can't put my finger on the sources, IIRC Lincoln asked Grant if there wasn't some way that he (Grant) could achieve his battlefield victorys without killing so many soldiers. Grant basically replied that if he knew of such a way, he would surely use it but he didn't. Similarly, Ike had a pretty good view of what happened to the first wave to land on the Normandy beaches; he ordered in the second wave anyway.

Now I have a question or three for you:

1. Is it possible for someone who is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong to be innocent or guilty?

2. What can a human fetus be guilty of?

DRmcburney said...

Dear Mr. disturbingly:

You state; "The precept is not absolute. There are situations where I will do unto others even though I know that they don't want me to."

You simply confirm the fallen state of mankind, (and you in particular).

A person who cannot distinguish right from wrong can be guilty or innocent. If a mentally deficient person murders, he should be tried, and if convicted, executed. God will judge his soul rightly in the hereafter.

No person should be deprived of life without due process of law. A baby in the womb who is butchered without having been convicted of a crime is a victim of murder, (just as you would be if someone butchered you).

A fetus must be considered innocent under the law. But to assume a fetus cannot distinguish right from wrong may be speaking out of school, since there are many things about the developing human psyche that we do not yet fully understand. (for example, during surgical abortions fetuses will shrink from, and try to avoid the instruments used to dismember them. It would appear that the fetus is judging their impending dismemberment as wrong).

Zeno said...

McBurney begs the question by assuming his conclusion. He moves smoothly from "No person should be deprived of life without due process of law" to the claim that an aborted fetus (which he assumes is a "baby") "is a victim of murder." Of course, that's what the argument is about. A lot of people don't regard it as such. McBurney wants us to view the unborn human as a "child" or "baby" or "kid" or "person" without any distinction whether it is a small clump of cells (hardly anyone thinks that is a "person") to a 39-week fetus on the verge of birth (where quite a few people would view its imminent personhood as having some credibility). McBurney avoids the slippery continuum argument by denying it. It's turtles (I mean "persons") all the way down.

By the way, Doug, all your babbling about "fallen state" is just so much blather around here. Have you noticed that no one is persuaded? Go pray for us to receive the miracle of mindless faith and stop being a serial nuisance.

Disturbingly Openminded said...

I'm curious about your interpretation about chapter 5 in Numbers. It reads to me like a prophesy of RU-486.

Not to mention the adventures of Joshua, whom your god commands to murder men, children, and women (some of whom are probably pregnant.)

Zeno ~ Thank you for pointing out the illogic in his/her (but surely his) argument. My ability to manage cognitive dissonance is woefully limited.

Disturbingly Openminded said...

"A person who cannot distinguish right from wrong can be guilty or innocent. If a mentally deficient person murders, he should be tried, and if convicted, executed. God will judge his soul rightly in the hereafter."

By the way, I think this is a stunningly effective illustration of your arguments. I encourage you to repeat this as often as possible in as many fora as possible.

"You state; "The precept is not absolute. There are situations where I will do unto others even though I know that they don't want me to." You simply confirm the fallen state of mankind, (and you in particular)."

I didn't want you to say that unto me and yet you said it anyway. Does that action of yours confirm your fallen state?

DRmcburney said...

You say, "I didn't want you to say that unto me and yet you said it anyway. Does that action of yours confirm your fallen state?"

No disturbingly,Because you are evil. And in telling you so I exercise the empathy Christ gives me toward you, (for I have none naturally).

So I'm compelled to tell you that you are a filthy, prideful, wicked, evil, broken, sinner, (as was I once). For if you never come to understand your own wickedness, you will never seek a savior... and then it's straight to hell, with jet rockets for you!

Zeno said...

It looks like it's time for the Christians' least favorite verse: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (Matt. 7:1). They never, however, seem to think it applies to them.

McBurney is pleased to exercise the empathy he thinks Christ gave him. (Given the evidence of McBurney's posts, Christ was fresh out of the really good quality empathy when he wrapped up McBurney's gift.) I might point out that Paul tells us in his letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 2:8-9) that faith is God's gift. Since God is a pretty piss-poor gift-giver and has neglected to hand out any faith around here, McBurney is wasting his time but appears not to know that. I guess he's waiting for God to give him more gifts -- like maybe a clue.

Kathie said...

DRmcburney wrote:
"So I'm compelled to tell you that you are a filthy, prideful, wicked, evil, broken, sinner, (as was I once). For if you never come to understand your own wickedness, you will never seek a savior... and then it's straight to hell, with jet rockets for you!"

Yes indeedy folks, now THERE's how to win friends and influence people. Or, to quote my Azorean-born Grandma (although she said it in English):

Com vinagre não se apanham moscas.

DRmcburney said...

If it's not "persons" all the way down, then where would you logically draw the line Zeno?

And I'm not sure who said it, but the comment was made that "science does not dictate whether murder is right or wrong". And then the author ambled into a dislocated statement about evolving a generally accepted prohibition of murder.

Let me know what you've evolved as far as when it should be prohibited to kill a baby?

And to address the original statement of your article, and to reiterate a fact that none of you seem to want to take on. It is Plato, Aristotle, and John Calvin who would assert that God is responsible for the death

As for me praying for you... I pray that you pass from the scene quickly, and that your judgment is swift and painful.

The Evil Disturbingly Openminded said...

I wonder if this would be a good time to point out the Christians who think hell is a misguided invention of Catholicism.

Jesus used the word Gehenna, which was subsequently mistranslated into English (which Jesus didn't actually speak) as "hell."

If fact, Gehenna was the garbage dump outside Jerusalem. Sometimes the garbage was burned (hence, the fires of Gehenna.)

Well, I'm probably mistaken about the non-existence of hell. After all, the abortion-is-okay-for-1400-years-Catholic-Church says it real. They can't be wrong, can they?

DRmcburney said...

Kathie: I don't want to win your friendship. You're a proud baby killer. I don't roll with baby killers.

How old was your baby when you killed him? And do you think he a person at that point?

I want to warn you that because you hate God, and because you are a murderer who teaches others to kill, God will hate you, and punish you.

DRmcburney said...

Ah.. Matthew 7:1, Everyone who is bringing judgment upon himself loves this verse. But again, (and I understand that as heathens you don't study scriptures, but merely seek to find fault) please read the verse in context.

It's about judging as a HYPOCRITE. It is not a command to never judge.

Mat 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD THAT HE MAY INSTRUCT HIM?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already

Zeno said...

As for me praying for you... I pray that you pass from the scene quickly, and that your judgment is swift and painful.

Oh, look! Doug McBurney is a bad Christian. But we already knew that. He's also not very bright. He thinks this is part of his mission field, but he's lousy at missionary work. Very sad. Also very common.

So long, Doug.

DRmcburney said...

Since you bring up hell, here's what I think. God says he will create a new universe someday. So what will become of this one?

And God is clear in that he will not force those who hate Him to live with Him. He is not a magician who can make people love Him. So what becomes of them?

Well, since people are eternal beings, and matter cannot be destroyed, (God is not a magician), in the end He will gather all of the cursed matter of the fallen universe, and of the people who do not want to dwell on the new earth or in heaven, and he will segregate them together in a place. And that place will likely literally burn, (that is God will fuel an eternal fire to render the cursed matter moot).

And the spirits of the people who choose not to be with God will dwell there as well. But a spirit cannot be burned by fire, so I believe the suffering in what Jesus aptly called "Gehenna" will not be the fire...

It will be people who hate God, who having been defeated and shown to be impotent, turn their hatred upon each other.

Just a theory, but either way, it's not going to be pleasant...

john_manyjars said...

Oh man...that was a LOT of batshit-crazy this early in the morning. My head hurts.

Doug is a fine poster-boy for keeping the Church the hell away from the the Founders intended.

Were he not a member of the xtian cults, he'd have a padded van on the way to his shack...but because he's 'religious', he'll get a pass.

Religion: one of the more deadly diseases brought over with us from Europe.

john_manyjars said...

One can almost hear the spittle hit Doug's monitor as he types...

John_manyjars said...

Doug Fundie:" But again, (and I understand that as heathens you don't study scriptures, but merely seek to find fault) please read the verse in context."

'Reading in context', code for cherry-picking the words to make Godbots feel good about themselves...

'Heathens'? What is this, 1492?

Kathie said...

Much as I hate feeding the troll, he hasn't a shred of evidence to support his accusation that I've ever had an abortion, for the most obvious reason. However, he would've been right at home with Torquemada, and the folks who brought us the Salem witch trials. His only armament is name-calling against those who have rational bases for disagreeing with his dogma.

Or, as a bumper sticker I admire reads, "My karma ran over your dogma."

The Ridger, FCD said...

Interesting. He uses the New American Standard. The KJV says "so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow", the NRSV says "so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows", and the Douay-Rheims "and she miscarry indeed, but live herself".

I don't think that verse - which is the only one even faintly applicable to an abortion discussion - says what you think it says. Not that it matters, because there is no reason to take Exodus as a guide to moral living, what with the "don't eat bacon, oysters, lobster, rabbit, or escargot" stuff, the "don't wear cotton-polyester blends", the "don't have a mule" (though plenty of them did, the "don't shave", and so on. Plus the "it's okay to own slaves" stuff...