Abortion: Who decides Who Dies and Why; Part 2.

[Author's note again: this is a continuation of a lengthy conversation]

Someone unable to choose a moniker says,

…” hypocritical double standards….

1) Equating a moral opinion with a claim of absolute moral authority. And then dismissing the opinion because you reject the (unclaimed) moral authority. Also, failing to substantiate your own morally superior source."

When the moral "opinion" contains the moral authority to choose to kill another human, then that moral authority is fully claimed, regardless of whether the opiner wishes to admit it. I have made no claims other than to elaborate on your claims that it is OK to kill certain categories of humans, and what those claims entail as presuppositions and consequences. I do not claim moral authority and in this conversation I challenge yours.

“2) Equating the rejection of theistic claims with the claim of knowledge that no deity exists.”

That is maximal BULLSHIT. You said,
“You're damn right I feel morally superior to your fictional deity.”
And,
” You know Santa isn't real too correct?”

You are changing your story to fit your needs; that is dishonest. See below for trustworthiness.

” 3) You hinge your rebuttals on a supposed misinterpretation of biblical readings while ignoring the undeniable rational links between Christianity and child murder. I'll just reiterate the biblical flood, the murder of Egyptian first born sons and add Abraham's willingness to murder his son and Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter. The are amble examples of biblical allowances for the murder of children. Again, just scratching the surface”

Yes, the Bible does say those things (although it did not say the other things you claimed earlier). So that means that you are superior to Christians because your reasons are ones which you thought up yourself for justifying modern murders which Christians reject? First, your continued attack on Christianity has no bearing on the morality of Atheism, Atheists or supporters of intra-uterine killing for hire. Second, your self-endowed moral authority is not justified by attacking Christianity or any other religion. Third, if this is your only argument, a Tu Quoque based not on the Other's actual position but a false accusation of position which is presumptive of their acceptance of ancient specific demands to be applied to current social situations, a condition which does not apply, then you have failed to make a case for killing humans.

” 4) Demanding material evidence of the immaterial. Claim that the immaterial exists and is worthy of worship and somehow resembles the God of the Bible, yet it is the atheists responsibility to prove the non-existence of a being beyond falsification. I shouldn't have to articulate how and why this position is so moronic.”

First, the demand for material evidence of the non-material is specifically an Atheist demand, which Atheists make on Dualists. What is demanded of Dualists is not accepted as a demand on Atheists: Special Pleading.

Second, no such claim has been made concerning the God of the Bible; Claims have been made that your claims of Biblical support for modern mass killing of humans in abatoirs were false.

Third, Actually you merely cannot articulate it. The Category Error in your logic was demonstrated earlier, should you choose to revisit it. You cannot provide proof of your claims so you call the very requirement made on non-Atheists "moronic" when it is applied to yourself, again Special Pleading. And you try to change your position, above in #2, in order to avoid the obvious inability to deal with the logical internal non-coherence of your belief; then you denigrate the requirement in a final attempt to avoid it. You are floundering helplessly because you have neither evidentiary nor logical support for your beliefs (blind belief). And again, you appear to have no clue what the term "falsification" is about, you throw it around without comprehending its position in empirical understanding.

” re: " it is better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it on the ground."

I was asking your opinion on condoms and your response is to rant about there being no such verse in the bible. Just answer the question.”

Here’s what you actually said:

” Or maybe you are okay with condoms and reject the verse:

" it is better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it on the ground."

It was apparent that you thought that the verse was a biblical permission to use prostitutes. You cannot do one thing and claim that you did not do it, and still be considered trustworthy. The verse is a non-biblical perversion and I rejected it due to your false implication. There was no question asked, contra your implication.

What the subject here is, and remains, is the Atheist position on killing humans. Your justification for killing certain categories of humans is to claim that if they feel no pain and have no memories, it is your opinion that it is OK to kill them, AND besides, Christians have an evil deity. Moreover, no female should have to endure pregnancy if she decides not to. These are your morals.

Maybe we should enumerate them:

It is OK to kill certain categories of humans if:
1. they feel no pain and have no memories;
2. The Christian deity is evil;
3. no female should have to endure a pregnancy if she doesn’t want to.

Now, your attempt to prove that religious arguments produce more abortion and disease devolve to the following principles, which you apparently made up:

1. Abstinence only education is specifically religiously motivated.

This is patently absurd. Keeping one’s pants on is a measure of personal character. Taking them off at every request is the result of paganism via Atheism. It is irresponsible. Teaching responsibility for the consequences of one's actions seems to really annoy Atheo-Leftists.

2. Abstinence only education produces ignorance.

I’m sure that you mean that it produces ignorance of the education on "how to abort all your pregnancies which you don’t want", right? And no one except Atheists and aborters talk about abstinence-only; consequences for one's actions and the character required to choose properly are also necessary. So your abstinence-only issue is a non-issue, since no one argues for that (this is an actual straw man: an issue no one is arguing which you bring up in order to argue against).

3. Ignorance spreads disease and pregnancy.

Absolutely false; unlimited irresponsible sexual adventurism spreads disease and pregnancy. Ignorance is not an agent. And you have not proven ignorance to even be a factor.

4. Pregnancy oft results in abortion.
Absolutely true. Because you make it available for cleaning up after sex.

” "Well, premeditated murder seems to apply"

So, depending on the state, you believe a woman obtaining an abortion should serve 25+ years or be executed? My guess of stoning her to death isn't so far off hm?”

The woman is also a victim here, a victim of your brand of “education” and of the social allowance for free sex and abortion clean-ups. The doctors are the killers. And the enablers. When specific actions and consequences are deemed illegal then the consequences obtain. The legal consequence of intentionally causing the death of humans is now perverted. Abortion mass production should be illegal, and character development substituted. I'm dead certain that you are against that, though. The Atheo-Left consistently rejects character as a virtue because it is too hard for the weakened masses to do. The weakened masses must not have consequences or character.

” "Under that theory, killing anyone not productive is acceptable. "

Well isn't that just the gold standard for a straw man argument right there. But that's just the beginning. The next several paragraphs are pure straw man fantasy not worth addressing.”

Still haven’t looked up the meaning of Straw Man I see. And the things which you cannot think your way out of, you claim are not worth addressing. That is intellectual cowardice.

” "You intend to assuage the victim’s pain by killing an innocent party."

You are completely absent empathy. It's not about assuaging past pain but about preventing future pain. No one is forcing this option either. It is the woman's choice.”

I did not say past pain, and: Yes, I understand. Your morality is completely about focused, differentiated empathy, focused on a woman’s agony in bearing a consequential human, and differentiated by no empathy for the consequential human – whatsoever. The woman must have the choice to kill her tormentor. She is to endure no responsibility. Certainly not pregnancy or nurture.

” 'And since when is 9 months a “life time”?'

Perhaps this entire conversation can be condensed by this one statement.

You think the pregnancy a simple matter of 9 months discomfort while I see it as a the beginning of a life long obligation to be a parent. You continually bring up this 50 000 000 dead number, yet with this statement it is obvious you've given no consideration as to what will happen to those babies post-natal.”

What “will” happen to them, for a certainty? You are so prescient that you can conjure up these human's inability to ever be adopted, or the mothers actually starting to care about them? Your prescience, or is it omniscience, allows you to kill them for their own good? We know what happens to them pre-natally: they are dismembered. You actually think that this is a rational argument?

” Never mind the unconscionable burden on the individual families.”

Unconscionable? Really? There have not been 50,000,000 rapes in the history of the USA, much less killed in abortion. So the common abortion is a consequence of irresponsible sexual activity. The burden of irresponsible sexual activity borne of irresponsible moral values has produced most of these mass produced human deaths. To put the financial burden as a reason for these killings is the icing on the cake. Perhaps you could put a dollar value to the cost which is unconscionable, which would actually be the dollar value which a human being is worth to you. No consequential human is worth more than how many dollars?

Or perhaps you meant the emotional cost of actually nurturing the child, but I doubt it; that would be too bizarre a claim even for abortionists.

”Had these babies been born, that is another infant for every 6 Americans. You going to adopt all those babies?”

These babies should not have been conceived in the first place, and your evaluation shows just how irresponsible the whole “free sex / kill the human consequence” is. The problem is that of amorality as a cultural standard.

”So why should anyone trust you, or any Atheist? Give us a reason which places you solidly in an unchanging category of trustworthiness. "

Because I value evidence and reason over the fairy tales and false promises of the religious.”

You are unable to give any evidence for Atheism, and you have demonstrated that fully. You have derided the question of your evidence for your beliefs. So evidence is not an actuality in your worldview, regardless of your claim.

As for reason, you are unable to comprehend the Category Error in Atheist logic and in Philosophical Materialism which render them both irrational, and you change your position at will as your faltering argument requires it, and claim otherwise. So reason is not an actuality in your worldview either.

Thus your claim to evidence and reason as personal values is not supported by your activity here. The consequence of which is that your trustworthiness is not supported nor an expectation one could derive from your discussion.

The divergence between your claims for trustworthiness and your actual positions produces no feeling of trust in me, nor should it in anyone; perhaps if you actually produced evidence and reasoning which absolutely proves your belief in Atheism, it might be different. But you merely make claims for evidence and reason, you do not produce to those claims. Seriously, would you trust someone who makes claims but cannot produce?

I surmise that an intense hatred of Christians and/or Christianity is at the base of your worldview. And that you consider your own mental machinations to be superior to all others, and in fact, impervious to critical analysis. Any who critique your failures are “bigots”, (what was today’s… oh yes) “hypocrite, delusional, paranoid”. “Absent empathy” because of trying to stop mass produced deaths which are unnecessary and motivated by irresponsibility.

Yet it is you, not me, who advocates for the killing of guiltless humans based on their perceived dollar value, their category of development, and your opinion of their futures as humans. Your illogic has no demonstrable limitations, and certainly no moral limitations because limitations would be rule-based, and you use your own opinion only, not any rules. Your use of “empathy” is actually laughable: kill the humans to prevent their “future pain” as you discern it. Can you not see the implications of that? No, probably not.

I repeat, you are dangerous.