Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Abortion: Because Society Says So!

Note: What follows is a discussion I'm having with a university atheist club president about a woman's right to legally murder her unborn child in the United States. Here's the meat of the interaction thus far. Notice the arbitrariness and inconsistencies prevalent in his attempted push-back. Ultimately, defending abortion on the basis of a right to life is equivalent to defending the murder of six million Jews in Nazi Germany. Don't buy that last line? Then read on.

I initially said,


The disagreement boils down to one issue: What is the unborn and who gets to decide? Here's my argument in syllogistic form:

P1 - If the unborn is a human person, then abortion is murder.

P2 - The unborn is a human person.

C - Therefore, abortion is murder.

You will challenge premise 2. So have at it my friend.


He responded,

"Well, depending on how you define "human" I would not disagree with the second premise (the fetus is alive for example, and it has DNA and such, which if you define DNA as being human, then it is human). I would actually take issue with the first premise. The real premise here is, if the fetus is a person deserving of rights equal to or greater than that of a woman, then perhaps abortion can be considered murder. But I don't think a fetus is deserving of rights that give it some sort of authority over the woman's body.

I think there is another issue also of where we default rights, and by what mechanisms do we default rights. I, by default say that women (and men) have rights to control their own bodies, and therefore you would have to provide the really compelling case that a fetus is entitled to rights over the woman."

I retorted,

"First, just because the unborn has human DNA doesn't make it a human person, it just makes it human tissue. Freckles and moles have human DNA but that doesn't make them human persons. Nobody is protesting dermatological clinics that regularly remove hundreds of skin tags from patients every day, so its obvious to everyone except the most willingly ignorant that there's more at stake here than mere "tissue". I think the reality of abortion speaks for itself: http://www.cbrinfo.org/index.php/blog/the_most_shocking_graphic_imagery_four-minute_abortion_debate_you_will_ever/

And if that was too far along in gestation for you, then have a look-see at these: http://www.abortionno.org/index.php/abortion_pictures/

Second, the claim: “The mother has a right to abort because she has a right to control her own body" is refuted by the fact that the unborn is not her body. Medical science has proven that the unborn has its own separate DNA, eye color, gender, etc. proving that it is a completely separate human being from the mother. Therefore, we don’t kill innocent people just because we think they are in the wrong place or because they inconvenience us in some way.

But assuming your societal-based morality, even though medical science has proven that the unborn is a human being, our society has determined that rights to person-hood are only given to born humans, not unborn humans. That is exactly what you are arguing. Thus, any medical argument from environment is moot to you since society determines what the criteria for person-hood is, not medical science, and certainly not a word from God.

However, the biblical pro-life answer is this: God says that the unborn is a fully human person from the moment of fertilization-conception (Psalm 51:5). Thus, if a person willfully takes the life of the unborn, such an act constitutes murder (Psalm 139:13-16; Romans 13:9). We are not justified in killing someone merely because society says that we can. We must obey God rather than people (Acts 5:29).

Thus, by rejecting God's word on the issue, our society has legitimized the systematic murder of a certain segment of the human population and given others in said population rights to do this via legal protection in sanitary conditions.

This move is essentially equivalent to what the German Supreme Court did in 1938 when it declared Jews to be "non-persons" and on that basis they legally exterminated 6 million of them. But you cry, "No, what Hitler did was wrong and twisted because it was done to adults" and then we're back again to society determining who gets to live and die and where they must be for it to legally occur and at what age it gets to occur. So if 25 week unborn persons can be murdered legally in the womb, why not at 25 weeks outside the womb? Why is the location of the baby significant to determining rights? Your answer: because society's law says that only born people have a right to life.

So now, what non-arbitrary standard can you provide me that's going to be palpably different than how the German Supreme court decided in 1938?

Thus, society gets to determine who has a right to live and die, not God, and certainly not the babies. Welcome to moral relativism.

My friend, this is what happens when you have an unregenerate mind and don't begin all of your thinking with the Law of Christ.

'Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil . . . woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.' Isaiah 5:20-21"

65 comments:

  1. I can see that abortion is wrong. However, when you consider that 99% of all humans created are not elect, what does it matter that they are aborted? God does not love any non-elect people.

    Of course, we should not abort the babies, but at the same time most of those babies are reprobate so it is difficult to have feelings of shock at their physical deaths when God has predestined the majority for spiritual death.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For Ben:

    P1 If God predestines men to hell, then man may kill indiscriminately.

    P2 God is sovereign.

    C Man may kill indiscriminately.

    Contrasted with:

    P1 If God does not predestinate, then man cannot killindiscrimately.

    P2 God does not predestinate.

    C Man may kill discriminately.

    I think we all learned something here. Love is discriminating ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Your answer: because society's law says that only *born* people have a right to life."

    Obama wouldn't agree there. He votes for a baby born from a botched abortion needs to be killed as well. Not to mention partil-birth killing. That is one wicked thing, that costs a lot of money. The love of money....

    Good post.

    "when you consider that 99% of all humans created are not elect"-Ben

    Where did you come up with that my friend? 99%?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can see that abortion is wrong. However, when you consider that 99% of all humans created are not elect, what does it matter that they are aborted? God does not love any non-elect people."

    Ben, if I follow your logic, I could just as easily argue that since a certain percentage of all *newborn* humans are going to become vicious serial killers, we ought to kill a certain percentage of humans at birth. Don't follow that one? You shouldn't, because it's a *non-sequitur*, the same type of logic you just used.

    We don't get to kill preborn babies because taking preborn life *is* God's prerogative, not ours (1 Sam. 2:6).

    Christians don't know who the elect are before their physical birth or their new birth, only God does. Our job isn't to discern who the unregenerate elect are before they are physically born; our job is to preach the gospel to all who will hear and God will use the means of said preaching to bring the elect to faith in His time (Rom. 10:17).

    Your retorts are non-sequiturs built on the back of hyper-Calvinistic thinking or atheistic mockery.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I never said we "should" abort babies. I only said that most of those babies are reprobate so it is difficult to have feelings of shock at their physical deaths when God has predestined the majority for spiritual death.

    (abortion and murder should be illegal)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm an atheist who does not favor abortion. However, from a practical perspective, what is your solution? Imprisoning pregnant women and forcing them to have their children? Outlawing abortions and forcing those who choose to terminate their pregnancies through illegal providers?

    I'm not really interested in theory because I already accept the premise that abortion is the killing of unborn persons. To be frank, I don't get that excited about it because (as I have indicated in previous posts), I also accept that non-human sentient animals are persons. What I am interested to know is how unwanted pregnancies would be dealt with in your preferred world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm an atheist who does not favor abortion. However, from a practical perspective, what is your solution? Imprisoning pregnant women and forcing them to have their children? Outlawing abortions and forcing those who choose to terminate their pregnancies through illegal providers?

    Abortion: Murder for Hire.

    -------

    Prostitution: Non-Marital Sex for Hire.

    How is illegal prostitution handled?

    ReplyDelete
  8. TUaD, prostitution in my country (Canada) is illegal in the sense that solicitation has been criminalized but there is no crime, per se, committed by paying someone for sex. As a result, prostitution is socially frowned upon but carried on everywhere. I favor legalization of prostitution for the same reason I oppose criminalizing abortion. I don't "support" either practice but would rather have it regulated (and, in the case of prostitution, taxed) than not.

    I remain interested to hear your answers to the questions I have posed in the above comment. On a related note, I would also be interested in your reaction to Steven Levitt's research which found a correlation between the legalization of abortion and reduced crime rates.

    ReplyDelete
  9. research which found a correlation between the legalization of abortion and reduced crime rates

    The irony is delicious.

    ReplyDelete
  10. aka:

    "Once we started allowing people to murder their own children the results were amazing - the crime levels dropped right off"*


    footnotes:
    *(figures did not include slaughter of the unborn).

    ReplyDelete
  11. BEN SAID:

    "I can see that abortion is wrong. However, when you consider that 99% of all humans created are not elect, what does it matter that they are aborted? God does not love any non-elect people. Of course, we should not abort the babies, but at the same time most of those babies are reprobate so it is difficult to have feelings of shock at their physical deaths when God has predestined the majority for spiritual death."

    i) Even making allowance for polemical hyperbole, what makes you think your figures, on which you predicate your argument, are even close to accurate?

    ii) Furthermore, we don't know who is elect or reprobate–especially at that stage.

    iii) In the providence of God, the reprobate can be a source of good. Take the reprobate father of an elect son or daughter. But if the reprobate father were aborted, that would, in effect, abort his would-be posterity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Atheist Missionary said...

    "I'm an atheist who does not favor abortion. However, from a practical perspective, what is your solution? Imprisoning pregnant women and forcing them to have their children?"

    Except in case of pregnancy by rape, women become pregnant through consensual behavior designed to induce pregnancy. Are you now indicating that women are too stupid to know where babies come from? Or that women have no impulse control?

    If so, that's classic sexism.

    You think men and women aren't responsible for the (especially foreseeable) consequences of their actions?

    "Outlawing abortions and forcing those who choose to terminate their pregnancies through illegal providers?"

    There are various strategies. Prosecute abortionists. Prosecute boyfriends who pressure the mother into having an abortion. Prosecute abortionists for botched abortions. Make their malpractice premiums prohibitive.

    Those are politically feasible strategies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BEN SAID:

    “I can see that abortion is wrong. However, when you consider that 99% of all humans created are not elect, what does it matter that they are aborted?”

    Although I already commented on this, the reasoning is so preposterous on so many levels that it’s worth unpacking in more detail:

    i) How does he come up with that figure?

    ii) Assuming that figure is hyperbolic, what does he think is an accurate figure, and how does he arrive at that figure?

    iii) Even if say that x-percentage of humans are hellbound, that doesn’t mean the percentages are evenly distributed in time, place, by sex, race, age, &c. Even if (arguendo) most adults are hellbound, it doesn’t imply that most babies are hellbound.

    iv) Likewise, do we have sufficient confidence in these percentiles to make that a basis for abortion? For instance, if ER physicians think its more likely than not that a teenager will die from his injuries, should they withhold treatment?

    iv) Even if these percentiles were reliable in general, they don’t prejudge any particular case. If, say, 9 out of 10 defendants are guilty of a capital offense, do you automatically execute 10 defendants, even though you know ahead of time that by so doing you will execute the innocent along with the guilty?

    v) Reprobation, per se, is not a capital offense.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve, no, I'm not suggesting that women don't know where babies come from. However, I am interested to know what you suggest be done with women impregnated by rape and how we determine whether they have been raped or not.

    Also, are you advocating imprisoning women who become pregnant consensually and forcing them to have babies they don't want? What happens to the unwanted babies after they're born?

    ReplyDelete
  15. i) Since you're the one who keeps using the word "force," I'm pointing out that obvious fact that, except in case of rape, no one is forcing women to become pregnant. Therefore your rhetoric is demagogic.

    If they don't want babies, don't get pregnant. Since most pregnancies are non-coercive, to say they are being "forced" is condescending to women.

    ii) Since you're the one who seems to think rape justifies abortion, it's you, not me, who needs to come up with the relevant criteria.

    iii) There's a difference between what ought to be done and what is politically feasible.

    iv) The law should deter abortion. There are various ways to do that.

    v) Like abortion apologists generally, you single out the mother. But the father has equal responsibilities for the child. Then there's the extended family.

    Indeed, there are situations in which the father wants the child, but he has no say in the matter under current policy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Steve, no, I'm not suggesting that women don't know where babies come from. However, I am interested to know what you suggest be done with women impregnated by rape ."

    Love them. What we don't do is kill an innocent person. If Jones punched me in the face, is it proper, just, and rational for me to walk up to you and punch you in the face?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Some citations from the Psalms:

    Psa 71:3 Be to me a rock of refuge, to which I may continually come; you have given the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.
    Psa 71:4 Rescue me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked, from the grasp of the unjust and cruel man.
    Psa 71:5 For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth.
    Psa 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.

    Psa 94:5 They crush your people, O LORD, and afflict your heritage.
    Psa 94:6 They kill the widow and the sojourner, and murder the fatherless;
    Psa 94:7 and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."


    From Psalm 71, this caught my attention when thinking about the scourge of abortion around the world:

    "...Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;..."

    And from Psalm 94, this caught my attention when thinking about what abortion is Biblically:

    "... and murder the fatherless; ..."

    Here we see the Holy Spirit points to "life" within the womb and the murder of the fatherless.

    When you kill that baby in the mother's womb, you essentially are killing a fatherless child.

    God sees and knows and cares about the fatherless:

    Psa 68:5 Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. When you kill that baby in the mother's womb, you essentially are killing a fatherless child.

    I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Aborted babies have fathers just like babies who are lucky enough to be born.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ben said: "I can see that abortion is wrong. However, when you consider that 99% of all humans created are not elect, what does it matter that they are aborted? God does not love any non-elect people."

    This thinking, of course, is the produce of man-doctrine, not bible doctrine, and shows the danger (and the vanity) of teaching as doctrine the commandments of men [Matt 15:9][Mark 7:7].

    You don't know who is elect, and who isn't.

    All men (the species) are made in the image of God [Gen 9:6]. Therefore marring the image of God, whatever their legal status is before God, constitutes sin.

    God has no pleasure in the death of the unsaved, but would rather they turn from wickedness and live.[Ezek 18:23,32][Ezek 33:11]

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm sorry, but I just don't get the nimnoes on here who are unable to grasp why aborting babies is such a bad thing, even if we knew they were non-elect -something of which we can never have knowledge of, but let's assume that we did. Let me spell it out for you with short words so you'll be able to understand: -IT'S MURDER- Duh!

    ReplyDelete
  21. PIggybacking on Matt's statement, we could shift the issue from (alleged) reprobate babies to reprobate adults. Yet even if we knew a grown man or woman was reprobate, that's not a license to kill.

    ReplyDelete
  22. How many years in prison is appropriate for women who have abortions do you suppose?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "PIggybacking on Matt's statement, we could shift the issue from (alleged) reprobate babies to reprobate adults. Yet even if we knew a grown man or woman was reprobate, that's not a license to kill."

    I remember when James White played a clip from Tony Campolo using that exact same reasoning- he said that Calvinism was partly to blame for the rise of Nazism because of the belief that the Jews were reprobate, and so that killing them was no big deal. Rich Pierce promptly replied with, "Maybe that's mass murder!!"

    The answer is the same in both cases. People too unstudied in the field of Calvinism really should just leave these questions to those better equipped. They just wind up embarrassing themselves in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DARWINS66 SAID:

    "How many years in prison is appropriate for women who have abortions do you suppose?"

    i) Is there some reason you and TAM single out women in your questions? Are you misogynists?

    ii) There are several potentially complicit parties to an abortion. The mother. The father or boyfriend. The abortionist. And so on.

    iii) Even homicide is subject to mitigating factors. The proper penalty is adapted to the specific situation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve

    we could shift it that way.

    What would change?

    Nothing.

    T. A. Miss...y.

    Yes, of course. Generally, when a man steps to the plate after doing the deed and she says, "I'm", then that child has a father.

    I don't know how God deals with the reprobate child in the womb. That would be nice to know but would not solve the problem of abortion.

    Remember something about that medical procedure. People who have been born and grown up and trained to do it are the ones doing it, not the unborn child.

    My frame of thought was based in Faith, which obviously you don't have so to reiterate the verse, which is the proper way to frame the thought:

    Psa 68:5 Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.

    Here's another more appropriate answer to the question, though:

    Exo 20:13 "You shall not murder.

    And I am somewhat aware of who I just gave that answer to; an atheist. So your issue is a moral one, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Is there some reason you and TAM single out women in your questions? Are you misogynists? "

    Absolutely not, but lets face facts. Abortion providers (doctors, nurses, etc) don't roam the streets looking for pregnant women now do they? For the abortion (or murder as you call it) to occur - the woman has to seek this service. In my mind this would make her the most culpable.

    You are avoiding the question. If a woman actively seeks out, and obtains an abortion - how long should she go to prison for? You think this is murder, so grow a pair and recommend some sentencing guidelines!

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Absolutely not, but lets face facts. Abortion providers (doctors, nurses, etc) don't roam the streets looking for pregnant women now do they? For the abortion (or murder as you call it) to occur - the woman has to seek this service. In my mind this would make her the most culpable."

    How about these facts?

    Mothers, fathers, friends, families, etc. have all played their part in encouraging/compelling their daughter, sister, etc. to get abortions. Do you deny this fact?

    If not, then do you deny the fact that some women who have had abortions would not have had abortions if their friends and family weren't prompting them to do so?

    Doctors don't roam the streets- you have Planned Parenthood doing that for them by lying to their clients about what the fetus is, how the fetus is disposed of, etc. Do you deny this fact?

    If not, then who cares if doctors are out there looking for a pregnant woman and trying to persuade them to visit their clinic? What functional difference does that make in their complicit guilt in performing abortions?

    ReplyDelete
  28. DARWINS66 SAID:

    "Absolutely not, but lets face facts. Abortion providers (doctors, nurses, etc) don't roam the streets looking for pregnant women now do they?"

    To the contrary, organizations like Planned Parenthood send representatives into the public schools to drum up business and make recruits for their ideology. They actively solicit abortions. They don't just wait around for clients.

    "For the abortion (or murder as you call it) to occur - the woman has to seek this service."

    We're not talking about "women" in general, but mothers. A pregnant woman is a mother.

    "In my mind this would make her the most culpable."

    Well, that says a lot about your subliminal sexism. Your double standard.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Matt

    Again - you and Scott grow a pair and recommend sentencing guidelines for women who have abortions. You can also recommend prison time for their friends and families as well, I suppose.

    Obviously when abortion is outlawed in your plan, then those performing abortions would suffer legal consequences.

    You are avoiding the question. Do you or do you not imprison women found 'guilty' of 'murdering' her unborn fetus?!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Darwins66, if you didn't read it when Steve said it earlier, the punishment would vary depending on the circumstances, coercion of third parties being a factor. If you're not bright enough to recognize it, then I'll say it point blank: Yes, I think women who have aborted their unborn fetuses should be imprisoned. Murder deserves execution, according to the Bible, and mere prison time is being gracious.

    ReplyDelete
  31. See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Why the reluctance? Poor desparate women that can't possible raise a child should go to prison for ending their preganancy.

    Nice.

    and people say xians aren't compassionate.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Funny words coming from a person who just told two other people to, "grow a pair." Trust me, Darwins66, if you already have a pair, why not graduate beyond the mere whiny emotional response to my affirmation and show how it's wrong? I wasn't reluctant- and I don't think Steve was either. Personally, I feel like we both were giving you the benefit of the doubt in hoping you would eventually "get it", but no- the big tough Darwins66 need it spelled out for him in literal word-for-word answers.

    Trust me, it didn't impress me. Nor did it impress me that you whined about the poor desperate women who are turning around and showing no compassion to their poor desperate babies.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Darwins66 said: "Poor desparate women that can't possible raise a child should go to prison for ending their preganancy.

    Nice."


    Perhaps they should think about this before becoming pregnant.

    Oh ... that's right .. people should NEVER have to live with the consequence of their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You bet I wanted it spelled out for me. People who believe that abortion is murder shouldn't dodge the question of prison time with wishy-washy answers about ' well ... it depends on the circumstances' and 'what about all the people pushing the woman to abort?'. Just answer the question.
    Of course throwing an 18yo girl in the slammer for years isn't doesn't make good press, so let's equivocate.

    I'm no sexist. I believe women should have the right to reproductive choices, including abortion. Attempting to limit those choices is the real sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You're the one playing the emotional card for murderers, Darwins66. How is that not wishy-washy?

    "Attempting to limit those choices is the real sexism."

    Words which carry no weight if the price for your brand of sexual respect requires the death of millions of babies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And just look at the ridiculous reasoning being presented here: If you don't let women murder their children, well- you're being disrespectful!

    If we aren't willing to let genocide occur, then we're disrespectful. What an amazing way of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It's a silly argument Darwins66, but lets say for the sake of argument, government did actually agree, that indeed abortion is murder, how does government already deal with murder?

    Is there one standard universal term for murder?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Darwin66: "For the abortion (or murder as you call it) to occur - the woman has to seek this service. In my mind this would make her the most culpable."

    At least you seem to recognize that

    Abortion is Murder for Hire.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You folks do have an amazing way of thinking - I'll admit that.

    There are countries with far, far lower rates of teen pregnancies and abortion than the US. Of course their secret is education. I'm guessing you'd be against comprehensive sex education and cheap, easily available contraception. Am I right??

    You give great lip service to the millions of babies 'murdered' each year. Are you in favor of the proven methods of reducing that number?

    I can already guess the answer! Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think Darwins66 knows he can't respond to anyone's arguments anymore, and has resorted to just firing spread shot and hoping it hits. You talk big, but like a bully, you shrink away from real interaction when people step up.

    Take your own advice and grow a pair.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've no interest in continuing this dialogue, Darwins66. You've dissolved into irrationality, and I don't buy your pretend interest in responding to arguments (not questions).

    ReplyDelete
  42. DARWINS66 SAID:

    "There are countries with far, far lower rates of teen pregnancies and abortion than the US."

    I don't have a problem with teen pregnancies. I have a problem with out-of-wedlock birth.

    "Of course their secret is education."

    You mean like Europe, with its negative growth rate? Demographically dying Europe? Is that your model?

    "I'm guessing you'd be against comprehensive sex education and cheap, easily available contraception. Am I right??"

    Look, stupid, this isn't a Roman Catholic blog. We're not opposed to contraception, per se.

    Of course, "comprehensive sex-ed" is just a euphemism for Planned Parenthood services.

    "You give great lip service to the millions of babies 'murdered' each year. Are you in favor of the proven methods of reducing that number?"

    Ever heard of adoption?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Darwins66, I noticed you mocked the idea that punishment for (abortion) murder should be determined on a case by case basis, but completely avoided answering the question about how murder is currently treated in the penal system.

    You can't really comment on our way of thinking, when you're own possesses some curious characteristics of its own.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I don't have a problem with teen pregnancies. I have a problem with out-of-wedlock birth. "

    I hate to break it to you, but most teen pregnancies ARE out of wedlock births. The two go hand in hand. If you reduce one, you will reduce the other.

    "You mean like Europe, with its negative growth rate? Demographically dying Europe? Is that your model?"

    Yes - that is my model. If the goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies (and hence reduce abortions) - then observing the techniques used in countries with low rates of both would be a place to start. As far as 'demographically dying' - good grief! Do you measure success of an ideology by birth rate? That makes no sense.

    "Of course, "comprehensive sex-ed" is just a euphemism for Planned Parenthood services."

    That's a straw man argument. Comprehensive sex ed is just that. giving teens the knowledge they need to make informed decisions. Available birth control helps as well.

    "Ever heard of adoption?"

    As a matter of fact I was adopted at birth a few years ago (numbers aren't important). I think adoption is a great option, but adoption law as it stands now is seriously f-ed up. There needs to be comprehensive reform in this are if adoptive parents here in the US are to embrace stateside adoptions. WAY too many rights are afforded the biological parents IMHO

    ReplyDelete
  45. off-topic,

    some interesting evidence from the UK documenting poltergeists:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00dvffn

    I would like to see what atheists do with the 500+ best verified cases like this.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Halo

    The same thing we always do.

    1. Examine the evidence in a controlled setting.

    2. Find nothing.

    3. Laugh and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I believe women should have the right to reproductive choices, including abortion. Attempting to limit those choices is the real sexism." Darwin

    So, the mother has more of a right to kill the baby.
    The baby has no right to live?

    They used to have laws set up for anyone who had an abortion, and who aborted, and all involved.

    The magistrates have to take each case by case, and listen to the evidence.
    Some cases may call for capital punishment.
    Some may call for a few years in jail.
    Some may call for heavy fine.

    Abortion is murder, no doubt about it. It kills human life.

    Darwin, what if some takes an Eagle's egg, and fries it up with some bacon for breakfast, is that alright?
    Yet, it's illegal, I'm pretty sure, isn't it. Do you agree with that law honestly?

    ReplyDelete
  48. DARWINS66 SAID:

    "I hate to break it to you, but most teen pregnancies ARE out of wedlock births. The two go hand in hand."

    Well that's silly. Many teens marry right out of high school.

    "If you reduce one, you will reduce the other."

    No, the problem is an economic system that discourages early marriage.

    "You mean like Europe, with its negative growth rate? Demographically dying Europe? Is that your model?"

    "Yes - that is my model."

    So your model is a negative replacement rate.

    "If the goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies (and hence reduce abortions) - then observing the techniques used in countries with low rates of both would be a place to start."

    If women don't wish to get pregnant, then why do they engage in consensual sexual activity which is designed to induce pregnancy? And it's not as if contraceptives are illegal, unknown, or unobtainable.

    You have a very patronizing view of women. Yet another instance of your persistent sexism. You really need to work on your male chauvinism.

    "As far as 'demographically dying' - good grief! Do you measure success of an ideology by birth rate? That makes no sense."

    A suicidal ideology discredits itself. But perhaps you're an antinatalist like Singer, Schopenhauer, and Benatar. Digging a mass grave.

    "That's a straw man argument. Comprehensive sex ed is just that. giving teens the knowledge they need to make informed decisions."

    Actually, it's indoctrination under a euphemistic slogan.

    "Available birth control helps as well."

    Which I didn't oppose.

    "Ever heard of adoption?"

    "As a matter of fact I was adopted at birth a few years ago (numbers aren't important). I think adoption is a great option, but adoption law as it stands now is seriously f-ed up. There needs to be comprehensive reform in this are if adoptive parents here in the US are to embrace stateside adoptions. WAY too many rights are afforded the biological parents IMHO."

    Too little rights are afforded biological fathers.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You apparently did not listen to the interview.

    1. Examine the evidence in a controlled setting.

    This is exactly what the research team did and your step 2 did not materialise. "Find nothing" begins to look very implausible upon inspection of the data.

    Fact is, there are loads of cases like this, many secular researchers grant the strength of the evidence.

    So how does the atheist explain the mountain of evidence that the paranormal exists, documented by non-theists themselves?

    Mere assertions of "find nothing" are classic evidence evasive manoeuvres. Try answering the data, instead of displaying the village nature of your atheism.

    Specifically, what plausible explanation can you give for the linked to data that the researchers themselves did not investigate and find wanting?

    ReplyDelete
  50. sorry, this is way off topic.

    ReplyDelete
  51. steve:

    "No, the problem is an economic system that discourages early marriage."

    Yes, well, with the movement away from an industrial economic model there are fewer good opportunities for unskilled labor. Higher levels of education are needed. Being 19 and pregnant is not all that conducive to working on your degree. Sorry to hear that 'book-learnin' gets in the way of your proposal.

    "Actually, it's indoctrination under a euphemistic slogan. "

    Indoctrination? Sex education is indoctrination? I hate to tell you, but keeping teens in the dark about how babies are made isn't working very well here in the bible belt, sorry!

    "Too little rights are afforded biological fathers."

    Now THAT I might agree with you on. Regardless, people looking to adopt here in the states are put off by the current adoption system, hence the huge numbers of overseas adoptions. The system isn't helping the cause of reducing abortions - it's hurting it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Halo

    The video won't play. (not availablein my area) Got any working links to all this amazing, irrefutable evidence??

    ReplyDelete
  53. ah, shame.

    From the BBC news website if you can access that:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12357460

    Unfortunately this second link is a snippet of less than half of the full original interview and so misses out some of the juicy bits.

    (btw it is an audio not a video).

    ReplyDelete
  54. DARWINS66 SAID:

    “Yes, well, with the movement away from an industrial economic model there are fewer good opportunities for unskilled labor. Higher levels of education are needed. Being 19 and pregnant is not all that conducive to working on your degree. Sorry to hear that 'book-learnin' gets in the way of your proposal.”

    A college degree is not a competitive advantage if everyone has a college degree. That’s why professionals feel the need to keep upping the ante. First a BA. Then MA. Followed by a PhD. Maybe two doctorates.

    There’s no reason everybody should have to get a college degree to land a good job. That simply becomes a racket for academia.

    “Indoctrination? Sex education is indoctrination?”

    You use the euphemism “comprehensive sex-ed.” Now perhaps you’re just young and naïve, but in the world of realpolitik, innocuous sounding labels are frequently used to conceal a larger agenda. Maybe when you’re old enough to shave, you’ll understand.

    “I hate to tell you, but keeping teens in the dark about how babies are made isn't working very well here in the bible belt, sorry!”

    It’s fine with me if Bible-thumpers outnumber infidels. After the blue states commit demographic suicide, overflowing red states can migrate to blue states and make the Bible-belt coextensive with the 50 states.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "It’s fine with me if Bible-thumpers outnumber infidels."

    Good plan! The number of teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancies are highest in the red (high church attendance) states, so that might work - especially if you can get abortions outlawed as you'd like.

    Aha! That's why you're against abortion! You want to outnumber us liberals and those pesky abortions are getting in the way.

    Gotta go to work now, so I'll leave y'all breed amongst yourselves. Have fun!

    ReplyDelete
  56. From what I've read, rates of illegitimacy are highest among blacks and hispanics. Is church attendance notably high among, say, black men?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Darwins66 is obviously a failed abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  58. See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Why the reluctance? Poor desparate women that can't possible raise a child should go to prison for ending their preganancy.

    Nice.

    and people say xians aren't compassionate.


    I take it then that you would also be okay with a mother killing her 3 year old because some unforeseen economic crisis strikes her?

    After all, adoption laws are f-ed up.

    ReplyDelete
  59. See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Why the reluctance? Poor desparate women that can't possible raise a child should go to prison for ending their preganancy.

    Nice.

    and people say xians aren't compassionate.


    Yes, how uncompassionate of Christians not to let someone murder a child.

    The mercies of the wicked are cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Question for the Christian theists in the meta - could you explain, or else point me toward some resources that explore topics such as abortion from the perspective of God's two wills?

    As a thorough-going 5-point Calvinist with strong Reformed leanings (yet with certain paedo caveats) I often struggle to harmonize the fact that a MAJOR breach of God's will of precept, such as the mass murder of the most helpless among us on a global scale (e.g. abortion), is nevertheless somehow an outworking of His will of decree, since nothing at all can occur in all of His creation that the One true and living God has not in some sense decreed from eternity past.

    I realize the clay has no right to ask the Potter what He is doing, and as a wretched and sinful man deserving only divine wrath and punishment I'm truly amazed at the grace and mercy I've received for Christ's sake, but at the peril of asking God "what doest Thou?", I would very much like to learn more.

    Can anyone recommend a solid theodicy that deals specifically with the subject of abortion (again I'm thinking of the massive global scale we see in our day), or is the topic wrapped up in a bundle along with things like natural disasters, etc?

    The heinously wicked human-on-human evil of abortion strikes me as far more appalling than the "blind" extinction of massive numbers of hapless humans by natural means (yes I know God is fully and equally in control of both).

    I recognize that this feeling may simply say more about my subjective personal emotions than of my objective intellectual reasoning; but c'est la vie.

    Your suggestions would be appreciated.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  61. Coram Deo,

    Check out the review of Ehrman's God's Problem that Matt and I did.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Can any good thing come out of Rhoblogy and Vox Veritatis?

    Turns out it can!

    Nice post, Rho (and Matt), kudos!

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rho,

    If you have the time or inclination would you care to unpack the views expressed in the piece that you and Matt wrote with a more specific focus on the global abort-uary industry?

    Thanks in advance for your consideration.

    CD

    P.S. - I'm a bit more inclined to see the massive, state sanctioned, global scale, wholesale destruction of the most helpless and vulnerable human beings as a form of judgment from God rather than it being merely an expression of fallen humanity's hatred and loathing of the Imago Dei, although it is that too IMHO.

    (Judges 17:6; 21:25)

    ReplyDelete
  64. CD,

    Different ways of broaching the answer:

    1. At one level there’s a conflict between the two “wills” of God inasmuch as God’s decretive will is irresistible whereas his preceptive will is resistible.

    2. The conflict is partly semantic. It’s conventional to use the same noun (“will”) for both phenomena. At that level we could relieve the tension by simply using different nouns: God’s decree over against God’s law.

    3. At a deeper level, violations of God’s law further his appointed end. Consider the story of Joseph. His brothers sinned against him. And Potipher’s wife sinned against him. Yet their sinful actions unwittingly advance the action in the direct God intended.

    Or consider the number of sinful links in the chain leading up to the birth of Christ.

    4. Violations of God’s law manifest the evil character of evil. It’s not just an abstract idea of evil. We are confronted with evil in all its tangible, unyielding ugliness. That’s a useful object lesson.

    5. As you know, that also creates a backdrop for the manifestation of God’s mercy and judgment. Without certain types of evil, there would be no occasion to experience the goodness of God’s mercy and justice.

    6. Likewise, SF writers often explore the law of unintended consequences in time-travel scenarios. A character means well. He means to make things better. But every action has a corollary reaction. By making things better in one respect, he may make things worse (even far worse) in another respect. By saving one life, he unwittingly takes another, or others.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thanks Steve; those are useful thoughts.

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete