20 Arguments Against Abortion, Rebutted

Seventy percent of Americans are in favor of letting Roe v. Wade stand, a new high. Nevertheless, pro-life advocates remain vocal.

I’ve heard a lot of arguments against abortion. Here many of them, with my rebuttals.

1. The Bible says that abortion is wrong. 

For starters, in the U.S., our secular constitution trumps the Bible. “The Bible says so” is irrelevant when the First Amendment forbids government from enacting laws guided by religious dogma.

And, as I’ve argued before, the Bible doesn’t say that abortion is wrong. Indeed, God has no problem killing people, including children. The Bible demands that women suspected of adultery be given a poison that will miscarry any illegitimate fetus (Num. 5:16–29). Babies begin to count as persons only after they are a month old (Lev. 27:6 and Num. 3:15–16). In the sixteenth century, Pope Gregory XIII said that an embryo of less than 40 days was not yet human.

The heels-dug-in pro-life position within some Protestant churches is a new thing. A summary of a 1978 analysis of abortion shows a surprisingly pro-choice attitude. The names of pro-choice churches are a Who’s Who of American Protestantism: American Baptist Churches, American Lutheran Church, Disciples of Christ, Church of the Brethren, Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Church, and United Presbyterian Church.

Maybe if politicians let Christians figure this out on their own, the pro-choice stand would be even more a majority position.

I apologize for piling on, but the Catholic Church’s loud voice demands a response. The Catholic priest pedophilia scandal was a moral test. The church’s cover-up—its focus on the well-being of the church over that of the flock—shows that it failed that test. The Catholic Church has vacated its place at the table on the question of abortion.

2. Abortion tinkers with the natural order. 

We have cheerfully adopted medicine and technology that “tinker with the natural order”—antibiotics, vaccines, and anesthesia, for example—to which we don’t give a second thought. We prolong life beyond what the “natural order” would permit and allow it to happen where it otherwise wouldn’t (in vitro fertilization, for example). Abortion might be bad, but that it changes the natural order is no argument.

3. You argue that a newborn has more cells than the zygote that it started from. Is this just a size thing? What about someone who’s lost a limb? Or had tonsils, appendix, or gall bladder removed? Are they less of a person? 

The difference between an amputee and a newborn is trivial compared to that between the newborn and the single cell. In the long list of organs, limbs, and systems, this amputee merely has one fewer. Compare that with a single cell, which not only has none of those body parts but doesn’t even have a single cell of any body part.

We can push this thinking to the ridiculous. Imagine technology that provides life support so that a human head could survive. Is this less of a person?

Well, yeah. Obviously. Someone who’s been reduced to just a head isn’t as much of a person as they were. Or consider Terry Shiavo, who was allowed to die after 15 years in a vegetative state. Was she less of a person? Her severe brain damage certainly made her less of something, and you can label this whatever you want.

4. Imagine if you’d been aborted! 

I wouldn’t care, would I? But how about you, Mr. Pro-life? How do you feel about the fact that you took the opportunity for life that was denied to uncountably many other combinations of egg and sperm? If you think that it’s a silly hypothetical question, you can understand my similar reaction.

There are also voices who confront that challenge directly. Here’s someone who said that her mother’s life was clearly worse for having her and that she wished her mother had aborted her.

This thinking isn’t far removed from the Quiverfull movement, which encourages no restraint on birth and childishly “lets God decide” how many children to have. Where do you draw the line? If we are morally obliged to bring to term a 2-week-old embryo, are we also morally obliged to bring to term the thought, “Gee, I wonder if we should have another baby …”?

Seeing life as a spectrum is the only way to make sense of this. Yes, that leaves unanswered the question of where to draw the line for abortion, but let’s first agree that a spectrum exists.

5. Imagine that you had two planned kids, and then you had a child after an unplanned pregnancy. You wouldn’t want to give that child up. But if you’d aborted it, your life would be emptier. 

Of course I’d love my unplanned child as much as my other ones. But what do we conclude from this? That I should have not had two kids but rather three? Or five? Or fifteen? Should I expect some tsk-ing behind my back as neighbors wonder why my wife and I could have been so callous to have not had as many as biology would permit?

(The Quiverfull Movement goes down this path, and I explore that here.)

By similar logic, is a woman’s menstrual cycle a cause for lamentation because that was a missed opportunity for a child? It is a sign of a potential life, lost. But in any life, there are millions of paths not taken. C’est la vie.

I don’t think it’s immoral to limit the number of children you have, and I don’t see much difference between zero cells and one cell—it’s all part of the spectrum. I’ll agree that the thought “Let’s have a baby” isn’t a baby … but then neither is a single cell.

Continue to Part 2.

A single cell is simply that: a single cell.
It’s no more a human
than the first brush stroke of a painting is a picture
or the first word of a book is a novel.
— Dave Gardner

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 1/20/12.)

Photo credit: EHD

Ray Comfort’s Anti-Abortion Video “180”
Don’t Like Abortion? Then Support Sex Education.
“I Do Abortions Because I Am a Christian”
Was the Colorado Springs Shooter No Worse Than Planned Parenthood Itself?
About Bob Seidensticker
  • joey_in_NC

    Seeing life as a spectrum is the only way to make sense of this. Yes, that leaves unanswered the question of where to draw the line for abortion…

    Well, isn’t that question 99% of the entire abortion debate? Where do you draw the line for abortion? That precisely is the problem. Simply saying that “life is a spectrum” doesn’t come close to solving it.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      How about, it’s complicated? It’s worth asking and worrying about? Admit that it’s not simple, and you’ve not solved the problem, but you’ve taken a step closer to fully understanding all the ramifications of the problem.

      And no, 99% of the abortion debate isn’t about where to draw the line. It’s focused primarily on whether women should be seen as people or incubators and whether women should be punished for having sex or not. The theoretical value of the fetus is used as a bludgeon, not a true moral stance, as evidenced by the fact that I’ve yet to meet a pro-lifer who supports massive additional funding for research into miscarriages and government provision of all necessary screening and drugs to find and treat known causes of miscarriage.

      • joey_in_NC

        And no, 99% of the abortion debate isn’t about where to draw the line.

        Do you support all late-term abortions, no questions asked?

        It’s focused primarily on whether women should be seen as people or incubators and whether women should be punished for having sex or not.

        Empty rhetoric that gets us absolutely nowhere.

        • Kubricks_Rube

          Rhetoric aside, the question of where to draw the line only becomes the primary issue when you discount the significant but powerful minority trying to draw the line at never.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          Yes, I do. No person has the right to use another’s body without hir consent even if they will die without use of that body, so even if fetuses are unquestionably people (which is actually a very unsettled question) they still have no right to use a person’s body without hir consent.

          In other words, if a person doesn’t want it there, out it goes.

          It isn’t empty rhetoric to point out that pro-lifers are in fact arguing that woman = incubator without agency and pregnancy = punishment for sex, when that is actually what they say.

          And yes, acknowledging a spectrum of personhood is absolutely vital to gaining understanding the issue of abortion. Would you care to stick to the OP’s topic a bit more?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Yes, the line is a problem, but it’s been answered by many legislatures many times. It’s hard (just like juggling any tough legislative issue is hard), but it’s not impossible. More relevant to me, this is issue #2.

      Issue #1 is whether a single cell is identical in every meaningful way to a newborn baby or if there’s a spectrum here. How you resolve this question completely colors your decision about abortion. Let’s focus on problem 1 first.

      • joey_in_NC

        Issue #1 is whether a single cell is identical in every meaningful way to a newborn baby or if there’s a spectrum here.

        But you’re missing the elephant in the room regarding this “spectrum” talk. Why should we stop speaking of a spectrum once we have a newborn baby? Obviously, there are some major biological differences between a newborn baby and a fully grown self-conscious, self-aware adult. Given this thinking, wouldn’t it be reasonable to value a newborn baby less than an adult? It can even be argued that abortion can be pushed well beyond the birth event. Here is an example of such an argument.

        • Niemand

          Why should we stop speaking of a spectrum once we have a newborn baby?

          Because a newborn baby is not living off another person’s body. We would only be talking about a spectrum with respect to a newborn if parents were legally required to donate organs to sick offspring. If they were one could argue that a newborn is less self-aware than an adult and therefore should not be given precedence in terms of organ use. But until such a time, it’s a pointless question.

        • M.S.

          Because a newborn baby is not living off another person’s body.
          Tell that to any woman who has ever breastfed! I assure you in many ways my body felt more invaded during 24/7 nursing than it did during pregnancy….

        • Niemand

          Ok, does not have to live off another person’s body. If you don’t like breast feeding, just stop and give the baby formula. You can’t just stop a pregnancy and pop the embryo in a jar for further gestation so a fetus or embryo is an obligate parasite.

        • purr

          So if a woman dies in childbirth the newborn will die too because it doesn’t have her tits to feed off of?

          Give me a break.

          EDIT:

          Ever heard of a wet nurse?

        • Niemand

          Given this thinking, wouldn’t it be reasonable to value a newborn baby less than an adult?

          Actually, we do sometimes have that debate, but not usually on the level you’re thinking of. The debate is on questions like, “Is research into helping premature newborns a higher priority or research into helping children and adults survive cancer?” Or “Should hospital X build a better neonatal ICU or a better trauma ER?” Yes, these debates happen. They come down to all sorts of different issues, including potential years of life saved, urgency of one need versus the other, and, sadly, profitability of one over the other. But questions like whether newborns should be considered of the same value as children or adults do come into play.

        • Kubricks_Rube

          I don’t know anyone who does stop the spectrum at newborn baby. At a certain point, abortion stops being a better option than induced labor. That’s the point on the sepctrum- when the baby can survive independent of the woman’s body- where most people I know draw the line.

        • Niemand

          At a certain point, abortion stops being a better option than induced labor.

          Maybe. Most abortions after 20 weeks are performed for reasons of fetal anomaly or maternal ill health. Sometimes an induction is an abortion, i.e. a 15 week old fetus in a woman with eclampsia or HELLP. Sometimes labor is induced and an intervention performed half way through, as in a fetus with severe hydrocephalus and anencephaly where the body may be delivered and the fluid drained to allow the head to be delivered (yes, the evil “partial birth” abortion.) Sometimes a woman may have a twin pregnancy with fetal demise of one twin. Would it be better to induce labor (probably killing the viable twin) or wait for labor to start on its own (risking killing both mother and viable twin from sepsis and risking killing the viable twin with a premature birth) or to abort the dead twin and leave the other alive and with the best chance of being born more or less at term? I can keep going on scenarios if you’d like. There are plenty more situations like these…

        • Kubricks_Rube

          You’re of course completely right about all that. I was trying to attack the anti-choice strawman of women asknig for and doctors performing late-term abortions on healthy pregnancies.

        • Niemand

          Yeah, the problem is, does that person even exist? The one who suddenly decides on an abortion at 24 weeks for no particular reason, I mean. I can think of scenarios where a woman with no medical problems except for a normally progressing pregnancy and a fetus with no known anomalies might be seeking an abortion at 20 weeks or later, but, with one exception, they’re all kind of unlikely.

          I could imagine, for example, that a woman was kidnapped and became pregnant through rape and only escaped when she was in her third trimester. Or a woman who didn’t realize she was pregnant until very late in the pregnancy–rare, but it happens. Maybe due to denial or just through a biological fluke-some women have apparent menses throughout pregnancy.

          But the only likely scenario is that of a woman who has been trying for months to get an abortion but can’t because of barriers put in her way by the “pro-life” movement. And the solution to that is, I hope, obvious: make abortion cheap, easy, and readily accessible in the first trimester and those cases will disappear.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Then add to that comprehensive sex education and reasonable access to contraceptives, and the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop.

        • Niemand

          comprehensive sex education and reasonable access to contraceptives

          Oh, come on, that’s just crazy talk! Give everyone access to contraceptives and the information needed to use them safely and effectively and the only people getting abortions would be those who were unlucky enough to have their contraception fail (it happens, even with perfect use) or had problems with the pregnancy. And that would make the “pro-life” movement just miserable–they’d have no one to lecture.

          Incidentally, the rate of unintended pregnancy seems to be falling everywhere except North America.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And the pro-life women who have such a contraceptive failure will sneak in the back door, have their abortion, get back on the picket line in a week, and rationalize it away that she had a good reason, not like those other sluts who come in.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Re unintended pregnancy rates: you’d think that if abortion really were a holocaust like we’re told, the pro-lifers would want to do something about it.

        • purr

          I actually asked this of a pro-lifer the other day. He told me that I must be a Nazi then, since I support abortion ;)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You need to find some more thoughtful people to chat with …

        • Niemand

          I know, I know, I’ve said this before, but…the actual Nazis were anything but pro-choice. They forbid abortions to some women, demanded them of others, but they were never willing to let women decide for themselves.

        • The Computer Ate My Nym

          I think the claim is that not conceiving is somehow just as bad because, after all, where would you be if your mother used birth control and didn’t conceive you? But somehow they never seem willing to explain how abstinence is ok. Where would you be if your parents didn’t have sex and therefore never conceived you, hmm?

          It’s not and it never has been about preventing abortion or even contraception. It’s all about controlling women’s sexuality.

        • purr

          I like Robert M. Price, and I still do – I notice that he reviewed Bob’s book – but he disappointed me when one day on his podcast he said that he doesn’t believe in abortion, because ‘once the fuse is lit, you can’t stop it, if only for a few months of hardship.’

          Methinks Robert M. Price doesn’t quite understand the ‘hardships’ involved in pregnancy.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Agreed, about Price’s good points, his conservative views, and his probably not understanding. He does have a daughter, however.

          I’m pretty sure, however, that he doesn’t want to overturn Roe.

        • purr

          Yep. He says that those are his personal views, and that he chooses to stay out of the politics.

        • joey_in_NC

          Yeah, the problem is, does that person even exist?

          They certainly do. Ask Gosnell.

        • purr

          Pro-life barriers to abortion are what created Gosnell.

          The women who went to him were poor, lacked funds and access to early abortions.

          Try again.

        • joey_in_NC

          The women who went to him were poor, lacked funds and access to early abortions.

          That’s a big assumption, considering Gosnell completely jacked up the prices for very late-term abortions. Yet they were willing to pay up.

          But all this is irrelevant to the discussion. I’m sure there are people who think that mothers wanting to kill their fully born infants completely don’t exist (but they do). That doesn’t mean we should rid all laws against infanticide because we think they never happen (but they do).

        • purr

          I suggest you read Niemand’s reply.

          The women who went to Gosnell were also afraid to go to the local PP clinics – thanks to the violent pro-life protesters.

          Many were immigrant women.

          Gosnell also LIED about how far along the women were in their pregnancies.

        • purr

          According to the Grand Jury report on Gosnell:

          The report is clear about why women went to his grotesque facility, a place with bloodstained furniture that reeked of cat urine. Gosnell performed abortions on minors who felt they couldn’t get parental consent and on
          those who didn’t want to comply with Pennsylvania’s 24-hour-waiting period. “Too young? No problem. Didn’t want to wait? Gosnell provided same-day service,” the report says. He preyed on poor women who were willing to accept terrible treatment because they couldn’t afford anything better. “He treated his patients with condescension—slapping them, providing abysmal care, and often refusing even to see or talk to them—unless they were Caucasian, or had money,” says the report.

          And, of course, Gosnell did illegal late-term abortions. “The real key to the business model, though, was this: Gosnell catered to the women who couldn’t get abortions elsewhere— because they were too pregnant,” the Grand Jury report says. “Most doctors won’t perform late
          second-trimester abortions, from approximately the 20th week of pregnancy, because of the risks involved. And late-term abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy are flatly illegal. But for Dr. Gosnell, they were an pportunity.”

          The daughter of Karnamaya Mongar, the 41-year-old grandmother whom Gosnell has been convicted of killing, testified that she’d been turned away from two abortion clinics in Virginia, where she lived, as well as one in Washington, D.C., because none of them did second trimester abortions. She was 15 weeks pregnant when she started seeking an abortion, and 19 weeks by the time she died. Someone with more social capital would have known how to find a decent clinic, but Mongar had
          just arrived in the United States after 20 years in a Nepalese refugee camp. It is women like her who suffer most from the barriers to safe procedures that the anti-abortion movement is forever throwing up.

          And:

          One of Gosnell’s patient-victims told reporters that she had scheduled an abortion at Planned Parenthood but balked when she approached the clinic: “The picketers out there, they just scared me half to death.” Gosnell didn’t pay real nurses, have real equipment, or bother with the expense of cleaning up very much, making it easy for him to undercut the prices of reputable providers, as Carole Joffe reported for RH Reality Check in 2011.

          “As numerous abortion clinic managers have told me over the years, for very poor women—who are way over-represented among abortion patients—differences of even five or ten dollars can be the deciding factor of where to go. The price list at Women’s Medical Society, listed in the Grand jury report, shows that in 2005, a first trimester procedure was $330.00, while the average price nationally then was about one hundred dollars higher. For a 23-24 week procedure, Gosnell charged $1,625.00, while the relatively few other facilities in the Northeast
          offering such abortions would have charged at least one thousand more.”

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/04/15/reduce_access_to_safe_abortion_and_black_markets_will_flourish_how_kermit.html

        • Niemand

          Yet they were willing to pay up.

          Why do you think that they were willing to pay high prices for an obviously substandard provider?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And besides, all this is irrelevant to the
          discussion.

          But … wasn’t it you who took us down this
          tangent?

          I’m sure there are people who think that
          mothers wanting to kill their fully born infants completely don’t exist (but they do).

          I vote that we remove all children from their parents
          immediately. There are some parents who treat their children badly. To avoid that, no more parenting.

          Problem solved.

        • joey_in_NC

          But … wasn’t it you who took us down this
          tangent?

          Actually, no…it wasn’t. Someone asked if certain people existed, and I gave an answer.

          I’m sure there are people who think that
          mothers wanting to kill their fully born infants completely don’t exist (but they do).

          I vote that we remove all children from their parents immediately. There are some parents who treat their children badly. To avoid that, no more parenting.

          Problem solved.

          Huh? What is that all about?

          I simply vote that killing children should be illegal. Sounds more reasonable, don’t you think?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Someone asked if certain people existed, and I gave an answer.

          They were asking about a particular category of pregnant woman. “Gosnell” isn’t a correct answer.

          Huh? What is that all about?

          Bringing up infanticide as a red herring.

          I simply vote that killing children should be illegal. Sounds more reasonable, don’t you think?

          Sounds great. Is a single fertilized human egg cell a child?

        • purr

          Modern America

          “In 1966, the United States had 10,920 murders, and
          one out of every twenty-two was a child killed by a parent.”

          Despite our predilection for considering modern
          civilization “advanced,” the crime of infanticide has continued to pervade most
          contemporary cultures. The major difference between the nature of infanticide in the
          twentieth century, when compared to the rest of recorded history, however, is due to the
          impact of one modern medical advancement: the widespread availability of safe, and legal,
          means of abortion. The ability to easily terminate a pregnancy, and thereby eliminate an
          unwanted child before it is born, has had a profound effect on the prevalence of
          infanticide. The human species has killed almost 10% – 15% of all children born. The
          majority of these murders have been associated with reasons of necessity at least in the
          minds of the infanticide parent – or with untoward reactions against an unwanted birth.
          With little ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy safely, troubled parents have had
          little choice but to wait until full-term delivery before disposing of the conception.

          Of approximately 6.4 million pregnancies in the United
          States in 1988, 3.6 million were unintended and therefore subject to dangerous
          consequences. 1.6 million of those unwanted pregnancies resulted in abortion. In Britain,
          more than 160,000 legal abortions, or terminations of pregnancy, were carried out each
          year during this same period of time. The Family Planning Association in Russia says that
          there are more than 3 million abortions performed each year, more than double the number
          of births. In France, there are almost one million abortions each year, equal to the
          number of births. This means that over five million pregnancies were aborted in the
          Western world alone each year, and if the births of those children would not have been
          prevented, it is very likely that many of those infants would have been victims of
          infanticidal rage.

          Morally right or wrong – a case of murder or
          manifestation of a woman’s right to choose – the fact remains that the frequent use of
          abortion has eased the necessity for killing an infant after its birth.

          Statistical Analysis – United States

          Statistically, the United States ranks high on the list
          of countries whose inhabitants kill their children. For infants under the age of one year,
          the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st
          and for ages five through fourteen it is fourth. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all
          ages accounted for almost 3.2% of all reported homicides in the United States.

          The 1980′s followed similar trends. Whereby overall
          homicide rates were decreasing in the United States, the rate at which parents were
          killing their children was increasing, In 1983, over six hundred children were reported
          killed by their parents, and from 1982-1987, approximately 1.1% of all homicides were
          children under the age of one year of age. When the homicide of a child was committed by a
          parent, it was the younger age child who was in the greater danger of being killed, while
          if the killer was a non-parent, then the victim was generally older.

          The characterization of the type of parent that is likely
          to kill their child has changed little over the years. As far back as the middle ages, the
          children of the poor “Were by far the most common victims of the parental negligence
          and despair.” Today, infanticide is still most commonly seen in areas of severe
          poverty.

          http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Eye opening. Thanks.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Advice to pro-lifers: if a woman is to get an abortion, let her get it ASAP. Remove meaningless barriers. Encourage early pregnancy testing. Facilitate the process rather than slow it down.

        • Niemand

          Gosnell is a perfect example of someone taking advantage of women in the last group I mentioned, i.e. those who weren’t able to find a legitimate clinic earlier or who could not afford an abortion earlier in their pregnancy. No one in their right mind is going to prefer to go to an obvious quack whose office is described to have literally stunk rather than to a clean and well run center. Gosnell was kept in business by “pro-life” restrictions that made it impossible for some women to get the abortion they wanted earlier.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Huh? Gosnell broke the law. He got into trouble. We’re in agreement. What could possibly be your point?

          Or are you pointing at a post-Roe future when abortions would be done in such an environment? I’ll agree with you again: that is a very scary future.

        • joey_in_NC

          What could possibly be your point?

          My point is that I’m answering a question that was asked.

        • purr

          He’s sticking to post birth abortion and gosnell because the *only* argument he has is that abortion leads to infanticide, or something.

          Only seen it a million times before.

          So boring!

        • JohnH2

          I believe there is a doctor in Pennsylvania in jail over giving late-term abortions on healthy pregnancies, the crime was having the babies be born first and then killing them rather than killing the babies first and then having them be born.

          Ah, I see you have already blamed those that are against abortion for this in a nice convoluted twist of logic.

        • Kubricks_Rube

          The key phrase here is “in jail.” What he did (and the manner of late-term abortion was only one grisly part of it) was illegal and I’m not familiar with anyone suggesting that should change. No one in the larger abortion debate defends Gosnell’s actions. We’re talking about where most people would legally draw the line, not what would be allowed if there was no line.

        • Kubricks_Rube

          Sorry, double post.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No, no elephant in the room. Sure, continue the spectrum argument if you want, but a baby is trivially different than an adult when you think of the enormous gulf between baby and the single cell.

        • joey_in_NC

          Sure, continue the spectrum argument if you want…

          Well, that’s exactly what I’m doing. What do you think about the “post-birth abortion” argument, considering there is still a substantial “gulf” between a baby and an adult? If there was legislation that allowed mothers to euthanize their newborn infants up to, say, 2 months post birth on the same “view life as a spectrum” grounds, would you support such legislation? If not, why not?

          There is a reason why most of the savy pro-choicers completely stick with the bodily autonomy argument as their primary tool and ditch the “spectrum” argument.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Well, that’s exactly what I’m doing.

          Ow, ouch. I’m hoist by my own petard. Or something.

          (As I made clear, this does nothing to harm the argument.)

          What do you think about the “post-birth abortion” argument, considering there is still a substantial “gulf” between a baby and an adult?

          You must’ve missed my previous 2-sentence comment. No, there is no substantial “gulf.”

          If there was legislation that allowed mothers to euthanize their newborn infants up to, say, 2 months post birth on the same “view life as a spectrum” grounds, would you support such legislation?

          No. Why change things?

          Seriously, I have nothing interesting to say about the date for abortion. Legislatures and courts the world over have wrestled with this question and come up with answers. That’s good enough for me.

          Now, if we’re done changing the subject … ? Seems to me that the spectrum argument is a little too hot so you’d rather talk about something else. Sound about right?

          There is a reason why most of the savy pro-choicers completely stick with the bodily autonomy argument as their primary tool and ditch the “spectrum” argument.

          Golly. Great advice, thanks.

          If you want to discuss something else with them, knock yourself out. Here, I’d like you to acknowledge the spectrum. Is there in fact no meaningful difference between a single microscopic cell and a newborn? Show me.

        • joey_in_NC

          You must’ve missed my previous 2-sentence comment. No, there is no substantial “gulf.”

          Alright, you may think so. Others, such as Giubilini and
          Minerva, argue otherwise.

          If there was legislation that allowed mothers to euthanize their newborn infants up to, say, 2 months post birth on the same “view
          life as a spectrum” grounds, would you support such legislation?

          No. Why change things?

          Seriously, I have nothing interesting to say about the date for abortion. Legislatures and courts the world over have wrestled with this question and come up with answers. That’s good enough for me.

          Seriously, that’s your answer? So you’re okay with the status quo in the US that restricts abortion after 24 weeks?

          Seems to me that the spectrum argument is a little too hot so you’d rather talk about something else. Sound about right?

          Not at all. I’m perfectly fine continuing to debate the spectrum argument. What about you?

          Here, I’d like you to acknowledge the spectrum. Is there in fact no meaningful difference between a single microscopic cell and a newborn?

          Yes, I acknowledge there are differences. Whether they are “meaningful” is for you to argue. Is it a “meaningful difference” that an adult is self aware and a newborn baby or zygote is not?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you may think so. Others, such as Giubilini and Minerva, argue otherwise.

          Tragically, they’re not here. But you are. If the spectrum argument is flawed, for the love of God show me so I stop embarrassing myself by repeating it every chance I get.

          Seriously, that’s your answer?

          Seriously, you still gonna avoid the issue? The topic on the table (and let’s resolve it before we move on to others) is the spectrum argument. So far, I’ve gotten out of you, “Well, well, some other really smart guys think that it sucks so I think it sucks so there.”

          That ain’t gonna do it for me. I need reasons.

          So you’re okay with the status quo in the US that restricts abortion after 24 weeks?

          Whatever. The experts have weighed in, and pregnant women have a decent chance to fix problems. We could argue the date one way or the other. This isn’t interesting to me. (But I think I’ve already made that clear.)

          Not at all. I’m perfectly fine continuing to debate the spectrum argument. What about you?

          I’ve written a bunch of posts on it, so it’s not like this is a difficult issue from my side. As for you, I don’t think you’ve actually started. But if you’d like to, that would be nice.

          Yes, I acknowledge there are differences.

          Good to hear. Some people say that it’s a “baby” at both ends, which seems to gloss over some insanely dramatic differences IMO.

          Whether they are “meaningful” is for you to argue.

          Done in the spectrum post.

          Is it a “meaningful difference” that an adult is self aware and a newborn baby or zygote is not?

          Already answered that twice. No.

  • RichardSRussell

    I kinda like one consequence of the Quiverfull argument about letting God decide how many kids to have, which is that it puts a sanctified stamp on the practice of fucking like bunnies from about the age of 13 on up, as often and as enthusiastically as possible. Where were these people when I was a teenager?

  • Niemand

    the natural order.

    Anyone discussing the “natural order” as a good thing on the internet deserves to be mocked mercilessly. The internet is as unnatural as one can get this side of the ISS. Anyone who is truly interested in keeping thing “natural” will stay as far from it as possible. Anyone not staying far from it is clearly not that concerned with whether something is “natural” or not.

    • Little_Magpie

      not enough upvotes in the world for this, Niemand… :)

  • Y. A. Warren

    I believe it is time that we re-frame the abortion argument as a children’s rights issue. Every child should be born into a safe society where there is a community committed to responsible, compassionate care of the child until the child has the resources (maybe never) to care for him or herself.

    We now have the means to make responsible, thoughtful planning and prevention almost foolproof. It is time that we realize that we have a responsibility to protect and nurture the spirits (psyches) of children from conception until adulthood or death, whichever comes first. Barring the willingness or ability to provide these resources, we should protect the children from abuse and neglect by any means at our disposal.

    It is a sad fact that few are willing to share their resources (other than, possibly, money) with those outside their own circles. This is because we know we can have little impact on the way the child is brought up and what they will ultimately return to responsible society without constant rebuilding of the early bonds through the continued offerings of ourselves.

    Time is the greatest and most needed resource in caring for any vulnerable person, and many of the vulnerable need constant care from conception until they die. Our current society warehouses the vulnerable with “caretakers” who are on the lowest rung of the socio-economic and education levels. Our legal system continues to be powerless in stopping the abuse and neglect.

    Parents who don’t responsibly care for children are simply bringing up more human-shaped animals. Just as the abandoned baby elephants who have no mentors have become “juvenile delinquents.” In abused and neglected children, the pain is constant because humans can feel and anticipate pain. Pain is often vented as anger and aggression. There are times when abortion is more humane and responsibly compassionate than bringing an unwanted or terribly damaged child into the world.

    • smrnda

      Another issue, to me, is that I think many parents would rather have fewer kids that they could invest more time in rather than as many as they possibly could where they’d be hard-pressed to give any of their kids enough time and attention. The decision to use contraception or get an abortion is usually done understanding the impact it will have on the existing kids.

      • Y. A. Warren

        I agree, and I always vote for contraception (male and female) over abortion. As an older sibling in a large family, I know that, lacking enough extended family and community commitment, the older siblings become “little parents” with much responsibility for which they aren’t equipped and no real authority. This often leads to early procreation so that the “little parents” can get the respect and authority of being “adults” by virtue of having their own children.

        • smrnda

          I feel if we made contraception more available and provided real sex education the demand for abortion would decrease, but there’s a lot of opposition to that which I can’t seem to understand. The only possibly explanation is that some people are more invested in there existing shame around sex than they are about reducing teenage pregnancy or abortion.

        • Y. A. Warren

          I am in complete agreement with you on this. There are many who promote shame, but aren’t willing to be the real responsible parties when their wishes for “super-hero” salvation is granted.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It might’ve been just a century ago that boys and girls matured sexually at about the time they’d get married. Easy. Now, they mature earlier (better nutrition?) and get married way later.

          Solution? Finger wagging and guilt, apparently. My vote is to acknowledge nature and take a harm-reduction approach. Make education and contraception freely available.

  • Pat

    Uh, these aren’t legitimate arguments against abortion. No decently educated pro-life person would make such arguments. The argument is simply that human life begins at conception. The point in which the human embryo exists, it is a whole, unique, autonomous, human life. This fact is wholly supported by the study of Embryology. The taking of a human life in the embryonic stage is still the taking of a human life.
    If you believe that human life is not to be taken when another is not endangered by it, you must consistently believe that taking it in the early stages of development is also not to be taken.
    You must support the taking of human life for reasons other than endangerment of another human life to be consistent.
    The issue is moral, ethical consistency. Understanding that the way something appears does not make something what it is. Understanding the abortion takes a human life, many times for very petty reasons, especially in comparison to the intrinsic value of a human life.
    The issue is human life. It’s not ok to kill a human life in early stages of development anymore than it’s ok to take a human life in later stages of development.

    • Niemand

      This fact is wholly supported by the study of Embryology.

      Actually, this “fact” is wholly debunked by embryology, medicine, and the very definition of what a living person is. As supportive care in medicine improved, it became possible to keep someone who is brain dead (NO brain function whatsoever) “alive” indefinitely on a respirator and with stimulants to the heart. It’s futile to do so, of course, but possible. So the question of what constitutes a “living” person came to be a non-trivial one. The agreed upon definition is that if the brain is dead the person is dead. No matter what the heart or lungs are doing. An embryo has literally no brain. There simply aren’t any stable neurons before week 8, much less axons and dendrites. Thus, an embryo can not be said to be a living person. There is no reasonable complete “pro-life” position. One might reasonably debate the merits of restricting abortion in the fetal stage of development (after the majority of abortions occur) but the embryo is just not a person by any modern definition.

    • tyler

      please define ‘autonomous’ as used in this post

      please also define ‘endangerment,’ and please further explain how pregnancy (which is a condition that necessarily raises a non-zero risk of death and a higher risk of permanent disability) does not qualify as ‘endangered enough’

      please finally define the minimum conditions according to you that must be met before a person’s body and organs can be used for medical purposes including but not limited to the preservation of a life

      thank you

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      No decently educated pro-life person would make such arguments.

      Perhaps. I hear them a lot. This is a 4-part series, and when it’s over I’d be interested to hear any good arguments that I omitted.

      The argument is simply that human life begins at conception.

      Big deal. I think the argument needs to be a little more than that.

      The point in which the human embryo exists, it is a whole, unique, autonomous, human life.

      Golly. I get misty eyed when I think about that … microscopic human DNA. Just beautiful!

      Understanding the abortion takes a human life, many times for very petty reasons, especially in comparison to the intrinsic value of a human life.

      A woman who aborts for very petty reasons doesn’t sound like she would make a good mother.

      It’s not ok to kill a human life in early stages of development anymore than it’s ok to take a human life in later stages of development.

      Read my spectrum argument to see my view.

    • purr

      Give an example of what you consider to be a ‘petty reason’ please.

    • Sven2547

      No decently educated pro-life person would make such arguments.

      And yet they make those lame arguments all the same. Eppur si muove!

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      If unique human DNA makes something a person, could you please tell me the personhood or lack thereof of:

      A tumor cell- a person or not?

      A hydatidiform mole- a person or not?

      An ovarian teratoma- a person or not?

      Identical twins- one person or two?

      Chimaeras- one person or two?

      Do please also post your address and hemologic factors. I know people who could use organ transplants, and surely you don’t think that controlling your organs is more important that someone else’s life, right? To be consistent, you must recognize that not immediately handing over your pieces of your body to anyone who needs them is analogous to murder, because life is far more important than bodily autonomy (according to you, anyways).

    • Bruce L Arvidson II

      If you think an embryo is a human being, I dare you to take this test and tell me which one is the embryo. I can guarantee you wont get it right on the first try. http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

    • purr

      An embryo is not autonomous.

  • Pat

    Nice strawmen. If you say, we pro-lifers say such garbage, it must be true! Just like pro-abortionist must be so terribly concerned about women.

    • Niemand

      So you’re seriously telling me that, for example, argument #4 is not implicit in the “pro-life” slogan “thank god your mother was pro-life”?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Where do you think I got these arguments? From the anti-choicers themselves. Again: after the 4 posts on this subject, show me all the arguments that I missed.

      My focus here has been on completeness. If you laugh at some of these arguments, join the club.

    • Sven2547

      pro-abortionist

      Anyone who uses this term to describe the pro-choice position doesn’t have the slightest idea what that position is, or what the debate is about.

      • wlad

        I meant pro-abortion, obviously.

        • Sven2547

          Just as ridiculous. But I’m confused: are you Pat?

  • Jason Hanerfeld

    As I travel into the other half of my life, I have a profound understanding just how precious life is, I can say Im pro life. At no point does this understanding prevent me from being pro choice. I feel that there are just as many reasons to keep a child as there are to abort a pregnancy. People forget the slaughter house abortions before roe vs wade. Women should have the right to pro choice, wait a second, THEY DO! Why this is topic for discussion is wholeheartedly a religious issue. Some last points to think about… Kids need to learn about contraception, most teen pregnancies end in abortion and the whole experience could have been avoided. Never ever should a victim of rape be made to have a child, the mental consequences for both the victim and even more so for the child are immeasurable, not that this hasnt happen mind you. Those are just some of the reasons pro choice should never be over turned, there are many more to be sure. Lastly no pro lifer, while screaming to abolish abortion gives a rats ass about the life inside of a women once its out.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      We need two terms for “I’m pro-life personally, but I respect the status quo” and “I’m pro-life and am so convinced that I’m right that I want to impose that view on the entire country.”

      • wlad

        “I’m anti-slavery, and am so convinced that I’m right that I want to impose that view on the entire country.”
        .
        View of pre-thirteenth amendment abolitionist.

        An abhorrent position, No?

        • Pattrsn

          umm no

        • wlad

          I see.
          Anti-slavery folks were able to get the thirteenth amendment passed to IMPOSE their view on slavery.

          Pro-slavery folks were not too happy about freeing their slaves and most did not do so involuntarily.

          I assume you would have been on the abolitionist side and would have no problem imposing your view on the slave-owners, even if they they had strongly held views otherwise.

          Imposing–FORCING– YOUR moral view on others who disagree with you is totally OK as long as it’s YOUR moral view.

          But not so much for my moral view on abortion. for instance.

          Please explain.

        • Pattrsn

          Because slavery is evil, even the slavery if forced pregnancy.

        • wlad

          OK, you and I agree that a personal point of view CAN be imposed.on others, even if they disagree with us.

          Well, I’m glad we BOTH disagree with Bob, who thinks that a personal moral view cannot be imposed on the whole country.

          It’s your PERSONAL morality that slavery is evil, and you were willing to force slave owners to your vision of morality–the personal view of slave-owners to the contrary.

          I don’t think that you believe in ABSOLUTE MORALITY (correct me if I am wrong)–that some actions are immoral in themselves, whether people believe them or not.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m guessing that it’s just you that disagrees with Bob, and that you have no idea what my views (that you disagree with) actually are.

          Just a thought, based on what you’ve said so far.

        • Pattrsn

          No I don’t think I do disagree with Bob. It’s not really my personal morality that slavery is bad, it’s more that I believe that basic human rights are essential to a just society. You could say that my personal morality is that injustice is wrong. Fortunately I think most people would agree with me.

        • Itarion

          You’re failing to notice that slavery was itself imposed on human beings as well. So really, the Thirteenth Amendment imposed freedom on a whole bunch of people. More people had freedom imposed on them than had “property” “robbed” from them.

          Property ain’t property if it can run away. (That’s an argument against the cattle industry, isn’t it? Then again, no cow has ever asked for an education.)

        • wlad

          So according to you slavery isn’t a question of right or wrong. It’s just that there were more folks that believed it should be illegal, and therefore might makes right. The anti-slavery folks won!

        • Itarion

          Not quite, no. The abolition of slavery caused much more good than harm to self aware entities, for a sum total of goodness. Right has absolutely no connection to might, and I know it.

        • purr

          Forced pregnancy was part of antebellum slavery, btw.

        • wlad

          I know your view on abortion. You have not addressed whether you are comfortable with imposing your views on slavery on those who disagree with you.

        • purr

          I would like to know if you consider the slave women who aborted their forced pregnancies during antebellum slavery to also be slavers?

        • wlad

          I don’t understand the question.

          You have NOT addressed whether you are comfortable with imposing your views on slavery on those who disagree
          with you.

          And you didn’t because it puts you in the very uncomfortable position of agreeing with the propriety of forcing one’s moral views on others.

          So,
          Are you comfortable with imposing your views on slavery on those who disagree with you.

          Or not.

        • Niemand

          Interesting argument given that you’re pro-slavery.

        • wlad

          No, I was just pointing out the Bob’s hypocrisy of saying that imposing one’s moral view on others is wrong, but yet would be perfectly OK with imposing his view on slavery on others.

        • Niemand

          So it’s the hypocrisy you’re worried about. You’re completely cool with forcing people to do certain things with their bodies, as long as you are not among those people in danger of having their bodies forcibly used. Good to know.

        • wlad

          I can’t fathom how you got that from my statement about Bob’s hypocrisy.

          Are you cool with Bob’s hypocrisy?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Uh, there is no hypocrisy in Bob’s statement. A tip: phrase your concern more precisely, especially when you’re making bold accusations.

          No, I’m not hypocritical. No, I’m not saying that imposing one’s views on others is wrong.

          What I’m saying (gee, was it really that hard to figure out?) is that if we want to impose our views on the entire frikkin’ country, let’s be really, really sure that this position is valid and not simply something that might apply to you but not to everyone else.

        • wlad

          Bob, you said:

          “No, I’m not hypocritical.”

          Yes you are. You certainly are.

          I think as an abolitionist you would certainly want to impose your personal moral viewpoint “0n the entire frikkin” country.”
          Even if you personally didn’t own slaves. Even if it was legal.

          So, It’s morally OK to impose YOUR personal morals on slavery for the entire frikkin country. ESPECIALLY on those who disagree with you. You certainly would not own slave, so your personal moral views would be imposed on others. Even if it was legal.

          But according to you It’s not OK for me to impose my personal views on the entire frikkin country. Especially on those who disagree with me. I will never have an abortion, but like you would impose my view on others. Even if abortion is legal.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wow. What’s there to say? I’ve already said it before. I could repeat it, but why imagine that you’ll read it this time when you didn’t last time?

        • wlad

          Bob. You have NEVER said WHO decides when a moral viewpoint is valid and applies to everyone-other than yourself.

          So, if it is NOT you and your personal moral viewpoint that says slavery is wrong for everybody, a moral decision you are willing to impose on the whole country, who or what justifies such an imposition?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I say slavery is wrong. I say choice is the proper option in the case of abortion.

          You disagree? Then I guess we discuss or argue.

          (I would’ve thought that you had learned how these things work. Better late than never, I guess. I hope this helps.)

        • wlad

          “What I’m saying (gee, was it really that hard to figure out?) is that if we want to impose our views on the entire frikkin’ country,
          let’s be really, really sure that this position is valid and not simply
          something that might apply to you but not to everyone else.”

          After re-reading what you said above I better undertood your criteria for imposing one’s moral view on the whole country–Is the position valid and not simply something that might apply to you and not to anyone else?

          OK,
          WHO decides if the moral position is valid and applies to everybody? If you were an abolitionist, it certainly would not be the law. Slavery was legal. Every slave owner would argue that your proposition that slavery was wrong did NOT apply to him. “If you don’t believe in slavery, don’t own one.”

          Remember, your moral position on slavery and abortion are just personal ones.

          So, today abortion is legal. Pro-abortionists would certainly say my personal views on abortion do not apply to them. “If you are against abortion, don’t have one.”

          Who decides what moral position is valid and applies to everyone? You?
          Who?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          After re-reading what you said above …

          Perhaps a good rule to apply every time you comment.

          Remember, your moral position on slavery and abortion are just personal ones.

          Ditto. Or do you imagine that there is something objectively true about your position? If so, convince us.

          Who decides what moral position is valid and applies to everyone? You?

          It’s like you’ve never participated in a discussion or know how laws are made.

        • wlad

          Bob,
          Bob, I know how people discuss and make laws.

          Consider:

          Slavery was legal. Some people, who thought it was wrong for everybody, especially slave-owners, worked hard to pass an amendment that made slave owners give up their slaves, much against their will. They talked, they wrote, they agitated. They talked with their legislatures. They had mass gatherings.
          The thirteenth amendment passed.

          And slavery was declared illegal because they thought it was morally wrong for everybody. Slave-owners–”how dare they!”

          Abortion is legal. Some people, who thought it was wrong for everybody, especially for those actually having abortions, worked hard to overturn Roe v Wade that made abortions no longer legal. They talked, they wrote, they agitated. And they talked with their legislatures. They had mass gatherings. Hopefully Roe v Wade will be declared illegal because a lot of people think it is immoral for everybody. Pro-abortionists–”how dare they!”

          BTW, if you look at pro-abortion site RH REALITY, you can see the tide is turning toward pro-life. Everyday they constantly post many times a day how abortion rights are being eroded and call for action.

          Abolitionists (you) pushing for their point of view on everyone–fine. According to you.

          Pro-life (me) pushing for our point of view on everyone–not fine. According to you.

          Sorry Bob, discussions and lawmaking are fine. Both groups are discussing and working to change laws.
          But,

          Why is the first group doing something morally fine. and the second, doing exactly the same thing, not morally fine.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bob, I know how people discuss and make laws.

          Excellent. I wonder then at the naive questions about how we proceed when we disagree.

          Pro-abortionists–”how dare they!”

          Whoa—the shoe’s on the other foot now, isn’t it?? I’m following in the footsteps of slave owners. Ouch!

          Of course, a single cell is rather different from an African adult, so I don’t think your parallel holds.

          If we’re done posturing, I’m not sure how this is relevant. I say that one must be really, really sure before being cocky enough to demand that one’s views be applied to the whole country.

          And I guess you agree? So do you need a hug or something? Or are you desperately looking for something to disagree on?

          if you look at pro-abortion site RH REALITY, you can see the tide is turning toward pro-life.

          I think you mean “anti-choice.”

          But hey, congrats on the attitude change at RH REALITY. I haven’t been there. Sounds like they’re your peeps.

          Here, not so much, I’m afraid.

          Why is the first group doing something morally fine. and the second, doing exactly the same thing, not morally fine.

          This, after your claim that you understand how opinions change and laws are made? Maybe you’d better go back and reread your notes.

        • wlad

          No, check out RH REALITY. It;s a pro-choice site, and it’s frightened by the advance of the pro-life life side.

          RH Reality Check | News, commentary and analysis for reproductive …rhrealitycheck.org/‎

          “one must be really, really sure before being cocky enough to demand that one’s views be applied to the whole country.”

          I see, The abolitionist was really, really sure before being cocky enough to demand one’s views be applied to the whole country.

          Pro-lifer was really, really sure before being cocky enough to demand one’s views be applied to the whole country.

          The battle of who’s more sure?! Who decides?!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It;s a pro-choice site, and it’s frightened by the advance of the pro-life life side.

          Yes, we’ve already been over that. And I’ve already congratulated you on the fabulous inroads you’re making.

          Now, here you may not find people who are quite so on-board with your position.

          But I think I already said that.

          Who decides?!

          Again? I gotta tell you again?

        • wlad

          According to YOU. the side that is REALLY, REALLY sure that it’s position is valid and applies to everybody decides.

          Guess what . The pro-life side and the anti-slavery side both REALLY REALLY believe that their position is valid and and applies to everyone, and both go about their way to impose their view in exactly the same way.

        • purr

          The pro-life side is pro-slavery. Of fertile women.

        • Itarion

          Oh yeah? The pro-slavery REALLY REALLY believed in its position, too. (Some of the descendants of that side STILL believe in their position.)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          According to YOU. the side that is REALLY,
          REALLY sure that it’s position is valid and applies to everybody decides.

          Wow. It must be really cool to be able to read everyone’s
          soul and know what they really mean, even if they’ve never said it before. Jesus be praised!

        • wlad

          “one must be really, really sure before being cocky enough to demand that one’s views be applied to the whole country.”

          That’s YOUR position, not mine. Please!

          No,
          When you said slavery is wrong for everybody, you certainly did NOT mean you were able to read everyone’s soul and know what they really mean. You meant it APPLIED to everyone, no matter what they believed. And one needed to be really sure about his position.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s YOUR position, not mine. Please!

          Have we pointlessly argued for so long and I don’t understand your position? Wow. I thought you want to overturn Roe. Not so?

        • purr

          I originally came from Rh Reality Check.

          It’s a great site, and is nothing like how wlad describes:P

          Most of what I have learned about Republican and Catholic anti-choicers I learned from there. Along with a number of other things regarding reproductive health.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That sounds a little more like what I was expecting. Wlad gets a little overexcited and confused sometimes by nuance and facts and shiny things and stuff.

        • wlad

          OK,
          According to you RH REALITY (which Bob thought was an “anti-choice” site) is not worried at all at the inroads pro-life people are making–34 abortion clinics closing, new proposed laws limiting abortion, pro-life wins in legislatures and in the courts. No, not worried at all. The site is all about how wonderful abortion is.

          Please go to today’s site and actually read the columns.

          Bob too. And yesterday’s, and before that.

          Are they just PRETENDING to be really concerned about the inroads pro-life people are having on the road to reversing Roe v Wade?

        • purr

          Oh, yeah, anti-choicers are passing restrictive laws and hurting poor women and children.

          And they are rightly concerned about that.

          These inroads that you are so so proud of involve closing the majority of the PP clinics in Texas, which has resulted in no fucking healthcare for poor women. No mammograms, no pap smears, no low cost or free contraception.

          And guess what? Seeing as how you’re oh so proud of Texas, all of these women, not being able to afford contraception will probably get pregnant and abort anyways. In Texas you can go to any flea market and buy cytotec to induce a miscarriage. Or simply drive across the border to Mexico and buy the drug there.

          Additionally, all of your anti-choice laws are so damn popular that the politicians who are behind them have to tack them onto motorcycle safety bills and the like. You wanna know why? Because, people, as a whole, don’t support the anti-choice position. Sorry to break it to you.

        • wlad

          OK, at least you agree with me that pro-choicers are concerned about pro-life inroads. The times they are a changing.

          “And they are rightly concerned about that.”

          Check the polls by the way.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What polls? You mean this one?

        • wlad

          I guess we’re down to” my poll is better than your poll.”

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx

          The Gallop poll, not a pro-choice outfit said:

          May 2012.
          “Pro-Choice” Americans at Record-Low 41%
          Americans now tilt “pro-life” by nine-point margin, 50% to 41%
          PRINCETON, NJ — The 41% of Americans who now
          identify themselves as “pro-choice” is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves “pro-life,” one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009.
          ( I didn’t know how to get the graph transferred here)

          It’s trending that way. Gallop is not sure if the trend will continue, but I think feminists like RH REALTY are alarmed.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Or, if we read a little further, we can see that these ask two different questions. Yours says that pro-life and pro-choice (I hope you don’t mind my using “pro-choice” here since every thoughtful person in the discussion uses this term instead of whatever you like to use) have been trading the lead position for the past 15 years.

          Mine says that those who want Roe to remain in place is at an all-time high.

          I can live with that.

        • purr

          And what you are missing is that just because someone might identify as pro-life THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WANT TO BAN ABORTION.

        • purr

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

          I suggest you re-read the polls honey.

          52% – legal under certain circumstances

          26% – legal at all times

          20% – illegal in all circumstances

          As of 2013

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Sweet! Now abortions will be done weeks later than they could be. Since Wlad sees no difference between 3 weeks along and (say) 12 weeks, I guess he doesn’t care, though I’m sure many anti-choicers do.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          which Bob thought was an “anti-choice” site

          Let’s not confuse people. I was enthusiastically going down the path you pointed us down.

          Are they just PRETENDING to be really
          concerned about the inroads pro-life people are having on the road to reversing Roe v Wade?

          I pray that there’s a point here.

        • purr

          Sodomy was also once illegal.

          As was oral sex with your wife.

          All considered objectively ‘immoral’ by some.

          See where I am going with this?

        • wlad

          And still considered objectively moral by many.

          Not all things immoral are illegal.

          For a law to be a working law, it has to be enforceable.

          Overeating to the point of obesity would be considered wrong by most people, but passing a law to forbid it is unenforceable and would never happen.

          Pre-marital sex is believed by many to be immoral, but no one would pass laws making it illegal. It is not enforceable.

          Sodomy may still be legal in some states, but no district attorney would ever try to bring a case to court.

          Same with oral sex.

          Your point is…?

        • purr

          Yeah, and abortion is considered to be objectively moral by many.

          Sodomy may still be legal in some states, but no district attorney would ever try to bring a case to court.

          Still happens in some US states where gay people are hated and the anti-sodomy laws are still on the books.

        • wlad

          What is your point?

        • wlad

          Why is the first group doing something morally fine. and the second, doing exactly the same thing, not morally fine?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t know. Why?

        • wlad

          I was asking YOU why YOU think the first group is doing something morally fine, and the second group was not.

          I think both are doing something morally fine. They both believe their moral view is binding on everyone and are proceeding to help pass laws to enforce their moral view.

          You do not believe that the pro-life folks are right in working for laws to enforce their moral view, but at the same time believe that anti-slavery folks are right in working for laws to enforce their moral view.

          I think both are right.

          Since you are the one that thinks the two cases are different, even if they are doing the exact same thing.

          Please show me why they are different.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Both are defensible.

          Y’know, you really need to think about what you write. My advice: take a deep breath and read the comment you’re replying to before clicking on Post. It’ll save embarrassing confusions like this one.

        • wlad

          “Both are defensible.”

          Wow! Thanks Bob. I truly did not know your view on this for sure, but I strongly suspected it. Forgive me for not understanding it earlier.

          All the pro-choice people I have ever met have always said to me ” you have NO right to impose your morality on me.” (by overturning Roe v Wade)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I never gave you cause to think otherwise, and it’s pretty annoying to wade through imaginings that you throw out.

          Give your imagination a rest, and just respond to what is written. Thanks.

        • wlad

          “Both are defensible.”

          Both make the SAME claim: that their view of a moral issue–one on slavery, the other on abortion–is wrong for everybody, whether they believe it or not, and would be fine with enforcing their view on everybody.

          In EITHER case, it is an example of an absolute moral position–slavery is wrong in itself (not just because you personally happen to think it harms everybody–but because it actually harms everybody). And abortion is wrong in itself–(not just because I personally happen to think so), and therefore the need to apply it universally.

          I cheerfully acknowledge that my views are those of an absolute moralist on the moral view on abortion–never denied it.

          You hold the views of an absolute moralist on the moral view on slavery, but deny that you are an absolute moralist.

          Can’t hold the views of a moral absolutist on slavery and then deny that on the issue of slavery, your views are not that of a moral absolutist.

        • purr

          The fetus enslaves the woman, not the other way around.

          By your logic, a slave should stick it out and remain a slave, because to kill the slaveowner in order to escape slavery is a far more heinous crime than simply owning slaves.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Both make the SAME claim

          Yes, they are the same, but you miss the sameness.

          Slavery imposes on people. Let’s stop that. Result: no more slavery.

          Anti-abortion laws impose on people. Let’s stop that. Result: Roe v. Wade.

          it is an example of an absolute moral position

          And, yet again, you just state this with zero justification. No, “slavery is wrong” is a shared moral position.

          You think “abortion is wrong” is an absolute moral truth? Show me.

          You hold the views of an absolute moralist on the moral view on slavery, but deny that you are an absolute moralist.

          Uh, yeah, because I’m not one. I reject the idea of absolute morality. Haven’t I mentioned this to you before? Like a thousand times?

          Must be nice being you. You always know what you’re going to believe—just what you believe now.

        • wlad

          ” I reject the idea of absolute morality. Haven’t I mentioned this to you before? Like a thousand times?”

          So you believe that there are NO absolute moralists in the world. A moral absolutist says “this (any moral viewpoint) is wrong for everybody, with no exceptions, even if they believe it or not.” You believe NO on on earth holds this view on a moral position?

          Or do you believe everyone is a moral relativist. A moral relativist says–”wrong for you, not necessarily for me.”
          Do you believe that everybody holds this moral position?

          Or do believe that some people are moral absolutists, and some are not?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wlad, you keep getting alarmed about stuff that never got said.

          Maybe you better reread comments before you reply to them. Or check your dosage.

        • wlad

          ” I reject the idea of absolute morality”

          In many times in your different posts you said that slavery is wrong for everybody, whether
          they believe it or not, and it is OK to force your view (slavery is wrong, for everybody, etc)

          This moral view of slavery is the view of a moral absolutist.

          IF IT IS NOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY IT IS NOT.

          A moral relativist of slavery is the view of the slave-owner–wrong for you, not for me. Not OK to force your view on me.

          You said many times that you holds the first view, that slavery is always
          wrong for everybody, whether they believe it or not and it is OK to enforce that view.
          Certainly not the second view–the moral relativist view.

          I point this out many times to you that you hold an absolute
          morality view on slavery, and y say with a sigh, or huff:

          “I reject the idea of absolute morality. Haven’t I mentioned this to you before? Like a thousand times?”

          What looks like a duck, talks like duck, walks like a duck, is a duck.

          All loud protestations to the contrary, Bob, on the moral issue of slavery, you have NOT rejected the idea of absolute morality–you accepted the absolute morality.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you said that slavery is wrong for everybody, whether

          they believe it or not, and it is OK to force your view (slavery is

          wrong, for everybody, etc)

          This moral view of slavery is the view of a moral absolutist.

          Wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s a hat trick of wrongness in just one sentence.

          IF IT IS NOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY IT IS NOT.

          Why? I’ve already done so many times and you refuse to accept it.

          A moral absolutist says that moral truths are grounded in something outside of humanity. Wm. Lane Craig’s definition of objective morality applies here: “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.”

          In contrast to that, it seems to me that the moral truths that you think are objectively or absolutely true are, at best, shared. We all know that torturing for fun is wrong. Is that absolute … or is it shared? Let’s go with the one that avoids the need to handwave the supernatural into existence.

          A moral relativist of slavery is the view of the slave-owner–wrong for you, not for me.

          Not my view.

          Not OK to force your view on me.

          I will, with pleasure, force my view on you when it’s really important (that is, very rarely).

          I point this out many times to you that you hold an absolute

          morality view on slavery, and y say with a sigh, or huff

          I’m sure you can appreciate my frustration. I keep correcting you, and you keep putting your foot in your mouth.

          I do not accept objective/absolute morality. And I am not a moral relativist as you’ve defined it here.

          By golly, I suspect that there’s a third viewpoint, and that’s the one I hold.

          you accepted the absolute morality.

          I accept that you’re an irritating moron. Absolute morality? Not so much.

        • wlad

          A moral absolutist says that moral truths are grounded in something OUTSIDE of humanity.

          No, not outside humanity. I, an absolute moralist, would say that the moral truths are grounded in the nature of the human person–most people, using their reason, reflecting on the INHERENT dignity of the human person, come to the knowledge that slavery is an egregious violation of that inherent dignity.

          You want me to use Craig’s definition of absolute morality. OK.

          Wm. Lane Craig’s definition of objective morality
          applies here: “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.”

          Bob Seidensticker– “slavery is wrong, and this view is valid and binding on whether anybody believes in them or not.”

          You then say with irritation– “how can you possibly ever think that I’m an absolute moralist on this issue!

          If it walks like a duck…

          And you say “On the issue of slavery, I am NOT an absolute moralist.”

          And then you say “On the issue of slavery, I am NOT a moral relativist, (as you (Wlad) define moral relativist). What is your definition of relative morality if it is different from mine?

          I didn’t know there were any other moralities.

          As far as I know morality EITHER is valid and binding on everybody, whether anybody believes it–or not valid and binding on everybody, if one does not believe them. No other possibility.

          You understand the problem. What to do. You say you do not hold either in the issue on slavery.

          What OTHER possible view on morality is there–morals are either valid and binding on everybody, irregardless of personal beliefs, or not valid and binding on everybody, depending on belief?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I, an absolute moralist, would say that the moral truths are grounded in the nature of the human person–most people, using their reason, reflecting on the INHERENT dignity of the human person, come to the knowledge that slavery is an egregious violation of that inherent dignity.

          But you say that slavery is more than just a shared opinion, right? I can’t imagine what that would be. Share the secret.

          Bob Seidensticker– “slavery is wrong, and this view is valid and binding on whether anybody believes in them or not.”

          Wrong again.

          What is your definition of relative morality if it is different from mine?

          Wow, I hate repeating myself so much.

          “Moral relativism,” as most apologists define it, says, “You have your truth and I have mine, and neither of our positions trumps the other.” This is not my view.

          I didn’t know there were any other moralities.

          Maybe if you’d read my stuff more carefully. Or take your memory pills.

          As far as I know morality EITHER is valid and binding on everybody, whether anybody believes it–or not valid and binding on everybody, if one does not believe them. No other possibility.

          I reject the claim that morality is valid and binding on everyone whether they believe it or not. That’s my moral position.

          Can we allow me to define my position and move on, please?

        • wlad

          “Bob Seidensticker– “slavery is wrong, and this view is valid and binding on whether anybody believes in them or not.”

          “Wrong again.”

          THAT IS the view you expressed CLEARLY- slavery is wrong for everybody and that you would enforce that view (by the thirteenth amendment) whether slave-owners believed it or not’

          Wrong again? Simple assertion. You can’t just deny that isn’t your view. If it is wrong, simply tell us your position on slavery.

          And don’t say you already told me. You have NEVER made any DIFFERENT position. I went through all the comments on all the relevant posts (it took a lot of time) and you NEVER made a different position. The above position is the one you always held.

          If somehow different, your position on slavery is…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          From now on, you’d probably better just take things literally. When you paraphrase, you put your foot into your mouth. It used to be funny; now it’s tiresome.

          slavery is always wrong for everybody and that you would enforce that view (by the thirteenth amendment) whether slave-owners believed it or not

          Yep. And what’s the difference between this and what your fevered brain thinks I said? I didn’t say “valid and binding whether anyone believes it or not.”

          Seriously, this isn’t hard. When you misquote people over and over and over and over, they get annoyed. Like me. I’m annoyed. Stop it.

          You can’t just deny that isn’t your view.

          I’ve made my view clear many times. No one is confused except you.

        • wlad

          What is your definition of relative morality if it is different from mine?
          Wow, I hate repeating myself so much.
          “Moral relativism,” as most apologists define it, says, “You have your truth and I have mine, and neither of our positions trumps the other.” This is not my view.

          I didn’t ask you what your definition of morality IS NOT,

          But what was it.

          And you have NEVER defined it in all of your discussions with me.

          You took the TIME to tell me what your definition of relative IS NOT.
          I asked you to take the time to tell me what it is.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My morality: I reject objective morality because I see no evidence of it. Morality is defined by humans.

          And, yes, I’ve said that before. Many times.

          And in all your blather, you’ve never taken the time to give any evidence that Craig’s view of objective morality actually exists. Or perhaps you reject it?

        • wlad

          “Morality is defined by humans tells” me nothing.

          Billions of humans DEFINE it as objective morality (Craig’s definition)–and you immediately cut in and say, “no, even though I believe that morality is defined by humans, billions of human cannot define morality the way they want–as absolute. Absolute morality does not exist. I reject it”

          Millions, perhaps billions. define their morality as relative
          (“you have your truth, and I have mine”). Nope. This is not your view, you claim.

          So I ask you what your view is, and you answer I have told you many times–”morality is defined by humans.”

          Tells me nothing. Something is moral or not moral when lots and lots of people agree on it (slavery isn’t wrong in itself–only if lots and lots of people share their personal opinion that it’s wrong?

          When is something wrong or right?

          When an action actually harms others, or only when you think it harms others?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Billions of humans DEFINE it as objective morality (Craig’s definition)

          And yet not them, and not you, can provide the evidence that the rest of us are asking for. I guess you gotta have your objective morality to preserve your worldview or something, despite the lack of any evidence for it.

          How about you at least admit that you have no evidence. It’s clear that you don’t; this would be a good chance for you to demonstrate how we learn and grow from discussions with those with whom we disagree.

          Discussions with you are a waste of time. If anyone else is confused about my position on morality or think that my moral position is flawed, I invite them to ask. I’m tired of going round and round with you.

          If you’re eager to learn my views, search “objective morality” in the search box above and you’ll find lots of posts. Enjoy.

        • wlad

          You believe that slavery is always wrong for everybody and that you would enforce that view (by the thirteenth amendment) whether slave-owners believed it or not

          Yep. And what’s the difference between this and what your fevered brain thinks I said? I didn’t say “valid and binding whether anyone believes it or not.”

          You think that absolute morality means a moral viewpoint has to be universally held to be an absolute moral value. There are no such universally held values. Therefore, no absolute values. Only relative moral values. But you hadn’t told us what those were, just what they weren’t.

          You and I and Craig ALL believe that NO one can force a person to BELIEVE a certain moral value. WE all believe that one can just force an ACTION that he personally believes is true for himself and all, even if they don’t share that moral position. NONE of us say it has to be universally held.

          We’re all on the same page here.

          So when Craig and I say “valid and binding on all”, we certainly do NOT mean that everyone has to BELIEVE that a certain value, like slavery is wrong,

          Craig’s “whether one believes it or not” would make no sense if he did. Do not put words in our mouths.

          You and I and Craig all believe that we can force an ACTION that we personally believe is wrong for all, not just wrong for ourselves, even if others don’t share our view.

          So his view and mine (valid and binding on all) are how different from yours–slavery is wrong for all, even if they do not believe it, and you would force others to ACT according to your belief, not believe what you believe.

          His view and mine are how different from yours?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You think that absolute morality means a moral viewpoint has to be universally held to be an absolute moral value.

          Nope. I’ve given Wm. Craig’s definition of objective morality how many times now?

          Seriously, when you get the desire to tell someone else what they believe, you should lie down until the feeling goes away. You suck at it.

          So don’t say “valid and binding” on all means everyone has to believe it.

          I don’t. It obviously doesn’t mean that in Craig’s definition.

          Y’know, I dislike Wm. Craig’s thinking, but talking to you makes me see it a lot more favorably …

          we certainly do NOT mean that everyone has to BELIEVE that a certain value, like slavery is wrong– Craig’s “whether one believes it or not” would make no sense if he did. Do not put words in our mouths.

          Huh? You’re putting idiotic words into your own mouth. That’s nothing I’d ever say.

          Stop stamping your little feet and inventing disagreements. Think.

          (And put quotation marks around the other guy’s statements. Sprinkling my comments in with yours makes things–if you can believe it–even more confusing.)

        • wlad

          Me: You think that absolute morality means a moral viewpoint has to be UNIVERSALLY HELD to be an absolute moral value.

          You–NOPE. I’ve given Wm. Craig’s definition of objective morality HOW many times now?

          In a previous post:

          ME: No, Craig’s definition of objective morals does NOT say it must be UNIVERSALLY held

          You: Yes, he just says that they’re universally true.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good. So we’re all clear now?

        • Niemand

          I’m not Bob and can’t answer for him, but it seems to me that he’s saying that he doesn’t expect anyone to change their personal views, whether about forced pregnancy or other form of slavery, as long as they don’t try to impose those views on others. If you personally want to believe that slavery is fine, that’s your problem. When you start trying to enslave me it becomes my problem.

        • wlad

          No, he’s very clear about forcing his view on slavery on those who don’t agree with him. Ask him.

        • wlad

          No, Bob is very clear about being comfortable on imposing his view of slavery on the entire country, and would have supported the thirteenth amendment.
          Ask him.

        • purr

          Forcing a woman to work on behalf of a fetus is slavery, hon.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Niemand probably doesn’t much care what I think and is obviously able to think for himself. Furthermore, he made clear that he was speaking for himself.

          Let’s not imagine that Bob has any sort of godlike truth to offer (godlike good looks, yes, but that’s another matter).

  • R Vogel

    A bit of a non sequitur, but did anyone read the beautiful way in which the Church of the Brethren stated their position in the Ecumenical Study referenced in the post? ‘However, we confess that we are part of a society that contributes to abortion by denying parents the support and assistance they need.’ I would expand this to include birth control and education, access to education, in addition to other more obvious pre- and post-natal support. This is not a pro-choice or anti-abortion argument, just pointing out what I thought was a compassionate way to address the issue. Great post, Bob.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      :-)

  • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

    –removed by user–

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Go through a pregnancy yourself, and I think you’ll agree that there is a justifiable asymmetry.

      • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

        –removed by user–

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Obviously not. I’m thinking of the obligatory full-term pregnancy demanded by the pro-life crowd.

          Enjoy your cake.

        • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

          Bob, I apologize for my remarks. I should not have stepped into an issue which I know very little about.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Abortion kills human fetuses. What I’m OK with is giving the mother control of what to do with her body. She’s the person best able to know what’s best.

          We give the benefit of the doubt to parents. Why not to prospective mothers?

          What about sex education? Are you eager to see teens given the information and access to contraceptives that produces the least number of unwanted pregnancies? I am. If you’re not, perhaps killing “human babies” isn’t that big a deal to you.

          a whole other thing to be a callous, inhuman bastard.

          Yes, that is a different thing. Are you saying that I am one? If the thought crossed your mind, rebut my arguments. Show me that I’m wrong.

        • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

          –removed by user–

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I can’t give you eyes to see and ears to hear.

          You’re saying that you’ve got it all figured out but I’m confused? You could actually argue me into that position, but I’m not going to accept it just because you said so.

          I think killing the child in the womb is causing it to stumble permanently.

          Why? It goes to heaven. Sounds like a good deal to me. And that’s how William Lane Craig argues it.

          And advocating that unwed mothers (teens) do such a thing, well, that’s just leading more children to stumble into terrible sin.

          I’ve researched this quite a bit, and this does nothing to show me the error in my conclusions.

        • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

          Again, I regret any hurtful thing I said.

        • Kodie

          You’re the one who revived the thread. You think men should get a say, and you think god should get a say, but women should live with the burden of the consequences for having sex because you hate women and want to punish them, because the lord said it would be better for their own sake. WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN? Someone who thinks they have got the answers to everything, a “work-in-progress” who just got the lord. You just freaking got the lord, and you are swimming in all the propaganda and you came here to plant it. You can’t handle a tough question without evasion, a lame attempt at humor, a lame attempt at making fun of the person asking you a tough question, or just quitting.

        • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

          You’re right, I did revive the thread. I shouldn’t have. I am sorry. I have no place in this issue. I will take down what I posted, except this one.

          Please accept my apology.

          I will write a note of apology to Bob.

          I overstepped, and fell face first in the mud.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s a thoughtful gesture, but what I’m waiting for is not an apology (I don’t think any is needed) but rather evidence and arguments.

          Do I have it all right? If not, show me the error.

        • Pofarmer

          I would like to see the answer to the question about contraception.

        • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

          –removed by user–

        • Pofarmer

          Actually, I am.

        • http://www.revelation4radicals.com/ radicalrevelation

          –removed by user–

        • Kodie

          The lord doesn’t get a say, since he doesn’t exist, and isn’t going to be a whole hell of a lot of help.

        • Kodie

          They’re not infants “in the womb”. Bob is not a callous, inhuman bastard for allowing women to make their own choice about continuing or discontinuing pregnancy.

          On the other hand, it is callous and inhumane to despise women so much that you would make their choices for them, and burden them because it would hurt your imaginary friend’s feelings.

          Weigh this and that: what a woman has to go through to carry a child to term and raise it, and the emotions of an imaginary ghost.

        • http://batman-news.com Anton

          Abortion kills human babies – if that is ok with you, that is on you.

          No, it prevents human babies from being born. And in contrast to forcing women to bring unwanted children into the world, that’s okay with me.

        • purr

          Hey Anton, I have been reading secular pro-life and I notice that you are a regular commenter. You are a brave person, subjecting yourself to an entire horde of them :P

          I do have a question, however. Is it your general impression that their arguments are religious in nature, except that they replace ‘soul’ with ‘science’ and other weasel words and phrases like ‘inherent capacity’ by ‘virtue of being human’ and so on?

          I have even seen the argument that the embryo is some sort of ‘moral agent’ because it ‘builds itself’ and is ‘autonomous’. And that somehow this makes it special and therefore a person???

          The newest argument appears to be that all human organisms have the inherent *capacity* for rational thought, except they don’t get to *express* that capacity until they are born. But it’s there!! Trust them!!!

        • http://batman-news.com Anton

          I don’t think pro-lifers have any real concern for blastocysts and fetuses, except insofar as they can call them “babies” and use this sentimental sleight-of-hand to objectify and revile sexually active women.

          This is the inhumanity of abstraction laid bare: pro-lifers don’t have to acknowledge that there’s an adult female in the equation, or acknowledge her situation in life, or acknowledge the position of women in human society. By focusing on a fetal heartbeat, they’ve given themselves the right to be as vicious and misogynistic as they want.

          Pro life is nothing more than a hate group, a bunch of moralistic psychopaths who have their crusade all mapped out. They resent the fact that women nowadays have the last say in childbearing, literally the power over life and death, and they want women to have to carry and deliver the man’s baby without complaints, just like in the good old days.

        • purr

          Yeah, don’t you love how they are telling you how much they *care* for the woman, but her ‘temporary loss of bodily autonomy’ is acceptable if it is in the service of saving an innocent unborn baby?

          That ockraz guy is particularly grating. He likes to use lots of ‘big werdz’ to sound more intelligent than he really is. But his arguments are just the same old shit in different clothing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nicely stated.

          To me, giving women the benefit of the doubt up to a certain point in the development of the fetus is analogous to our giving parents the benefit of the doubt in how to raise their children, up to a certain point.

        • purr

          Over at LJF there was a big debate about how we pro-choicers ‘mis-characterize’ the pro-life movement by insisting that they really don’t care about the babies, and that they just want to control female sexuality.

          Surely some *truly* believe that every zygote is just a small baby?

          Surely when they say that abortion is a genocide, they feel it in their hearts, right?

          I have often wondered about this,and thought..what if there was a clinic where newborns were being killed daily. And it was legal. Would people *really* react to that by holding demonstrations and writing their congressmen? I mean, there was a civil war over slavery (though admittedly, part of that was economic, and slavery was the economic engine of the south). But still…I duno. One pro-life told me that my argument had no merit because I couldn’t ‘dare’ to imagine what a pro-life would actually do.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, if they really thought that almost a million babies were being murdered in the U.S., they would do much more than hold up signs.

          That they show photos of late-term abortions rather than a box of Plan B shows that they understand the spectrum.

  • Believer of God

    Check this out just see how you can combat these. This is meant to prove a point not to be rude. I promise just look at this. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/abortion/10-reasons-why-abortion-is-evil.html

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      You promise what? That this is 10 minutes that I’ll never get back?

      1. God is the biggest abortionist of them all. He doesn’t care.

      2. Meaningless

      3. Agreed in principle (though I quibble with the words). So what?

      4. Should we protect a mosquito’s life whenever possible? I don’t.

      5. Wrong. Death from abortion is 1/10 the rate from deliveries.

      6. Cells destroyed so health can advance? Sounds like a good deal to me!

      7. Meaningless.

      8. Meaningless.

      9. Meaningless.

      10. Yeah–euthenasia in some circumstances sounds like a great idea.

      Sorry–this article is very weak. If you want to strengthen any of these arguments and present them yourself, go ahead. But please give us something thoughtful.

      Hey–you don’t like abortion? Why don’t you focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies? That might actually get you what you want.

    • purr

      21 week fetuses are not viable, less than a handful have survived, and it’s possible they got the gestational age wrong.

      Even 24 weeks, which is the cutoff for viability, produces babies with *severe* disabilities because their organs and neurological systems did not have the chance to mature properly.

      Not one of us was an enchanting fetus because fetii don’t have a personality. And a beating heart counts for *nothing*. Your personhood is not in your heart.

      Furthermore, you base your entire argument on GOD which is weak as shit.

  • Clinton

    I was pointed to your series by a friend and decided to respond. I’ll give a link to my response here. If you’d care to discuss my response, you’re welcome to leave comments under the article, but I likely won’t respond if you insist on continuing the discussion here as I just don’t have time to monitor the articles that I comment on.

    http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-examination-of-20-arguments-against.html

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      OK, thanks for the update. I’ll try to read it.

  • troubled school girls

    help…. write in simpler form….

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Not quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the arguments are unclear?

  • An atheist

    This whole page was dismissed as bullshit after the first line.

    • An atheist

      I mean their arguments

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        You’re saying that the pro-life arguments are weak?

        • Chris Davis

          Do you keep on deleting my comments?

        • purr

          There’s a link, so the spam filter puts it into moderation.

          And your site is pretty pathetic, I have seen it before. Lol.

          Btw, as for the bible…I will direct you to Numbers 5 – a woman suspected of adultery is forced to take an abortificiaent which will induce a miscarriage (abortion) as proof that she has been sleeping around.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nope.

          To see all your comments, go to the bottom and click on “Load more comments” repeatedly until all comments are displayed. Then search for your name and you should see them all.

  • Chris Davis

    Congratulations sir, you have found the weakest Pro-Life arguments ever. If you want to see the stronger arguments, follow these links: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219435/k.6699/Arguments_Against_Abortion.htm
    http://prolifeacrossamerica.org/baby-developmental-facts/
    Look at the medical arguments. See if you can rebutt that.
    Otherwise, don’t post anything like this again. You’re making yourself look like an idiot.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      you have found the weakest Pro-Life arguments ever … don’t post anything like this again. You’re making yourself look like an idiot.

      Oh? Summarize a couple of these overwhelming arguments, big mouth. I doubt there’s much there and you give me zero motivation to find out. I accept your challenge: show me.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Hey, Chris, I’m still waiting for your summary of the arguments that I omitted ’cause they’re too hot to handle and I’m afraid to honestly consider them. Just give me a couple of them at first and we can move on from there.

  • taegam

    stupiiid

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      So you got nothing except insults?

  • taegam

    shut up

  • taegam

    no pleas

  • asmondius

    Rolling my sleeves up for this one:
    1.
    1.1 If the secular constitution trumps the Bible, what’s the point of a Biblical argument?
    1.2 By definition, the death of a born child is not an abortion.
    1.3 The Bible says nothing about a potion for miscarriage. What this single passage says is that if a woman who has lied about being an adultress takes the potion as a test her womb will shrivel, ie become infertile. If she is innocent, nothing happens. Neither pregnancy or abortion are mentioned here at all.
    2. We ‘tinker’ with the natural order to extend life, not to end it.
    3. Not clear to me what the argument is here, but either human life is precious or it is not. Once you introduce subjective qualifiers for life, disaster inevitably results..
    4. I myself disagree with this argument. If someone wishes they had never been born, that person obviously deserves our care and consideration.
    5. Since the topic is abortion, it sounds as if you are are advocating abortion as a means of birth control.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      My bad—I didn’t realize that you’d responded to all 4 pieces.

      1.1 If the secular constitution trumps the Bible, what’s the point of a Biblical argument?

      Exactly.

      What this single passage says is that if a woman who has lied about being an adultress takes the potion as a test her womb will shrivel, ie become infertile. If she is innocent, nothing happens. Neither pregnancy or abortion are mentioned here at all.

      And what happens if she’s pregnant?

      2. We ‘tinker’ with the natural order to extend life, not to end it.

      That’s it? We just extend life? We don’t ever improve it?

      3. Not clear to me what the argument is here

      If this isn’t an argument you use, I guess it doesn’t apply to you.

      but either human life is precious or it is not

      These are the only two options? You never would have a precious life (a healthy 5yo) and a not-so-precious one (an 80yo suffering from dementia)?

      Once you introduce subjective qualifiers for life, disaster inevitably r esults..

      What do you propose instead? Is there some objective source of moral guidance?

      5. Since the topic is abortion, it sounds as if you are are advocating abortion as a means of birth control.

      That’s not what this argument is about.

      • asmondius

        - What this single passage says is that if a woman who has lied about being an adultress takes the potion as a test her womb will shrivel, ie become infertile. If she is innocent, nothing happens. Neither pregnancy or abortion are mentioned here at all.

        ‘And what happens if she’s pregnant?’
        Possibly the same thing that happens if she is pregnant and riding in a chariot which overturns. That doesn’t permit you to claim the chariot as a Biblical method of abortion.

        - 2. We ‘tinker’ with the natural order to extend life, not to end it.

        ‘That’s it? We just extend life? We don’t ever improve it?’
        “improve’ is subservient to ‘extend’, don’t you think?

        3. Not clear to me what the argument is here

        ‘If this isn’t an argument you use, I guess it doesn’t apply to you.’
        Honestly can’t tell.

        – but either human life is precious or it is not

        ‘These are the only two options? You never would have a precious life (a healthy 5yo) and a not-so-precious one (an 80yo suffering from dementia)?’
        Since life and death are the only two real options, it seems illogical to formulate artificial categories such as ‘potential life’ or ‘not so precious’.

        – Once you introduce subjective qualifiers for life, disaster inevitably r esults..

        ‘What do you propose instead? Is there some objective source of moral guidance?’
        Of course – all human life is precious.

        5. Since the topic is abortion, it sounds as if you are are advocating abortion as a means of birth control.

        ‘That’s not what this argument is about.’

        See your own title.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          Neither pregnancy or abortion are mentioned here at all.

          The issue is paternity. The guy wants to make sure that the baby (if any) is his. If the woman is pregnant, she won’t be. Ergo, this potion could cause an abortion.

          And God seems pretty cool with that.

          Possibly the same thing that happens if she is pregnant and riding in a chariot which overturns. That doesn’t permit you to claim the chariot as a Biblical method of abortion.

          She’s forced to take an abortifacient, and yet somehow God, the Bible, and the priest gets off in your mind?

          Since life and death are the only two real options, it seems illogical to formulate artificial categories such as ‘potential life’ or ‘not so precious’.

          So there is no spectrum here. Everything is binary. All life is equally precious—a single cell, a 5yo, your child, a rapist, and an 80yo suffering from dementia. Do I have it right?

          If that’s how you roll, that’s fine. Just don’t try to impose that on the rest of society by law.

          Of course – all human life is precious.

          (1) How is that objectively true?

          (2) I agree that human life is precious. That simply sidesteps the issue—see the list of different kinds of humans above.

  • Jake Mono

    Perfectly reasonable, well argued. Aborting a fetus is no more a tragedy than choosing not to conceive one. Fetuses are not rational agents, and to extend them such a status for the sake of a religious or emotional appeal actually devalues the lives of sentient people, in my opinion. If we really consider what makes a human life valuable, our relationships, accomplishments, personality, emotions, things that go beyond flesh and bone, then we see a fetus has none of those things. I’m insulted that people place the same ethical weight onto a fetus as a fully born child, as if pro-choice advocates would “also” be fine with “murdering” real people with real lives worth valuing.

    • purr

      Don’t women have a moral obligation to care for the unborn human as they would care for a newborn? Women, by having sex, puy a zygote in a state of existential dependency. If one cannot neglect ones newborn because one is too lazy to feed it, then why should one be permitted to deny care to a precious zygote?

      • Jake Mono

        No, they don’t. The existential dependency of a zygote does not have the same ethical significance as that of a newborn. You must explain why the zygote is precious and why it should always be allowed to continue to exist. I am arguing that it should be ethically permissible to terminate it.

        As I already explained in my original post, a fetus is not “precious” like a fully born baby because it lacks all (ALL) of the core components that give a human life value. DNA and tissue are arbitrary components of a person in terms of what makes them valuable. Secondly, the fetus cannot be valued for being a potential human because then we would have an ethical dillema for choosing not to conceive as many children as biologically possible.

        Personally, I think pro-life is admirable, but ultimately misguided by delusional religious beliefs at its core. Abortions are not a good thing and a difficult decision to make, mostly because of the emotional and physical effects on the mother. There are good reasons to try to avoid having an abortion, but the political and religious crap-trap spewed by the pro-life movement is usually not among them. I believe that a lot of it is just ignorant, emotional pandering because people are more dedicated to their religion than critical thought. People are often persuaded towards a conclusion because of their religious thought processes, then they project that conclusion back onto the religion. This occurs most often with moral dilemmas that the bible has no say in, because it is outdated. Think now, why does the bible offer specific moral answers to things that could have been imagined by anyone in the bronze era, but for medical ethics and the like we need to extrapolate the answers using vague interpretations of irrelevant text?

        Pro-life is mostly relegated to the anti-intellectual conservative Christians. People who have never put any real philosophical thought behind anything besides what they’ve been told in church. They see abortion, and chalk up an irrational opinion that it is evil based on a shallow worldview. Based on your reply, I’d say you are one of them. You can’t tell me that a zygote is as precious as a newborn baby. That is fucking sick. We can terminate zygotes and care for newborn babies, your argument is fallacious.

        http://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/07/09/philosophers-are-rarely-anti-abortion/

        • purr

          A zygote is a person because the ability to develop a brain is the same as having it. Zygotes are like transformers – they simply transform from one form to another.

          Zygote are rational beings that have simply not yet had the opportunity to express their rationality. But its there, because they are human.

        • Jake Mono

          I poured my heart, soul, and mind into that and I get this stupid reply. You’re not worth having a debate with.

        • purr

          Do I really sound that dumb?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          You sound like you haven’t thought this out.

        • purr

          All zygote are inherently rational because they are h.sapiens.

          They simply have not yet had the opportunity to express their rationality due to their immaturity.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          No, zygotes aren’t rational. Zygotes don’t have brains.

          To answer your previous question, yes, you do really sound that dumb.

          The crazy here is (1) ignoring the difference between potential and actual and (2) wanting to impose that on everyone else by law.

          (You haven’t stated #2, so that’s a guess on my part. Correct as necessary.)

        • purr

          A zygote has the capacity to develop a brain which is really the same as having one. It just hasn’t yet expressed its’ rationality, but it will, given time and nutrition.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          Seriously?? Not having a brain is the same as having one?

          And I assume you want to impose your views on the rest of us by law by outlawing abortion?

        • J.D.

          Dear Bob Seidensticker,
          If you can prove that you, a fully functional human with a brain and limbs and a body and mind living in this present moment, were not once upon a time a zygote with nothing to
          separate you from any other zygote other than your own variations of chromosomes and sequences of genomes,
          then I will support abortion.

          But until someone can prove to me that you, me, or any other grown person was never once a zygote, then I won’t support abortion. It’s simple as that, my ultimatum.

          One may try to analogize to counter my argument that just like a star has the potential to become a supernova, doesn’t make it a supernova in itself, just like the potential to become born doesn’t make the unborn, born.

          However, it is mistaken to say that every supernova was never a star in the past, just like it is mistaken to say every
          human was never a zygote in the past. (Unless one is willing to deny the existence of the past).

          Perhaps you delve in further, and say that the mere atoms (or stardust, if you will), is in no form an actual supernova, just like the DNA within skin cells is in no way a
          complete human.

          However, when atoms and
          stardust collate under special conditions
          (called molecular clouds), they turn into stars.

          This is like how a lone skin cell that has DNA, does not make up a human. However, it is fallacious to overlook the drastically different natural conditions a lone
          zygote cell is in compared to that of a lone skin cell,
          just like it’s fallacious to compare isolated atoms to the atoms located in a molecular cloud.
          This is because similar potential cannot warrant similar conditions.

          Honestly, I could go further
          and go on about how scientists have actually taken the DNA of a deceased dog to make a clone and the implications of such a feat, but I’ll stop right here-

          I have a lot of schoolwork
          to do!

          Sincerely,
          A neuroscience major.

        • hugbox

          All corpses were once living, breathing thinking people.

          Does that mean that you should be treated as a cadaver right now, as you *will* be one in the future?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          were not once upon a time a zygote with nothing to separate you from any other zygote other than your own variations of chromosomes and sequences of genomes, then I will support abortion.

          I was a zygote. Or, more precisely, I came from a zygote.

          But until someone can prove to me that you, me, or any other grown person was never once a zygote, then I won’t support abortion.

          That’s fine. I support and even encourage you sharing your views and encouraging others to adopt them.

          What I have a big problem with is your wanting to impose your views on others by law. Is that your goal?

          One may try to analogize to counter my argument that just like a star has the potential to become a supernova, doesn’t make it a supernova in itself

          Yes, good example. But to look at the pro-life case, how far back to we have to go before it’s not that person? The zygote is equivalent in all meaningful ways to the person? The fertilized cell? The egg and sperm beforehand? The parents?

          You’ll say that it’s ridiculous to call the parents of Frank the same thing as Frank (an adult). Agreed. Yes, it’s a silly example. But now you know how I feel when I hear you say that the single fertilized egg cell that you need a microscope to see is equivalent in all meaningful ways to adult Frank.

          You want to get misty-eyed at the single cell and what it will become? Go for it. Just don’t impose that on the rest of us. Let us make our decisions rather than you impose your morality on us.

          it is mistaken to say every human was never a zygote in the past.

          Agreed. What’s mistaken is saying that that zygote is a person.

        • hugbox

          And while we are at it, ‘you’ were once in two parts – a sperm and an egg.

          Why aren’t you fighting for the rights of the sperm to fertilize an egg, and for that egg to be fertilized?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Male masturbation must be declared illegal. Oh, the humanity!

        • Kodie

          Why is it so important to you that zygotes become people? That doesn’t make any sense.

        • Dys

          His objection doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. He talks about potentiality, and then bizarrely thinks that’s somehow an argument against abortion. Naturally aborted zygotes and fetuses had potential as well…right until they didn’t. He seems to think that potential somehow trumps a woman’s right to her own body.

          There’s nothing more to be said for his position than that a zygote is not a human being – it’s a fertilized egg.

          You’d think someone majoring in neuroscience would have a better argument. But really, since his chosen field seems to be tacked on in a blatant attempt to add weight to his rather thin argument, I guess I’m not surprised.

        • Kodie

          It’s the appeal to sentimentality. How would you feel if your mom aborted you? Nothing. The answer is nothing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Maybe JD is confused. We don’t want to allow abortion after the zygotes become people but before.

        • hector_jones

          You confuse ‘inherently’ with ‘potentially’. A homo sapiens zygote is most definitely not inherently rational, as it hasn’t developed even one brain cell yet. Humans likely can’t truly be considered ‘rational’ until some time in childhood, well after birth.

        • purr

          it is inherently rational because it’s human. Dogs are not inherently rational because they are not human.

        • hector_jones

          No it’s not human. It’s a human zygote. Likewise a human skin cell is a human skin cell. But neither is a human.

        • purr

          The rationality is in the genes. A zygote simply can’t express that rationailty, because it cant’ talk. Or think. But the rationality comes with the human genome!

        • hector_jones

          I just told you the same genes are in the skin cell as well.

          But you would never worry about the fate of a single skin cell or consider it ‘inherently rational’.

        • purr

          A skin cell is not intrinsically ordrered to develop into a baby

        • hector_jones

          Ordered to develop into a baby and being a baby aren’t the same thing. Do you worry about the fate of sperm cells and human ova?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          But it could be–that’s potential. A skin cell has the potential to be cloned into another person. Potential = actual, right?

          Do you scratch skin cells off? If so, how can you sleep at night? Think of the potential lost … the mind boggles.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t think you know what “inherently” means. Perhaps “potentially” fits better.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          And we don’t even know if a particular zygote will even mature. Half are spontaneously aborted naturally.

          I don’t think vulgarism has thought about this beyond the one-liner stage yet.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          So then, no, a zygote is not a person but will become one? It’s just an argument from potential, so the twinkle in my eye that might become a baby is equivalent to a child. It’s all just potential, right?

        • purr

          It is already a person because of DNA. It just isn’t expessing its personhood yet but its there – in the DNA

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          “Person” means “a being with human DNA”? I don’t think the dictionary agrees.

          But you tell me: if “person” isn’t the right word, what is it that a newborn is that the single cell isn’t? Surely English can come up with a word to express this incredible difference. We have words like “newborn,” “baby,” and “toddler” to express differences that are far less than single cell vs. newborn.

        • purr

          A newborn is simply a zygote that can now express itself differently.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          So what’s the word then? What is a newborn that the single cell isn’t? If you don’t like “person,” give me a better term.

        • hector_jones

          The skin cells that fall off your body onto the floor also contain DNA. According to your logic they are therefore persons. They just aren’t expressing their personhood yet but it’s there in the DNA.

        • purr

          A skin cell is not an organism that is intrinsically ordered to express it’s rationality the way a zygote is.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          Argument from Potential.

          You admit that it doesn’t have the properties of a person but it will, so that’s enough? Where does this argument end? Does potential = actuality in all cases for you?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          That’s it! I’m never going to scratch myself anymore.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          DNA and tissue are arbitrary components of what makes a person valuable.

          Imagine that a beloved elderly relative is about to die, and science is able to transplant their knowledge, memories, and personality into a Matrix and that you could communicate with them by email. Any symptoms of mental illness or dementia would be removed.

          I’d say that erasing this person would be a kind of murder, which I think underscores your point.

          Personally, I think pro-life is admirable, but ultimately misguided by delusional religious beliefs at its core.

          If someone wants to imagine that a single cell is a baby, whatever. No harm done. It’s when they want to impose their opinion on the rest of society that we get into problems.

          There are good reasons to try avoid having an abortion, but the political and religious crap-trap spewed by the pro-life movement is usually not among them.

          The incredible thing is that, instead of going against the stream, pro-lifers could join forces with pro-choicers and focus on unwanted pregnancies. Win-win. But no, that wouldn’t work for the political forces who are pulling Christianity’s strings on this issue.

      • MNb

        For a non-believer this may have some value, but as a religious argument it fails. A large percentage of zygotes fails to develop and gets destroyed. If god thought zygotes so precious he would have prevented that.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

      Nicely stated.

  • Jackson

    I think people who want to kill will always find a way to excuse it.

    • purr

      Please elaborate

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

      Are there errors in my arguments? This vacuous comment gives us nothing.

    • Staunch Republican

      How’s your gun doing?

  • Human Being

    My input to this, is how can we be called a free country if the beliefs of one religion can effect law making? Being in a country where you are free to practice any religion you choose, religion should have no place in law making.

    • 90Lew90

      It happens because religion is conflated erroneously with ethics. Bob’s doing a very good job of showing why that shouldn’t be the case.

      • hector_jones

        Miguel de la Pena is doing a good job of that as well.

        • 90Lew90

          He’s doing a good job of showing why Christians shouldn’t be allowed to breed.

        • Liz

          It isn’t based on religion. Yeah, abortion is sin in the bible but abortion is wrong weather youre a Christian or not.

        • purr

          Numbers 5 – abortion as a trial of ordeal for women suspected of adultery

          is wrong weather youre a Christian or not.

          Why is that?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Sin” is just a religious concept, irrelevant when it comes to passing laws in the U.S. If you want to argue that abortion is wrong, go for it.

        • Kodie

          Christians think abortion is wrong whether you’re a Christian or not – big difference.

        • MNb
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Two guys sunbathing on the snow … ? I’m missing the relevance.

        • MNb

          The relevance is zero. Kodie is living in Boston, isn’t she? I thought she might like how her city made a Dutch newspaper.

        • Kodie

          You should see my car. I wish I could see my car.

        • MR

          I was in DC during the Blizzard of ’96. There were no cars; just big white bumps lining the streets. It was surreal.

        • Kodie

          On the street where I parked, the snow drifted all the way up to the roofs of cars, so it was actually kind of flat with no definition between cars, but on an adjacent street, the snow appeared to have stayed where it landed and the car bumps were defined, but you couldn’t see any part of the cars. I came in for a break – it took about 40 minutes just to free up the tailpipe, and the sidewalk was a mess again, so I had to clean that up before coming inside for some coffee.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Aha! Now I get it.

          I lived in Boston during the Fabulous Snowstorm of 1978. Takes me back.

        • Guest

          As far as number 4 goes, you say you would not care if you were aborted. First of all, the same could be said for a one year old who is killed in his or her sleep, but that does not mean that is justified. On top of this, there are actually abortion survivors out there who were aborted and do care that they were aborted. Many have suffered major health consequences for being aborted, such as suffering brain damage, spinal damage, and losing limbs. Other people have been aborted, only to suffer from their abortion injuries for years before finally dying from them. They are obviously people. Why did they not get a choice in their abortions? To see some examples of this, please see this website: http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/

        • Kodie

          Why were those abortions botched, i.e., not successful. Of course if you have to be born with injuries, you’re not going to like it as much, and knowing you stood in the way of your mother’s happiness and personal success – you’re not talking about abortions, you’re talking about people who were born unwanted on top of the damage of a probable unsafe, illegal, or unprofessional attempt at abortion.

          Edited to add: though I sometimes like to think I’d be pissed if I died, or were even murdered, at any age with unfinished business and people to grieve over me, I won’t actually mind it. If I die in a particularly painful or gruesome way, during which I have to endure pain, fear, or assault of my body or property in any way, I will mind, just like I mind getting stuck behind a texter at a light when it turns green, well, extremely worse, with the difference being that horrific memories do not linger. An embryo or fetus without any brain activity yet will not suffer any sensation at all, and they won’t mind being aborted. It’s only once we develop neural systems, brains, cognitive function, that we accumulate feelings and emotions about whether we’d rather stay alive or die, and most cultures (especially ours) inhibit expression about wanting to die. Suicide is taboo that we can’t even discuss it or allow a person in mental anguish to talk to someone who won’t lock them in a facility and force them to say they’re happy enough to live, even if their life isn’t going to get better. That’s how taboo it is to talk about abortion, because our culture overly celebrates motherhood as an obligatory duty and having children as a joy, having children that eclipse you as a person. It’s ok to be protective of children because generally, they cannot protect themselves, and yet we treat them often like their parents bark at us to let them parent any way they like; some people treat children as only their parents’ problem and not theirs to interfere. Some people do not have a good future ahead of them. Society does not like to recognize that preventing abortions sends women to get illegal procedures that endanger them and their unborn, if it survives the unprofessional attempt. Society does not like to recognize that they will be born instead into a life that people like you do not actually support, where they will continue to need to eat and sleep somewhere that you do not think is your job to pay for, that you condemn women for having too many children. You are actually in denial of how many people probably think at least occasionally wish they had not been born that are now obligated to live a hard life. I think these examples you give of botched abortion survivors might feel they wish the abortion had been successful, rather than wishing the abortion had not been attempted at all.

        • Suzi

          If there are people living today, whom were survivors of abortions, then how can you think abortion is anything different than killing a human being?

          History just repeteats itself. After Hitler and the nazi killing and experiment with human beings, we have plenty of nazis in our time!

          You are sick, twisted psycho.

        • Greg G.

          If some survive an abortion, then a theist would have to conclude that God really wanted that person to live. If an abortion is successful, that means God didn’t really want that person to live.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Sure, call a fetus, zygote, or blastocyst a human being. That doesn’t help–they’re still not a person.

          Personhood is a spectrum. I’ve written more here.

        • Rudy R

          But where is the fault in her argument?

        • MNb
        • Kodie

          You’re a judgmental asshole!

        • Philmonomer

          As far as number 4 goes, you say you would not care if you were aborted. First of all, the same could be said for a one year old who is killed in his or her sleep, but that does not mean that is justified.

          Of course it doesn’t mean it is justified. It just means that the charge “you cannot be pro-choice because you wouldn’t want to have been aborted” has no force.

        • MNb

          Because you say so?

  • Ann

    I’m confused. “Pro-lifers” don’t seem to care about the BABY ONCE IT’S BORN – especially if they are poor. The “conservatives” who fight abortion want the babies born to starve because their “poor” parents are supposedly “lazy” and sucking off the gov’t “teet.” So malnutrition (gotta fight those horrible parents on food stamps) and child abuse are OK; so is lack of funding to poorer schools and throwing these “anti-abortion babies” into jail and possibly death row. The lack of concern for the woman (and her own body) once these innocent babies are born is mind-numbing. How about all these anti-abortion folks start adopting all the babies they want to force women to give birth to – that might shut them up.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      And don’t forget capital punishment. Many Christians who weep at the thought of single cells killed are happy that capital punishment (of undeniable persons) exists. No “let God judge them” for these people!

  • Suzi

    You have said a lot of nonsense, but I will have to choose just one for now. So do you actually believe that what comes out of an abortion is a single cell and wants to be taken seriously? Are you for real? Please, go do some basic research about abortion and embryology. Just a hint: NO pregnancy test will come out positive when all there is in the womb is a cell. A pregnancy test comes out positive when the embryo starts sending hormones. An embryo is not a single cell. Abortions are made even by partial-birth, so explain partial birth to me, under your perspective of a single cell, with no life, with no humanity whatsoever.

    You are sick and twisted psycho.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      So do you actually believe that what comes out of an abortion is a single cell

      Nope, that’s not what I believe. It’s not what I said.

      Just a hint: NO pregnancy test will come out positive when all there is in the womb is a cell.

      Uh huh. Not what we’re talking about.

      You are sick and twisted psycho.

      Given that you apparently have no idea what I’m talking about, you’re clairvoyant to know so much about me.

  • Suzi

    By the way, nobody at PP facilities believe abortion is about removing clump of cells, since they are profiting from selling baby organs. “Clump of cells” is what they will tell women they are expecting so they won’t walk out the abortion clinic without aborting and living a corpse worth money to them.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Show me the money.

      Planned Parenthood has expenses. Show me that what they charge is unreasonable.

    • Odd Jørgensen

      Nice little lie you got there, be a shame if someone were to fact-check your libel. Oh right, PP were investigated and found to have done no such thing.

  • Suzi

    So when does a baby acquire personhood? By exiting the birth canal? Wow, that takes a lot of faith to believe.

    • MNb

      Asking the same question twice just after another doesn’t exactly make you look bright.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Why bother asking? You know the correct answer, and you’re determined to impose it on the rest of society by law, right?

      My opinion doesn’t matter. Only yours does.

  • Suzi

    How does goddess Science define or explain personhood?

    • MNb

      Science is not a goddess. Neither does it explain personhood. That’s a matter of philosophy and the only sound philosophy is the philosophy that doesn’t contradict science. Science says that living beings grow gradually hence personhood is a spectrum. That’s for instance why babies don’t have voting rights.

      http://embryo-ethics.smd.qmul.ac.uk/key-facts/personhood/

      If persons got souls like you claim at conception they should have voting rights from that moment on as well.

  • Arthur Nunez

    Bob,
    Your quotes from the Bible in Leviticus and Numbers are very misleading. Please, if you want to argue a lie; go ahead, no need to lie or missuse the Bible.The real problem here is with human behaviour.

    • Pofarmer

      Why would the Numbers reference be misleading?

      • Arthur Nunez

        Because you did not read what was written. If you had bothered to read you quoted verses there is no way you could come to such an opinion. Like most people you do not read the Bible, you merely taken a notion of what you think is written and express it as “God said”. Therefore misleading many.

        • Kodie

          That’s how churches make their money.

        • Greg G.

          Read Numbers 5 beginning at verse 11. The woman is forced to drink the bitter water, which is water with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle. The tabernacle is essentially an abattoir. Animals are brought in alive and they are not house-broken tabernacle-broken. Then the animals’ throats are cut so they bleed to death. Drinking muddy water isn’t a good thing but when it is laced with animal feces and blood in varying stages of decay, It would be a bio-hazard. It wouldn’t be ethical to even test whether such a mixture could cause a miscarriage, but Numbers says it does.

          Read the sub-text of the Bible.

        • adam

          “Like most people you do not read the Bible, you merely taken a notion of
          what you think is written and express it as “God said”. Therefore
          misleading many.”

          You mean like you are doing here without explaining why the bible means what YOU say it means? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0475458f4fd52f3b0b86eb714433ff8ab751ac1d0bddf2f25c23e130ca9d13db.jpg

      • Arthur Nunez

        By the way let me tell what God does think. Exodus 21:22 to 23 “This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman’s husband to demand. If anyone is injured, the offender must pay a life for a life, God considers the unborn as life and very human.

        • Pofarmer

          There is a difference in context between the Exodus passage and the Numbers Passage, do you know what it is?

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          I’m curious – in your opinion, what is it?

        • Greg G.

          The penalty is a fine that is limited by a judge. That is all. Any harm done to the mother carries the penalty of and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If the fetus died, it is simply a fine because it would be hard to cause a miscarriage in the other person, especially if the guilty party was not pregnant.

          Your example shows that the unborn were not considered to be equivalent to living people.

        • Arthur Nunez

          That is not what the verse says or implies. Like I said before if you want to argue a lie,go ahead. You are against anything from the Bible, that fine with me. But there is no need to twist the truth or lie. The real problem has nothing to do with abortion but with human behaviour. So continue in your pros to its ultimate. Your country and the West is in decline. China and the east are on the raise.Their economic, political power and strenght is in their numbers. They have never abandon their ancient philosophies or religions and family life, of which children are at the centre, regardless what ever political philosophy they hold.The Western disregard for its roots will lead to its eventual downfall. Take from me I am black. I know what happens when a people are ripped away from your heritage.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Societies change. The U.S. used to have slavery, and Southern preachers supported that institution with the Bible. When I was born in Virginia, mixed-race marriages were forbidden there. Now, not so.

          Change can be good.

        • Greg G.

          Are you trying to change the subject?

          It clearly says what I said it says. Harm a person, you get the same harm done to you. Cause a miscarriage, pay a fine. The fetus is not considered the same as a person.

          Do you think the tabernacle did not kill live animals by cutting their throats?

          Think about it.

        • Pofarmer

          This is a other case of the bible apparently saying what the Christian wants it to mean.

        • MR

          You can always tell when they start with, “By the way let me tell what God does think…

          Pretty ironic.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          Nobody knows the mind of god, well, except from me of course…now let me tell you what I uhm He thinks…

        • Greg G.

          That needs a “strike” tag. < strike>I</strike> comes out I .

        • MR

          Are you trying to change the subject?

          You weren’t supposed to notice that!

        • Odd Jørgensen

          You mean like China, with its 1 child rule? What do you think their view on abortion is?

        • Pofarmer

          Do you know what your own bible says?

          “22 * When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. 23 e But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

          (2011-10-31). Bible: New American Bible, Revised Edition 2011 (Kindle Locations 3123-3127). . Kindle Edition.”

  • voicesteeler .

    Imagine if you’d been aborted? Your answer I would’nt care would I, is nonsensical as the same logic could be applied to the termination of your life now. Your comments about eggs and sperm makes no sense as a human life begins at conception.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      OK–a human life begins at conception. So what? A mosquito’s life begins at conception.

      • Seth

        Really? That was the worst comeback you could have done. “A mosquitoes life begins at conception.” I agree it does. But that has nothing to with this! This just goes to show you THINK you know whats in the bible, and try to disprove it. A rookie mistake. The bible says nothing about killing animals is wrong. in fact, he killed a lamb as a sacrifice in the very first chapters of the bible, as well as a lamb being sacrificed to clear the sins of the Israelites all throughout. There is nothing wrong with killing a mosquito. sorry bob, learn what the religion is about, the truth about the religion, before you go and try to dis it. In fact, before you go and make a whole website about dissing it.

        • Dys

          In fact, before you go and make a whole website about dissing it.

          So the lesson here is that only you get to make uninformed summaries of other people’s words. Seems ironically arrogant to me.

          A rookie mistake.

          You mean like trying to elaborate a person’s entire position for them based on one response? That appears to be your mistake.

          But the point apparently went over your head, as the rest of your little diatribe makes clear. The bible doesn’t really offer the anti-choice brigade much in the way of material for opposing abortion. In fact, just the opposite (the ordeal of bitter waters describes an god-commanded abortificant for unfaithful women). So what is given instead are just generic assertions of God loving everyone, falsely equating a human being with a zygote, etc. Personally, it seems to be a byproduct of the nonsensical dualist ensoulment principle.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          Dys, I’ve read the bible cover to cover a little less than a handful of times, and with great spirit, I believe the pro-lifer would find their argument rooted in God’s Commandment not to kill, but as far as I can see there is no specific text for the argument.

        • Dys

          I believe the pro-lifer would find their argument rooted in God’s Commandment not to kill

          We all know there’s a giant asterisk next to that particular commandment. And there’s plenty of other verses that dispute calling abortion murder. For example, Exodus 21:22 treats the loss of a pregnancy as an issue of property, not murder.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          You mean like the asterisk next to the legal opinion in Roe v. Wade regarding the determination of when life begins?
          I remember when I was in law school and we were dissecting the Roe v Wade decision – even my liberal professors were scratching their heads at how far the judges on the bench were trespassing into the front lawn of the medical field. As we read the opinion, my chums and I would look at each other and ask are you a Doctor? No, are you? Needless to say, the scientific developments available today to analyze a fetus makes a wonder whether dinosaurs roamed at the time of that decision. Oh well.

        • Dys

          You mean like the asterisk next to the legal opinion in Roe v. Wade regarding the determination of when life begins?

          Not really, no. But nice diversion nonetheless.

          Needless to say, the scientific developments available today to analyze a fetus makes a wonder whether dinosaurs roamed at the time of that decision.

          Considering that far too many people still wonder when the zygote/fetus/whatever gets magically imbued with a spirit, they’re still further along than the religious opinion. And then there’s the field of developmental psychology that throws more than a few wrenches into the arguments trying to assign personhood status to non-persons.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          You really had to ask each other if you were doctors? At law school?

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          Have you read the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court Decision? When you do, you see that a major portion is made up of the Judges acting like medical Doctors in evaluating medical evidence to determine at what stage of development a fetus becomes a human being with the right to live which would conflict with the right of the mother to terminate that life. The point? The judges overstepped their bounds, we’re not Doctors! Come to think of it, Roe v. Wade is my argument-winning blow for all those who believe lawyers are not like scientists – thanks OJ.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          Make sure to bake yourself an imaginary cake to celebrate your imaginary winning blow argument. Then you can pretend to have your cake and eat it too.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          don’t need to, cakes exist, and so does God. I win again.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          wow, too dumb to insult you are, breed you should not.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          may the farce be with you..

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve got a surprise for you in Monday’s post. Be sure to come back and comment on it …

        • Kodie

          It’s not Christmas yet, but I hope you’ve set down to work on a post of Greg’s ten worst comments. It will be hard to choose, so maybe a series with no limit.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          Will do, Bob – god willing.

        • Kodie

          Evaluating doctors’ testimony is overstepping their bounds? You are stupid.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          The real problem is the doctor’s testimony would have had changed by now with the advancements in their ability to observe the fetus – Roe v Wade needs to be updated at worst, overturned at best.

        • Kodie

          You can’t even stay on your own fucking topic.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The doctors provide scientific evidence. The judges decide what to do with it. It’s only hard when you’re determined to make it so.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Analyze this for us, then tell us that God cares about the unborn:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          The link refers to the hebrew teaching of The ordeal of water or the ordeal of jealousy which is very harsh for women – I explain this with a reference to Mark chapter 10 when:

          “2 Some Pharisees came to Jesus and tried to ·trick [test; trap] him. They asked, “Is it ·right [lawful; C according to the law of Moses] for a man to divorce his wife?”
          3 Jesus answered, “What did Moses command you to do?”
          4 They said, “Moses ·allowed [permitted] a man to write out divorce papers and send her away [Deut. 24:1].”
          5 Jesus said, “Moses wrote that command for you because you were ·stubborn”

          Remember, Bob, Moses was very influenced to give the Hebrews what they wanted, not what God wanted.

          BobS, IA and Greg G asked the same question – God, all knowing and all powerful can not also be all Good and thus can not exist because this creation, if it is his creation, is full of suffering – the easy answer is that we can not comprehend these terms as they relate to God – But, I provide evidence as to the “complexity” of these terms as applied to God by showing the “complexity of the creation in which God has his fingerprint – let’s take the color White – White is in actuality produced when all colors of the visible spectrum are combined. These colors are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. So you ask, God is perfect, but I submit to you, there are aspects of God’s perfection, that might appear to us as “imperfections” by our finite minds.
          Further, the idea that he knows all, yet provides us Free Will – which in theory could cause a result he could not foresee, is contradictory to being omniscient – remember, God created man in his own image – our minds are similar to God’s – are we not able to know the present and not know the future. Why can this not be true for God in a certain sense that also is complimentary to the concept of omniscient? The concept of omniscient means that there is a type of mind involved. So, if God has a mind then why can not this mind be open to knowing the final result and yet allowing a change also – we change our minds all the time based on the evidence at hand. We see this in the OT all the time, with the prophets of God – Moses – and with God himself.
          The atheist confuses the meaning of the words omniscient and others as he tries to apply them to God only for the purpose to prove that God can not exist. The theist understands that these words could only exist in a God type being and are concepts that we humans have not observed so can not fully define, let alone apply to a God type being.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So then we’re in agreement that God uses abortifacients.

          He could work at Planned Parenthood.

        • Dys

          and are concepts that we humans have not observed so can not fully define

          Then your objective is completely irrelevant, and the theist has no business declaring those concepts as being properties or attributes of God.

          In order to preserve a belief in free will, the theist essentially has to define a form of “not quite” omniscience for God. Or attempt to cloak the term in smoke and mirrors to avoid fully defining it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          God is hardly a champion for the unborn. The Ordeal of the Bitter Water in Numbers 5 makes clear that issues like paternity matter, while the fetus doesn’t.

        • MNb

          “The bible says nothing about killing animals is wrong.”
          Well, you just beat BobS at making the worst comeback possible.
          Humans are animals. It’s arrogance to claim otherwise – something your great hero Jesus preached against.
          Oh – and you make another big mistake. For the question if abortion should be legal or not (or whether there is something wrong with killing mosquitos or not) this

          “The bible says …”
          has exactly zero relevance to us. That’s what we are atheists for, you see.

          “learn what the religion is about, the truth about the religion”
          Well, you just told us. Your Bible doesn’t care about animals. It doesn’t give a damn. That sucks badly.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          MNb, a little bravado on your part, am I right? I agree that the Bible does not comment specifically on abortion – and you say, even if it does, you wouldn’t care – agreed – but do you really need any book to tell you that killing of another human being is wrong – on that I know we agree, we don’t.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s not a person. No, it’s not wrong.

          Let the mother decide–she’s best able to decide what’s best.

        • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

          If it’s not a person, ok. I’ll agree to this, whatever the mother decides goes and she should not be punished by anyone.

        • MNb

          My compliment.

        • MNb

          “a little bravado on your part, am I right”
          Far less than on your side. Empty bravado is the only thing you have.

          “killing of another human being is wrong – on that I know we agree, we don’t.”

          You know nothing. Do you condemn the hanging of nazi-criminals after the main Nürnberg trials? No? Then you don’t know that the killing of another being is wrong.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “A mosquitoes life begins at conception.” I agree it does. But that has nothing to with this!

          Nope—it has everything to do with your claim, which was, “Human life begins at conception,” remember?

          You’ve done nothing to tell us why this is relevant. Does the single cell that is living have inherent worth? If you think so, are you entitled to impose this believe on those who disagree?

          The bible says nothing about killing animals is wrong.

          Yeah, I realize that. God has to get his nutrition from animals transported from down here to up in the sky, where he lives, through smoke.

          sorry bob, learn what the religion is about, the truth about the religion, before you go and try to dis it. In fact, before you go and make a whole website about dissing it.

          Wow. Someone woke up with big balls today. Good for you—now try to make an actual argument.

    • Susan

      Imagine if you’d been aborted?

      Imagine if your parents never met? Or if they met and the christian pastor told them not to have sex when the perfect conditions to bring about your existence were in place?

      Your answer… is nonsensical, as the same logic could be applied to the termination of your life.

      Fair enough if you can show it.

      Can you show that the same logic applies?

    • MNb

      No, it’s not nonsensical. Because as a fetus I didn’t have the brains necessary to “imagine if I’d been aborted”. Now I have.

  • Aaron-Kelly Catt

    I’m hoping that the part 2 has some better arguments. I’m against abortion and would never, without a doubt, use one of the arguments you posted.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      So you’re saying that the pro-life arguments are weak. Then share with us the compelling pro-life arguments.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

    So little substantial information from which we can see the errors in this comment.

    Just doing a drive-by? Or do you actually want to substantiate your complaints?

  • MNb

    My respect for her has grown. Thanks.

  • MNb

    As such you’re my sister, Truthcheck.

    1. That symbol is of an atom, not of atheism.
    2. I’m not an evangelist as I don’t care if anyone converts or deconverts.
    3. I don’t raise funds for atheism; neither do I give money.
    4.I’ve never met an atheist gathering in my life.
    5. Define proof before you state what can be proven and what not.
    6. My atheism is not a belief, it’s a conclusion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X