<!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head><body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d16736154\x26blogName\x3dProTheism\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://protheism.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://protheism.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5436963548738061259', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
10 comments | Monday, March 27, 2006

Every once and a while, an atheist makes more than an incorrect statement; they make a complete distortion of an issue. I came across on of these incidences recently on this post on abortion. I want to make a couple comments, and then link to some recent posts on abortion that will cover the topic more in depth.

From the Post:

“There is a dangerous cult in this country and around the world. This cult attracts not just the naive religious types, but also those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers. The cult is that of the "Fetus Worshipers".”
Notice the terminology of “dangerous” here. Who is it exactly that supports killing a living being and tearing it out of the womb in pieces? Also notice that if you attempt to preserve the unborn child you are now a cult “fetus worshipper”—more below.
“This cult lives under the delusion that early stages of embryonic human life are full grown human beings - living and breathing and due rights that no one else in our society hold.”
This statement is another distortion; in fact it’s a straw man. Nobody is claiming that the unborn are “full grown human beings.” They are human beings in the early stages of development, but still human beings. Apparently, according to this atheist, “nobody” in society holds that the unborn are human beings that deserve right (like not to be murdered), I guess all the debate that’s been going around has just been my imagination! Also notice that this assertion is made without the benefit of a supporting argument.
“Most of the members of this cult are religious, with some exceptions, and most are conservatives.”
What does this have to do with anything? Most arguments used by pro-life advocates are not ‘religious’ arguments. Just because someone may be “religious” does it automatically follow that they do not have the right to speak out on an issue?

“Most of the members of this cult are religious, with some exceptions, and most are conservatives.”
Again, there is no supporting argument for either the pro-choice position or any form of “worship” here; the author is just trying to poison the well against anyone who is pro-life. Secondly, we don’t “disdain” women’s rights. This another diversion tactic often used by the pro-choice advocate. If the child is a human being; then the mother does not have the “right” to murder the child—just as she doesn’t have the right to molest, or abuse the child. The “woman’s rights” argument only works if the child is not a human being—that’s the issue—nothing else.

“In the view of many fetus worshipers, the fetus has the right to take the life of a woman if it is inside her body. Rapists are encouraged by the fetus worshipers to impregnate women and form more glorious fetuses which a woman must carry within her body for nine months. It is a bizarre cult indeed.”
This is a bizarre argument indeed. Before I address this, all these statements are not the primary reason that abortion is legal; the author is bringing in severe cases that put a spin on the issue. Primarily (with some exceptions), abortions are performed due to the inconvenience of having a child—an absolute selfish ideal.

It’s my view that during the pregnancy of the woman, if a medical issue arises (even during birth) that threatens the life of the mother and a decision has to be made to either save the mother or the child; I say save the mother.

The author states that pro-life advocates encouraged rapists to impregnate women—this is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard; only a true unethical and immoral person would state that about the opposing position. Dealing with the rape issue can get lengthy because of the ordeal the woman has to go through—but, the bottom line is, we must ask ourselves if we would abort a two year old for the same reason. If a pro-choice argument doesn’t work fro aborting a two year old child, then it doesn’t work for the unborn child.

“The cult has the idea that premature human forms have desires and thoughts. They do not. They do not desire to be born. They do not desire to destroy their mother or endanger her life. They are not rational, thinking, fully formed humans. They are fetuses. Get it?”
It’s unlikely that the unborn have thoughts as we do; however, none of these listed attributes are possessed by new born children either—so according to the same logic, we can kill newborn children and legalize infanticide—eight month olds are not “rational, thinking, fully formed humans,”. Why don’t pro-choicers’ check their own logic?

“This cult is personal to me because most of my fundaMentalist family belongs to this cult. My sister, who is just over 40 years old, recently remarried and decided to try to have a second child. She knew the risks and made the decision to try anyway realizing that the odds were substantial that the pregnancy would not mature. She became pregnant, but after about 2 months began having complications. She prayed. She went to the doctor and was told that the fetus was dead. It was not alive. She was devastated. She was told that she would need to have the dead tissue which was this fetus removed in order to avoid serious health risks. But being a fetus worshiper, she could not bring herself to have it removed. She bled for over a week before the majority of the tissue exited her body. She could have died because she worshiped this fetus so much and believed, I suppose, that 'God' could somehow bring it back to life. Having the procedure was too much like having an abortion in her view. She would have rather died than have this dead tissue taken from her body. It makes me so angry and so sick. This fetus could have robbed me of my little sister.”

What does this have to do with abortion? If the child is dead then it’s not abortion to have is removed—her choice to let the child naturally exit her body is a personal choice she made. Nothing follows form this. I will say, though, that I’m sorry this happened to her.

“Here is my view on 'Fetus Worship'. If the fetus is so grand that it actually the right to prosecute an assault (look it up here) , then I say let it appear in court as a witness. Let it walk right out of that uterus and state it's views. Ridiculous you say? Isn't this what fetus worshipers believe?”

Ehhh, NO! Here is another attempt to distract from the issue. Can a (born) baby “appear in court as a witness” or “State it’s views” No? Oh, okay—then it’s okay to kill the baby right? This pro-choice case is, well, it’s stupid.

“That the fetus is a consciousness – a thinking human with as many rights as an actual living breathing person? If you want to save a fetus, then we will have aborted fetuses sent to you and you can have them put into YOUR body. Women who are denied to right to end a pregnancy and control their body will send you their unwanted children and YOU can raise them. Or the state can just send all of you fetus worshipers the bill for all the unwanted and uncared for children.”

This is another attempt to distraction from the issue. This is all the pro-choice people can do, because they have no argument; so they try to distract from the issue. Whether or not one could, or did take all the fetuses and put it in their body, foot the bills, or care for the children; it says nothing of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion.

“So what does this have to do with atheism as atheism has no one view on the subject and obviously some atheists are as rabid anti-abortionists as the most idiotic believer? In my view, if you don't believe in the idea of a 'soul' and you understand basic biology, then you would have to understand that a fetus is not a fully formed human.”

Who’s the idiot here? Pro-life does not claim the fetuses are “fully formed”, but we do claim they are human. There is no such thing as partially human or fully human—just ‘HUMAN.’ And if you understand basic biology, then you would understand this.

“It is at it's essence a parasite of the host - its mother. It is what it is. It is not what it might become. It has no potential outside of its mother’s body.”
A parasite? Notice the missing supporting argument? That’s because this author just likes to make irrational assertions. It’s not a “potential” human being—it is a human being. Show me some biology that shows otherwise.

“ If you believe that 'God' is the only one who decides what life should live or die (unless of course he directs his followers to murder), then you would be inclined to have a child you might not want or to coerce or force a woman to bear an unwanted child.”

If you believe in rational coherent thought, and are a moral person, then you should not support the massacre of innocent unborn children and support infanticide with your pro-choice arguments.
“Also, if you are religious, you are taught that sex is bad.”
Wrong again. God created sex for married men and women; not for pass time fun from anyone that comes around—then use abortion as birth control.
“Pregnancy, for many, is the unintended result of sex. So to make sex less of a risk with birth control or even abortion is wrong. While I would not condone abortion as a first line means of birth control, it is odd that the anti-abortionists almost all oppose trying to prevent the pregnancies in the first place.”
What? I don’t know where this person gets his info, but he’s talking the wrong people.
“Growing up as little Baptist conservative, I was naturally a rabid anti-abortionist. I understand the naive views of those who worship the fetus because I have been one of them. I am glad that as an adult I have managed to care more for my fellow living and breathing human beings, my family and my wife, and worry less about all of the fetuses.”
I think it’s more accurate that the people who support the massacre of millions of unborn children every year are the dangerous cult members—The Cult of Fetus Murderers. It gets old hearing the same old week arguments by pro-choice advocates. Why don’t we stop the petty talk and discuss the real issue—Are the unborn human beings? The answer to this question will be the deciding factor in the issue.

Recommended reading:

The Illogic of "Pro-Choice"
The magnificent Wedge

Labels: , , , , ,


Blogger Jim Jordan said...

Hi, bf
What surprises me most about these puerile atheists is that they're not self-loathing teenagers but middle-aged. This guy's younger sister is over 40! He sounds like he's still being weaned on NPR, CNN, and pot.
The whole idea of a "Fetus Worshipping Cult" is itself an obvious straw man. Fetuses are babies, and who IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would not like them?

As it is written in 2 Thess. 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a misleading influence, a working of error and a strong delusion to make them believe what is false,

Being able to believe that baby killing is good and baby worshipping is "dangerous" requires everything from mental illness, drug abuse, and ignorance along with God sitting back and saying, "Ok, punk, go ahead, make my day!"

Take care,

4/05/2006 7:06 PM

Blogger Vile Blasphemer said...

So, BF, you seem slightly more willing to answer a question than the hopelessly militant kneejerker Paul Manata- I'll posit the same case for you since he, instead of giving me an answer, decided to berate me.

Would you support an abortion in the case of an early dection, full anecephalic child?

What about the parasite child in a case of acardius acephaly? Is it allowable to remove it from the other child (this will kill the parasitic half)?

I have hopes that you'll rationally discuss this with me, unlike Paul who simply decided to immediately attack and ignore. Thanks for the consideration!

4/06/2006 1:24 PM

Blogger Beowulf said...

I am really not familiar with anecephalic or acardius acephaly other than some extreme physical defects. So, to qualify my answer, I will say this: If it is a living human being then I would not support abortion under these circumstances despite the defects. Try and parallel your question with a two year old child with the aforementioned defects—would you kill the child?

Again, I am unfamiliar with the defects, such as the parasitic language—I don’t know what is being qualified as *parasitic* that’s why I am qualifying my answers. Moreover, exceptions make bad rules.

I have a question for you:

If I said it was okay to abort under these circumstances would you join me in opposing all other abortion?

4/06/2006 2:46 PM

Blogger Vile Blasphemer said...

Anecephally is a baby born without the cognitive portions of the brain- a being that is essentially a case full of human organs. It will sometimes live because of a partially intact medulla, but sometimes is kept alive through artificial means.

Acardius acephaly occurs when a partially formed twin is, in a way, "hosted" by the other. In cases where the normal twin does not die, the other twin's parasitic nature will result in the death of both- a surgery would basically kill the one child that is malformed while saving the other that is not.

Your "two-year-old child" case could never come up as these children could never live to that age, so I won't bother with the parallel.

While these may be rare cases, they still occur.

Does this new information alter your response in any way?

4/06/2006 8:17 PM

Blogger Beowulf said...

This is a highly morally ambiguous situation. However, I will conjecture that under extreme circumstances where the child is terminally deformed and will not survive after it’s been given birth, I think if abortion is the least tragic alternative then its okay.

Given the moral ambiguity, and that I am going off your provided descriptions, I reserve the right to change my mind.

Now, would you join me in opposing all other abortions?

4/06/2006 10:50 PM

Blogger Vile Blasphemer said...

Now, would you join me in opposing all other abortions?

I wasn't asking in a manner to argue, so I'm not looking for a compromise. I'm just curious as to what your thoughts on the subject were.

4/07/2006 9:32 AM

Blogger The Intolerant One said...

I have read the articles and followed the comment thread going on here between BF and Vile B.

Vile you pose a very gut wrenching question. As a Christian myself I would obviously, like BF, always err on the side of life. I can only relate my own personal expeirence here.

I have a God daughter who, while in the womb, was diagnosed with a massive growth on her. It was twice the size of her head and located on her chin. The "growth" spread into her throat, lungs, and chest area.

It turned out she had a very rare and severe condition called cystic hygroma (I hope I am spelling things right I am not very medically inclined).

The parents made the decision to have her (and no they were not Christians). The doctors informed them that once born she will be in intensive care for life. They did not expect her to live past 6 months. They also informed them that should she even make it past her first year she would be severly brain damaged.

In instances like this abortion can seem like the most "humane" or dignified way but we have so little faith in our ability and God's design to overcome these obstacles.

Her name is Faith, of all names, and today she is a very bright, humorous, and smart 11 year old. She still has her condition but has survived with a trach in her esophagus and is fed thru a feeding tube. Her eyesight is not the greatest and of course her face is malformed. She is happy to have life though. So who are we to decide that she should not have had it?

Her very existence has made solid impressions to the point of changing lives with those she comes in contact with. Where man would have been quick to write her off God has spoken differently.

Her parents have enjoyed many wonderful years with her instead of mourning "what might have been" had they actually listened to the doctors and considered an abortion.

I say let God decide who lives and who dies cause obviously we are not capable of what we THINK we know so much about.

4/08/2006 2:39 PM

Blogger Vile Blasphemer said...

Intolerant One, that was the correct spelling. Cystic Hygroma is a benign condition and not life threatening unless it is closing an airway (their most common location is the neck) or interfering with other organs. Whatever doctors she had that said all that crap about intensive care for life, etc are idiots as far as I can tell and she could get treatment that would REMOVE the mass with a small chance of recurrence. I suggest a second opinion from at least a non-HMO otolaryngologist (one who has at least five years experience, but not one who hasn't practiced with newer techniques).

Despite all that- the case is not even remotely pathologically analogous to the two that I noted.

...we are not capable of what we THINK we know so much about.

There is quite a bit more known by researchers in medical science than what many people outside the field THINK they know. Specialists, especially the well educated ones who do continuing research, are not as ignorant about the workings of the human body as you might think.

4/08/2006 10:20 PM

Blogger The Intolerant One said...


I thank you for your comments and input. Actually she has been down to Arkansas for a few surgereys for removal of the mass, re-adjustments to her jawlines and cosmetic to her lips, cheeks, and eyelid.

When she was younger she also had a condition on her tongue called Hemingoma? I can say it not spell it but it was like a terrible swelling of her tongue. They were never able to correct this and due to the fact she could not keep it in her mouth or close her mouth it was always getting infections. They eventually removed about half of her tongue. They hope one day to install what they call a "flap" to help her pronounce word's clearer all though right now she sounds out thru her trach (swedish nose is the other name they have for it)

The mass was very large at birth and was in fact around her airways. To this day she still recieves "suctions" thru her trach (hole in the throat) and unfourtanatley has had 3 removal procedures performed where the mass did return. Somewhat like what ever they removed would return about 50%-75%

They have never been able to remove what they would like to as the mass is in fact contained on the lining of her esophagus. This an area, I am told, they do not want to be "cutting" around.

Regarding your statement:

"Despite all that- the case is not even remotely pathologically analogous to the two that I noted."

While I am not in disagreement with this I feel my point was made.

Yes I agree, sadly it is now hindsight, that the doctor's at the time of my God daughter's birth were idiot's yet while living that moment back then you are simply relying on people you feel are professionals and know what the heck they are doing.

I actually do believe they had the best intentions with what ever limited knowledge they had but my point being is that the parents chose life when they were told there would really be none. As you are now aware the call made in this case was in fact wrong as life has won out and is being lived on as close as you can get to normal basis.

This little girl has also brought alot challenges. She is usually hospitalised once a year for flu bug's that hit her harder then the average person. She must always have a nurse with her when in school but hey she still get's to go to a public school.

She is also very disobedient like when we all tell her she cannot go underwater when swimming and then she jumps off the dock head first completely ignoring us all (LOL) almost drowning herself.

In this case where termination was the option a physcian offered it was declined and there are no "What if's" to ask. Except the one that would say "What if we had chosen to deprive ourselves of this little darling?"

4/09/2006 1:07 AM

Blogger Beowulf said...


Thank for you incredibly valued input. It just goes to show that our fallen nature will always hinders from trusting in God. The story about your niece is absolutely amazing! No matter what physical or mental defects she may have, she is made in the image of God, and has the intrinsic value bestowed upon her. That’s what separates us from the animals. I just wish everyone could recognize it.

Thanks again. I always value your input

4/10/2006 3:57 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home