Why Don’t We Trust Atheists? Well, Post Natal Abortion and Personhood, for Example.

This subject arises du temps en temps and for some reason Atheists cannot believe that they are not considered trustworthy, despite the lack of morality attached to their belief system. They actually think that by creating a personally congenial code of behavior which matches their actual daily doings, that their tautological morality should be obvious to everyone, and that not only are they moral, they are more moral than anyone else, all of whom are admittedly moral defectives, to wit: sinners. (One cannot be a sinner if one declares that there is no sin of course).

Not only are Atheists, in their own minds, more moral than their inferiors, Atheists are in possession of the moral authority to determine morality for the rest of humanity. For example, take a look at all of the Humanist Manifestos.

Some Atheists attain accreditation in moral superiority; they call themselves “ethicists”. By pondering - in ungrounded ponders of course, there being no absolute grounds - the value of other humans who are not themselves, they are able to make moral pronouncements on the value of classes of humans, again not themselves.

In a sense, all Atheists are ethicists, in that they determine at least their own personal ethical systems of behavior. So every Atheist is at least a moral authority unto himself. It is not entirely clear how it is that some, but not all, Atheists acquire the extra moral authority to declare ethics for everyone. Regardless of how that accreditation is acquired, some Atheists have it, and they become career moral authorities for the rest of humanity.

Now two of these career moral authorities have declared a new class of non-valued humans: the post-natals. Here is a summary of their new revelations:

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Now, since this new revelation is an intellectual understanding of some sort, we should see how it stacks up before rejecting it as the product of fools. Well, “should” is too strong, that is a moral pronouncement itself; it is not necessary to examine it before rejecting it on the basis of “who do they think they are, God?” - the product of fools... and summarily shit-canning the entire subject.

But of course, many folks will consider this Atheist revelation to be elegantly compelling, and for that reason alone it needs to be analyzed.

First off, it presumes that pre-natal abortion of a fetus is a rational and therefore moral action. It explains legally declared ethical reasons to destroy a fetus and then asks, what is the difference between a fetus and a new-born, the answer for which is merely: a breath of air.

For diseased pre-born fetuses it is presumed ethical to kill them. But some diseases, such as Down’s syndrome, are not 100% detectable prior to birth. So why not kill them post-natally? Since there is no definitive difference between pre-birth canal and post birth canal existence, the value of the critter is the same one second after as it is one second before traversing the canal. So it is not the process of birth that influences the value being placed on the critter.

Yes, it’s a critter all right. But is it a human? Who is to say? If the mother and the ethicists agree that it is not a person, why then who can disagree? In fact, at what age does this determination procedure become invalid? Well, age is not the criterion. There is no age limit for placing value on a human.

What is the criterion for personhood? According to these two career moral authorities, it is just whatever they, themselves, figure it to be. Their specific criterion is... well, it just doesn't matter; they have one today. Now we might sit down and calculate the ROI for a just birthed critter, say on the average of a large population. Or we might do a specific calculation on the ROI for a just birthed critter for the individual case, say based on class, genetic history, family prior contribution to human welfare, needs for balancing the sexual population, needs for dealing with social ills such as poverty, or other social imbalances which this individual might exacerbate, etc. (Can Social Justice be ignored at the valuation of an individual, morally?)

There is absolutely no restriction which is logically attached to the authoritative determination of the value of humanesque critters, regardless of birth status or time since traversing the birth canal. So it is incumbent upon someone to make the decision, someone with moral authority of course. And we already know who that is, the career moral authorities: the ethicists.

By measuring the value of individuals (as has already been done by the Emmanuels in the current Democrat administration) those who do not contribute significantly to the betterment of humankind (for example) can be credited with less or no value. This is a simple determination. Equations already exist toward that end.

The problem then becomes what to do with them, those who are devalued. At what point are their sources of sustenance reduced, or their sources of life maintenance removed, or maybe outright termination is required? Since the age, post natally, is not the issue, then how should the older ones be terminated? Or should they be sequestered in encampments? Perhaps some value might be extracted in terms of labor? And when they no longer can perform that, then extinguish them?

These issues will be decided by the ethicists, of course.

Why should we not trust them with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children... Oh wait... the children, what about the children??

If social engineering and eugenics is about a better world for the children, it is definitely not for ALL children, is it? Only those finding favor with the Atheist ethicists.

Note: link fixed.

This is of Great Importance: AGW Solved!

It's a much better fit than CO2, it appears. And it explains the missing upper level heat signature: it's in DC instead. So many issues resolved.

In Case You Missed These: (Stuff To Get Off My List).

1. PETA kills more than 95% of the animals in its care. According to Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services data, published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a “non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers”, PETA has killed over 27,000 animals in the past 10 years. In 2011, it killed more than 1,911 dogs and cats according to the report, and finding homes for only 24.

”PETA media liaison Jane Dollinger told The Daily Caller in an email that ‘most of the animals we take in are society’s rejects; aggressive, on death’s door, or somehow unadoptable.’

Yet PETA does not try to adopt out the animals.

2. A proposed initiative by Britain’s MI5, MI6, and the GCHQ will monitor every phone call, email and text message, keeping the data for up to a year.

3. Scientists have created human eggs from stem cells. What could possibly go wrong?

4. Richard Dawkins claims a probability of God of 1.42857%. OK, he actually claimed 6.9 out 7.0 chance for no God, thereby being an Agnostic. A quote:

“What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”
Richard Dawkins

Dawkins has confirmed the idea that life came from nothing. And he considers that to be “staggering, elegant, and beautiful”. Elegant and beautiful are not really firm descriptors, they are opinions, viewpoints. Staggering does describe the belief that life came from something like minerals, or nothing, as Dawkins says, and did it only once. Dawkins doesn’t calculate the probability of that, though. It’s part of his worldview, so it had to have happened by definition and is therefore likely considered 100% probable, by definition, from his perspective. From my own perspective, the idea is staggeringly preposterous. It's an Atheist, Materialist's miracle: no explanation, just awe.

That the opposition in this debate didn’t call him on that is understandable. Dawkins debates only weak opposition, not intellectual heavyweights. This opponent apparently allowed Dawkins to hog the mike, and then pretty much agreed with him, except for shoehorning God, of course.

5. Law Schools, Deans, and News Mags as Felons? According to TaxProf blog,

” Morgan Cloud (Emory) & George B. Shepherd (Emory), Law Deans In Jail:
A most unlikely collection of suspects -- law schools, their deans, U.S. News & World Report and its employees -- may have committed felonies by publishing false information as part of U.S. News' ranking of law schools. The possible federal felonies include mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, and making false statements. Employees of law schools and U.S. News who committed these crimes can be punished as individuals, and under federal law the schools and U.S. News would likely be criminally liable for their agents' crimes.

Some law schools and their deans submitted false information about the schools' expenditures and their students' undergraduate grades and LSAT scores. Others submitted information that may have been literally true but was misleading. Examples include misleading statistics about recent graduates' employment rates and students' undergraduate grades and LSAT scores.”

6. Obama hires the director of Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” to film a movie about: Obama. It will be a 30 minute movie to be released soon. A blockbuster, no doubt.

The Paradox In Hate Crime Laws

Back when living in Oregon there was a big issue generated by the paradox generated by certain laws. The issue was the protection of the salmon which come up the rivers to spawn vs. the protection of the sea lions which hang around the coast. The sea lions learned to hang around the river outlets and take a bite out of passing salmon. There were enough salmon that the sea lions took just one bite and left that salmon to die while the sea lion looked for another one.

Well, you can’t interfere with the sea lions, they are protected. But you must save the salmon, they are protected. The paradox became palpable.

Here we have another law which demonstrates its basic irrationality. Because it sets up protected classes of people which get more protection than ordinary victims, what happens when a protected person attacks a protected person?

The case involves three lesbians who attacked a homosexual man.

Now if anyone outside the protected class had done this crime, the additional punishment would be automatic, because it becomes a hate crime regardless of actual motivation. This was well established in the Matthew Shepard case, where the attackers didn’t even know that the victim was homosexual; it was a robbery gone bad. But in this case, the question arises, “can a person in Category Z hate another person in Category Z because of that person’s membership in Category Z”?

The ACLU staff attorney claims that Jews can be anti-Semitic, thereby proving that class hatred still applies, even within the class. So the paradox becomes even more bizarre, having to involve self-hatred as well as class hatred as motivators. Not that that has to be proved. All that needs to be proved is that the victim is in a protected class according to the prosecutors and the ACLU.

But wait. The lesbians charge that the homosexual man used “homophobic slurs” too. And it is the slur which is the crime, apparently. So maybe he deserves 10 years in lock down too?

And here’s the prosecutor’s actual stance:

” But Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said prosecutors will have no problem proving the women committed a hate crime, even if they are lesbians.

‘The defendants’ particular orientation or alleged orientations have no bearing on our ability to prosecute for allegedly targeting a person who they believe to be different from them,’ he said.”

That sounds like every person to me. So any assault is a hate crime, because every person is different from every other person. That sort of levels it out. Or is it every assault which is accompanied with objectionable language? If that is the case, then when you assault someone, be sure to compliment that person, especially on whatever categories they might belong to. It’ll save you an extra ten years in the can.